hockey-fights.com
 Page 2 of 2 All<12
Username Post: The Nashville Statement        (Topic#549296)
Kanrok
legend
Total Posts: 21187
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 12:11 PM - Post#1703632    


    In response to foolish

  • foolish Said:
  • Kanrok Said:
The rationale of the Nashville Statement is found in the preamble.

I don't disagree with the rationale for publishing their stance.

I also find that I agree with what Fr. Martin said in his response.

But you should know that Fr. Martin, a Jesuit, is in favor of changing the Catholic Church's stance on recognizing gay marriage.

I disagree with that.



KR - do you believe that gays shouldn't be able to marry? or just not marry in a church?



I do not believe they should be married in the Catholic Church.

On gay marriage in a secular sense, I understand their position because from their standpoint, when gay folk survey the landscape, they can credibly say that us heteros did a piss poor job maintaining the standard. One man, one woman, married for life with the primary purpose of raising a family has been fairly undercut. Contraception, abortion, divorce on demand, cheating, pornography. I don't see how gay marriage makes the institution weaker.

But at the end of the day, my feelings on gay marriage are irrelevant. It goes to show that I am totally incapable of imposing my beliefs on others!

From a theological standpoint, I want everyone to go to heaven when they die. Whether a person will or will not get there is not for me to judge or decide. Way above my pay grade. I am only responsible for me, and to my family. However, If asked, I will talk to anyone about it.
“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

- K. Perry


 
phantomenforcer
superstar
Total Posts: 3506
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 12:29 PM - Post#1703633    


    In response to Kanrok

So let's discuss a hypothetical:

Say these ideas do take root and decisions are made to undercut the basis of the catholic church. For example:

Gay marriage is accepted, divorced and remarried can take communion...basically things that would have never been entertained 50 years ago, but now they are part of the deal and pope approved.

Do you think your ideology would evolve along with the church or would you distance yourself from it?

Second, non-hypothetical line of questions that you can ignore if I'm over the line:

Has the church changed something in your time of belief that you have disagreed with? If so, how did you deal with that change?

 
Kanrok
legend
Total Posts: 21187
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 01:01 PM - Post#1703635    


    In response to phantomenforcer

  • phantomenforcer Said:
So let's discuss a hypothetical:

Say these ideas do take root and decisions are made to undercut the basis of the catholic church. For example:

Gay marriage is accepted, divorced and remarried can take communion...basically things that would have never been entertained 50 years ago, but now they are part of the deal and pope approved.

Do you think your ideology would evolve along with the church or would you distance yourself from it?

Second, non-hypothetical line of questions that you can ignore if I'm over the line:

Has the church changed something in your time of belief that you have disagreed with? If so, how did you deal with that change?





There are levels of rules in the Catholic Church, there is Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline.

Dogma is never-changing. These are the revealed truths by Christ and explicitly defined by what is called the Magisterium of the Church. Chirst's divinity, the "real presence" the trinity, etc. are examples of dogmatic teaching.

Doctrine differs from dogma in that it can be disputed and discussed until the Magisterium officially defines a position. This category includes things like abortion, marriage, premarital sex, etc. The Magisteruium has explicitly defined these rules, so they are no longer subject to discussion (except for Modernists like Fr. Martin!)

Disciplines include things like eating meat on Friday, married priests, communion in the hand, altar girls, saying the Mass in Latin, etc. These things are subject to change depending upon circumstances.

I cannot think of something that the Church changed in my life that I disagreed with.

I will say that changing the rules on divorce and remarriage, gay marriage, contraception, and abortion would do irreparable damage to the Church.

I fully believe all magisterial teaching of the Church. If they decide to change them (and I am fairly confident they won't) I would leave the church, because it will lose it's status as truly "catholic."

You cannot claim to be a moral leader when the morals are malleable.



“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

- K. Perry


 
phantomenforcer
superstar
Total Posts: 3506
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 01:32 PM - Post#1703636    


    In response to Kanrok

I'm particularly interested in the doctrines as this seems to be where most of the controversy is derived.

Are there any current doctrines that you disagree with?


The churches I attended/forced to go to when I was younger were more cut and dry. And although they differed one thing remained consistent, what was wrong was wrong, what was right was right. It didn't seem like there was a difference between doctrine and discipline as you have described them in the catholic church. It seemed to be all doctrine....not up for discussion. Another church would have differences in doctrine, but still not up for discussion.

I never liked the rigidity of that and often I was pressured into thinking in a way that felt wrong to me.
 
Kanrok
legend
Total Posts: 21187
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 01:55 PM - Post#1703637    


    In response to phantomenforcer

I had an interesting conversation with an atheist expert that I hired in a case I was handling.

We talked for a couple of hours, maybe 15 minutes about the case, and the rest of the time about Catholicism.

He made a point about contraception that I was not familiar with. He indicated that the Catholic Church was very close to allowing contraception back some 40 years ago or so. Maybe even 50 years ago. The argument had to do with the fact that some forms of contraception did not destroy an embryo, but stopped the process of life before it got started. I thought it was a well-reasoned and scientific explanation.

However, when I got back home to do some research on it, I was convinced that the Church got it right after all. It had to do more with the theological rationale behind the "pelvic issues" - as one of my favorite Catholic apologists Fr. now Bishop Robert Barron says -

So, while I recognize that 90% plus Catholics regularly use some form of contraception, I still maintain that the standard the Church sets on this issue is correct.

When I came back into the Church I was marginally pro-choice. I found the issue to be annoying and was confronted by an older K of C member when I joined that organization. He asked me point blank, "you are pro-life, aren't you?" I shrugged and agreed that I was, but really I didn't find it all that objectionable. After I had a chance to research the issue in depth, I found that I became vehemently pro-life. Even to the point that I am now against the death penalty.

Fr. Barron had an hour long talk with Dave Rubin that I found to be an excellent primer on the way I think about the Catholic church in modern times. Barron is well-spoken and smart. Dave Rubin is terrific as a host, and the whole hour was respectful and interesting.

This is a link to the interview (I happen to find Rubin to be engaging and honest): https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/dav e-...

So, to answer your question, I was marginally pro-choice and somewhat agnostic about contraception. Now I consider myself to be fairly orthodox in my views.

The Church sets the standard on morals, including "pelvic" issues. The whole point of the Catholic exercise is to reach the standard that is set. Most of us fall woefully short, me probably more than most. But the idea is to work at it. Seek forgiveness for falling short and soldier on. One of my favorite lines is "Be a saint, what else is there?"

I'm working on it. Failing more than being successful, but getting better!
“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

- K. Perry


 
foolish
superstar
Total Posts: 3001
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 03:40 PM - Post#1703639    


    In response to Kanrok

My old man told me that Vatican II decided that condoms were ok. And my HS Guidance office had a bowl on the desk of the secretary..... but apparently no such allowance was ever made.... which brings me to a point that I have a fair bit of trouble with:

When the church started, none of the dogma (or very little of it) was dogma. Its evolved over hundreds of years. The rules are orgasm denial being amongst them. In the beginning, folks generally married soon after reaching physical maturity. I believe it is accepted that Mary was no older than 16 at the time of Jesus' birth. So abstinence and keeping your hands off yourself was a chore for couple years really, then you were hitched and banging.

Flash forward to today, the average age on marriage must be in the mid-late 20s. So to abstain and also not masturbate requires at least a decade of denial. Science tells us that this is REALLY bad for the male anatomy. Form what I've heard, to ward off cancer and keep your prostate healthy, you're supposed to empty the pipes 20+ times a month. I'm sure there are doubters and anecdotal evidence that this is untrue, but this is the current direction of medical science.

I wonder what level of scientific "proof" would be required for the church to chain doctrine and set out "rules" around chaste release? It can't stand that - when danger is proven beyond doubt - that the church could continue to demand a behavior that is injurious, could it? Not to mention that damaging the reproductive system will eventually lead to less parishioners which means less $ which means less huge hats in the Vatican!!!!
 
Kanrok
legend
Total Posts: 21187
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 04:00 PM - Post#1703640    


    In response to foolish

There are mitigating factors that go into whether a certain...ahem...activity actually amounts to a mortal sin. The Church takes into account that there are certain things beyond our control and as a consequence, it may not meet the strict elements of a "mortal sin."

See, e.g., CC 2342 "Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life. The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence."

CC 2352: "To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability."

*THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS THEOLOGICAL ADVICE*
“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

- K. Perry


 
phantomenforcer
superstar
Total Posts: 3506
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 04:15 PM - Post#1703641    


    In response to Kanrok

I'm wary of people who and groups that claim to be atheist experts. After all atheism is not a group or a standard to live up to, or a set of rules to live by.

For me it's a simple lack of belief. Nothing more or less. Everyone's road to belief or atheism is different and makes sense to the individual. I try hard not to tar all religious folks with the same brush as I know each set of beliefs, while sometimes similar, can be wildly different.

And while groups like the recently mentioned FFR foundation do some good to prevent the overreach of religion into government, they sometimes take it to a cult like level of witch hunting every little thing that has even the slightest reference to religion. That annoys me a lot as the only atheists that people hear about are these folks. The rest of us mingle with them every day, a lot of times without them even knowing it, yet if it comes to light you're the guy that wants to ban Christmas.

A lot of self proclaimed atheist "experts" that I hear and read about are completely obsessed with religion whether it be arguing it, trying to debunk it, or goofing on it.

While I find myself in the latter group more times than I'd like, I don't claim to be an expert or pretend to have all of the answers or even have arguments for every possible conceived talking point for and against religion.
 
phantomenforcer
superstar
Total Posts: 3506
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 04:19 PM - Post#1703642    


    In response to foolish

  • foolish Said:
My old man told me that Vatican II decided that condoms were ok. And my HS Guidance office had a bowl on the desk of the secretary..... but apparently no such allowance was ever made.... which brings me to a point that I have a fair bit of trouble with:

When the church started, none of the dogma (or very little of it) was dogma. Its evolved over hundreds of years. The rules are orgasm denial being amongst them. In the beginning, folks generally married soon after reaching physical maturity. I believe it is accepted that Mary was no older than 16 at the time of Jesus' birth. So abstinence and keeping your hands off yourself was a chore for couple years really, then you were hitched and banging.

Flash forward to today, the average age on marriage must be in the mid-late 20s. So to abstain and also not masturbate requires at least a decade of denial. Science tells us that this is REALLY bad for the male anatomy. Form what I've heard, to ward off cancer and keep your prostate healthy, you're supposed to empty the pipes 20+ times a month. I'm sure there are doubters and anecdotal evidence that this is untrue, but this is the current direction of medical science.

I wonder what level of scientific "proof" would be required for the church to chain doctrine and set out "rules" around chaste release? It can't stand that - when danger is proven beyond doubt - that the church could continue to demand a behavior that is injurious, could it? Not to mention that damaging the reproductive system will eventually lead to less parishioners which means less $ which means less huge hats in the Vatican!!!!



I just call it "getting the poison out." Having science on my side now is just a bonus.
 
Johnny_Upton
Moderator
Total Posts: 29165
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
08-31-17 10:17 PM - Post#1703645    


    In response to foolish

  • foolish Said:
  • Johnny_Upton Said:
  • foolish Said:
If you really can't differentiate between following your own belief system and someone else's that's forced on you, I think you may be a communist.



So, I can ignore any law that doesn't jive with my personal belief system? cool.





Ummm...not sure how you got there.

But I think we DO have a long history of successfully challenging laws that offend our religious sensibilities. I'm thinking Hobby Lobby knows a bit about it. No one should be forced to perform against their religion. Thats not the same as forcing non-believers to follow the rules of your denomination.





You are hung up on where the beliefs come from.

Sorry you are an idiot

4 legs good, 2 legs better
Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.

#Filthystrong


 
foolish
superstar
Total Posts: 3001
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
09-01-17 10:33 AM - Post#1703656    


    In response to Johnny_Upton

  • Johnny_Upton Said:
  • foolish Said:
  • Johnny_Upton Said:
  • foolish Said:
If you really can't differentiate between following your own belief system and someone else's that's forced on you, I think you may be a communist.



So, I can ignore any law that doesn't jive with my personal belief system? cool.





Ummm...not sure how you got there.

But I think we DO have a long history of successfully challenging laws that offend our religious sensibilities. I'm thinking Hobby Lobby knows a bit about it. No one should be forced to perform against their religion. Thats not the same as forcing non-believers to follow the rules of your denomination.





You are hung up on where the beliefs come from.

Sorry you are an idiot

4 legs good, 2 legs better




I must be.... b/c your prods and responses see very trollish and I'm sure that can't be right.

So your accusation that I'm hung up on where the beliefs come from is interesting. I don't think "Hung up on" is appropriate.

Lets say I don't believe in a specific deity - lets call it Crossfit. There is a book of Crossfit's expectations for its flock. In this book it says that Crossfitters shall not eat Carbs.

Now I'm fine with crtossfitters not eating carbs. I'm fine with having to listen to the cross fitters I work with rattling on and on about how great their cult is and how evil carbs are.

I'm not fine with Crossfitters lobbying for laws and regulations preventing the sale of carbs to everyone because they find them offensive.

Is that simple enough for you? I could make a similar analogy about islam, feminism, the NFL and christianity. Its not hard to follow. You do what you want in so far as it doesn't impact my ability to live as I want.

Get it Genius? My "Hang Up" isn't where the beliefs come from, its whether or not I share them and am being forced to live by them.

Edited by foolish on 09-01-17 10:39 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
 
Kanrok
legend
Total Posts: 21187
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
09-01-17 10:59 AM - Post#1703658    


    In response to phantomenforcer

  • phantomenforcer Said:
I'm wary of people who and groups that claim to be atheist experts. After all atheism is not a group or a standard to live up to, or a set of rules to live by.

For me it's a simple lack of belief. Nothing more or less. Everyone's road to belief or atheism is different and makes sense to the individual. I try hard not to tar all religious folks with the same brush as I know each set of beliefs, while sometimes similar, can be wildly different.

And while groups like the recently mentioned FFR foundation do some good to prevent the overreach of religion into government, they sometimes take it to a cult like level of witch hunting every little thing that has even the slightest reference to religion. That annoys me a lot as the only atheists that people hear about are these folks. The rest of us mingle with them every day, a lot of times without them even knowing it, yet if it comes to light you're the guy that wants to ban Christmas.

A lot of self proclaimed atheist "experts" that I hear and read about are completely obsessed with religion whether it be arguing it, trying to debunk it, or goofing on it.

While I find myself in the latter group more times than I'd like, I don't claim to be an expert or pretend to have all of the answers or even have arguments for every possible conceived talking point for and against religion.



My bad for not explaining properly.

The expert was an obstetrician. I met him and his wife for dinner the night before his deposition in a case I was handling. He was also an atheist.

He might have been an expert on atheism as well, but that didn't come up in the conversation.

We had a pleasant 2 hour discussion, mostly about Catholicism. He was interested in knowing whether some of the things he believed about the faith were true.

I was able to clear up some misinformation he received (i.e., Papal infallibility does not mean Papal impeccability for instance) and we agreed to disagree on other issues - contraception for instance.
“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

- K. Perry


 
Pete
legend
Total Posts: 10343
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
 
09-05-17 09:43 AM - Post#1703741    


    In response to foolish

  • foolish Said:
My old man told me that Vatican II decided that condoms were ok. And my HS Guidance office had a bowl on the desk of the secretary..... but apparently no such allowance was ever made.... which brings me to a point that I have a fair bit of trouble with:

When the church started, none of the dogma (or very little of it) was dogma. Its evolved over hundreds of years. The rules are orgasm denial being amongst them. In the beginning, folks generally married soon after reaching physical maturity. I believe it is accepted that Mary was no older than 16 at the time of Jesus' birth. So abstinence and keeping your hands off yourself was a chore for couple years really, then you were hitched and banging.

Flash forward to today, the average age on marriage must be in the mid-late 20s. So to abstain and also not masturbate requires at least a decade of denial. Science tells us that this is REALLY bad for the male anatomy. Form what I've heard, to ward off cancer and keep your prostate healthy, you're supposed to empty the pipes 20+ times a month. I'm sure there are doubters and anecdotal evidence that this is untrue, but this is the current direction of medical science.

I wonder what level of scientific "proof" would be required for the church to chain doctrine and set out "rules" around chaste release? It can't stand that - when danger is proven beyond doubt - that the church could continue to demand a behavior that is injurious, could it? Not to mention that damaging the reproductive system will eventually lead to less parishioners which means less $ which means less huge hats in the Vatican!!!!



How's your eye sight?
 
foolish
superstar
Total Posts: 3001
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
09-05-17 10:09 AM - Post#1703742    


    In response to Pete

  • Pete Said:
  • foolish Said:
My old man told me that Vatican II decided that condoms were ok. And my HS Guidance office had a bowl on the desk of the secretary..... but apparently no such allowance was ever made.... which brings me to a point that I have a fair bit of trouble with:

When the church started, none of the dogma (or very little of it) was dogma. Its evolved over hundreds of years. The rules are orgasm denial being amongst them. In the beginning, folks generally married soon after reaching physical maturity. I believe it is accepted that Mary was no older than 16 at the time of Jesus' birth. So abstinence and keeping your hands off yourself was a chore for couple years really, then you were hitched and banging.

Flash forward to today, the average age on marriage must be in the mid-late 20s. So to abstain and also not masturbate requires at least a decade of denial. Science tells us that this is REALLY bad for the male anatomy. Form what I've heard, to ward off cancer and keep your prostate healthy, you're supposed to empty the pipes 20+ times a month. I'm sure there are doubters and anecdotal evidence that this is untrue, but this is the current direction of medical science.

I wonder what level of scientific "proof" would be required for the church to chain doctrine and set out "rules" around chaste release? It can't stand that - when danger is proven beyond doubt - that the church could continue to demand a behavior that is injurious, could it? Not to mention that damaging the reproductive system will eventually lead to less parishioners which means less $ which means less huge hats in the Vatican!!!!



How's your eye sight?



What? who said that? Is someone there?
 
 Page 2 of 2 All<12
Icon Legend Permissions & Sharing Options Topic Options
Print Topic


1097 Views
Follow
83 Online Now
1 viewable users and 2 hidden plus 80 guests are online now.
Ad
Recent Topics
FusionBB™ Version 3.2 | ©2003-2017 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.234 seconds.   Total Queries: 251   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT-6.0). Current time is 09:56 PM
Top