Search results

If it was simply about who you have hurt or violations of dignity, this would make a lot of sense and be rational. However, like in wrote in another post, many things that have no consequence to others are considered evil by the RCC all the time.

What I was stating is that conscience is relative. If it wasn't we'd have far less crime, hate and overall evil than we do. According to the Catholic faith, so much more factors into what is right and wrong that what has impact on others. For example, masturbation has no impact on anyone...

The problem with this philosophy is that it doesn't account for different level of having a conscience. For example, while it is reasonable for most people to think theft is wrong, some would have no cause to feel guilty of it.

I would say the letter of the law in some cases, the spirit of the law in all cases. Intent? For what? To be good or evil? to cause harm or not?

Nope, i only wish. And, it seems what i believe in is constantly evolving.

It's pretty simple really. Viturally everythign that is human nature is considered bad or sinful. So, to be human is to constantly sin and to be in a constant state of guilt. At least according to the RCC. It's doubtful that this was the original intent of Chirst or the earliest followers of...

I haven't posted for a while because I seemed to have learned that in many cases, forums and almost anything on the Internet can do more harm that good. That being said, I'm risking another post. Through personal soul searching and diligent research I have come to the conclusion that there is...

No thoughts? Anyone?

So, last I heard there where between 1,500 and 3,000 different sects within the Christian faith. And who knows how many more unaffiliated. As we know, the history of people claiming to be followers of Christ has been turbulent at best. There where the schisms, the reformation era and some sub...

My point exaclty. A good bet is that 100 years form now, if the Catholic Church is still around, there will be either a married priesthood or women priests and we'll be saying the same thing regarding hindsight.

A good example of why it's not the same thing is euthanasia. While such an act may be done out of mercy or with good intention, it's surely not love. In fact, when it comes down to it, it is a selfish act on everyone's part, thus not compatible with love.

I've been Catholic my entire life, I know exaclty what we do. Tradtion is also why the Catholic Church endorsed slavery for centuries. But I suppose that was OK.

I put no such boundary on anything. In fact, by my definition, love has no boundaries. Where are you getting this so-called evolutionary fact. That's the biggest load of dung I've ever heard. Disowning children has nothing to do with anything. You actually continue to prove my point for me.

Not following reason and sticking to old ways simply because of stubborness and an unwillingness to admit to any weaknesses in judgement is exaclty why the Catholic Church is slowly but surely vanishing. Look at the statistics. God has given us knowledge for a reason and I'm sure that reason...

This is exactly what I said in different words, perhaps you misunderstood me. Catholic doctrine teaches sex outside of marriage is a sin. It was simply a sidebar that the majority of Catholics in reality do not agree. [B] Sounds like a huge stretch at best. I suppose if one tries hard...

OK so as a Catholic, while some other Christians also hold the same view, we are to beleive that Mary was sinless. This also ensures us that Jesus' birht could only be a virgin birth, according to Catholic doctrine (but by no means all Catholics) that sex before marriage is a sin. So, in oder...

Not surprised. This type of change has to come or the Catholic church will become a thing of the past. We're alread seeing it die out. getting rid of their old and unjustified ideas are the only way to save it.

This is not saying your do not account for the emotional factor. By your standard, you cannot love your children to the same degree that you love your wife.

No. I realized that it's about living a life based on love. Which, in many ways, transcends religious sects.

I had no intent to avoid the issue. Love is not based on exclusivity. You are either confusing, or intentionally perverting, the difference between the emotion of love and living a life of love.