Bernie Sanders Praises Pope Francis at Length

leibowde84 said:

I was being sarcastic. Kids have enough trouble sitting still as it is.

Click to expand...

It literally made me puke.
I went to 1st and 2nd grade at the school attached to Holy Angels Cathedral of the diocese of Gary, Indiana. First period was Mass.

The required stillness, often kneeling, in a semi-dark cathedral, while the priest chanted incomprehensible stuff to the wall he was facing, made my hyperactive self nauseous. Seriously, I threw up a few times. Fortunately none of the other kids told on me, so I didn't get in trouble for that at least.
Tom

Fish and Bread said:

I agree with Columbus. This sub-forum gets very little traffic. Let's invite everyone in instead of trying to kick people out. I mean, and I say this with no intent of offering any disrespect, Saint Frankenstein is pretty much going to be talking to himself in here if he successfully kicks out all the non-Catholics and the progressive Catholics and such.

So, my question for Frankenstein is, do you want to just be here talking to yourself? Or do you want to have a discussion group? A forum is pretty boring when no one posts on it. I say let anyone with an interest post. This place was pretty much a ghost town. Folks have come in and livened it up, and you're trying to chase them out. If you want to go post to a place that only allows ultra-traditional conservative Catholics to post, there are plenty of those on the Internet already.

Click to expand...

Let's throw some clarification out.

This is the Catholic DIR. It is intended for use by those who actually self-identified as Catholic. Anyone who isn't Catholic is not allowed to debate, remark, or comment in this DIR, except for respectful questions. He isn't policing leftist/rightist Catholics. He clearly is asking those who aren't Catholic to disengage in a thread there aren't suppose to be posting in. If you want everyone one to be able to comment on your thread, post it in the General Religion Debates, or General Political Debates, etc., not the Catholic DIR. If you want the opinion of it from only Catholics without the interference of non-Catholics, post it in the Catholic DIR.

dust1n said:

Let's throw some clarification out.

This is the Catholic DIR. It is intended for use by those who actually self-identified as Catholic. Anyone who isn't Catholic is not allowed to debate, remark, or comment in this DIR, except for respectful questions. He isn't policing leftist/rightist Catholics. He clearly is asking those who aren't Catholic to disengage in a thread there aren't suppose to be posting in. If you want everyone one to be able to comment on your thread, post it in the General Religion Debates, or General Political Debates, etc., not the Catholic DIR. If you want the opinion of it from only Catholics without the interference of non-Catholics, post it in the Catholic DIR.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Saint Frankenstein said:

Thank you.

Click to expand...

No problem. I can understand accidentally stepping in, since the colors are all gone, and the links on the main page. But even if I disagree with everything Catholic, I enjoy being able to read the discussion as it was intended. Not maintaing some sort of order to DIR's invalidates their function, and many of the functions of RF, which are intended to allow users to engage in discussions on different sets of conditions, so that they may gain what they are trying to get out of it. As far as the OP is concerned, he's new, so I recognize that there is no way he could of easily informed himself of this, but I don't see in the point in maintain the debate? If you aren't Catholic and want to participate, you can simply repost or rephrase the inquiry in the General Religious debates.

dust1n said:

Let's throw some clarification out.

This is the Catholic DIR. It is intended for use by those who actually self-identified as Catholic. Anyone who isn't Catholic is not allowed to debate, remark, or comment in this DIR, except for respectful questions. He isn't policing leftist/rightist Catholics. He clearly is asking those who aren't Catholic to disengage in a thread there aren't suppose to be posting in. If you want everyone one to be able to comment on your thread, post it in the General Religion Debates, or General Political Debates, etc., not the Catholic DIR. If you want the opinion of it from only Catholics without the interference of non-Catholics, post it in the Catholic DIR.

Click to expand...

Any chance of having a separate Catholic area creating where anyone with an interest can post? Though I do self-identify as Catholic, I'd love to really have a Catholic forum that's open to everyone except obvious trolls. You know, there are Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, historians (Actual and hobbyists), and others who maybe keep some Catholic traditions and would like to talk about the Pope and everything else and have a continuing interest in the Church and interesting things to say. A general religious debate area doesn't quite fulfill that niche, because it has room for such a wide variety of topics having nothing to do with Catholicism and similar debates, and is specifically geared to *debate* as opposed to discussion. I'm not really as interested in Baptists debating independent evangelical churches on who is right about some distinction between their traditions.

I come from a forum that is very strict about who can post where and this place was recommended to me as an alternative.

I would also just suggest that when we limit participation to Catholics only here, there aren't really enough active Catholics on the site to sustain a very active forum. So, even just from the perspective of being able to check back and find new posts and discussions here in general, there might be some incentive to either open this area up a bit or start a more open alternate Catholic area.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to the right person, though. I'm kind of assuming you're a moderator or some sort of authority figure based on the nature of your post, but I'm not sure.

Fish and Bread said:

Any chance of having a separate Catholic area creating where anyone with an interest can post? Though I do self-identify as Catholic, I'd love to really have a Catholic forum that's open to everyone except obvious trolls. You know, there are Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, historians (Actual and hobbyists), and others who maybe keep some Catholic traditions and would like to talk about the Pope and everything else and have a continuing interest in the Church and interesting things to say.

I come from a forum that is very strict about who can post where and this place was recommended to me as an alternative.

I would just suggest that when we limit participation to Catholics only here, there aren't really enough active Catholics on the site to sustain a very active forum. So, even just from the perspective of being able to check back and find new posts and discussions here in general, there might be some incentive to either open this area up a bit or start a more open alternate Catholic area.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to the right person, though. I'm kind of assuming you're a moderator or some sort of authority figure based on the nature of your post, but I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

If you want a place for everyone to discuss Catholic topics, just post it in Comparative Religion or Religious Debates. DIRs are places for people who are part of that religion to discuss things peacefully amongst themselves without having to deal with debates and nay-sayers. If a DIR is dead, it's irrelevant to the purpose of the DIR existing. This DIR isn't dead, anyway. There's just a handful of Catholics who post on this site and we do post here.

Saint Frankenstein said:

DIRs are places for people who are part of that religion to discuss things peacefully amongst themselves without having to deal with debates and nay-sayers.

Click to expand...

I am just wondering if there could be a place that maybe semi-protects Catholic and Catholic-like people, so that someone can't come in there and say "The Pope is the anti-Christ" or something horribly anti-Catholic, but where anyone with an interest in the Church, including people from similar churches that kind of relate to Catholicism, could participate as if they were Catholics. A middle ground between letting trolls come in and flame away, and just telling anyone who doesn't identify as Catholic that they can not debate or express an opinion at all. If not this particular sub-forum, maybe there could be a new one created for that purpose. It's just an idea. There are so many forums on the web that have rules essentially as you are categorizing this DIR. Tons of options on that front. I've yet to see one that is closer to my idea, other than when I briefly tried to start my own many years ago (It no longer exists).

And, as I said, a general debate area doesn't meet that purpose because it's a) specifically set up to *debate* and b) is a very broad area that would focus on a lot of topics that don't relate to Catholicism or closely related churches and thus might not be of interest to the same crowd who would be interested in a Catholic sub-forum.

Fish and Bread said:

Any chance of having a separate Catholic area creating where anyone with an interest can post?

Click to expand...

Though I do self-identify as Catholic, I'd love to really have a Catholic forum that's open to everyone except obvious trolls. You know, there are Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, historians (Actual and hobbyists), and others who maybe keep some Catholic traditions and would like to talk about the Pope and everything else and have a continuing interest in the Church and interesting things to say.[/quote]

Posting in the general Christianity DIR would open the discussion to all who identify as Christian, and even then, discussions are intended to be less debate in the nature, than actual learning.

A general religious debate area doesn't quite fulfill that niche, because it has room for such a wide variety of topics having nothing to do with Catholicism and similar debates, and is specifically geared to *debate* as opposed to discussion. I'm not really as interested in Baptists debating independent evangelical churches on who is right about some distinction between their traditions.

I come from a forum that is very strict about who can post where and this place was recommended to me as an alternative.

Click to expand...

The general religious debate forums are pretty open, but if you posited this same thread in the general religious debates, a couple of things are assumed:

a.) Posters are generally expected to stay on topic.
b.) Proselytizing and trolling in general are banned, and since things stay relatively well moderated, repeated offenders are generally banned.
c.) You can substantiate your thread. Christians Only: Bernie Sanders, etc.
d.) There is a Scriptures Debate under the General Religious Debates. I'm sure an official Catholic document would qualify as a religious text. These are open for any to participate with, like usual, the general expectation that the debate actual stay relevant to the scripture and OP in question.
e.) Worse comes to worse, if a member if routinely bothering you with information you find unhelpful, feel free to block them.

I would also just suggest that when we limit participation to Catholics only here, there aren't really enough active Catholics on the site to sustain a very active forum. So, even just from the perspective of being able to check back and find new posts and discussions here in general, there might be some incentive to either open this area up a bit or start a more open alternate Catholic area.

Click to expand...

Well, I couldn't do anything about the number of Catholics that wish to participate. I expect that as productive and interesting Catholic members (and there are many here) stay and contribute, this would attract more. As far as suggestions for the website, you'd have to post about that in the Site Feedback thread at the bottom. But if it is input for all Christians you want, the general Christianity DIR would allow any christian scholar/hobbyist to participate.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to the right person, though. I'm kind of assuming you're a moderator or some sort of authority figure based on the nature of your post, but I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

Nope, just trying to help and have been here for way too long.

By the way, voting for Bernie too, so good on ya.

On my iPhone right now, but I'll weigh in a bit about the benefit of traditional liturgies...

I'm a convert to Catholicism. I converted when I was 16, and I went to Mass every weekend almost without exception for a full year before I was received into the Church. The one Maß I remember most fondly at that Church was the Easter Vigil Mass when I was chrismated (I know Romans call it Confirmation but whatever lol). Especially when we chanted the Litany of the Saints. That was the single most beautiful thing I ever heard at that parish. But a mere five months later, after enduring the same, bland old songs (every time I hear "One Bread, One Body" I want to break my face on the pew in front of me), the Novus Ordo Mass had nothing left for me. It didn't nourish my spiritual growth as a Catholic, and I learned nothing from it.

That's when I discovered Byzantine Catholicism. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy hadn't been changed. It hadn't been stripped of its hymnography or the depth of meaning in the prayers. Icons still adorned the church as they had for almost two thousand years. Every time I went to Liturgy and sang the hymns, prayed and listened to the words prayed and chanted by the priest and deacon, I learned something new, thanks to the liturgical cycle if hymns and feast days. The reverence and depth of the Liturgy has been sustaining me spiritually for five years.

If the Roman Church hadn't gutted her own Mass and thrown out her liturgical tradition like so much trash, I wouldn't have needed to leave the parish that helped me become Catholic. It's no wonder so many leave the Church when they get older--there's nothing at their parishes to keep them growing in the Faith.

Shiranui117 said:

I'm a convert to Catholicism. I converted when I was 16, and I went to Mass every weekend almost without exception for a full year before I was received into the Church. The one Maß I remember most fondly at that Church was the Easter Vigil Mass when I was chrismated (I know Romans call it Confirmation but whatever lol). Especially when we chanted the Litany of the Saints. That was the single most beautiful thing I ever heard at that parish. But a mere five months later, after enduring the same, bland old songs (every time I hear "One Bread, One Body" I want to break my face on the pew in front of me), the Novus Ordo Mass had nothing left for me. It didn't nourish my spiritual growth as a Catholic, and I learned nothing from it.

That's when I discovered Byzantine Catholicism. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy hadn't been changed. It hadn't been stripped of its hymnography or the depth of meaning in the prayers. Icons still adorned the church as they had for almost two thousand years. Every time I went to Liturgy and sang the hymns, prayed and listened to the words prayed and chanted by the priest and deacon, I learned something new, thanks to the liturgical cycle if hymns and feast days. The reverence and depth of the Liturgy has been sustaining me spiritually for five years.

If the Roman Church hadn't gutted her own Mass and thrown out her liturgical tradition like so much trash, I wouldn't have needed to leave the parish that helped me become Catholic. It's no wonder so many leave the Church when they get older--there's nothing at their parishes to keep them growing in the Faith.

Click to expand...

I certain acknowledge your personal experience and can accept it, but it's far from universal, of course.

I'm a cradle Catholic and, while I love the flow of the liturgy and church calendar and all that stuff (new and old), and think the old mass is beautiful, it's not that current mass or the use of English or the Dan Schutte hymns that have kept me away from mass and in and made me an agnostic at the age of eight, an Episcopalian at 20ish, and different other things. You know what it is? It's the theology of guilty and an angry God who subjects people to eternal torture. It's the bishops who cover up for child abuse and enable offenders to offend again in new parishes, while acting like political pawns of the Republican Party and threatening people with hell fire for voting for the Democrats. It's the rules and regulations and the lack of accepting and including people as they are for who they are. It's a lack of true love- and true love isn't telling people they have to be this or that, true love is accepting someone and inviting them to be part of the group without preconditions.

The lack of communion for people who do things that shouldn't even be categorized as a sin is a problem. The mandatory confessions are a problem. The lack of women bishops, priests, and deacons is a problem. The intolerance of gays is a problem.

"Through the Mountains May Fall" and "On Eagles Wings"? Not a problem.

There's this rich tradition there with a great liturgy, and I include the new liturgy in the language spoken by the people as a great liturgy. I love the flow of the liturgical seasons and feasts. But, in some ways, the doctrine is still stuck in the middle ages. Pope Francis is changing some of it, but not enough. Who wants to go to mass when you can't receive communion because you used to have sex with women you loved and you don't regret it? Or because you missed mass the week before and don't regret it? Who wants to listen to a sermon about how you are going to hell because you voted for someone who cares about helping the poor and does concrete things to protect real living breathing human beings with dreams and pain who need food, shelter, and health just, because, apparently you should have voted for the guy who is against abortion but doesn't do anything about it and otherwise favors social darwinism while being iffy on actual darwinism?

The Church has problems. Some of the stuff raised in this thread like somehow being "overly accepting", though, those aren't the problems, they are the things that the church doesn't do *enough* of. We don't need to go back to before Vatican II, we need to skip ahead to Vatican V.

The more the Church tries to control people, the fewer people it's going to have to control, which is as it should be.

Just my two cents.

Fish and Bread said:

. You know what it is? It's the theology of guilty and an angry God who subjects people to eternal torture. It's the bishops who cover up for child abuse and enable offenders to offend again in new parishes, while acting like political pawns of the Republican Party and threatening people with hell fire for voting for the Democrats. It's the rules and regulations and the lack of accepting and including people as they are for who they are. It's a lack of true love- and true love isn't telling people they have to be this or that, true love is accepting someone and inviting them to be part of the group without preconditions.

Click to expand...

I understand all too well that living a Christian life in an age of rank permissibility isn't always easy. But the fact is that to be a Christian is to take upon yourself a level of personal conduct that is dead to sin. There is no reward without struggle, and we are to struggle for the Kingdom of Heaven. God is our creator and our moral arbitrator, and as such God has every right to punish unrepentant inquiry. The Christian is the person who swallows his pride and accepts who God is; the Lord and master of everything that exists, and our only true happiness.

And as horrible and the recent scandals that have hit the Church are, the failures of the hierarchy do not excuse us from the religious duties that we owe to God.

Fish and Bread said:

The lack of communion for people who do things that shouldn't even be categorized as a sin is a problem. The mandatory confessions are a problem. The lack of women bishops, priests, and deacons is a problem. The intolerance of gays is a problem.

Click to expand...

The primary mission of the Church is to save souls, not to cater to the political sensibilities of our age. It's not about what we want, but what is pleasing to God. Christ has instituted the priesthood only to men, and sexual activity is to be kept within matrimony in accordance with natural law. We are at no liberty to decide what constitutes sin, and if you're not going to make an effort to live in Christian conduct, then at the very least realise why you cannot deserve to partake in the very flesh and blood of our Lord. Because you are actively rejecting him.

Yes, the moral demands of the faith are hard, but Christ never promised that Christian life would be easy. This is precisely why the sacrament of confession is so necessary, because we all stumble from time to time.

Fish and Bread said:

"Through the Mountains May Fall" and "On Eagles Wings"? Not a problem.

Click to expand...

They are. They trivialise the sanctity of the Mass. It's shocking, but some of us actually believe in God and the gravity of the Eucharist.

Fish and Bread said:

But, in some ways, the doctrine is still stuck in the middle ages. Pope Francis is changing some of it, but not enough. Who wants to go to mass when you can't receive communion because you used to have sex with women you loved and you don't regret it?

Click to expand...

Do you actually believe in God and the authority of his Church? Your flippant attitude is beyond astounding. I'm a 25 year old heterosexual bachelor. You don't think there isn't part of me that wouldn't love the licence to indulge my carnal whims? But I both love and fear God, and consequently I accept that I have to be a grown-up and look past my short-sighted desires for the ephemeral. Because I hope for something far greater than the transient happiness of the world. Scripture is clear, you must choose between God or the world. You cannot have both. Pope Francis is subject the authority of God, he cannot make the impermissible, permissible.

Fish and Bread said:

The Church has problems. Some of the stuff raised in this thread like somehow being "overly accepting", though, those aren't the problems, they are the things that the church doesn't do *enough* of. We don't need to go back to before Vatican II, we need to skip ahead to Vatican V.

Click to expand...

Be more accepting of what? Sin?

Fish and Bread said:

The more the Church tries to control people, the fewer people it's going to have to control, which is as it should be.

Click to expand...

The Church isn't trying to control people. The Church is simply here to bring us to God and ultimately salvation. We cooperate with the Church to that end by accepting her authority concerning faith and morals. The Church is not a feel good social club, she the guardian of Sacred Tradition in all its difficulty.

Fish and Bread said:

Any chance of having a separate Catholic area creating where anyone with an interest can post? Though I do self-identify as Catholic, I'd love to really have a Catholic forum that's open to everyone except obvious trolls. You know, there are Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, historians (Actual and hobbyists), and others who maybe keep some Catholic traditions and would like to talk about the Pope and everything else and have a continuing interest in the Church and interesting things to say. A general religious debate area doesn't quite fulfill that niche, because it has room for such a wide variety of topics having nothing to do with Catholicism and similar debates, and is specifically geared to *debate* as opposed to discussion. I'm not really as interested in Baptists debating independent evangelical churches on who is right about some distinction between their traditions.

I come from a forum that is very strict about who can post where and this place was recommended to me as an alternative.

I would also just suggest that when we limit participation to Catholics only here, there aren't really enough active Catholics on the site to sustain a very active forum. So, even just from the perspective of being able to check back and find new posts and discussions here in general, there might be some incentive to either open this area up a bit or start a more open alternate Catholic area.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to the right person, though. I'm kind of assuming you're a moderator or some sort of authority figure based on the nature of your post, but I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

i can move the thread for you

Tlaloc said:

There is no reward without struggle, and we are to struggle for the Kingdom of Heaven. God is our creator and our moral arbitrator, and as such God has every right to punish unrepentant inquiry.

Click to expand...

If I were a genius and created myself a sentient thinking robot with a conscience and a soul somehow, would it have to be my slave in all things, with the alternative being that I program in a mental loop of pain to torture it for all eternity? Does might make right?

Tlaloc said:

The primary mission of the Church is to save souls, not to cater to the political sensibilities of our age. It's not about what we want, but what is pleasing to God.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be about doing what's right, which may be none of the above, either what you are favoring or what you're condemning. Perhaps you description of what God wants isn't what God wants. Maybe our understanding of God is still incomplete and developing. Who knows?

I do know that Catholic social teaching is that we are to follow our consciences and do what we think is right.

Tlaloc said:

Christ never promised that Christian life would be easy

Click to expand...

"My yoke is easy and my burden is light" -Jesus, The Bible

Tlaloc said:

Do you actually believe in God and the authority of his Church?

Click to expand...

Mostly.

Your flippant attitude is beyond astounding. I'm a 25 year old heterosexual bachelor. You don't think there isn't part of me that wouldn't love the licence to indulge my carnal whims?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't reduce it to that. Notice I said "used to". Don't get me wrong, if I had a great girlfriend and she wanted to have sex with me, I don't see myself saying no, but largely, circumstances have moved me out of that stage of my life. I'm not as attractive to women as I once was, I'm fairly poor, I have health issues. I think I've had two dates in the last 5-6 years and they didn't lead anywhere. I think I'm following the Catholic teaching on sex outside of marriage by default. I actually wanted settle down young and get married, but I wasn't able to get it done, and I've gotten less and less attractive to people as I've gotten older, not just in physical appearance but in terms of my situation relative to my peers, etc.. I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out that I dated my last serious girlfriend in my life 6-7 years ago. I'm not joining a monastery and taking a vow of celibacy, but there's not exactly temptation or opportunity around every corner either. Most of my objection to these prohibitions is theoretical rather than practical at this point- I don't think sex outside of marriage is always wrong, or at least I don't think it is severe enough to merit eternal damnation, given that not everyone is given the opportunity to marry, and isn't not that I have a hot date on Saturday night that I expect to end Sunday morning, you know? I'm in my early to mid 30s, but it's a very old early to mid 30s, in the sense of where I'm at in life and mentally. Lot of physical pain. Curmudgeon-y.

I had some great loving relationships that definitely violated some teachings when I was young, and I cherish those memories, but it's mostly in the past now. Society isn't very kind to people in my situation health, finances, and appearance wise, and I'm harder to get along with than ever. And I wouldn't want to date someone I didn't really like. So, you know, I mostly am the male equivalent of a cat lady now- only I have a dog. Because, you know, dogs are cool.

But I both love and fear God

Click to expand...

You know, a lot of the times the word in the bible that is translated as fear, really just means respect. It's an important difference. I don't think a God who demands that we *fear* him in the sense of being terrified of his wrath would be a very morally evolved God. Maybe our ancestors in faith thought that was God at one time, but I would like to think we're moving past that. We should never be able to envision a God who is more ethical than the God who is. If we can, then perhaps our vision of the God who is does not reflect His reality.

Scripture is clear, you must choose between God or the world. You cannot have both.

Click to expand...

What makes you think the world loves homosexuality, for example? Just because we've finally legalized gay marriage after like 2000 years of persecuting gays? In 1950, it would have been rejecting "the world" to embrace gay marriage. In fact, if you look at how gays are persecuted in most of the non-western world today, I would still say the world is persecuting the gays.

Tlaloc said:

Be more accepting of what? Sin?

Click to expand...

Love.

People who are different from us.

Fish and Bread said:

If I were a genius and created myself a sentient thinking robot with a conscience and a soul somehow, would it have to be my slave in all things, with the alternative being that I program in a mental loop of pain to torture it for all eternity? Does might make right?

Click to expand...

Your understanding of God is as infantile as the typical internet atheist. The very purpose of our existence is to know and love God. It is by fulfilling that purpose we reach our eternal happiness. But God is no tyrant, you have free will and you can reject his offer. It's just that without God you are incapable of happiness, because God is the source of all happiness. It simply does not exist outside of him, and that absence of happiness and love is the pain of Hell.

Fish and Bread said:

Perhaps it should be about doing what's right, which may be none of the above, either what you are favoring or what you're condemning. Perhaps you description of what God wants isn't what God wants. Maybe our understanding of God is still incomplete and developing. Who knows?

Click to expand...

Christ promised the Church that in her official capacity, she'd never fall into error. The faith and morals of the Church are not the mere opinions of the hierarchy, they are revelation from God. God decides what constitutes sin and the Church has no authority to dictate otherwise. We will all answer to God on his standards, not ours. And God's standards dictate that homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, pre and extra-marital sex are all gravely immoral. It doesn't matter how mush you want to think otherwise. If you just can't accept the hard truth then fine, but to then insist that you have the right to be considered in good standing regardless is ludicrous.

Fish and Bread said:

You know, a lot of the times the word in the bible that is translated as fear, really just means respect. It's an important difference. I don't think a God who demands that we *fear* him in the sense of being terrified of his wrath would be a very morally evolved God. Maybe our ancestors in faith thought that was God at one time, but I would like to think we're moving past that. We should never be able to envision a God who is more ethical than the God who is. If we can, then perhaps our vision of the God who is does not reflect His reality.

Click to expand...

God is the omnipotent Lord who at whim could crush the entire universe. Fear is appropriate, but I also trust in God's benevolence, and that he truly desires my eternal happiness (which is to love him).The crux of this life is to accept our created state and our purpose to God. To think of God on moral equivalence with us is absurd.

Fish and Bread said:

What makes you think the world loves homosexuality, for example? Just because we've finally legalized gay marriage after like 2000 years of persecuting gays? In 1950, it would have been rejecting "the world" to embrace gay marriage. In fact, if you look at how gays are persecuted in most of the non-western world today, I would still say the world is persecuting the gays.

Click to expand...

To be of this world means to be attached to the state of concupiscence. To be of God means to strive towards overcoming our attachments to the fleeting pleasures of the fallen creation. We are instead to strive for the eternal rewards of the spirit. This life is fleeting, it is foolishness to strive for it to the point of spiritual neglect. Because no matter how rich, powerful and sexed you may become; you're still going to die and stand before God. Your worldliness will amount to nothing.

Fish and Bread said:

People who are different from us.

Click to expand...

True love is to have the sinner's eternal interests in mind. By endorsing sin, you actually hurt him. Love sometimes means telling people what they don't want to hear.

Tlaloc said:

Your understanding of God is as infantile as the typical internet atheist. The very purpose of our existence is to know and love God. It is by fulfilling that purpose we reach our eternal happiness.

Click to expand...

You know, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who was the international head of a religious order and then Archbishop of Milwaukee, who knew a lot of the modern Popes personally and saw a lot of change in the Vatican and the US church first hand, had some interesting observations in his book. He said when he first became the head of a diocese in the US, he was surrounded by very independent bishops in the local bishop's conference for our nation who would vigorously debate theology and church government, but shortly after John-Paul II's election as each would die or retire, they'd be replaced by people who would simply quote the Pope's encyclicals at great length, vote whichever watch they felt the Vatican wanted at any given time, and who did not tolerate free thought. Eventually, those were pretty much the only bishops left.

I've read a lot more encyclicals, bits of catechisms, and writings of the church fathers than is often assumed. I know when people are quoting me a line without the quotes.

But God is no tyrant, you have free will and you can reject his offer.

Click to expand...

God is all-knowing, right? That's a basic bit of Christian theology. The past, present, and future are no mystery to him. We call that quality omniscience. So, at the instant he creates people, before he creates people even ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" -the bible), he knows whether they will go to heaven or go to hell. He could tweak the formula so that person would choose the good enough to go to heaven before creating someone. He could change the rules so that everyone went to heaven, or it was easier to get there. He could create a nicer non-heaven place than hell for the non-heaven bound (More on that later). He's God, he can do anything- we know that because he was what is traditionally described as omnipotence.

It's just that without God you are incapable of happiness, because God is the source of all happiness. It simply does not exist outside of him, and that absence of happiness and love is the pain of Hell.

Click to expand...

St. Augustine of Hippo spoke of an upper layer of hell called limbo where the physical layers of hell where there was no physical pain or deprivation and the only pain was the absence of God. He theorized that this was where unbaptized babies who die, possessing the stain of original sin but having independently committed no sin, would go, rather than experience the more traditional hellish pains and deprivations that a mass murderer might go. This was the sensus fildelium of the Church for nearly, 1,000 years, though it's fallen out of style lately (But no been officially condemned).

Now, if God could do that for unbaptized babies, why not for everyone? Why isn't hell just a meta-limbo? I mean, I guess that is basically what you are described, but that's not really what the Church has taught, but rather a possibility.

For that matter, if hell is simply the absence of happiness and love, and they only flow from God, why can't God allow such things to flow to hell in limited qualities, like on earth, or create a semi-powerful God of hell who offers parts of these qualities? Why not offer the condemned the opportunity to cease to exist rather than suffer forever? Why not change the rules of the universe entirely and find a way to save these people or offer them something better than hell, even if it's not heaven? Or convert them to heaven eventually? Why not simply a purgatory for all that leads to heaven for all? He's God, eh could do it. If he can't do it, he's not God. So, what we have if that is not the system, is a choice to give up on people and subject them to pain. Now, I wouldn't do that, because it's immoral, and I think we lack imagination if we envision a God who is less moral than I am, because while I'd like to think I'm a good guy, I'm not exactly a paragon of moral virtue, and I'd like to think God's mercy exceeds my own by a great deal.

To be of God means to strive towards overcoming our attachments

Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but it's always struck me how similar the Christian experience of overcoming attachments is to the Buddhist experience. Have you read any Thomas Merton?

For a Catholic, you seem to make a point in rejecting huge aspects of the faith. All these questions have been answered time and time again.

Fish and Bread said:

You know, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who was the international head of a religious order and then Archbishop of Milwaukee, who knew a lot of the modern Popes personally and saw a lot of change in the Vatican and the US church first hand, had some interesting observations in his book. He said when he first became the head of a diocese in the US, he was surrounded by very independent bishops in the local bishop's conference for our nation who would vigorously debate theology and church government, but shortly after John-Paul II's election as each would die or retire, they'd be replaced by people who would simply quote the Pope's encyclicals at great length, vote whichever watch they felt the Vatican wanted at any given time, and who did not tolerate free thought. Eventually, those were pretty much the only bishops left.

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with anything? You basically accused God of being a cosmic sadist, and if that really is your understanding of what the Catholic faith teaches about God and Hell then your understanding is deficient. End of story.

God is all-knowing, right? That's a basic bit of Christian theology. The past, present, and future are no mystery to him. We call that quality omniscience. So, at the instant he creates people, before he creates people even ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" -the bible), he knows whether they will go to heaven or go to hell. He could tweak the formula so that person would choose the good enough to go to heaven before creating someone. He could change the rules so that everyone went to heaven, or it was easier to get there. He could create a nicer non-heaven place than hell for the non-heaven bound (More on that later). He's God, he can do anything- we know that because he was what is traditionally described as omnipotence.

Click to expand...

God's omniscience is in no way contrary to human freedom. (Standard Catholic teaching) It is a mystery but every reprobate is such not by any predetermination of God, but by their own freedom. God desires the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4) but not despite of themselves to reject that salvation. Those in Hell are there, because they deserve it.

Now, if God could do that for unbaptized babies, why not for everyone? Why isn't hell just a meta-limbo? I mean, I guess that is basically what you are described, but that's not really what the Church has taught, but rather a possibility.

Click to expand...

Because unlike unbaptised infants, adults are guilty of personal sin. Heaven and Hell have levels, just as there are varying levels of sanctity there are varying levels of culpability. We will be rewarded on our merits or punished to the degree of our culpability before God.

For that matter, if hell is simply the absence of happiness and love, and they only flow from God, why can't God allow such things to flow to hell in limited qualities

Click to expand...

Because to be in Hell is to reject God utterly and irrevocably. They despise God and everything that flows from him. Their only "joy" is the misery of others.

Why not offer the condemned the opportunity to cease to exist rather than suffer forever?

Click to expand...

Because the soul is immortal, and this created immortality is irrevocable.

Now, I wouldn't do that, because it's immoral, and I think we lack imagination if we envision a God who is less moral than I am, because while I'd like to think I'm a good guy, I'm not exactly a paragon of moral virtue, and I'd like to think God's mercy exceeds my own by a great deal.

Click to expand...

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Click to expand...

Satan's sin was the desire to put himself on par with God, you are effectively doing the same thing. Who are you to question the moral virtue God? The all-powerful omniscient creator?

Fish and Bread said:

A bit off topic, but it's always struck me how similar the Christian experience of overcoming attachments is to the Buddhist experience. Have you read any Thomas Merton?

Click to expand...

No, but the Buddhist notion of detachment is not comparable. The Buddhist seeks to dissolve the ego, which they see as an illusion that creates attachments and therefore suffering. Ultimately the aim is to cease the perpetuation of their existence in Samsara. The Christian seeks to overcome the inclination to sinful desires, which estrange us from God and puts us in danger of eternal punishment. But the eternal self is real and individual, created by God to enjoy his love. It can never be dissolved. The core assumptions of the Buddhist belief system is incompatible with Christianity, even if there are elements of Buddhist thought which are admirable. Such as the recognition of the ephemeral nature of worldly pleasure and the dissatisfaction that it creates in the long run.