Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

I am not claiming I am God. Especially considering the sentences are distinct and separate. You are simply putting words in my mouth for whatever reason one would do such things.

-

The first sentence is an indicator that kowtowing to a relativistic secular ideology which holds nothing for certain and which deifies man above God in a singular pursuit of self-gratification and pleasure that is ultimately harmful to the human person is ridiculous, and that a christian should not attempt to alter the teachings of Christ as if they belonged to or were created by the christian in question.

The second is an indicator that the God is eternal and unchangeable and is not likely to change based on the sacrilegious whims of a secular age.

Thus two separate sentences one being a product and somewhat of an explanation of the first sentences viewpoint.

-

In answer to your question indeed ones understanding of God can deepen. But what God has revealed to man cannot somehow be "changed" as if that revelation belonged to or was alterable by humanity. A deepening understanding and comprehension of God on the contrary fulfils what is already revealed and known. Understanding affirms what is already known otherwise it is not true understanding and indeed it NEVER contradicts what is already revealed when that understanding is regarding God. To say that understanding of God can change in juxtaposition to what already has been revealed is simply a vain attempt to place oneself above God and attempt to make Him property of man, a creation designed to fit ones own worldview instead of having the person conform himself to God. Such a view is ultimately a denial of the transcendant reality and atheistic in destination.

Unfortunately such relativistic attitudes prevails amongst protestantism in the form of Sola Scriptura and deriving doctrines which falsely place man in a position to create his own personal "god" based on his interpretation of scripture (ergo 40000 protestant sects). Thus one could say the atheistic tendencies of the west are a direct if unintentional product of protestantisms relativism as its natural destination. This being perhaps implied by your last sentence directed at me.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd like to stress I didn't mean putting words in your mouth. The questions were asked motivated by curiosity of what I thought was a rather odd statement.

But I'd still like to advice not throwing terms like ignoramus at people who's opinions differ from yours.

 

[Jehoshua]

Give me a good reason why relativism is not idiotic in the extreme, give me another good reason why I should be concerned with "dialogue" and "being nice" with those who adhere to what is a gravely erroneous and dangerous ideological attitude.

 

[Arakhor]

CFC says that you should provide a dialogue or not bother. Just some handy advice.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Give me a good reason why relativism is not idiotic in the extreme

By reason of not caring I'd have to decline.

give me another good reason why I should be concerned with "dialogue" and "being nice" with those who adhere to what is a gravely erroneous and dangerous ideological attitude.

I'm not going to give you a reason why you should be concerned. From my point of view it's obvious, but if you do not share that, so be it. It was just friendly advice, feel free to ignore the heck out of it.

 

[Jehoshua]

By reason of not caring I'd have to decline.
I'm not going to give you a reason why you should be concerned. From my point of view it's obvious, but if you do not share that, so be it. It was just friendly advice, feel free to ignore the heck out of it.

excellent. I presume the reason is that it causes conflict. Naturally it does. But i'd rather cause conflict and stand up for the truth than be nice and engage in "dialogue".

As Christ said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Christ is offensive and especially what his Church teaches is offensive to those who oppose Christ.

 

[timtofly]

excellent. I presume the reason is that it causes conflict. Naturally it does. But i'd rather cause conflict and stand up for the truth than be nice and engage in "dialogue".

As Christ said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Christ is offensive and especially what his Church teaches is offensive to those who oppose Christ.

Actually the Word is offensive, but the one quoting the Word is not supposed to be.

Not to take sides or anything, but not only are world views different, but mind sets are also different. People who do not have the facts may be ignorant in an old definition style, but they are by no means ignoramus or stupid. It has come to my attention over the last year, that do to environmental conditions, people's world view and mind set may not go hand in hand. For instance two people with totally different world views may have the same mind set by some statistical anomolly. It could also be reversed. Some people may be able to change their mind set (not schizo like, but similar to) and be able to carry on intelligent conversations. World views are pretty much set in stone and can be changed but do so rarely. Mind sets can be set in stone, but rarely are. It is the only way we can rationalize the things we know with new things that we learn. Such is the wonderful ability of the human brain.

 

[Jehoshua]

CFC says that you should provide a dialogue or not bother. Just some handy advice.

note the quotations in my usage of "dialogue", a genuine dialogue implies complimentarity without having to compromise ones position to enable talk. The "dialogue" im referring to is simply attempting to change the unchangeable to fit in with the world, like say holding abortion to be perfectly moral or perhaps that no one really goes to hell or even better that Christ never really ressurected...

Actually the Word is offensive, but the one quoting the Word is not supposed to be.

Christ is offensive and so are those who follow him and preach what Christ has taught. I add for your benefit John 15:18 to the table.

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."

ergo: truth is offensive to those who stand against it.

 

[timtofly]

note the quotations in my usage of "dialogue", a genuine dialogue implies complimentarity without having to compromise ones position to enable talk. The "dialogue" im referring to is simply attempting to change the unchangeable to fit in with the world, like say holding abortion to be perfectly moral or perhaps that no one really goes to hell or even better that Christ never really ressurected...



Christ is offensive and so are those who follow him and preach what Christ has taught. I add for your benefit John 15:18 to the table.

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."

ergo: truth is offensive to those who stand against it.

That is fine as long as the reason for hating you is Christ and not you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

excellent. I presume the reason is that it causes conflict.

Not at all. The reason I'm not telling you is because it's a personal matter and I am guessing from what you've posted you wouldn't understand.

I would appreciate it when I tell you I will refrain from telling you my reasons you do not make them up on the spot. In return, I'll return that favour. Thank you.

 

[Jehoshua]

I presumed that your reason was impersonal, naturally of course I will not presume a reason for your statements as per your wishes.

That is fine as long as the reason for hating you is Christ and not you.

Naturally the hatred of the followers of Christ for teaching what Christ teaches in opposition to the world is an extension of the hatred of Christ himself.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: I presume that this is a silly discussion that is in no way related to the actual topic, so we should stop it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Takhisis]

Have you considered that God might not change, but one's understanding might?
(…)
You are encouraged to answer my questions as well

Of course people's understanding(s) and preception(s) of God, Heaven, Salvation, etc. etc. change over time. A few centuries ago we were all for killing the 'unfaithful'. Now we're all pacifist.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd call that an improvement

 

[Takhisis]

*draws sword* Beware!

 

[civ_king]

*draws sword* Beware!

Now now, no killing heretics on the forums

@Civ_King- I acknowledge to quute probably being wrong.

That said, and this probably goes in Ask a Catholic, what the heck? What the heck is the point you are trying to make here? And what is the point of homosexual romance even if marriage never occurs?

There are same sex loves that are pure, there is no need for there to be any sex involved at all. It's a false dichotomy that people with same sex attraction must either follow the "gay lifestyle" or die alone (I'm not even considering the atrocities of ex-gay camps). They don't need to be same sex attracted either, it's a bond of spirit.

Heck there are people speculating something similar to Newman and St. John is happening between Pope Benedict XVI and his secretary. Assuredly they would be absolutely true to their vows.
*runs off before Jehoshua runs me through with a sword*

*waits for the coast to be clear*
Another thing people don't get is that you can be gay, you can even be proudly gay and still be a good Catholic. Homosexuality does not make one immoral. It can have an influence on you for the better, you can do things out of pure love of your heart. An example would be Eve Tushnet who is proudly lesbian, fevertly Catholic and happily chaste (she writes for the National Review sometimes, I don't think you will find her objectionable).

 

[Takhisis]

To simplify, Dommy, what is held to be a sin is homosexual intercourse.

civ_king, I'd never heard of this Eve Tushnet. It's actually kinky to read about someone with 'Tush' in their name. Kinda like in Austin Powers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

*runs off before Jehoshua runs me through with a sword*

Context? Was there heresy in your post?

In all seriousness though, I do understand your point.

 

[civ_king]

To simplify, Dommy, what is held to be a sin is homosexual intercourse.

civ_king, I'd never heard of this Eve Tushnet. It's actually kinky to read about someone with 'Tush' in their name. Kinda like in Austin Powers.

A little about her
winning quote “Nothing is quite as great as getting up in the morning, listening to the Pet Shop Boys and going to church.”

Here's another gay Catholic



Sometimes after I find something exquisite and yet hidden about the faith I'm just like "Christ, what the Hell, most places have skeletons in the closet, but angels in the closet? Stop messing with me!"

Context? Was there heresy in your post?

In all seriousness though, I do understand your point.

I was referring to a possible relationship between the Pope and his secretary, that's not heresy, but you never know how he'd take it.

 

[Jehoshua]

Im afraid a sword isn't my style. I would much rather use an axe...

-

However moving away from unsubstantiated and quite likely fallacious rumourmongering, he is correct when he says that what is the sin is the homosexual act ie sodomy, not having the inclination itself. Although the homosexual inclination is in itself an intrinsically disordered desire in that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law it is not in and of itself sinful.

oh and Civ-King, I am watching you, very, very closely.