I believe we’re in agreement. Let me know if you think otherwise.
One other point: Catholics do believe that all salvation is through Christ. However, we also believe that even those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior can attain salvation. A pious Jew, for example, who lives a good and loving life, is not damned from a Catholic’s perspective. Here’s a response I received from a Philadelphia-area Catholic apologetics site when I asked a question on this very topic. It’s explained much better here than I could have:
**And I may be stretching things here, but why wouldn’t this apply to a homosexual who did not believe his actions sinful, and who earnestly sought to live according to God’s will? It’s a struggle for all of us, understanding when we are rationalizing something and when we are being truthful with ourselves, and not all paths to God are clearly marked. That’s why we pray and reflect.
That’s what I always come back to. Jesus made it easy for us: Love one another as I have loved you. If we commit ourselves to this precept, then we are seeking union with God. And even though we may fall short at times, even if at times we’re not sure what is right, then I believe God’s mercy is vast enough to accommodate our shortcomings.
Well, as far as I can tell, it’s because it doesn’t matter what you believe is sinful. What matters is your knowledge of God’s opinion on what is sinful. The way you lay it down, that gives us all a “get out of jail free” card – If we simply don’t believe something is wrong, then it’s all A-OK.
Analogy: Back a few hundred years ago, everybody knew that the sun and stars moved around the earth. Everybody knew that Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc, moved in convoluted, zig-zaggy paths across the sky. Nobody knew why, but everybody knew that’s the way it was.
My point? No matter how unpopular, treasonous, scanalous, blasphemous, [insert your own adjective here] was the belief that the Earth moved around the Sun, it didn’t have the slightest effect on the fact that that’s the way it is, and that’s how it always has been. If you jump off a bridge, it makes no difference that you don’t believe in the effects of gravity. You still fall. If I don’t believe that a bullet in the head will kill me, it doesn’t matter. My belief doesn’t change the facts.
And I believe that whether you believe in God, whether you believe he’s worthy of worship, whether you believe that things will happen the way the Bible says they will, makes no difference. Everybody will be judged by God and according to his standards, Unless they have accepted the “deal” with Jesus to have your debt covered - because that’s what it is. A business contract. We all have a debt that we aren’t capable of paying, and our rich friend Jesus offered to pay it all up for all of us.
As Apos said above, hell isn’t “punishment” for doing bad things. It’s the just earnings for turning away from God, for being sinful, and for rejecting the sacrifice that Jesus made on your behalf. Anybody who believes that God is unfair doesn’t understand God. But then, none of us will ever understand God, because to do so, we would have to be equal with Him.
Questioning God’s motives, or judging him by your standards, is like you or me being judged by an infant and by an infant’s level of understanding. Parents don’t need to give their children explanations for everything - all the reason a young child needs to know is “because Daddy (or Mommy) said so.” Period. Try explaining to a two-year-old why he’s not allowed to watch South Park or Japornimation (sexually explicit anime), even though it’s a cartoon. The kid won’t understand, and might be angry or throw a tantrum. He might say “it’s not fair!” But the point is that the child can’t understand why it’s not for kids. So the reason is “because I said so.” Period.
For that reason, we don’t GET to tell God what’s fair or what’s right. God is infinite. God can see the whole picture. God has none of our limitations based on perspective (we’re too small and not smart enough to understand everything at once and how it all fits together), geography (we’re stuck wherever we are, and affected by local circumstances more than others), or temporality. He can see all of it, beginning to end, and universe-wide. And he doesn’t need our input on how to run it.
No matter how popular it happens to be to tell everybody “oh, well, believe whatever you want, I support you,” or “I accept all religions. They are all equally valid,” that cant’ be right. There is ONE way that things are. Pick one and adhere to it, but don’t be wishy-washy and say that all beliefs are just as good. They aren’t. One group of people at the most can be right. Everybody else is wrong. I believe that the Christian faith and worldview is the correct one, so that is how I live my life. If you don’t know what you think is real, fine. Say so. But don’t cop out and say “all beliefs are equal.”
Let’s not make Jesus out to be a wishy-washy dope. Jesus is the same one who also said “go forth and sin no more” (to a woman who ‘loved’ many men but was not married to any of them. Interesting. Sex - outside of the context for which it was intended - labelled as sin. by Jesus…), and “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished,” and he also chased the crooks from the temple court with a whip. He offered mercy, but he also demanded obedience.
By the way, just so there’s no misunderstanding, Jesus did say that, but it was a commandment to his church - the Christians. Read it in context:
Now I may be crazy, but that doesn’t imply anywhere that as long as you love somebody you can do whatever you want. Your love for God has to come first - and that includes obedience:
See? Love for your neighbor is secondary to love for God, and nowhere are you commanded to love yourself, since the problem is that people love themselves far too much already - hence self-indulgent behavior.
Wow, I said a lot more than I originally intended to. But I’m pretty sure I answered the question from my POV.
Thank you for the addition. I wasn’t trying to talk about all Christians, as I should have made more clear, but rather pointing out that many Christians have a much more complicated understanding of sin than just “sin = ticket to hell, nothing you can do about it” In fact, very very few Christians believe that caricature: if they did what would be the point of Jesus (the way out of sin)?
—However, we also believe that even those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior can attain salvation.—
Yes, the Catholic church has taken on a theology that is much less morally offensive to me than the normal “no Christianity, no salvation,” and I praise them for it. Still doesn’t fix the problems I have with salvation in the first place, but it certainly is an important step.
Interesting analogy to use, Joe. You are aware, of course, that the Church put people to death for the Copernican heresy? That simply stating your belief that the earth moved around the sun could get you imprisoned and tortured. Finally, the Church came to its senses and realized that the Copernican theory was no threat to it, and relaxed the ban on teaching it as fact.
So, the beliefs of the church change over time. We’ve seen any number of religions change any number of their tenets in recent years. Because while God is infallible, churches can be wrong. Biblical interpretations, especially, can be wrong, and can be used to evil ends.
What’s sinful changes from church to church, from year to year. Until the 70’s, eating a hotdog on Friday was a sin. Who knows what’ll be branded a sin, with biblical backup, next decade?
What leads you to believe that the current set of ideologies you ascribe to won’t be as obsolete as the persecution of Copernican heresy in just a few years?
I am aware. I think that makes my point even better. Who did the burning is immaterial. My point is that popular belief does not make fact. Regardless of how many or how powerful are the people who wish it to be so. And regardless of who they claim to speak for. I seriously doubt that God agreed that it was sinful to discuss the mechanics of the universe the way he designed it. Read on to see how much value I place in “official church dogma”.
I’m sure you already know this, but the fact that Vatican I or II said it, or that the Pope said it, or whatever other official pronouncement from the catholic church said it, doesn’t a) indicate that God agrees, or that it is so; or b) represent the beliefs of a significant portion of Christians or even Catholics.
RCC Dogma is just RCC Dogma. The RCC doesn’t speak for God, and the fact that the RCC burned people for teaching the copernican model doesn’t mean that it was, in fact, a sin. Eating a hotdog on friday was never a sin, even though the catholic church said so. The fact that they’re the biggest sect of Christianity in the world doesn’t make them right. Since when did popularity determine factuality?
So the opinion of the political structure of the RCC changed. What is sinful did not.
And yes, there are interpretations on top of interpretations on top of interpretations, but there are some things that you don’t need to be a biblical scholar to figure out. The fact that the Bible declares homosexuality to be a sin is one of them. If you don’t accept the authority of the Bible, then our discussion is at an end, because if we disagree on what we hold to be axiomatic, then we have nowhere to go and are just spinning our wheels. At that point it just becomes “yes it is! no it isn’t!”.
From my perspective, it doesn’t matter if homosexuality makes your hair grow long and lustrous, burns fat faster than stacker 2, helps you make money fast, increases breast size, builds muscle, increases intelligence, and is recommended by 4 out of 5 dentists. It doesn’t even matter if the Catholic Church says that a new Vatican Council declared that homosexuality will get you a free indulgence and 4 of your relatives out of hell free. No matter how you sell it, it’s contrary to the Bible, which I and many others hold axiomatic, and which says it is a sin. The only way to argue this with somebody (like myself) who holds the Bible to be the Word of God is to show me in the Bible where I am wrong.
And evidently there are only 2 ways for others to be persuaded to my perspective: a) they become Christians and decide that the Bible really is the authority in their lives, or b) tell them that 4 out of 5 dentists decided that they were wrong, and homosexuality will actually cause all your teeth to fall out. Although IMO, even scientific proof that it caused harm wouldn’t change people’s minds about something, because we as a race are selfish, spoiled, and self-gratifying.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just illustrating the reason why these threads turn into such a mess and accomplish nothing.
The fact that (excluding deliberate mistranslations to push an agenda) what the Bible says doesn’t change. The catholic church sways whatever way the wind blows, like a leaf, but the Bible will say the same thing 10,000 years from now that it says now. What God wants doesn’t change, and God himself doesn’t change. I believe that the bible is God’s communication to us, and that it, not the current popular opinion, is the standard I’m to live up to.
—The fact that (excluding deliberate mistranslations to push an agenda) what the Bible says doesn’t change.—
Too bad for it then, I say. It’s missed a lot of important stuff that’s happened both before and after some council decided to put it together.
—I believe that the bible is God’s communication to us—
What was god trying to communicate to us when he relates how he told his unfaithful servant to eat his own poop as punishment? And then had to be reminded by that same servant that His own dietary laws forbade such an action? And so then He thought up a solution: cow poop!
—but the Bible will say the same thing 10,000 years from now that it says now.—
What an incredible property… shared only by everything else ever written.
(and people wonder why there’s rarely any productive discussion in religion threads…)
It’s easy to pick and choose single sentences and make them seem like they mean something else, isn’t it?
First of all, it was the prophet Ezekiel. Hardly an unfaithful servant, eh? Second, he wasn’t told to eat ‘poop’, he was told to make barley cakes and bake it over a fire built with ‘poop’.
Since it appears you didn’t read any of the words around it, it was part of a long piece of symbolic prophecy, talking about what was going to happen to Jerusalem: it would be under siege and without food, and the people would be so hungry that they would eat their own ‘poop’.
So to answer your question, he was communicating what was about to happen in Jerusalem. Is that the best attack you could come up with? Gosh, the bible mentioned eating poop, maybe I should become a hindu!
I guess everything would be happy if they had just had the sense to let you put it together, huh?
That is not what I said, and it’s one of several points in your post where you strenuously argue with points I did not at all assert. Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you point out where I asserted that “all religions/beliefs are valid/acceptable”?
I have to run to work, but I’ll try to get back to this tonight.
If what the Bible says never changes, Joe_Cool, then why are there so many different translations? Why are there so many different factions of Christianity, all with different interpretations of God’s intentions?
Can you honestly say that your branch of Christianity has never changed any of its positions, ever?
The Bible has been used to justify any number of political positions which, in retrospect, are pretty horrifying. If you’re interested, you can refer to the biblical arguments against interracial marriage that abounded in the sixties. But these days, you won’t find many churches using those biblical passages to discriminate against mixed-race marriages anymore. Why?
And how do you know that Christianity won’t eventually recognize that the Biblical evidence isn’t strong enough to support a political position that advocates discrimination against gays?
Joe, you are correct that what is sinful is decided by God if he exists. Where you are wrong is assuming that you know what God thinks. Millions of people all have differing oppinions of what is sinful- but guess what, you don’t get to decide what is a sin.
MrVisible, discounting the exceptions I mentioned above, the vast majority of translations say the same thing. Or are you quibbling over translation of [symbol]caraj[/symbol] as joy vs gladness?
And yes, There are things in the bible that aren’t clear, and I have changed my mind on a few things as my understanding grew (just like your understanding of where christmas eve presents came from changed when you realized that your parents put them there). But then, there are things that are completely clear. This is one of them.
And I don’t have a “branch of Christianity.” I am a Christian, and my doctrine comes from what I read in the bible.
grendel, see my post above. Like I said, we’re getting into waste-of-time territory. We disagree on what is axiomatic, so there’s no way we can have any sort of meaningful discourse, since we disagree on the most basic tenets:
I say morality comes from God, by way of the Bible, and you say it comes from society, basically a popular vote.
If you need the Bible to be a good person, then I’m glad you have it. Seriously. Anything that keeps the number of rapists & killers down is okay by me.
grendel has apparently found something that keeps him from running amok and behaving in a generally immoral (in the sense of damaging to society) fashion.
So has MrVisible. So have I.
Morality, IMHO, needs to not be dependent on a book. If tomorrow God came down and said, “oops, sorry about that. Let me get rid of those pesky commandments” would you then start killing, raping and stealing at will? Or would you still feel they were immoral actions?
SO not only is Joe_Cool anti-gay, he’s an anti-Catholic as well. IE, a typical example of the human residue that accumulates in the wastebins of fundamentalism.
I once heard an arguement against Christianity by a philosopher that went something like this:
“People should not be good or bad because they will be rewarded or punished accordingly. They should be good simply out of virtue. Jesus always said ‘blessed are the Xer’s for they shall get reward Y, and cursed are the Aer’s for they shall get reward B.’ This is behavioral motivation based on consequenses, not virtue, and thus, is bad”
What this philosopher fails to consider is that God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil on this planet in the first place! and that without it, we would have no good and evil, or corresponding virtues. Thus, a reward or punishment for the action by God will always coinside with what is virtuous because He defined it in the first place!
SO…SisterCoyote …morality need not be dependant on a book, but it can shed some light on WHY we are moral (and immoral) in the first place. And, by indicating that you believe one can be moral without a book shows you believe there are absolute truths in this world and that NOT everything is relative. (were it not so, my moral decision would be to say rape and murder are OK). If there are absolute truths, what are they? Where would you look to find them? your imagination? the internet? a magazine? the Bible?
That which brings harm to anyone is to be avoided.
For example:
I would not commit murder because (above and beyond the death of the victim) murder breeds suspicion in the hearts of the society against each other.
If people in a society cannot trust each other, then they are not there to take care of each other when that care is needed. Therefore, taking an action that will encourage that suspicion is against not only my personal self-interest, but the interest of society.
So, I suppose it can be argued that my position is that morality springs from enlightened self-interest.
However, you’re assuming that I believe that there are Truths in the world, and not truths as we perceive them. As this thread isn’t necessarily about moral relativism, I don’t want to get into it.
Okay. So, who else qualifies as being a Christian? Do the Mormons? The Church of Latter Day Saints? Unitarian Universalists? Episcopalians? Methodists? United Church of Christ? Lutherans? Catholics? Disciples of Christ? Church of England?
Why do all of these religions have different stances on the issue of homosexuality? They all call themselves Christian. They all read the same Bible you do. How can they come to different conclusions? How do you know which one is right?
There are Christian UUs, but there are also Buddhist UUs, Humanist UUs, Pagan UUs, UUs that don’t know what they believe but they like to think about it…
I never said morality comes from society. What I have said all along is that morality can be determined using observation and logic, if something is generally accepted as moral by society or religion but can be observed or logically determined to be hurtful it is immoral no matter what anybody says. The converse obviously holds true as well.
If the only determination of what is moral is what someone tells you God thinks, how do you know your god is the right one?