Well, [del]you’re[/del] your classmate’s safe on that account.
Theologian?!? I was reared in the Baptist church - we didn’t need no stinkin’ theologians. Some dude with his own Bible and a willingness to speak in public is all it takes.
The idea that belief is all that’s required for salvation was pounded into me as a kid, while at the same time I was taught to be good out of respect for God. The idea is explicitly stated numerous times in the Bible:
I pulled those from this page, where you can readily see that there are also numerous verses that say faith alone is not enough. But I don’t think all those verses are really the Word of God.
Actually, you show ignorance in lumping together all Protesant faiths- some do accept Purgatory, others beleive that man will repent in Hell and can thus be saved. Some express a view much like the Jews, in that all but the most blessed will go to Hell, where they’ll have a chance to repent- most will very quickly. Some do condemn Hitler forever, after all Hitler did not “accept Jesus as his personal saviour”. But in general , the various Protesant Faiths are so varied that other than a beleif in Jesus as Saviour, there’s hardly anything else you can claim they all have. I think there’s even a couple that deny Hell, per se.
As to Catholic theology, you have got Mortal sins quite wrong.
*"Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter
Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
Imputability
That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:
first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.
Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.
Malice
The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of malice on the sinner’s part, but God’s immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas, III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against Christ Who has redeemed man (Phil., iii, 18); against the Holy Ghost Who sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:29), an injury to man himself, causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad, or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree. Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree that it becomes specifically different from what it is objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not, according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential goodness or malice to the internal sin.
Gravity
While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. "*
Lot of reading there, but it doesn’t appear Mastubation makes it to “Mortal Sin”.
Here:CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Persona Humana (1975)
*The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. * Although there are other opinions:
"103. Masturbation particularly constitutes a very serious disorder that is illicit in itself and cannot be morally justified, although “the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behaviour, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault”."
Right after that, here’s what they say about Homosexuality:
*104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church.130 Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”.131 A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered"132 and contrary to Natural Law.133
Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.
For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition”.134 “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”.135 "*
No, Valteron, I don’t find it funny in the slightest. I also don’t find being misquoted by selective omission funny, and could technically report it as a rule violation. But given that you mistook what I actually said and as a result took offense, let me clarify. Back in the day, when you and I were young, there was a strong tendency to warn teens away from sex, with predictably abysmal results – based on a moral standard that never adapted with the times. (If you hit puberty at 14 and can expect to marry at 16, it’s reasonable to ask you to abstain for a year or so. If you hit puberty at 12 and can expect to marry at 21 or older, a different scenario comes into play – and the church never thought through how its teachings impacted the changing developmental psychology and social mores. Plus, of course, the fact that only a few denominations care to take any interest in how to deal with gay people, a completely separate issue.)
However, the 
which you quoted as attached to my comment about the priest’s behavior, was actually part of the parenthetical comment that followed it – and was a bit of self-deprecating humor about the fact that I had originally made the typo of “goy” (Yiddish for Gentile, non-Jew) for “boy” – in a thread in which you originally asked about Jewish views on the afterlife – as I specifically noted.
I find nothing amusing in priestly misbehavior. I find a typo of my own that leads to a small irony to be a bit amusing. And it served, in my mind, to help lighten the mood, given that there were some issues you were justifiably upset about coming to light.
Before my mother died three years ago she was dating a Jew, with whom I have kept up a friendship ever since. He has mentioned to me more than once that he despairs of ever seeing her again. Christians can look forward to being reunited with their loved ones in Heaven, but the Jewish conception of the afterlife is . . . different. I’m not clear on how and I’ve never pressed him for the details.
Jews also believe that we are re-united with our loved ones in heaven. Maybe he thinks (and not having visited the afterlife, I can’t say he’s wrong) that your mother has been/will be re-united with your father (I don’t know you well enough - is he departed, or alive but divorced from your mother?) and that he will have no place in that context.
My Dad’s still alive – Mom divorced him long before she met the man I mentioned. I’m sure he wasn’t talking about that.
How about the author himself:
Always seemed pretty clear to me. When someone believes in Jesus, salvation is complete. They still have the challenge of working out their salvation on a day to day basis - growing to be more like Jesus in the expression of their life. The thief on the cross only made a confession of belief, but Jesus saw into his heart, and he was saved. Of course, some have more trouble living like Jesus on a day to day basis than others - I know I do. But salvation, once gained, can’t be lost. I personally believe that it can be rejected, repudiated by a personal act of will (other christians will disagree) but sin and immorality and even loss of faith are not enough to cancel salvation once given.
Of course, this is a evangelical, protestant sort of position. I can’t speak for the catholic position, but I do believe that many worried catholics will be pleasantly suprised about the state of their souls in the afterlife - and missing out on that whole purgatory business should please them as well 
Si
Historical perspective: It is of interest to me that, aside from the one mention of summoning up a spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel (noted by cmkeller way back there), there is no other mention of an after-life in ancient writings. And that particular instance is about witchcraft, not about an after-life, that a dead soul can be awakened.
The development of the concept of an after-life as we know it today ari\ose in the years slightly before and the first couple of centuries after Jesus. Thus, the Talmudic discussions about an after-life are pretty much contemporary with the Christian development of the same idea.
So, traditional Orthodox Jews follow Talumdic discussions and accept an immediate after-life. But we have no promises from God, and no descriptions other than speculation by wise rabbinic teachers. We do have some logic: if God is a God of Justice, and there is clearly not perfect justice in this world, there must be something after death where justice is perfect.
Other Jews have different beliefs, including the notion that death is a long sleep until the Messiah comes when the dead will awaken, and there is no “heaven” in between. And other Jews think that death is oblivion, except for how you are remembered by others.
And remember, again, there isn’t a single canonical Jewish belief about the afterlife. Your Jewish friend might well not believe in an afterlife.
All religion is based on a fear of death.
The older you get, the closer you get to god, and the closer you move to the altar - move on up the aisles grandpa!
If I get religious in my older years (I’m 45 now), I give any Doper permission to just shoot me.
Captain Amazing: You said (bolding mine)
So in fact you admit that for the Catholic Church, my actions in having had a sexual life with my married partner of 30 years are “an evil” and that I am “ignorant of the truth” (presumably, the “truth” that homosexual acts, as practised by my partner and I, are an “intrinsic moral evil” the precise words used by the Catholic Church and by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Pope).
Can you possibly understand that I find this insulting and offensive, and that this is the reason I walked out of the Catholic Church some 42 years ago?
Can you and Tomndeb possibly realize that the Catholic Church heavily, clearly, roundly and unequivocally condenms all homosexual acts in all of its teachings and public moral pronouncements? Can you admit that it fights against gay marriage rights and gay rights in general throughout the world?
Frankly, to tell me that it may not be a sin if, in my ignorance of the “truth” and my inability to see the “evil” of my actions is tantamount to the Church telling me that while my actions are without doubt evil, I personally may be excused on a sort of “theological insanity clause”. You are at best grasping at straws to put a liberal spin on the doctrines of a reactionary and homophobic chuch.
Thanks but no thanks. The points made by you and Tomndeb are tortured Jesuitical sophistry at its best. The fact remains clearly that there is no room for a self-respecting gay person in a Church that shuts its heart and its mind to the validity of my sexuality.
Sorry, but that belief has been shown to be false many times. Indeed, a chaplain at a palliative care home once told me that he had NEVER seen the deathbed conversion of an agnostic or an atheist.
Much of the perception that old age causes greater religioisity is that the evil monster of religion is in fact slowly dying in the modern world (but not without a fight and the ability to hurt, tyranize, repress and kill far more people for the next hundred years, and not without resurgences.)
I am 58. I dumped the RC church 42 years ago and I have yet to see an action or a pronouncement by that Church that does not confirm my original decision. I have not gotten one iota more religious with age. And that is considering the fact that there is cancer and heart disease in my family and that I smoked for 25 years (idiot that I was). I fully realize that I probably have 20-25 years, tops.
When I die, I hope to have my life partner and legally married same-sex spouse by my bed. If I am in a hospital and a Catholic priest comes in, I would be pleased to introduce him to my partner, and then tell him to take his sacraments and shove them where the Sun don’t shine.
Tomndeb, while you are quick to point out the “escape clause” that a Catholic must believe something to be a sin in order for it to be a sin, I am afraid you are “guilty” of the “sin” of “text without context is pretext” in applying this concept of supremacy of conscience too literally and generally.
I have brought your argument up with conservative Catholics in other discussion groups (not SDMB) when discussing homosexual acts, and have been told in no uncertain terms that the exercise of conscience does not imply a moral free-for-all, but that Catholics are also to be guided by the teachings of the Church in making moral decisions. And I think we both know what the unequivocal moral teachings of the RC Church are regarding homosexual acts.
And PLEASE do not try to pull the old “the orientation is all right as long as you don’t act on it” argument. Such a ridiculous attempt to make the Catholic Church sound less than virulently homophobic is disrespectful of my intelligence.
Frankly, I have to admit that conservative Catholics are right and you are wrong. Obviously, the concept of “it’s not a sin unless I think it is” must have logical limits. Could I, for example, go out and kidnap, torture, rape and kill a whole school full of children and then say “I don’t believe that was a sin?” There would obviously come a point at which the only way I could NOT believe that an act was wrong would be if I were so seriously psychotic and unable to empathize with the suffering of others that I would in fact be legally insane.
The “teachings” of the Catholic Church regarding homosexual acts are not summarized in a few lines of a Cathecism that talks about the need for the sinner to know that the ction is sinful.
You bemoaned the fact, Tomndeb, that I was not better taught regarding Catholicism in my 13 years of Catholic teaching. In fact, now that I think back, I am pretty sure that we DID cover the idea of the need for the sinner to recognize the sinfulness of the act, on many occasions.
Common examples of this were:
-
The 7-year-old who knows he is hurting his sister but has not yet developed enough maturity to really emathize with the idea of pain in another person.
-
A person who strikes another causing death, unaware that that person had a particular vulnerability, when in fact they only meant to give them a slight blow in anger.
-
A person who has never heard Catholic doctrine (e.g. a native in remote and primative country ) and who believes, for example, that he has the right to discipline his wife by breaking both her legs.
However, I certainly do NOT believe that any of the guys in our religion class would have stood up and announced to the priest:" I had sex with my boyfriend last night and I am not confessing it because it is not a sin, because I do not consider it so."
After he picked himself up off the floor, he would have been marched off to confession and possibly a good strapping by way of penance.