Why do you choose to be a part of an organization that says that a man who ordered the kidnapping and brain-washing of a Jewish child is “heroic in virtue”? This man also called Jews dogs, but the organization that you choose to be a member of says he is “heroic in virtue.” I do not understand why someone would choose to be a part of an organization that calls a kidnapper and brain-washer “heroic in virtue,” can you explain your choice?
Because my efforts to affect history from the present have so far met with failure.
But seriously, the Catholic Church is a human institution that is prey to human failings. It has done evil in its time and it has done much good. I hope to live a life that is a credit to my church and faith and help the Church as a whole live as Christ intends for us to live and prevent further wrongs from occurring. That is why I continue to be a member of it. It’s the same reason why people who disagree with the path the U.S government takes continue to live in the US rather than emigrate somewhere else. One can be a voice of change.
(assuming you’re an American) why do you choose to be part of an organization that committed genocide against the native population and imported slaves from Africa? I expect you to renounce your citizenship immediately. It’s the only ethical thing to do.
:rolleyes:
You do realize that the awarding of beatifications is something 99% of Catholics don’t even know or think about?
Do you also realize that Pope John Paul II pushed for Catholics and Jews to start getting along better because it is ridiculous for there to be some kind of rivalry?
Or are you just trolling?
That is not a valid comparison.
-
The US does not claim to be a moral institution. The Catholic Church does.
-
It is necessary in the modern world to be a part of a nation. Being a member of a church is totally voluntary.
-
Leaving the US would require a complete change in a person’s life. Leaving the CC does not require anything of the sort.
The CC is just a club. A nation is nothing like a club.
He also was a part of declaring a man that kidnapped and brain-washed a Jewish child “heroic in virtue.”
No, it wouldn’t but leaving the Catholic Church is usually the result of a complete change in a person’s life. Most people who are comfortable and happy in their religion don’t just up and leave it.
A long overdue response.
Why be happy about being a part of an organization that calls a kidnapper and brain-washer “heroic in virtue”?
It’s not really on the radar of anyone other than those who go trawling for things to get outraged about.
Popes push earlier Popes along he sainthood path so they in turn will get pushed when they get the dirt sleep. Maybe they get a cushier spot in heaven, or 72 altar boys to “serve” them.
Maybe you don’t see it this way, but for a serious Catholic it defines a huge part of their life and who they are as a person-- in fact many Catholics probably consider their religion many times more important than their national affiliation. As Inner Stickler says, it is possible to abhor some things an organization does, while remaining a part of it and working to change the negative and promote the positive.
You didn’t get enough of a response withthis thread so you repackaged it and reposted? 
Logically, if you accept that gaining eternal salvation for somebody else is the greatest gift you could bestow on an individual, wouldn’t you be obligated to do so? In fact, if you accept that, then killing as many innocent babies as possible would be the greatest gift possible, wouldn’t it?
I think that would be a terrible thing, but I also don’t think there’s any such thing as eternal salvation, so I can’t even start down that path. But I’ve always wondered how this question would be considered by people who believe eternal salvation is possible.
One of the intriguing features of religion is that it can place arbitrarily high priorities on things that aren’t part of the natural, physical world around us, and therefore could in principle provide motivation for some very strong actions.
No, that’s not logical at all. That’s just stupid. Even for believers who think eternal salvation = good, murder still = bad.
That clearly varies based on the believer. I mean, obviously.
Murder is, by definition, bad. “Obviously”, circumstances dictate what forms of homicide constitute murder. But there is no faith that advocates ushering people unwillingly into eternal salvation; and there is no faith that doesn’t consider infanticide to be murder…which is why napier’s logical conclusion was anything but.
agreed.
I had a conversation with former catholics who now belong to the Assembly of God. They had much criticism of the Catholic Church, and I didn’t argue with them because I knew they weren’t really looking to understand the catholic doctrine, but only to criticize it. Some people just want to be haters and there’s just no rationalizing with them, so I simply don’t bother.
If you want to know why this or that about the Catholic church, or can’t understand just how terrible they are well just wait and see how right or wrong you were after you’re dead… I’m sure you’ll know the truth at that point.
There are obviously people who think their faiths allow them to slaughter infidels, innocents, children, and babies; or do you deny the existence of suicide bombers? Do you think they carefully vett their explosion radii for children and infants first?
Now, things get a little less obvious when you specialize your killing down to killing babies for the purpose of the babies’ salvation. Do I know of a scripture of any religion that explicitly advocates killing babies to save them? No. (I do know of one that explicitly advocates killing one guy to keep a bunch of other guys faithful, in the mormon scriptures, but that’s different.)
However, in any religion where babies who are killed are assured a place in heaven, it naturally follows that the moral course would be to kill as many babies as possible. Sure, it might be a sin, but if it’s a sin, only you go to hell. The babies go to heaven. So, if you manage to kill at least two babies, then that’s a net profit, justifying your murderous crusade.
In fact, this would be the ultimate sacrifice; your own eternal happiness for another’s. Much more noble than any of the pantywaist milquetoast ‘sacrifices’ that Jesus guy made.
Isn’t it great, what you can get when you truly accept religious assumptions?