This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No man or woman is born without sin, even before being consciously able to make a sinful act.
I'll throw you your own curve ball - where in the bible does it say that?
Secondly, this is probably why I called you Protestant earlier.... You like pulling the
sola scriptura
card. That's my cue to laugh and ask where in the Bible it says what books should be in the Bible.
And on the Eucharist, then why didn't he just leave it at bread from heaven?
I mean passage 1: bread = flesh = eat it
passage 2: bread = flesh = eat it
You really think he's talking about 2 different things?
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, sola scripture is an interesting point, especially since the Catholic Church was the one to determine what books are in the Bible and what books aren't. But by relying on the ones that the Catholic Church has included, it would be fair to say that I'd be arguing from a point of disadvantage, no?
So anything that's in the Bible that the Catholic Church has put together should therefore underpin the beliefs of the Catholic Church, right?
In relation to the point about original sin, it is implied in Psalm 51:5, and referred to (albet in the context of death) in Romans 5. But I'm going to take the foolproof, cop-out approach and point out that it's something that the Catholic Church believes in, and so therefore, to suggest that Mary is sinless is to be inconsistent in belief.
Regarding the food passages, the problem is that you see one as literal and that you think I'm arguing the other is metaphorical. I'm suggesting that both can be interpreted as being metaphorical.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Regarding the food passages, the problem is that you see one as literal and that you think I'm arguing the other is metaphorical. I'm suggesting that both can be interpreted as being metaphorical.
You're confusing two issues. There is the question of whether he actually meant 'this is my flesh' literally or metaphorically (which is not the issue I'm discussing), and whether he actually meant for us to 'have mass.'
The Last Supper passage is not metaphorical. It happened. He said do x and he did x. So now we ask, when he says 'do x' in another place shouldn't we connect that to the other passage?
As far as Mary goes, we've got to make a distinction. You keep jumping back and forth between Original Sin and sinning. We can discuss both, but they are two separate issues.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not confusing anything. He said both. My point is the question of whether the bread is a metaphor for his flesh or whether it *is* his flesh. The metaphor could be sustained in both by asking people to eat bread,
representing
his flesh, rather than to eat bread
being
his flesh.
The question of whether to have Mass is separate. I'm providing an argument against the Eucharist generally at the moment, and ignoring its place in a Catholic Mass.
Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin:
she was preserved from all stain of original sin
and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.
This is my point. How can the Catholic Church state that?
I'm happy to keep original sin and sinning separate. There is no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Mary sinned. But there is enough to suggest that she should have been born with original sin. The Catholic Church acknowledges that everyone has original sin. So how does it know that Mary was preserved of that,
prior to becoming the Mother of God
?
Post by
Squishalot
Hey Hyper, just reviving this thread, due to a thought that crossed my mind yesterday, and it appears that it's fairly close to what we were last discussing a year ago.
Yesterday, the gospel reading at my girlfriend's church was Matthew 5:13-16:
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
You argued previously that Jesus said that the Eucharist was his flesh and his blood, and therefore it is literally his flesh and his blood, and not a metaphor for such. By that argument, does that then imply that we are, literally, the salt of the earth, and the light of the world, and not flesh and blood as we thought?
Post by
pelf
Doesn't salting the earth make it infertile?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hey Hyper, just reviving this thread, due to a thought that crossed my mind yesterday, and it appears that it's fairly close to what we were last discussing a year ago.
Yesterday, the gospel reading at my girlfriend's church was Matthew 5:13-16:
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
You argued previously that Jesus said that the Eucharist was his flesh and his blood, and therefore it is literally his flesh and his blood, and not a metaphor for such. By that argument, does that then imply that we are, literally, the salt of the earth, and the light of the world, and not flesh and blood as we thought?
My girlfriend has told me that my apartment is a pigsty, and that my apartment is too small. One's literal, the other's figurative. That one is literal has no bearing on how the other should be taken, and vice versa.
Doesn't salting the earth make it infertile?
"Of the earth" isn't modifying salt
qua
salt but salt
qua
man. You are the salt (that which preserves and brings flavor) of the earth (all that
to
the earth).
Post by
Perkocet
We make jokes, but how do
you
, as a catholic, feel about abortion?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That it's the killing of a defenseless human life for the sake of some sort of lesser comfort.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Killing an innocent does not "fix" the rape. My heart goes out to any woman who has suffered that, but I won't stand by while another travesty is heaped upon the first.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Does your disbelief in a imaginary snuggle-blanket make the killing of an innocent 3rd party legitimate? You're equating my respect for the life of the child with a acceptance of rape, which is an extreme and hardly applicable claim.
As I said, killing the baby does not fix the rape: it solves nothing except 9 months of possible discomfort. It's unfortunate that the woman may have to go through a pregnancy that she wasn't prepared for or didn't want, but it would be even more unfortunate for an innocent person to be killed.
If the woman is not in a position or doesn't feel right taking care of the child, I'd highly recommend putting the child up for adoption.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why don't you stick to the issues, instead of pretending like me being "inferior as a person" and my will being "stunted" actually has any bearing on the topic. Please? Otherwise, I really won't bother trying to answer any of your posts.
an unborn child does not have self-awareness, which is the prerequisite for sentience, so the fetus is not a human, but merely a bunch of cells that will eventually become sentient, at which point it cannot be considered the same creature
What makes a human being a human being? I define a human being as a
rational animal
. Now what does it mean to be rational? Reasoning every second doesn't make you rational. If that were the case, then people in comas would randomly stop being human beings, and when they wake up they would instantly become human beings again. No, what rational means is having the potency (or innate capacity) to reason. Someone who is in a coma still has the innate capacity of reason, but is prevent from doing so by the failings of a bodily organ. In the case of a fetus (or even a new born) can know that it's a human fetus. What does it mean that it's a human fetus? It means that given the proper environment and care, it will develop into an adult human being. So whatever makes a human being a human somehow exists in that which by nature becomes it. Since we don't see the faculty of reason actualized, we call it an innate capacity that is not yet actualized due to failings of certain organs (underdeveloped).
Now that's all directed at the question of whether a fetus in a human being. You said something even more radical: that a a fetus "cannot be considered the same creature." I think you're the one who needs to provide evidence for that, not me. I have not see a single scientist ever claim that a fetus was not a living organism.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If I'm inferior to you, then you're wasting your time talking to me. Good day.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Edit: Aw, screw it. I not going to even bother to reply to that.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.