Agnostic with "Catholic Guilt"

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by jammies

With the especially moral parts bolded:

Numbers 31:7-18

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho."

"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Yup, this is old testiment. Not that you didn't prove your point, you did- it's just that Catholics are primarily following the new testiment.

Either way, I think this will most likely derail the thread.

FireFly: Which church are you at now, and what were the "deal breakers" from the old one that made you want to switch. I understand if it's too personal for you to discuss here, but if you could divulge I would find it very interesting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Indeed. I get guilt from just challenging these doctrines... it's about how I was raised, once again. "Thou shalt not challenge the Lord thy God" or something along those lines.

I can understand that, if it makes it easier just keep in mind that not challenging God necessarily entails knowing what God says in the first place (so you know what not to challenge).

If this was an easy task, there wouldn't be the thousands of different denominations based on the Bible.

So rather than viewing it as challenging God, it's more your challenging one specific groups interpretation of what God wants.

It may help to do some objective research into early church history about the formation of scripture and how widely varied things were in the early years. The RCC has had 1600 years to refine their doctrine and such, but that doesn't mean they necessarily started from the right place.

I think what you are going through is VERY common and characteristic of the younger up-coming generations. Church attendance for the most part is shrinking and getting older, younger generations have access to the Internet and all kinds of information.. there was a time when the church could say a great deal without being challenged because the laity were separated from the clergy. Now though we can look at church doctrines and policies and with the Internet find alternative viewpoints very easily.. or find out about things like how many people the Church's policy on contraceptives kill in Africa. 100 years ago no one would know of such things except a very few.

So today's younger generations are opting for a more personal spirituality rather than big institutionalized churches.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by photon

I can understand that, if it makes it easier just keep in mind that not challenging God necessarily entails knowing what God says in the first place (so you know what not to challenge).

If this was an easy task, there wouldn't be the thousands of different denominations based on the Bible.

So rather than viewing it as challenging God, it's more your challenging one specific groups interpretation of what God wants.

I like that. You have some great insight, man. I really appreciate it.

[DOK]

This will probably be the most serious response I ever put on CP but here I go.

I can relate to a lot of what you've said. A really good thing that I've learned about being Catholic, is that we love to question and understand. We do have blind faith, but that does not mean we cannot fully understand our own religion and what it tries to teach.

I think it's a blessing that God gives us the ability to question and to walk away. For me, if He really is there and if He really is all He says He is, then what your doing is just fine by Him. Nothing you do will lessen God's love for his children. That takes away a lot of my personal guilt. Not sure if it means anything to you or not.

I had it explained to me like this: God is our father, right? And it's almost quite literal. There are terrible children all over the world doing awful things, but to the parents, there will always be some form of love. I know this can be taken out of context, but simply put, if my child does something I don't agree with doesn't mean I don't love him / her any less. Same goes for what we do on earth while God is above.

Also, you have to remember the Catholic "intent". Yes, we are supposed to feel bad about our sins, confess, do penance and go on our way. Obviously, it doesn't work like that. We have the power of intent built into our religion. If you mean no harm by what you are doing, you are forgiven. If you mean well by what you are doing, you are forgiven. We get ragged on all the time, that if we feel guilty then we can do whatever we want. Clearly, that's not true.

I recently went to my priest with a life altering decision. I told him it could be looked at like a sin, what did he think? I also laughed saying I was coming to him for advice on this one decision the whole while I was living in sin, having sex out of marriage, swearing, over eating, hating my neighbours, etc. Why is one sin anymore important than the rest? There actually are bigger sins and smaller sins in our religion, not many people know that. Those "small sins" are the ones I just rambled on about, and again, it went back to intent.

As for birth control, that's one for the ages. Personally, I think that comes more from the old school Rome teachings, the fear of sex before marriage, sex out of wedlock. Sex, technically shouldn't be used for anything but pro-creation in our religion, right? So, unless our intent to pro-create is there, we won't have sex, meaning there never would be all these extra unwanted children in the world. Of course that means everytime we have sex, it is to become pregnant. Birth control avoids that, thus, avoiding the rule, sex = kids. Sex that doesn't = the intent for kids is a sin. Personally, I think it's very modern of the church to acknowledge the fact that people do have sex and that it does need to be protected.

Believe it or not the Catholic church is quite modern in it's ways and is one of the most fast changing religions out there. Recently they have accepted the homosexual lifestyle, HOWEVER, they still refute sodomy. So, as a Catholic you can be openly gay, you just are not permitted to have sex "that way". Depending on your view, it's a step in the right direction.

Personally, I really enjoy being Catholic, I don't go to church every week, I don't pray everyday, but I stand by many of their measures. So much of the church is misunderstood and I ask a lot of questions to get a better understanding. My default is always, "MY God". I think there is a distinct difference between the old men in the Vatican and God above. These men and their teachings are just men, human, and on this earth. They know no more than anyone else, they are just trying their best to continue the teachings of the past. If something is construed that I don't agree with, in my gut and in my whole, I ask myself, "Would MY God be like that?" Maybe most of the time, I'm doing something inappropriate, or I don't have patients, but I believe the big guy is on my side and he's working with me, not against me. I try, maybe I could try harder, but He knows my soul and He knows who I really am. Would MY God condemn me to a life in a fiery hell? I hope not, I don't expect so, and I'm ok with that.

[Ethaniel]

Originally Posted by photon

.

So rather than viewing it as challenging God, it's more your challenging one specific groups interpretation of what God wants.

It may help to do some objective research into early church history about the formation of scripture and how widely varied things were in the early years. The RCC has had 1600 years to refine their doctrine and such, but that doesn't mean they necessarily started from the right place.

I think what you are going through is VERY common and characteristic of the younger up-coming generations. Church attendance for the most part is shrinking and getting older, younger generations have access to the Internet and all kinds of information.. there was a time when the church could say a great deal without being challenged because the laity were separated from the clergy. Now though we can look at church doctrines and policies and with the Internet find alternative viewpoints very easily.. or find out about things like how many people the Church's policy on contraceptives kill in Africa. 100 years ago no one would know of such things except a very few.

So today's younger generations are opting for a more personal spirituality rather than big institutionalized churches.

I Agree completely, but instead of finding an organization to help you why don't you just continue to Believe in God the way you want. If you don't believe in what a group of people in an organized religion states why don't you just make up your own mind and believe in what you believe.

Based on what I have read you already know what you believe in so that is not in question. Why not believe it. Like you stated that the Church complaining about contraception, but I promise you that 80% of the people don't believe the same thing, but still follow the church.

Be true to yourself and what You Believe in.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well it's not really asking US to do that. In addition, if you're a Christian, you're following the New Testament...

It's all the Bible, Old or New. Here's a New Testament quote sure to warm the hearts of women everywhere:

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

You can find examples of almost any immoral behaviour being condoned or outright commanded by God in the Bible. I know when I read it all the way through (skipping, to be sure, some of the "Jeremiah begat Woosifer, and Woosifer begat Tyler" chapters) it gave me a new perspective on "biblical morality".

[wooohooo]

I was born into a Christian family and always accepted it for what it was. Never questioned my beliefs until University. I stopped going for a large part of it, until recently at the University there was a Christian vs atheist debate. Going to University learning about the whole evolution thing really did it for me. I always thought in the Christian realm, evolution was a big no no. However, one of the professors arguing for Christianity said there is such thing as evolution. He believes that the God created the world through the big bang and other time by evolution humans. For some reason, that really reached out to me and although I don't go that much, I still go.

I'm not a super devout Christian so don't go asking me all these bible verses or anything, but I do believe. I also found between denominations, there are huge differences between them. I was dragged to a couple of churches (which I hated) until I found one that I can agree with and make sense. So don't be so quick to just give it up, try out other denominations and other religions too. Everyone believes something for some reason

[MarchHare]

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Bible telling you to do repugnant things?

How about Lot (the only "good" man in Sodom!) freely offering up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the mob?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-8&version=NIV

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Or maybe you prefer the story of Abraham almost murdering his son just because God told him to?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=NIV

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

Lot and Abraham are both generally considered to be positive role models in the Bible, right?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by DOK

Personally, I think it's very modern of the church to acknowledge the fact that people do have sex and that it does need to be protected.

I have never, ever heard this. Where did you get this idea, and do you have sources? I have to admit, I think you are really confused here.

Believe it or not the Catholic church is quite modern in it's ways and is one of the most fast changing religions out there. Recently they have accepted the homosexual lifestyle, HOWEVER, they still refute sodomy. So, as a Catholic you can be openly gay, you just are not permitted to have sex "that way". Depending on your view, it's a step in the right direction.

The Church reacts to modern things, but is anything but liberal. The Church has always accepted homosexuals, but not homosexual sex acts. Again, it comes down to pro-creation. It is mostly ignorance and media that perpetuates the misconception that Gays are not accepted by the Church.

Truth by the Church is that noone gets special treatment. No kids from sex = bad sex. Whether you're Gay, Straight, Asexual, Bisexual...

[photon]

Maybe take the "does the Bible tell us to do anything evil" stuff to a new thread, is kind of OT here.

[DOK]

A funny side story. My priest said almost the same thing that wooohooo was referring to. He was quoting the bible the whole way, it was quite entertaining. He said God did this that and the other. He said, "God created life, they didn't say WHAT life, or WHERE" He clearly stated there could be life on other planets because of this specific point. Also, clearly agreeing that there could have been a big bang, evolution, etc. As history shows, it's all in the interpretation of the bible, and personally, I like my priests take on a lot of it! He's a funny guy that has totally modernized the religion for me.

As well, tradition states, the bible was written by men, the prophets, that is why women cannot become priests. ALSO, remember there were many MANY books written about Jesus that didn't make it into the bible, many followers had many books edited out. And also, that the entire bible, Jesus does not speak directly, it is all a second hand telling of what Jesus said. So from the start, it was interpretation by man. THAT, to me, is enough to allow us in this day and age, to question the system, but to believe in the concept.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How about Lot (the only "good" man in Sodom!) freely offering up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the mob?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-8&version=NIV



Or maybe you prefer the story of Abraham almost murdering his son just because God told him to?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=NIV



Lot and Abraham are both generally considered to be positive role models in the Bible, right?

For the sake of consitency, there are a billion versions of the Bible. I think we should limit discussion to the Holy Bible, which is the Catholic one.

Also, again, most Catholics do not take the old testiment literally...

http://www.drbo.org

4 But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:

6 Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: 7 Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. 8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof. 9 But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a, stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors. 10 And behold the men put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door: 11 And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door. 12 And they said to Lot: Hast thou here any of thine? son in law, or sons, or daughters, all that are thine bring them out of this city: 13 For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them. 14 So Lot went out, and spoke to his sons in law that were to have his daughters, and said: Arise: get you out of this place, because the Lord will destroy this city. And he seemed to them to speak as it were in jest. 15 And when it was morning, the angels pressed him, saying: Arise, take thy wife, and the two daughters which thou hast: lest thou also perish in the wickedness of the city.

You should probably quote the whole thing, too.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's all the Bible, Old or New. Here's a New Testament quote sure to warm the hearts of women everywhere:

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

You can find examples of almost any immoral behaviour being condoned or outright commanded by God in the Bible. I know when I read it all the way through (skipping, to be sure, some of the "Jeremiah begat Woosifer, and Woosifer begat Tyler" chapters) it gave me a new perspective on "biblical morality".

You are taking that quote way out of context though to make your point. Keep in mind that in the day, women were uneducated and held lower status in society. So the early Christians had to find ways to get their message out that were compatible with the societies they were operating in. Paul himself was a Pharisee, it would have been unheard of for a woman to preach anything to anybody in his experience. Notice that he outlines that women bound to traditional roles can still be saved.

It did no good for the early Christians to appear too radical or upend the existing social structures they existed in - it led to persecution, lions, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.

It's been extensively researched, and it is well understood, that women played an active role in the early church, much more so than what was recorded in the Pauline letters.

Regardless, your overall point about what you read in the bible is good enough without playing the context game on the choice quotes. There's lots of crazy stuff in there that doesn't make sense in a modern context, when we don't have all the facts or implicit assumptions people had about common knowledge when they were written.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I disagree with some of the teachings in the Catholic church. Mainly, with Birth Control. The Church is against it because sex is for pro-creation as well as expression of love. It is not one or the other, but both. It is a disrespect to God to use it for one and not the other. Therefore, condoms are not OK, in vitro fertilization is not OK, homosexual relationships are not OK, etc etc.

My problem, is that Birth Control was rejected because it leads to a culture of unwanted children.

I was always taught more that Birth Control was wrong because you are stopping the potential for another one of Gods children, wasting your seed, not because of possible unwanted children. As shown in the Bible by God killing Onan because he pulled out during sex and "spilled it on the ground". Same rational was used for why masturbation is wrong, because you are wasting "seed" that has potential to create life.

Although the Catholic Church does somewhat contradict itself by allowing the rhythm method (Family Planning). Basically saying you can have sex for pleasure, without the intent of conceiving. So I guess it's ok to use a calendar as protection but not any physical devises. I guess this is just one of the many, many reasons I am agnostic, though without the guilt.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Suave

Although the Catholic Church does somewhat contradict itself by allowing the rhythm method (Family Planning). Basically saying you can have sex for pleasure, without the intent of conceiving. So I guess it's ok to use a calendar as protection but not any physical devises. I guess this is just one of the many, many reasons I am agnostic, though without the guilt.

Yup. Thanks for the reminder on that one. I forgot how stupid the argument of the "wasted seed" is. Like, I'm pretty sure when i was 13 I wasted quite a bit of seed in my dreams... so what, I'm going to hell because of my dreams!? Screw that!!

[Ethaniel]

You will be much happier being Agnostic.

Just saying.

[habernac]

Not a Catholic (I did attended Catholic high school), but I always found it rather odd that women were never allowed to be in positions of power (Pope, bishop, etc) in the church. The fact that priests, nuns etc can't be married makes no sense to me either.

My father grew up Catholic. Altar boy, etc. Went to boarding school and ceased to be a practicing Catholic due to how mean the instructors were. not sure of his belief in God, etc. I'll have to ask him some time.

[MarchHare]

In addition, if you're a Christian, you're following the New Testament...

That's not exactly true (at least for Catholics). In a typical Catholic Mass, at least one of the readings from the Bible comes from the Old Testament, and the priest will usually incorporate reflections on or lessons from that passage into his homily.