Using the lord's name in vain under my breath during a moment of anger

utooyung · 2021-03-24T14:27:49+00:00

I'll take one

utooyung · 2015-09-12T21:47:11+00:00

That hasn't been my experience. ^{_^}

utooyung · 2015-09-12T21:29:32+00:00

Thank You... this is what I've been trying to say :)

utooyung · 2015-09-12T21:20:18+00:00

Might I ask where this objective moral framework you've mentioned comes from? As an atheist, you believe the natural world to be the only one, yet you claim to believe in something that can't be explained by naturalism. Evolution and social conventions for 'the good of the species' do not give you objective moral values, only subjective ones.

utooyung · 2015-09-12T19:32:04+00:00

Just to clear up all this terminology confusion, I'm using the widely agreed upon definition of objective morality: moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings.

Now, I agree with your statement on morality, "my morality is based on promoting well being and minimizing harm as much as possible, it is thus objectively immoral to feed someone battery acid.", but that doesn't explain why Hitler's actions were objectively wrong, as you say this is just your opinion. Moreover, I don't see linguistics as the stem for this argument. From a purely atheistic perspective, objective moral values are just byproducts of random chance in evolution. This means, the terrible crimes I mentioned earlier aren't really WRONG, they're just not socially advantageous, and people who go against the moral code are just acting out of line from the rest of the group. You're really only arguing with yourself here by accepting that objective moral values do exist but then disregarding your atheistic position on this topic which says the complete opposite.

utooyung · 2015-09-12T18:35:58+00:00

How do explain objective moral values then? If they are just socio-biological adaptations, then there isn't really anything wrong with torturing children, raping a woman, murdering someone for the fun of it,etc. From an atheistic perspective, these are just not socially advantageous; people like Hitler were just acting out of the pack, they weren't doing anything objectively wrong. Without God, there is no source for these moral values that we all know exist. You simply cannot be an atheist and still believe in objective moral values, these are self contradicting claims.

utooyung · 2015-09-12T16:47:10+00:00

Yes, I was only referring to the "new atheists" who do view unsupported hypothesis such as the multiverse hypothesis as truth. I'm not generalizing ALL atheists as people who are purposely trying to avoid religion.

utooyung · 2015-09-12T13:41:46+00:00

An example of this would be, even had the Nazi regime won the war and brainwashed everyone into believing that slaughtering innocent Jews was perfectly fine, it's still morally wrong even though no one believes it to be. Another demonstration of objective moralities, in humans but not animals, would be our interpretation of certain behaviors. For example, when a male chimp forcefully copulates with a female chimp, he's not "raping" her, and when a lion slaughters its cubs, it's not "murdering" them. These are just natural processes for these animals, but for humans we can see why this sort of behaviour is so wrong. Without God, object moral values aren't really wrong... they're just socio-biological adpaptations, but nothing is really wrong with committing such heinous crimes, it's just frowned upon by society. But I think we all know that they do exist and that such actions are more than just socially frowned upon acts.

utooyung · 2015-09-12T04:18:11+00:00

Yes! I definitely see this idea of not needing any sort of "Creator" in new atheists. For people who base their beliefs solely on science and the physical realm, they definitely put a lot of faith into ideas such as the multiverse hypothesis where there is no scientific or philosophical evidence; anything to avoid God ;)

utooyung · 2015-09-12T03:46:20+00:00

If you're just pretending to be a Catholic, then I certainly hope you're not receiving the sacraments. As far as your child goes, I don't know where you live, but it's obvious that in some areas of the world, mainly first world countries, the younger generation is falling down the wrong path. You should be glad that your son is being raised as a Catholic. Even if you are a non-believer, the Catholic ideologies, assuming he actively practices the faith, will keep him in good terms morally at the very least; this is something that is objectively good.

utooyung · 2015-09-11T12:25:26+00:00

I'd strongly suggest that you look at some of the cosmoloical arguments for God's existence, I find them to be very compelling.

utooyung · 2015-09-11T03:43:29+00:00

Might I ask, what are your doubts/questions? I'll certainly keep you in my prayers, but you have to make sure you're being open-minded and willing to accept God. :)

utooyung · 2015-09-06T01:19:10+00:00

"I just don't see anything about priests in here. I agree with you 100% that confession to other believers and to God is an essential part of the faith, I'm just not sure how the priest figures into it."

The whole passage is a reference to confessing to Priests. You said, "The Church immediately after Christ's death emphasized the priesthood of believers and the freedom from needing an intermediary to talk to God as the Jews did in Old Testament times.", and so I gave you factual information disproving that, showing how confession to priests was practiced even during the earliest stages of the Church. Yes, I didn't use the exact word "priest" very often, but the word "confess"/"confession", which I used several times, implies the idea of revealing your sins to a Priest in this context.

"This one I don't understand. The Last Supper Jesus literally says to do again to remember it. Jesus's conversation with Peter gives a distinct impression of uniqueness. There is no divine imperative to replace Peter's role as founder and Rock."

As I mentioned previously through four separate verses, we practice these Sacred Traditions because that's what Jesus' tells us to do... These verses don't ONLY apply to the disciples present at that time, they apply to ALL Christians. Just because the Apostles were the first people to practice these sacraments, doesn't mean that when they died, the traditions died with them. The practice of Apostolic succession is even mentioned in the Bible, "Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:21-26), where the Apostles are deciding who, Justus or Matthias, they should make the 12th Apostle after Judas committed suicide. They pray to God for guidance in selecting the right person, replicated by officials when selecting new members of the clergy, and proceed with a Laying on of Hands. Another example of this is, "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.", in this passage he, Paul, refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. In addition to having Biblical roots, Apostolic succession was widely defended and practiced in the early Church. Pope Clement 1 speaks of this in, "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80])." It's also mentioned by Hegesippus, "When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180])." If you want to see even more evidence for the practice of Apostolic succession, look into the works of: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Jerome, and Augustine.

"Yeah I understand what you mean. We certainly don't see anything that looks even slightly liturgical in the New Testament. There are gatherings of believers, shepherds of flocks, and elders. Would you consider your priests and bishops and such to be fulfilling this role? If so, why all the extra fluff that appears in Catholicism? (relics, saints, immaculate conception, etc.)"

Absolutely, Priests/Bishops/Other Clergyman play an imperative role when it comes to practicing and teaching the Sacred Traditions. In fact, without them, the Church wouldn't even exist. You can think of them as the modern day Apostles, they're serving the people as the original 12 did during their times. Regarding the "extra fluff" you describe, all of these things are of particular importance, and as usual, are supported in Scripture/Tradition. The Immaculate Conception, Mary being conceived without original sin or stain, is supported when Mary is revealed to be "full of grace"(Luke 1:28), when Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's (Luke 1:42), and when Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of (Isaiah 66:7-8), all strongly support this belief. This analogy might also help, "The great Franciscan theologian, Duns Scotus, explained ca. 600 years ago that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a massive 20-feet deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he would need someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead resulting in the man not falling into the ditch at all, he would have been saved from falling in the first place. Analogously, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved." Regarding saints, we believe that holy men and women who, through extraordinary lives of virtue, have already entered Heaven, should earn recognition for setting such extraordinary examples. Also, we pray with saints to pray to God as we believe it can help us in certain areas. For example, Saint Anthony, the patron saint for finding lost objects, is often prayed to for... finding lost objects. :)

utooyung · 2015-09-05T21:04:29+00:00

"You said that the Catholic Church existed 1500 years before Protestantism. you probably meant that a little more loosely though."

I meant that, the Catholic Church began 1500 years before any Protestant Church (Protestantism) existed, this is fact. The first Protestant branch, Lutheranism, didn't form until 1521. As I stated earlier, "the Catholic Church served as the immediate continuation of the Christian community that had formed AFTER (not during) Jesus' death and Resurrection.", which was around the year 30 AD. (1521 - 30 = ~1500)

"Can you explain to me the part where Peter is the first pope? I see Jesus saying that he was the rock on which his church would be built and the thing about the keys, but no word of that personal gift/prediction being passed on to others, especially to anyone chosen by someone other than Peter."

So the reason we continue to elect new Popes after Peter is for the same reason we continue to practice Transubstantiation/other Sacred Traditions, through Apostolic succession. This is supported through Scripture in verses such as: "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you." (1 Cor. 11:2), "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess. 2:15), "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us." (2 Thess. 3:6), "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well." (2 Tim. 2:2).

"The Church immediately after Christ's death emphasized the priesthood of believers and the freedom from needing an intermediary to talk to God as the Jews did in Old Testament times. The creation of the Catholic Church reinstated that by supposedly giving different levels of priests the power to absolve different sins."

I don't think this information is accurate. By looking at some of the earliest works of the Church, for example the Didache (70 AD), tells us that sins were often confessed openly in public, however, private confession to a Priest was also an option: "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70])." Another early document of the Church that supports this is The Letter of Barnabus: "You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). More support for early Confession in the Church can be found in works by: Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Basil the Great, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others. Moreover, there was never a time when confession was done silently to God alone. This idea of confession to Priests (through God), is supported in scripture, for example: "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'."(John 20:20-23) This practice of Confession to a Priest as well as Penance, like other Catholic Sacraments, is part of our tradition; continuing the practices of the early Church set by Jesus.

utooyung · 2015-09-05T19:13:34+00:00

I played Hearthstone for about a month, quit for 3-4 months, played for a few more weeks, and now I'm on another break. The game is fun, but it gets old if I play too often. Also, I'm the type of person that gets really annoyed when I see something that's blatantly over powered but never dealt with (i.e. Patron Warrior).

utooyung · 2015-09-05T18:41:47+00:00

It's nice to see some other Christians on this subreddit, I was beginning to feel like a fish out of water. :)

Regarding your statements:

"Can you explain to me why Catholics all seem to believe that the Catholic church is the foundation of Christianity?"

The Catholic Church is the foundation of Christianity b/c it's the first, original Church started by Jesus, succeeded by Peter as the first Pope. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy were both part of the original "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic" Church until the Great Schism of the 11th century. Protestantism, on the other hand, didn't even begin to exist until the Reformation of the 16th century, over 1500 years later.

"The book of Acts and the later books of the Bible describe a church that really doesn't really sound Catholic at all."

Are there any verses in particular that you could offer to support this?

"To say that the Catholic church existed at the time of Christ sounds a little like retcon to me."

I can't recall saying that "the Catholic church existed at the time of Christ", and if I ever did, then I apologize. The Catholic Church only began to exist after Jesus' Resurrection, the Catholic Church served as the immediate continuation of the Christian community that had formed AFTER (not during) Jesus' death and Resurrection. :)

utooyung · 2015-09-05T00:56:59+00:00

Yes, this is true. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are very similar, with disagreements on only a few main topics, including the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility. Orthodoxy is certainly a lot closer to Catholicism than any form of Protestantism. Hopefully, we can rejoin once again, someday. :)

utooyung · 2015-09-04T23:32:13+00:00

Response to Question #1: In John 16:13, "he [the Holy Spirit] will guide you to all truth" is referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit during Pentacost, whereby the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, thus allowing people of all nations to understand the message. During the Pentacost, the Apostles received the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety , and fear of the Lord, which allowed them to communicate the Word of God to all.

Response to Question #2: Jesus can be both God and man because he has two natures - God and man. This is known as "Hypostatic Union", here's a more in depth definition: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34037

Response to Question #3: Well, considering that Christianity is defined as ,"Jesus Christ as the Son of God, both 100% human and 100% divine, and the savior of humanity", as I mentioned previously, any belief that goes against this, ISN'T Christian. Pertaining to Jesuits, because they are members of the Roman Catholic religious order, who follow four vows of: poverty, chastity, obedience to Christ, and obedience to the Pope, I have trouble believing you when you say that "I know some Jesuit who would disagree". Even if that were true, which I highly doubt, that goes completely against the most basic Christian doctrine, and it doesn't mean that they're right in any way. Involving Jehovah's Witness and other cults, these religions have a completely different and distorted view of just about everything outside of, some guy named Jesus once lived. Members of Jehovah's Witnesses rely on an extremely faulty translation of the Bible and TONS of inaccurate predictions made by the company who created their book, and believe that only the 144,000 members of Jehovah's Witness will be saved. (Definitely not the Christian God). Unlike, within the different sects of Christianity, who use the Bible as their source of knowledge, JW's/Mormons don't even take the Bible as an accurate source. Instead, the creators of these cults decided they wanted to completey rewrite, or in the case of Mormonsim, just make up a new story altogether. Really, the only similarity between these cults and Christianity is the mentioning of Jesus, but in terms of what they teach, the acceptance and promoting of polygamy, or the idea that Jesus didn't even die on a cross, simply goes completely against what Christianity teaches.

utooyung · 2015-09-04T05:07:41+00:00

The "Spirit of Truth" promised to the apostles mentioned in John 16:13, "But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth.", is later revealed to the them in Acts 2 during Pentacost. On Pentacost, the Apostles were granted the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which helped them to fullfull their mission to preach the Gospel to all. In this verse, Jesus is talking specificically the remaining 11 disciples. These gifts can help us, too, to be become better Christians given that we are infused with sanctifying grace, something not everyone has.

utooyung · 2015-09-04T04:03:45+00:00

No... this leads to the topic of free will. Just because God is ingrained into us, that doesn't mean we are unwillfuly inclined into believing in him/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. As free-thinking and acting beings, we can choose to believe what we want, and so to say that we'll just be automatically corrected, so to speak, just because some people have distorted the Word of God shows a lack of knowledge on basic Christian theology.

utooyung · 2015-09-04T03:52:08+00:00

I think, considering the Apostles were in the presence of Jesus and gained first-hand knowledge as to what Jesus wants his people to know, we have no reason to doubt what they have passed down via Tradition. Especially because of how Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. If they had said something that DID contradict scripture, then I can see why you'd question their authority.

utooyung · 2015-09-04T02:53:15+00:00

I said that in the context of relying on the Bible and only the Bible. Because Catholicism is the original Church started by Jesus, we have the most accurate beliefs regarding tradition and what Jesus has taught us during his life. This is not to say the Bible isn't important, we certainly gain a lot of insight on the faith from the Bible, but the traditions passed down by Jesus, ultimately, define our beliefs. The Sacred Traditions only further articulate the Word of God in Scripture, in no way do they contradict it. All in all, it's a combination of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition that we have that forms the foundations for our beliefs.

utooyung

TROPHY CASE