Debate Rounds (5)
Overall what is your opinion of the Roman Catholic church?
In your view what is the best thing about Catholicism?
What is the worst?
How do you feel about how the church ways in on issues of equality?
How do you feel about proselytization of the religion?
Do you believe the dogma of the church (e.g. Jesus was crucified, buried on the third day rose again, born of a virgin, God is the creator of mankind e.t.c.)?
What are your praises of the church?
What are your criticisms of the church?
These are just a few questions to kick things off, it would be appreciated to avoid back and forth type arguments you did not give vague answers and answer the questions directly and honestly.
Thank you I look forward to this discussion.
1. "Overall what is your opinion of the Roman Catholic church?"
A: I firmly believe the Roman Catholic Church is an institution of hope and love. Through it we are saved. My opinion is that the Roman Catholic Church is both just and generous.
2. "In your view what is the best thing about Catholicism?"
A: IF Catholicism is objectively true (and I would argue that it is) then Catholicism is the singular most important religion. Catholicism is the key the the most important thing: salvation and eternity with God. If Catholicism is true, then Jesus is the supreme authority as He is in the Trinity. That means through the Church, a Church for sinners, humanity is saved. I believe that Catholicism acts like the map to heaven by giving us aid and guidance to live worthwhile lives that ultimately end in perfect joy. Religions cannot be equal. One has to be the true religion in accordance with objective reality. Catholicism either is the best religion or it is the worst religion dependent upon objective reality.
3. "What is the worst?"
A: The Catholic institution as a divinely inspired Church through the Holy Spirit must be infallible. If the Catholic religion is true, then it is perfection. If false, then the Catholic Church is an absolute and utter filthy lie. Now, I would argue that the Catholic faith is true, thus making the Church as an institution perfect. However, individuals within the institution can act in immoral ways. We would not condemn America as a whole for the acts of certain people within the institution if the institution itself teaches moral behavior. Applied to Catholicism, there can be no bad part within the religion itself. But some individuals such as Friar Tetzle through selling indulgences promising salvation and pedophile priests have acted against the Church and have sinned. Those people within the Catholic faith have no longer acted as Catholics and that is my issue that I have.
4. "How do you feel about how the church ways in on issues of equality?"
A: Two of the most beloved followers of Jesus were Mary the Virgin Mother and Mary Magdalene. Jesus Himself first showed His resurrected self to both Mary's. Jesus' actions revealed the importance of gender equality and love. The Church carries on that message by condemning actions such as rape and oppression on the grounds of gender. The Pope spoke out against the actions of middle east leaders who have taken woman and children as hostages. And with regards to homosexual equality, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics to love and respect homosexuals as equally as anyone else. Some Catholics however fail to live up to that rule. The issue then becomes acting on homosexual intent for sexual intercourse. Sex, according to the Catholic Church must be 1. Love communicating and 2. Open to reproduction. Since homosexual intercourse cannot be open to reproduction, then homosexual sex is condemned just as much as premarital sex. Thus I believe the Church advocates for equality.
5. "How do you feel about proselytization of the religion?"
A: Jesus gave His followers the job to spread the good news about His established religion. The Church should continue to missionary work in hopes to convert people to Catholicism. If the Catholic Church is objectively true, then why is trying to get people to believe in it any different than teaching students that 2 +2 =4? Objective truth must be promoted.
6. "Do you believe the dogma of the church (e.g. Jesus was crucified, buried on the third day rose again, born of a virgin, God is the creator of mankind e.t.c.)?"
A: To answer simply, yes. I also believe in the doctrine of the Catholic faith.
7. "What are your praises of the church?"
A: My praises would be, through all the criticism, the Catholic Church has consistently taught God's message. It has always been a place of hope and redemption for mankind.
8. "What are your criticisms of the church?"
A: My only criticism deals with members within the Church acting in ways that actually go against the Church.
1.You claim the church is "an institution of hope and love... just and generous", I think I'll begin at the turn of the 21st century where this evil institution has admitted that they committed wrongdoing through pope John Paul II long list of apologies on the 12th of March 2000 the 'day of apology'; the pope begged forgiveness for, among some other things, the crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, injustice towards women (that's half the human race right there), forced conversion of indigenous peoples especially in South America, the African slave trade, the admission that Galileo was right, and for silence during Hitler's Final Solution (1). This is an appalling admission of guilt made by the church of unspeakable heinous crimes that in many instances cannot be forgiven.
Now my question would be where is the "hope" for those who just want to go about their lives without having to live on their knees to a religion that was forced upon them? Where is the "love" to those who were treated differently just for the gender they were born into? Where is the "justice" for those who were massacred by the sword of catholicism. Where was the "generosity" to a people during WWII who needed it the most the Jews?
2. So it would seem the best thing in your view about catholicism is that it is the saviour for humanity. But according to your worldview god created us. So he creates us as sick, reached sinners and then orders us to be well again. So my question would be is this not some twisted form of sadomasochism?
Also just a comment I want to make due to the fact that I have seen no evidence that catholicism is the 'true' religion by your definition it must be evil (you don't have to respond to this just something I wanted to add, but if you want to reply go ahead).
3. In this point you said "We would not condemn... the acts of certain people within the institution if the institution itself teaches moral behavior" umm.. yes we do. I know you may find this difficult to comprehend because unlike your religion any civilised society does not condemn people for thought crime, however we evaluates people on their actions not their thoughts. It's not what you think or say that's important it's what you do that matters.
You bring up a common issue that goes hand in hand with the church and that is pedophila. According to a number of studies done in america and my own country Australia at least one in 20 Catholic priests in is a child sex abuser, although the real figure is probably one in 15 (2), My question would be is there something fundamentally wrong with the culture of the priesthood for example the calls for the unhealthy practice of celebsy.
4. This would be the issue I would disagree with you the most on. The church claims to stand for equality yet no woman can become the leader of the church or even a minister. That we know of there is only one cure for world poverty and it can be phased very simply 'the empowerment of women', go to Bolivia, Bangladesh, or Yemen (3) (4) (5). Give women control over their reproductive cycle make them not just the beasts of burden and beats of childbearing that the church allows them to become, give them the right to get a paying job and the floor will rise in that community it has never failed anywhere (3) (4) (5), against this one solution the catholic church has turned it's back, the church has never stood for true equality(6), the efforts of the missionary churches in the third world mean more people die not less, and this is a fact even that slug looking catholic Ann Widdecombe agrees with(this also ties in with you missionary proselytization point in the next segment). No question here just a point I felt I had to make.
5. So you support the crusades? (after all they were showing those ignorant sinners the 'truth')
6. You responded yes to this do you think the stories make sense? Also how do you interpret the bible literally like a creationist or metaphorically like a 'normal' catholic.
I think I have already responded to 7 and 8 throughout.
Just a few more questions relevant to your answers and if you could continue with the honest approach that would be appreciated.
Due to the fact you seem to have a fetish for catholicism being the 'truth' what are your views on other christian sects such as the ones Mormons and protestants follow?
And would you prefer someone having the 'wrong' faith or no faith?
Also If you wish feel free to ask me questions.
Now about hope. Let us assume Catholicism is false. Lets assume religion is a lie and there is no omnipotent force in the universe. Then what? Life ends in a tragedy. We die and rot. We all suffer the same fate. All of our achievements are meaningless since all things die out in infinite darkness. All the pain we suffer on earth will not ever be reconciled. Everyone suffers without true joy. There is no hope for anything in that existence since all ends in a cold nihilistic finale.
Lets assume now that Catholicism is true. That means life ends in glory. Everything we do on earth then matters. We live and become complete in heaven with perfect and eternal happiness. Believers have that hope. And in the words of the famous movie Shawshank "Hope is a great thing, maybe the best of things. And a good thing never dies."
The people who advocated for the Inquisition were actually in blatant contradiction with the Church teachings and are on the grounds for excommunication from the Church.
And I do believe a lot of Catholics helped the Jews during WWII. Certainly, not everyone did enough to help the Jews, but I am not sure specifically what you are referring to.
2. If we recall correctly, God created us in His own image. He made us, in the beginning, as perfect. However, due to human use of free will, humanity has taken actions that have resulted in our falling. God gave us free will so we are not slaves. We choose to do sin or to do good. God has never decided that for us. Thus He did not make us sick, we made ourselves sick. And in order to argue that Catholicism is true, I have to have a foundation. First I would have to argue that a creator exists, who I choose to call God. I am not sure what your current stance on that is: Whether a creator exists or not.
3. Yes the actions are what matters. But ask yourself, did the Church itself itself participate in immoral actions, or did individuals within the Church participate in immoral actions? Another way to think about it is: If one player in baseball uses steroids, do you conclude then that the entire team is guilty on the grounds that one individual took steroids? No. If certain members within the Church rape children, is it fair to condemn the entire Church which directly speaks against pedophilia? No. You are applying the logical fallacy of Common Application to an entire group for the actions of certain individuals within that group. And no, the Church stands firm on celibacy within the Church. There is nothing wrong with remaining strong on virtue.
4. Well first of all, women are not allowed to become ministers under the teachings of the Catholic Church for a few reasons:
a. The priest represents Christ during the consecration of the bread and wine. He acts "in persona Christi"-the image of Christ. The means that, in order to display effective symbolism, the priest MUST be a male since Jesus was a male. It would be like if a female played the role of Spartacus in the movie 300. Would that accurately represent the historical nature of the events? Of course not.
b. Also, tradition does not allow for it. Jesus never appointed a female as a priest (one of the 12). It would further severe the historical authenticity of the sacrament itself. It cannot be done.
Now, we have to understand abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and therefore, violates natural rights to life and is wrong and should be illegal. that is a whole other debate, but if you want, you can look at my profile where I argue effectively upon why abortion is immoral. The Church has never proclaimed in doctrine or dogma that women should not have paying jobs. The Church openly supports human equality. And I am confused as to which specific statistic shows that missionary Churches directly result in higher mortality rates. Could you provide that specifically in the text?
5. Well, this is a tough question. We have to understand the historical context of the crusades. Muslim forces invaded the Holy Land by force, murdered innocent Catholics, and set up shop in a district not rightfully theres obtained through oppression. As a response, Catholics had a right to go to war in order to end the persecution of their fellow people. They had a right to life that needed to be protected. However, some aspects of the crusades were immoral such as the attempted usage of children in the Children's Crusade. As a whole, the Crusades are permissible, but certain aspects are immoral.
6. I do not interpret the Bible. The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit as well as years of earthly study and reason interpret the Bible for me. That is their sole job. It is not my intended job to interpret the Bible. What you would be implying is the foundation for the Protestant reformation. Sola Scriptura is what you are referencing when asking if I interpret the Bible which is strictly teaching of Martin Luther, not the Catholic Church. But, there are both historical and metaphorical aspects to the Bible which have been interpreted by the Magisterium. Given all these, the stories in the Bible make sense.
7. I do not have a "fetish" for Catholicism because
a. My belief is not irrational
b. Believing in God is more than just worshiping a spirit.
But I do digress.
Lets think about this logically:
According to the law of non-contradiction, if one religion (or lack of) must be true, then all others must be false. So If i honestly believe Catholicism to be the true religion, and if it is, then all other religions must be false. Does that mean I hate other sects? No. Thats silly. However, there are logically mistaken in their beliefs. And I would argue why their religion is and mine is not. And if it can be proven that my religion is false, then I would want to follow whichever is the objective truth.
I have not really thought about this, but my gut would say, based on the fact that both are objectively false, then I would prefer a false belief if those beliefs are just. But I will think about that question some more.
Yes please lets assume Catholicism is false. This next statement I find outrageous, It made my stomach turn. Take for example Fr"ulein Fritzl, in Austria? Whose father, Joseph Fritzel kept her in a dungeon where she didn't see sunlight for twenty-four years. And came down most nights to rape and sodomize her, often in front of the children who were victims of the previous rapes. Imagine how she must have begged him. Imagine how she must have pleaded. Imagine for how long. Imagine how she must have prayed everyday. How she must have beseeched heaven. Imagine, for twenty-four years. And no answer at all. Nothing. Now you say that"s alright that she went through that. Because she'll get a better deal in another life? No, that had to happen, and heaven did watch it with indifference. Because it knows that that score will later on be settled. So it was well worth her going through it, she'll have a better time next time. I don't see how you can live with yourself and say anything so hideously, wickedly immoral as that. Or even imply it. This is the brain on religion folks.
I was referring to the church's silence during Hitler's 'final solution', an institution that you believe is a beacon of hope could not even stand up to real evil when it was staring the world in the face.
2. You strike me as someone who has not even read the doctrines you are defending, we are created sick as punishment for 'original sin' something for some reason we are all automatically implemented in even though we had no say in the matter (another wicked teaching of Catholicism), thus my original question that you dogged still remains.
3. Well in my country the rugby league team named 'Melbourne Storm' was caught out for breaching the salary cap and had their previous premierships stripped from them even though not everyone was guilty.
But still again you dodged my question I did not apply any "logical fallacy" I not once implemented all priests in the matter, the question was due to the fact that there is a high number of priests that abuse children could their be something wrong with the culture of the priesthood, or perhaps there is something about priesthood that attract pedophiles? I suggested something like abstinence I couldn't care less about priest "virtue" when children are being harmed and neither should you. So answer the question.
4. I'd say when a "tradition" excludes half the human race just for being born then the tradition is immoral. Also because you feel they are tying to accurately represent Jesus should the priests that perform this duties not only be male but also middle eastern why does it only apply to gender and not race? You can have white, black and Asian priests but god forbid there be a female. It seems to me you are trying but failing to defend obvious sexism.
When did I mention or imply abortion? If you are referring to where I said that women should have control over her reproductive cycle that means it's the woman's choice whether she want's to have a child and start a family or not, and we all know the church loves to bang on about having children for whatever reason even in countries that can't afford to feed the already existing population.
It's from all the statistics in my 'empowerment of women' argument, if you see the one where women rights are being opposed by the church in the reference I gave and then refer it to the other references where I stated the cure to poverty is the empowerment of women you realize that poverty obviously leads to death, and many of the church's teachings surrounding women will sustain poverty.
5. I'm glad to see some common sense prevailing that the crusades do not have your full support.
6. Maybe I should have asked it differently, what catholic view do you accept the creationist version that the earth was created in 7 days and all that literal view of genesis nonsense, or the more scientific catholic view that god was the prime mover, the initial cause for events such as the big bang and perhaps even evolution also how long do you think the human race, homo sapiens have been around for?
7. What do you think happens to these mormons and protestants and even non believers once they die?
8. You seemed to hint towards having someone born of the wrong faith rather than no faith. So my follow up question would be would you rather a baby be born in somewhere say such as Saudi Arabia be born as a non believer baby or born as a Wahhabi muslim baby?
And my final question for now would be what is your view on any form of human slavery?
Thank you I hope this time around the answer will be more honest.
The Pope can have a higher authority on the earth when it comes to non-spiritual matters. A trained scientist has more authority on chemical reactions than the Pope. That is pretty obvious and Catholicism agrees. So I do agree there is higher authority than the Pope when it comes to determining that Earth is the center of the universe. And also, the only thing Catholics HAVE to agree upon is dogma and doctrine. It was NEVER dogma or doctrine that the Earth HAD to be the center of the universe on order for the faith to be true.
Yes i do realize the Crusades were outlined. However, morally, the initial phases of the Crusades were justified. If someone invades your country, you have the right to defend your people. That is what happened when Muslims invaded and killed Catholics in the Holy Land. The people in the Crusades were responsible for the Crusades. Part of the Catholic faith itself through dogma and doctrine has never been to mandate a Holy War. But for the sake of this argument, then the Church could also be held responsible if we are referencing the Earthly aspect of the Catholic Church.
What she went through is awful. And Jesus and Catholicism would say that we should do everything in our power to prevent and stop such an atrocity. We shouldn't just sit around and watch innocent people be harmed. That is why Catholics do missionary work: to help the innocent. I never would say what she went through is "alright" because that in and of itself is immoral. Ignoring an immoral action is immoral in itself. So your argument really doesnt even apply to Catholicism since no Catholic would sit around and just say "Oh hey, those actions were totally permissible since she can go to heaven anyway." Remember, Jesus himself suffered torture and a horrendous death in front of crowds of spitting and mocking people. God Himself made Himself man in order to partake in human suffering with us.
And if Catholicism as a whole entirely ignored the persecution of Jews (and remember Jesus was a Jew) then that would be immoral. I am not ignorant enough to deny and contradict myself. However, if that even happened, I doubt the Catholic Church didn't speak out at least once against Hitler or try to help some persecuted humans.
2. No, you forget there had to humans before original sin in order for a human to create original sin. That means IN THE BEGINNING God made human beings a perfectly moral beings. However, humans choose to fall themselves by doing sin. They had to fall from perfection, which, by logical conclusion, means the God must have created us perfect in the beginning. And yes, we don't have a say in the matter of original sin. However, in a way we do because at any point we can be Baptized and have it removed. And that doesn't have to be a traditional Baptism through water, which most people forget, That means people who aren't traditionally baptized into the Catholic faith can still have original sin removed. Thus your original question is a resounding no.
3. there is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. Abstinence and pedophilia do not happen as a result of each other. In this case, the action of not having sex does not inherently lead to rape therefore the teaching of abstinence is not wrong. Of course, it should be further to priests about the reminders of child pedophilia and actions should be done to convict offenders. However, I would not say that the Church is at fault for the actions of individual priests. And with regards to your rugby circumstance: The team itself breached the salary cap. Therefore, the institution (aka the team) should be prosecuted. This does not apply to the Church however because the Church as an institution has never "breached a salary cap" so to speak.
4. Like I said, there are Baptism in three forms, any of which can be received at any time. So it does not exclude anyone. I can discuss each form of Baptism if you'd like. And the reason is this: Is there any extraordinary significance between a African male and an Australian male? Nope. Is there any extraordinary difference between an American male and a British male and a Middle Eastern male. Nope. Is there an extraordinary difference between a male and a female. Yes. They are inherently different. Biology alone tells us that. It would be like saying a red skittle is different from a blue skittle if we make priests dependent on race. They are the same. But a female priest would be like comparing a Snickers to a skittle. They are very different. Now of course this is a simplistic analogy. It is not sexist. Is it sexist to have a woman bathroom separate from a males bathroom? No. Is it racist to have a black bathroom separate from a white bathroom? Yes. You see, gender is something the Church embraces. Racial inequality is not. Each gender has its own gift. A female is bestowed different gifts than a male and vice versa.
And it seemed fairly apparent that, at least when referenced in America "a right to control your reproductive cycle" includes a right to receive an abortion. And yes the Church loves to address that issue because it is important. However, two wrongs don't make a right. If the Catholic Church is truly inspired by God, then it follows it has full authority on what sex means. Therefore, if sex means that you cant wear a condom because it doesn't fulfill the meaning of sex, then that "safe" sex is immoral. I can discuss the meaning of sex as well if you wish.
The Church does nothing to purposely hold back woman. By protecting rights of children and the sacredness of sex, the Church has not committed a crime.
5. Yes not every aspect of the Crusades was moral on either side.
6. I believe that the Earth was created by the Big Bang as well as the rest of the universe. The Big Bang, by the way, was discovered by A Jesuit priest. Just a fun fact. But anyway, I accept that God is the creator in the "Scientific Catholic view" you have provided. And well, I am not sure how long they have been around. That is a question science can answer. I would say a million years or maybe longer. I am not even remotely sure though.
7. Humanity can never be certain which humans are in Hell. But I have firm belief that if they were good people, as promised, then they go to heaven. If not, they may end up in Hell. It doesn't matter what religious sect you belong to necessarily, because you can still achieve Heaven either way. It just seems to make more sense to take the direct path towards heaven, which I believe is outlined by the Catholic faith.
8. To be direct, I personally believe it doesn't even matter since anyone can be a good person given any circumstance, But if I had to choose, and if the Wahhabi Muslims practice immoral behavior, then I would prefer that child be born an atheist. Like i said before, I would rather see a just belief over an unjust belief, and if atheism leads to being a better human being, then Id rather see the child as atheist who, unbeknownst to him, is actually doing God's will.
9. Human slavery is immoral. And I am almost positive I know where this question is leading. Don't fret, I have been dealt such a question before as it appears to be a favorite argument.
If you say as you do that there was no dogma or doctrine that said the earth was the center of the universe why lock up an innocent man for releasing the fact; Galileo?
Pope Urban II it has been said used this parable/ spiritual lesson Luke 19:11-27 " But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them"bring them here and kill them in front of me" to justify the first crusade. In your submission is this not doctrine found in the bible that could be used to mandate holy war?
So in your view human sacrifice and vicarious redemption are good things?
I'm sure the church would not have had to apologise for not speaking up for the jews if they had spoken up for the jews.
2. Good to see you answer the question.
3. However you failed again to answer this question. The question is not about abstinence. The question is due to the fact that there is a high number of priests that abuse children could their be something wrong with the culture of the priesthood? That's it, I suggested abstinence as one possible reason, you disagreed but you did still not give me your view which is what I want.
4. I find your analogy here very weak and still sexist. It's not like comparing a snickers and a skittle at all they are both human beings to refer to your analogy both skittles. I know in my country australia unisex bathrooms are on the rise. but a possibility of why they are separate is not because they are different and should be kept separate as you would have, but could be argued a safety issue. But all this still begs the question since you're so hung up on gender roles, what is the role are the women left with?
I'm glad you raised the issue of condoms, id like to know what in your view is worse condoms or aids?
5. (there is no need to continue the back and forth with this one)
6. You agreed to the big bang and were unsure how long the human race homo sapiens have been around your estimation was in the millions, not quite but it does not matter you can substitute the relevant mathematics if you want for my next question.
Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins (a devout christian) says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins (a devout atheist) thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. This is what you have to believe In order to be a catholic, for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, not knowing how disease spread or what earthquakes or storms were all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't let's appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. I'd say this is nonsense. So my question is to you, does this seem plausible, do you truly believe this?
7. Even though the dogma of the church and it is the dogma, is that only catholics can go to heaven? You also Implied that humans can never know what happens when you die which I agree with, so do you think it is moral that the church has for centuries been holding the keys to heaven and hell telling people what will lead there if no one can know for certain what happens when you die?
8. I'm glad to see you have taken a step back from 'false faith'. Now if it where proven beyond doubt that catholicism was false would it then not in your view be a wicked, evil teaching?
9. I think you feel I am leading towards the warrants for slavery found in the bible however I shall not raise that. I'm glad you and I can both agree that slavery is wrong. However If I was you I would feel I would be very dishonest to say god also agrees with us. This is a god who tells us what we should eat or not eat, what to do on our days of (sabbath), how to punish people and for what crimes (often calling for death for the most insignificant crimes like disrespecting your parents), tells us whom we can sleep with and in what position, can punish us for thoughtcrime (just for what we think), creates us sick as apparently we are and then orders us to be well again under pain of eternal torture. This is celestial dictatorship, a divine North Korea, totalitarian. And to wish to live this way is to wish to live as an abject slave. Again in your view is this teaching of catholicism not slavery in it's most myriad of forms?
First we have to look at the historical context of Galileo which is often distorted. He was being funded by the Pope. His studies were under supervision of the Church. The Church granted Galileo with equipment and supplies. So in the beginning the Church was in full support of Galileo. However, Galileo did inevitably reason that the Earth is not the center of the universe. This simply went against the personal beliefs of the Pope and prior Popes and society itself. However, at no point in Church history was it a dogma to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. Even the Pope can hold his own personal beliefs on certain things. It is when Galileo began to openly insult his former friend, the Pope, that he was sent to be locked away inside his summer home. There, he was still funded by the Church and got to live out the rest of his life in the comfort of his vacation home where he continued running experiments and discovering physical attributes of the universe. Even then, the Church was ok with his scientific discovery.
I believe that passage justifies but does not mandate the Holy War. I am using justify to mean permit and mandate to mean necessitate in this context. But either way, I still feel that the Holy War was necessary in order to stop the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land since those Christians had a right to live.
Human sacrifice is not good. But unfortunately, humans kill other innocent humans because we submit ourselves to sin. So Jesus, the Son of God, undertook human suffering so that the entirety of humanity may face the resurrection promised to us all. Resurrection would be the greatest the thing I believe, because at that point, you have made it into eternal and perfect joy and happiness. The redemption that occurs at the resurrection was not vicarious. And I believe I can argue that the resurrection did happen very well. But that is a whole other debate topic that would take some time.
In retrospect they may feel they did not do enough, however, I firmly believe they did take at least some actions to assist the Jews being persecuted. The Church did not entirely ignore the horrendous actions of Hitler.
3. I believe not having sex for so long would be a incredibly difficult action that certainly could result in twisted views on sex. I also feel that some priests (before they are priests) joined the priesthood as a sick plot to get closer to children (But actually at that point since the intention was never to truly fulfill the duties of a priest when taking the vow, that person isn't truly a Catholic priest in the objective sense). And I would take legal action against whichever priest make such offenses. But this being said, the priesthood itself is not at fault for the actions of individuals. The priesthood as a set of rules and guidelines is fine. it takes a lot to be a priest, and that is purposely done so not everyone can do the job. It takes a special person. But we could also discuss this more deeply as well.
4. Ok back to my original analogy. If you went to see a movie about Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler and Stalin and Ceasar and and Pope Francis, would it feel right if a female were playing all of those roles? Not really, since it is not historically accurate. Would the "Passion of the Christ" have been as relatable and believable if a female clearly played the role of Jesus? Not really, since Jesus was historically a male. I wouldn't have been excited to see Jennifer Anniston play the role of Batman in "The Dark Knight" over Christian Bale because Batman has to be a guy. And vice versa. I wouldn't want to see a male have played the role of Marie Antionette in a movie since Marie was historically a female. So is that sexist too? Of course not. So when Jesus says "Do this in memory of me" we can think about that, for the case of the argument, as a historical line in a movie. If we were making a documentary on the Life of Abraham Lincoln, we most importantly would have a male play the role of Lincoln. So we too would have a male play the role of Jesus in this "movie" (aka mass) where we remember the historical event that was the Last Supper just like we would have a male play the part of Abraham Lincoln when he proclaims "Four-Score and...."
Women play important roles. They first and foremost are mothers. There is no deeper love a mother has for her son and only woman get to experience that role. Is that sexist? No. Mary the Mother of God is Jesus' own most loved human on the planet. Woman played an important role. A woman brought the Son of God into this world. No man has ever been able to play that role in life. Women also can serve as sisters to the Church just like males serve as brothers. And I believe women can be deacons but I am not positive with that one.
Well yes AIDs is very bad. Worse than a condom since the condom itself is amoral, but the action of using one becomes immoral. Although I do digress. If Catholicism is true, then so are its teachings on sexuality, If, in order for the sex to be moral it must be 1. Love communicating and 2. Open to new life, then using a condom negates the 2nd thus making the sex immoral. Since the sex is immoral, we cannot justify two wrongs to make a right. I cannot kill one innocent child to save two innocent children. I cannot stop the spread of AIDS by doing an immoral action. I cant rob the store to feed my family. When making a decisions if either the actions itself, intent, or circumstance becomes immoral, then the whole act is immoral. Certainly the intent to stop AIDS and save lives is moral, however, the action itself is immoral thus making the entire act immoral.
6. Well first of all, isn't there still suffering and war and poverty on Earth even though God has already as you say, "intervened." Yes there is. So by coming 98,000 years ago that wouldn't have necessarily stopped all of that either. But in my honest answer, I do not know why God chose 2000 years ago to send His Son. To say I do would be to say I know the inner workings of the mind of God, which no one can. I do not know why Hitler ultimately choose to kill the Jews, no one truly does. I do not know why John F. Kennedy's assassin decided to kill JFK. All I know is that it happened. And the same applies here. I cannot know why God chose 2000 years anymore than I know why you decided to create a debate.com account. I can have reasonable speculation as to why God may have though:
He has been revealing Himself for awhile. To Moses and the Hebrews and so forth. By the time Jesus was alive, Rome was at a climax of power. They were like an ancient Las Vegas: a city of sin, sex, dirt, drug abuse and much more. Jesus came perhaps to settle a pseudo rising of power. Perhaps the culture was now at a time where it had become advanced enough to spread God's message across seas and plains in writing. Perhaps he choose Nazareth since it was a humble place, as humble as Mary. Perhaps God choose the Middle East because that is where His law needed to be finally be brought to fruition. Jesus was placed in the central location of the Jewish faith. And Jesus, if the Son of God, was the completion and fulfillment of the Jewish religion. I think that last reason is the most plausible, but even then, I can never prove it.
7. Well in a sense, only Catholics do go to Heaven because whether you know it or not, i you die and have lived a life that has upheld God's will, you truly do become Baptized into the Catholic faith. So, in a literal sense, only Catholics go to heaven. But you don't have to be traditionally Baptized in a Church to be a Catholic. And Jesus says that He gives Peter the keys t heaven and that he is the rock upon who I founded my Church. Jesus tells us that the Catholic Church holds the keys to heaven so it is moral. And ultimately, the Church does not force us into either Heaven or Hell. We decide by how we live our lives whether we go to Heaven or Hell even though we will not know for sure. But we have faith since God is good that through His forgiveness everything we do is absolved and we all can go to Heaven.
8. As I have said earlier, If it is false, then it is a horrible and cruel lie and I would hate it. Although after years of doubting religion then studying it, I have found answers to my own previous hindrances with Catholicism. If someone can definitively prove to me that Catholicism is inaccurate, then Id have to abandon it an seek truth.
9. All the things you've have said aren't examples of slavery. Slavery is being forced into doing unreasonable things against your will. When God tells us to do something, He acts as an advisor. He requests things of us. He doesn't force us to do it otherwise everyone would attend mass every Sunday like a slave. Because we see people doing immoral actions, that automatically negates any argument for God being like a slave owner to us since God would force that action to not occur. God is like a parent who makes rules in the house. He will not force us to follow these rules, rather, He allows us to use our free will to either choose to follow them or not. If this were slavery, then their couldn't be atheists or devil worshippers since God would eliminate anyone who blatantly disagrees with Him. We wouldn't even be having this conversation right now
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.