Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Confused - Where do I fit in?
-
04-01-2009 7:16pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
Hello, happy new year to you.Ok I have faith and religion , I am Catholic but the only worrying thing is , I disagree on alot of our belief system. I believe in evolution and dont believe in Adam and Eve, I disagree on the church's view on Abortion.
The question is am I a hypocrite in practicing a faith where I find it hard to believe some of its teachings.
Re Adam and Eve, the Church teaches that they were the first true human beings in the sense that God have them immortal spiritual souls which no other creature on earth had been endowed with. They might have evolved from lower animals or not, the Church doesn't know and in many ways it doesn't really matter a whole lot.
Your disagreement with the Church's teaching on abortion is a far more serious matter. It's easy to condone abortion if you've never seen the reality of it. Have you looked at any videos of embryo's being cut up?
The Church teaches that life begins at conception so that age or maturity of the foetus has no bearing on its human dignity or personhood.
God bless,
Noel.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I think that might be my only choice.
Though, to a large extent, I think my parents would nto welcome any changes in my religion. They are staunchly Catholic, and if I were to even change to another christian denomination, I doubt they would approve, and so of course I have familial bonds with the religion more so than anything else.
But thank you. Maybe I should just look into other denominations!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
This is nothing to do with what I believe or don't believeSo if a married couple have sex and can't/don't produce kids they are sinners. Do people actaully believe this ? Why is religion obsessed with sex ?
Do you believe this ? Are you married ?
It's my understanding of what the Church teaches and I could be wrong about it My opinion on the matter isn't up for grabs here one way or the other.
People should definitely be free to change their religion as they see fit and if it fits in with their beliefs. Expecting the religion to change is hardly a waste of time, there were once married popes, who's to say there won't be in the future?
Why are people afrid to stand up to their beliefs. Why be afrid to loose the label of the religion you were born with. If you no longer believe then you are not of that faith. You have two options., resolve your problem or find another religion. Expecting the religion to change is a waste of time IMO
There was once a 'limbo' where stillborn babies went to, now (somewhat magically, thanks to new interpretations) there isn't At one time the Church would have slit you in two for suggesting that Adam and Eve was just allegorical, these days it's readily accepted.
The church will change but just like all archaic corporations, change can be very, very slow. However, that change will be even slower so long as people continue to accept whatever the church tells them is right without questioning it.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Caoimhe89 said:
I wouldn't want to dispute your difficulties with the RCC, but I will be glad to answer the issues from a Bible-believing perspective.I'm facing a similar crisis in faith as the OP. I have been brought up as a Catholic my whole life (and not just in name: I go to mass every sunday, and do the readings and sing in choir) but at the moment, I find myself morally objecting to quite a few of the Catholic church's dogmas.
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God-given sexuality. But it does not teach us to hate gays; rather we are to seek their salvation. Same as for the heterosexual sin of fornication.I disagree with the Church's stance on gay people, as I feel that it is hardly in the spirit of 'love your neighbour' that I have always sensed in the Gospel, at least.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a separate priesthood in the New covenant Church. All that passed with the abolition of the Old Covenant. Now every Christian, male and female, are priests of God. The RCC resurrected the separate priesthood because it wanted control of the faithful.I disagree with the Church's blatant disregard for the women of the faith. I have yet to see any biblical reference which disallows women from becoming priests. There is not, as I see it, any justifiable reasoning behind this lack of equality. (Though I would be happy to hear it, if it exits)
As to the role of women in the Church, the NT restricts the teaching/ruling office (pastors/elders/overseerers/bishops - all the same office) to men. The apostles give clear commands on this in such places as:
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
It is just one example of Pharisee-types substituting the commandments of men for the commandments of God. In fact, it is one of the marks the Bible gives of the false teachers who would arise:I disagree with the Church's line on priests marrying. This rule was only introduced in the middle ages so that the Church would stop losing its land to the sons of the clergy. I see this dogma as being out of date.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Matthew 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
The historic Christian position is creationist and holds to a literal Adam & Eve. Though the RCC now accepts evolution for all the rest, it seems to still hold to a literal Adam & Eve.I'm glad to hear that the whole Adam/Eve as an allegory thing is accepted in the Catholic Church, or else I would have to add that I disagree with creationism.I'll leave abortion out of this for a minute because I have no moral objections to the Pro-Life doctrine.
You can safely ignore what the RCC or any other church says. But you cannot do so for what the word of God says. If you have difficulties with it, you need to get before God in prayer and ask Him to reveal His truth to you.So my question is this - if we are given a conscience from God, which I believe we are, and this conscience has a moral objection with the word of God as preached by the Catholic Faith, where does that leave me?
You cannot assume you are hearing your conscience right - it may be telling you something your heart/mind does not want to hear.0 -
-
Groan! Not this piece of flim-flammery again. You might as well say that the penal laws and the prohibition of murder are exactly the same because both were enforced on the Irish in the 17th Century by the occupying English colonisers!Phototoxin wrote: »the bible teaches that eating shellfish is sinful too... www.godhatesshellfish.com
The restriction on eating shellfish was part of the dietary laws of the Old Testament ceremonial law that was observed by the Jews. The New Testament specifically states that when Jesus Christ came then that ceremonial law was cancelled. It also states that we are free to eat whatever we want.
Homosexual acts were declared sinful in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not cancel this, instead it reinforces this view and continues to talk of homosexual acts as being sinful.
You might not like this, and there is a homosexuality thread elsewhere on the board if anyone thinks they have anything new to contribute to the pile of horse manure that has already been written on that subject.
No, the Bible's authority does not come from the RCC.hard when the bibles authority comes from the RCC reject them (as I do) and there is no proof for the bibles veracity.
The Jews were treating the Old Testament books as authoritative for hundreds of years, and we have clear evidence that early Christians were treating the letters of Paul as Scripture and authoritative for centuries before any Church Council ever decreed them to be such.
I'm not so sure. Was it cheap and fear mongering to show film footage of the piles of bodies in the Nazi death camps? Or was it a legitimate effort to make sure people realised what was going on.while I am against abortion, I agree with that argument of gore. Showing somethin ugly isn't an argument its cheap and fear mongering.
Similarly, the end of the Vietnam War was hastened by photographs of US atrocities (I'm thinking of that iconic but heartrending photo of a young girl fleeing naked and burnt down the road in terror after the US firebombed her village). Are the pictures of dead children in bombed schools in Gaza scaremongering, or a legitimate response to Israeli briefings about 'precision military strikes'?
The abortion industry uses such clinical and neat language (eg 'termination') that maybe it's good to be reminded what actually happens.0 -
Similarly, the end of the Vietnam War was hastened by photographs of US atrocities (I'm thinking of that iconic but heartrending photo of a young girl fleeing naked and burnt down the road in terror after the US firebombed her village). Are the pictures of dead children in bombed schools in Gaza scaremongering, or a legitimate response to Israeli briefings about 'precision military strikes'?
The abortion industry uses such clinical and neat language (eg 'termination') that maybe it's good to be reminded what actually happens.
Good response. Earlier in the thread someone cack-mindedly said, 'I wouldn't go around showing people pictures of grotesque tumours to persuade them not to have their cancer operated on'. As if that was some kind of point. I dunno 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Good response. Earlier in the thread someone cack-mindedly said, 'I wouldn't go around showing people pictures of grotesque tumours to persuade them not to have their cancer operated on'. As if that was some kind of point. I dunno
The point is that someone should make a decision based on evidence and reason, not be swayed by images which display how graphic and ugly the process is.
With regards to an abortion, the following could happen
- A woman would be told about the procedure, the possible complications etc and would discuss with the father the best course of action (or with close family or whatever depending on the situation). She would come to an informed decision about which path she wanted to go down and be able to carry out her plans based on reason and modified by her own feelings about childbirth, abortion etc.
- A woman could be shown graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, zoomed in to show off every little fetal appendage (the real thing is rather tiny), with blood and membranes oozing everywhere. If she listens to religion, she would be told that abortion is wrong and the same as murder, that she's a horrible person if she does it etc. Immediately her viewpoint is no longer balanced, abortion has become completely an emotional issue (as opposed to partially, as above) and she is much less likely to make a decision that would be reasonable for her.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »The point is that someone should make a decision based on evidence and reason, not be swayed by images which display how graphic and ugly the process is.
So we should make decisions on 'evidence' that hides or ignores how graphic and ugly a process is, rather than pictoral evidence that actually shows how graphic and ugly it is?
Did I just step into a parallel universe?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement