Roman Catholicism

1. Exactly. Either His laws are eternal or they are not. That is perfect logical conclusion and I agree. However, were the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus divinely inspired by God? No. Those laws were the human customs prior to Jesus' own life. Those laws were not the laws of God, those were the laws of people formed by Jewish statesmen. That is why Jesus came, as He said, to "fulfill the law." That quote means He would change the human laws into laws that corresponded to God's will. 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. 2. Yes 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. 5. Agreed 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