• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask a Catholic

What is the official Catholic stance on alcohol? it seems very 'liberal' compared with most religions- in practice at least!
From the Catechism:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.
He does profess the dogmas of the church which would include that Jesus is the son of God, but he does have very liberal ecumenical views , but surely he doesn't speak those ex cathedra and nobody interprets them as infallible or changes in church doctrine.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
What is the official Catholic stance on alcohol? it seems very 'liberal' compared with most religions- in practice at least!
Yes it is liberal , but drunkeness is considered one of the seven deadly sins in the form of gluttony.

The Church also warns the faithful against intoxicants that lower their inhibitions to the point of increasing their likelihood to do what goes against their conscience.

But yes, you can have a few alcoholic beverages every day without the church calling it a sin.

The first miracle of Jesus was turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Yes it is liberal , but drunkeness is considered one of the seven deadly sins in the form of gluttony.

The Church also warns the faithful against intoxicants that lower their inhibitions to the point of increasing their likelihood to do what goes against their conscience.

But yes, you can have a few alcoholic beverages every day without the church calling it a sin.

The first miracle of Jesus was turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana.

I'd agree with that perspective in general- and as Ben Franklin said, about wine being proof God likes to see us happy...

There are many pleasures in life, they can all be over-done, and it's impossible to avoid some like food.. so seeking a balance of pleasure and temperance would seem to be an inevitable part of God's plan..
 
He's possibly an agnostic or a pure deist. He certainly doesn't subscribe to the hardcore christian faith.
You haven't been following Pope Francis then. He has an unbelievable humility, forgives all trespasses, prays for everyone in the world (constantly asked for prayers as well saying "he needs them"), embraces all people as brothers and sisters and keeps all of the church doctrines in place. Not once has he changed a doctrine only given special permission to make it easier for people to obtain forgiveness.

He wants a poor church for the poor and holds himself accountable to that standard. I thank God for Pope Francis.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Even all the Christians of the world combined cannot invent a fact, if it never happened. If it did happen then even one should be able to give reasonable arguments for it .The truth is very clear, none of the twelve disciples or the scribes who wrote four-Gospels was an eye-witness. They did not write first hand account of the event as they were not there. Very simple, please.
Any other from the Christian people! Please

Regards

I believe you are fantasizing because the evidence is that John was an eyewiitness.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
serp777 said:
How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.

He's possibly an agnostic or a pure deist. He certainly doesn't subscribe to the hardcore christian faith.
You mean the pope?
Regards
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
serp777 said:
How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.
And how did you draw this conclusion? I have heard him speak many times, and there simply is nothing that I have heard him say that should lead to that. The closest thing that you might have confused is that he, and RCC theology in general, has always taught that some narratives may include symbolism of one type or another, but that's rather obvious even if an elementary school child were to read them.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
serp777 said:
How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.
And how did you draw this conclusion? I have heard him speak many times, and there simply is nothing that I have heard him say that should lead to that. The closest thing that you might have confused is that he, and RCC theology in general, has always taught that some narratives may include symbolism of one type or another, but that's rather obvious even if an elementary school child were to read them.
It was an observation of serp777 actually which I questioned to know as to what does he mean with that.
Regards
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
serp777 said:
How about this one: the current pope takes most things in the bible metaphorically. he might as well be a deist, or rather, a cultural christian. One wonders whether he actually believes that Jesus was literally the son of God.

It was an observation of serp777 actually which I questioned to know as to what does he mean with that.
Regards
I misunderstood that this was whom you were responding to, so sorry about that.
 
I am well versed in Catholic Apologetics for I spent a year in a monastery studying it all.

I put this in the debate section that you may challenge and fire your arrows at the Pope! :)
Why do you think God's personal name was removed from many bible translations, and would you/do you willingly support or condone the use of a bible that has God's personal name removed?

I think it's not only disrespectful to our creator but is also misleading and more than likely why a lot of people are confused and think God's Son Jesus is God Almighty. What do you think? (See this link -----> https://researchsupportsthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/why-is-gods-name-missing-from-many-bibles/ or check the preface in your bible for more info) read revelation 22:18,19
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Why do you think God's personal name was removed from many bible translations, and would you/do you willingly support or condone the use of a bible that has God's personal name removed?
I think it's not only disrespectful to our creator but is also misleading and more than likely why a lot of people are confused and think God's Son Jesus is God Almighty. What do you think? (See this link -----> https://researchsupportsthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/why-is-gods-name-missing-from-many-bibles/ or check the preface in your bible for more info) read revelation 22:18,19
To add it now in the Bible as JW's have done is most disrespectful also when it was not written already in the NT Gospels or the Torah.
Regards.
 
To add it now in the Bible as JW's have done is most disrespectful also when it was not written already in the NT Gospels or the Torah.
Regards.
I think this is what happened: a group of honest hearted bible scholars went back to the oldest manuscripts available and when their translation of the bible was produced they kept the divine name Jehovah where it belongs instead of removing it and replacing it with LORD like some chose to do, and you're saying this is the offense? So removing God's name from his word is okay in your eyes? What makes you say JWs added God's name to the NT?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think this is what happened: a group of honest hearted bible scholars went back to the oldest manuscripts available and when their translation of the bible was produced they kept the divine name Jehovah where it belongs instead of removing it and replacing it with LORD like some chose to do, and you're saying this is the offense? So removing God's name from his word is okay in your eyes? What makes you say JWs added God's name to the NT?
As has been told you already, and yet you keep returning back to it, "Jehovah" is not the correct name because there's no "J" sound in Hebrew. Why do you harp on other people and yet you continually don't go about to correct your own error?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Please quote from the NT Gospels where it is mentioned by name that John was an eye-witness of the incident of Crucifixion. Will one please?
Regards

I believe John does not use His own name but the reference is clear that it was John:
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I think this is what happened: a group of honest hearted bible scholars went back to the oldest manuscripts available and when their translation of the bible was produced they kept the divine name Jehovah where it belongs instead of removing it and replacing it with LORD like some chose to do, and you're saying this is the offense? So removing God's name from his word is okay in your eyes? What makes you say JWs added God's name to the NT?

I believe honest people can be wrong about things but people who change the Bible to suit their own beliefs are eminently dishonest.
 
Top