Howdy men.

[Redwing]

Just a question, based on edlib's and Keyan's previous posts:

 

If a Catholic doctrine is wrong, a Catholic cannot question it, because Catholic doctrine cannot be wrong according to the Catholic religion. Thus the argument does seem to boil down to "whether or not you believe the Catholic church is the absolute spiritual authority in the universe" because on that hinges your ability to question it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong?

[edlib]

Well, that's all I was saying.

 

I still don't see a problem with that statement.

 

1. I don't see where mankind's use or disuse of artificial means of conception within an otherwise strong marrage between two loving people as a form of familiy planning could EVER possibly be a sin, no matter what the church founders may have believed from the beginning. (see point 2)

If it was such a strong issue with God I believe there would be no way for anyone to possibly think otherwise, it would be in clear language as a commandment. To me the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are pretty unmistakable, but the word "Adultery," as I've always heard it defined, can only be applied to activities outside a marrage. Nothing I have ever read on the issue has led me to believe there is ANYTHING immoral about the use of contraception in this instance. All the other scriptures I have ever seen to attack contraception leave a rather vague impression in my mind of God's plans, at best. The God that I read about in the Bible pulled no punches... if mankind was or wasn't supposed to do something,.. He said so! In clear, unmistakable language, with no room left for human interpretation.

 

2. I don't believe many of the practices and beliefs supposedly handed down by church elders have anything to do with what Christ himself, as well as the Apostles, actually practiced. In other words: I don't think that there is a form of organized Christianity today that resembles the Church as founded in the first century. Many of the traditional teachings and beliefs taught today (by all Christian denominations) were established after the Apostles were long dead.

 

Even though I subscribe to many of the beliefs of Christianity, am I beholden to the tenets of Catholisim? All Catholics are Christian, but does that also equate to all Christians have to therefore be Catholic?

I don't believe that has ever truly been the case, and I guess that's where the conflict lies.

The argument has been repetedly made in this thread that the Catholic chuch is the one true church, founded by Christ and the Apostles, and that ALL the other denominations we see today have sprung out of it. That many of the teachings of these other denominations are corruptions of the true teachings of Catholism, and are often contrary to what God and Christ intended.

I don't really believe this.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing

Just a question, based on edlib's and Keyan's previous posts:

 

If a Catholic doctrine is wrong, a Catholic cannot question it, because Catholic doctrine cannot be wrong according to the Catholic religion. Thus the argument does seem to boil down to "whether or not you believe the Catholic church is the absolute spiritual authority in the universe" because on that hinges your ability to question it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

You can ALWAYS question it in an effort to learn more about it, but in the end, if the Church makes a definite teaching on faith or morals, all Catholics must accept it as truth. But the reason that that is not the whole argument is that the teaching in question was held by Catholics and Protestants alike until recently. Obviously, under the Protestant way of thinking, there is still reason to consider artifical birth control methods immoral. If the argument were authority of the pope or something, THAT would be a Catholic/Protestant issue. And the only reason the authority of the pope and all that "Catholic stuff" has come up is because I was conversing with another Catholic about it.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Admiral

Keyan, but man does determine right and wrong.

 

For instance not all theft is wrong. For example a man who steals bread for his family because he lacks income hasn't done anything wrong. However if this man were to steal say jewels the obviously he did do wrong.

 

Killing is wrong correct? Well yes it is, however unless that killing is done for say a holy crusade, or perhaps killing the enemy in a war (not like the holocaust) it is considered necessary and well right. People may not like it but the do accept it, or the burning of heretics was also codoned by the church.

 

Right and wrong, is not predetermined, and clear cut. It is based upon the cituations the act is commited. To lie to a friend and tell them something to bost their spirist is not wrong, even though lieing is. Everything in our society determines what is considered right and wrong not just our religion. Besides the obviouse cases, many acts are not black and white, but in a grey area.

 

It comes down to that each person themselves must determine what is right and wrong.

 

No, that's not right at all. The examples you give are mostly correct, but that's not the correct conclusion to draw. In every case, you CAN know what is the moral choice. In the teachings of the Church, these exceptions are often spelled out (steeling food to live is OK, killing in self-defence is OK, etc.), and even when they are not spelled out, you should be able to deduce it based on the principles involved. That's not to say that it may be easy to figure it out in all cases - indeed, things like research using stem cells that are already being used for research, etc. can be less clear. There are people who study morallity in great detail. So, it may not be easy to know at all times, but the basic priciples are laid out, and they never change. You have to work there.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by edlib

Well, that's all I was saying.

 

I still don't see a problem with that statement.

 

1. I don't see where mankind's use or disuse of artificial means of conception within an otherwise strong marrage between two loving people as a form of familiy planning could EVER possibly be a sin, no matter what the church founders may have believed from the beginning. (see point 2)

If it was such a strong issue with God I believe there would be no way for anyone to possibly think otherwise, it would be in clear language as a commandment. To me the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are pretty unmistakable, but the word "Adultery," as I've always heard it defined, can only be applied to activities outside a marrage. Nothing I have ever read on the issue has led me to believe there is ANYTHING immoral about the use of contraception in this instance. All the other scriptures I have ever seen to attack contraception leave a rather vague impression in my mind of God's plans, at best. The God that I read about in the Bible pulled no punches... if mankind was or wasn't supposed to do something,.. He said so! In clear, unmistakable language, with no room left for human interpretation.

 

"Room for interpretation" is the Protestant motto! And as I've said multiple times already, who says that Scripture contains everything man needs to know? Certainly not Scripture itself. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible is all you need, and it certainly states otherwise.

 

2. I don't believe many of the practices and beliefs supposedly handed down by church elders have anything to do with what Christ himself, as well as the Apostles, actually practiced. In other words: I don't think that there is a form of organized Christianity today that resembles the Church as founded in the first century. Many of the traditional teachings and beliefs taught today (by all Christian denominations) were established after the Apostles were long dead.

 

You don't think? Have you actually read the things that were written during that period of history? They write of obedience to the bishops, the Eucherist, and other things that we still have today. Have you ever read how they celebrated the Sabbath? Readings from scripture, a sermon, Holy Communion...all the parts of the Mass.

 

Even though I subscribe to many of the beliefs of Christianity, am I beholden to the tenets of Catholisim? All Catholics are Christian, but does that also equate to all Christians have to therefore be Catholic?

 

If they wish to be authentically Christian, then yes. But believe it or not, the Catholic Church considers the Protestants united to the Church already (though imperfectly), even if they don't know or care.

 

I don't believe that has ever truly been the case, and I guess that's where the conflict lies.

The argument has been repetedly made in this thread that the Catholic chuch is the one true church, founded by Christ and the Apostles, and that ALL the other denominations we see today have sprung out of it. That many of the teachings of these other denominations are corruptions of the true teachings of Catholism, and are often contrary to what God and Christ intended.

I don't really believe this.

 

But that's simply history. The other churches ALL came from the Catholic Church. If that's not true, then name one that didn't. Certainly none of the Protestant churches, all of which came about a millenium and a half after the Catholic Church (and from a Catholic priest, no less). The only group that could even try to make the argument is the Orthadox, and the Orthadox teachings are almost identical to the Catholic teachings. That isn't arguing that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, that's simply stating that it fwas the first. And since there has never been a single teaching on faith or morals that has ever changed in the Catholic Church (and the "early Church" if you want to consider it seperate), we know that this is what the Apostles and Christ himself wanted taught. If you think that's wrong, then give a counter-example. Name one issue of aith or morallity in the Catholic Church today that has ever changed since the time of Christ.

 

But OK, say you accept that (since it really IS impossible to give a counter-example), you still state that it doesn't matter what the early Christians taught. Explain then, how that could be. Did God leave the first Christians with no guide whatsoever on what they needed to do? Remember that there was no Bible yet. What were they supposed to do - guess? It is obvious that Christ left his people with everything they needed when he left. Otherwise, they could never hope to know what to do at all. This is one of those hard questions I was talking about. What were they supposed to do? Where were they supposed to turn for their teachings on faith and morallity? How could they know? The New Testament, which contains so much of that, did not exist yet. There had to be something else. That something else was the people Christ left to do those jobs - the Aposltes - the bishops, who in turn went out and ordained more bishops and priests to help them. That is a FACT - they did that, it is certain. But even if you refuse the accept that for some reason, you must accept that they at least had to be out there teaching the right things at the very beginning, or it ruins the whole idea. It means Christ failed at an essential aspect of his mission. How can that be, if he truly was God?

[Commander 598]

This thread will never end. Mainly because no one takes the time to read long post after long post...

 

My 0.1 cents.

[Rebel Loyaltist]

No one replied to my post.

[edlib]

Keyan, my last post wasn't issued as a challenge, just a statement of what I believe. You don't have to accept it or even like it, but that's the way it is.

My more sarcastic side really wishes to say something like “Hey! That’s great! Thanks for tearing apart all my beliefs in public like this! I can’t believe I was so wrong! I recant ALL my earlier statements, renounce all my strongly held beliefs, and embrace the Catholic faith with all my soul!” or something like that.

(But ultimately that would only serve to ruin the discourse, so don’t take it to heart, please.)

 

I didn't come to hold these beliefs as arbitrarily as you may wish to think. I did much study in my younger years on all of these subjects, and I came to some conclusions in my own mind. I believe that my conclusions are right, just as much as you believe the same of your views.

I have read several alternative (non-Catholic) histories of the early church that I have based some of what I believe on. A few of them described other Christian sects that continued along outside the Catholic Church for millennia. But a couple of the books were particularly scathing incitements of Catholism, but I took much of that with a grain of salt. I didn't own these books, and it's been many years since I read them, so I can't give you hard, fast examples out of them right now. I'm sure I could dredge out my notebooks and find titles for you, or try to get in touch with my former pastor and ask him about them, but since I'm sure that you would only immediately dismiss them as Protestant anti-Catholic revisionist propaganda anyway, I honestly see no point to all the effort.

The point is I happen to believe some of what I read there. I might ultimately be wrong in doing that,.. I don't know, (I guess I’ll find out when my judgment comes.) I wasn't there (but then neither was anyone else alive today so who can honestly say for sure?) but I choose to believe that some of what I read is accurate.

But even if it proves to be that these histories are total falsehoods, I still cannot accept that the Church, as it stands today, reflects the original practices of Christ and the Apostles. I have many reasons for this.

 

It's funny you mention the Sabbath, because that's one of the biggest problems I have with the majority of Christian churches today, and an example of the kind of thing I meant about beliefs being handed down through the ages that don't reflect what Christ and the Apostles actually did. All the records I have ever seen indicate that the early Christians worshipped on the seventh-day "Friday sundown to Saturday sundown" Sabbath, just as the 4th commandment states. There was no way they would have thought otherwise since they, (as was Christ himself) were brought up devout Jews. Their followers were taught that way too (and for a long time the majority of them were Jews as well).

All the records I have ever seen indicate that this was the case up until the 4th century, when it was changed to a Sunday day-of-worship. Who changed it? Who had the power to change it? Nowhere have I seen (in the Bible or out) where Christ ever said "From now on worship on Sundays" Does any man other than Christ who has ever lived have the power to overrule a Commandment? I don't believe that's the case and as far as I'm concerned everybody alive who calls themselves a Christian should be questioning this. Yet I see very few denominations that actually practice it.

Trust me, I've read and studied all the counter-arguments to this I was able to find, (EG; it doesn’t matter what day you worship; since the old covenant was done away with at Christ’s death we don’t have to follow this rule anymore; etc…) and none of them have convinced me at all. If you’re instructed to attend church every week anyway, why not do it on the day the God himself commanded, and the day the Christ and his followers actually observed, the day that God the Creator (who was also the Word of God, who became Jesus) has supposedly has considered Holy from the very dawn of time? If it wasn’t important to God what day you attended, why make a commandment out of it? And if the old law is truly done away with, is it also OK for us to break some of the other commandments as well? If I erect a statue of a golden calf and start worshipping it as God, no harm done, right? Of course not. You have invoked the adultery commandment in this thread, so the commandments have apparently not ceased to be valid.

This is just one of many examples I have come across. Using all the trappings of pagan festivals to worship the holiest events on the Christian calendar is another (Easter, Christmas.) God outlined what days were to be found holy during the year (Passover, Pentecost, Atonement, etc…) Yet Christianity has distanced itself from these days and come up with new celebrations, many of which are almost exactly the same as the pagan festivals they were based upon, with Jesus’ name tacked on. Would Christ himself have EVER have been involved with such types of worship? Would the Apostles? Everything I have ever read states that they followed the Hebrew holy day calendar. Christ was executed on Passover (fulfilling the symbolism of the Passover lamb); the Holy Spirit came down on Pentecost. Somewhere, somebody, a human, decided to change these dates and take up the celebrations that the influx of new converts from paganism had always worshipped.

 

I don’t, and most likely will never be able to believe that this is what the founder of Christianity intended.

 

I don't think ANY human being has ever had the power to rewrite what God himself commanded.

THAT is the main reason why I don’t accept the authority of the church as it is today. Humans have changed God’s wishes to suit their own needs. I don't believe God or Christ wished this or gave authorization to any human to do so either. Therefore I cannot accept the teachings of Christan churches of the world today as being authenic to the true church that Christ and the Apostles founded.

 

You may feel that these views are silly, and have no bearing on morals or faith, and that salvation doesn’t rest on such things, but that’s how I feel. Personally, I find the thought of a man’s ultimate spiritual salvation resting on the fate of his semen after it leaves his body to be rather ridiculous, but you seem to put a high priority on it.

This will most likely be my last post to this thread. You may consider it a concession if you wish, but seeing as my beliefs and faith aren’t the slightest bit altered, that wouldn’t be how I choose to see it. I just think we have hit an impasse, a deadlock. Since any further arguments I may choose to post can be dismissed by you as Protestant drivel, and since I refuse to accept many traditional Christian teachings as accurate, I don’t see where else we can go with this. I will read any response you make with great interest, but like Zarg I feel that we have reached an endless loop that can only be broken with one of us changing our core beliefs. Since I don't think thats going to happen, I bid you "Good Day!" at least in this thread.

Like I said before, I admire you for the strength of your faith, and your obvious knowledge of the teachings of your beliefs. I just don’t agree with your point of view on this particular matter.

 

Peace.

[Keyan Farlander]

edlib, I'm not trying to jump on you, but facts are facts. You may be able to present some alternate form of history, but it would be so questionable that no reputable and honest historian would accept it. We have the writings, we have the letters - we know what was going on at the time. We aren't basing all this on some history books written by some Catholics. This is the clear and obvious conclusion. You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't make it any less valid. If you really have researched it as extensively as you say, why not answer the questions I have put to you? Why not provide one specific example and back it up when you believe I have said something wrong?

 

But about the Sabbath - you have nothing to worry about there. The Church has the authority to change things of that nature. Even the Protestant churches accept that. The dietary requirements, the animal sacrifices, you don't think we are supposed to be observing all of that too, do you? Those were things from the Old Covenant. Christ has given us the new. And Sunday is a good choice to celebrate the Sabbath. Was is not on Sunday that Christ finished his great task and also gave the greatest proof of his Godship by rising from the dead? Was it not also on Sunday that God sent the Holy Spirit visibly to initiate the work of the Church and to remain with the Church forever? We must observe the Sabbath, that is not open to debate, but the way we celebrate it does not need to be based on the Sabbath of the Old Covenant. After all, it has a much more holy purpose now - not just to give thanks and praise to God, but to celebrate the great gift of redemption that he has given to the world.

 

But it seems we may now have a new thread and a new interesting discussion to have.

[Rebel Loyaltist]

Still no one replies to my posts.

[Redwing]

*pats* Don't worry, RL, it's probably just that your posts were so well said and your arguments so stellar that no one could find anything to argue with in them

[Admiral Odin]

I prefer the view the RL's post were so idiotic they were over looked.

[Keyan Farlander]

Sorry, RL, I must have missed it! I'll reply right now.

 

Originally posted by Rebel Loyaltist

My grandfather once told me "never discuss religion or politics, you'll go in circles" Well my grandgfather never posted at XWA.Net!

 

Ah yes, religion and politics. Great discussion subjects, aren't they? I love how kids discuss them, too (well, mainly politics). Usually it gets about as deep as "Democrats suck" and "Republicans suck." It's funny to see how they are so behind political parties without even understanding what they stand for

 

KF I remember you saying that Protestantism isn't what Christ intended for man. But who is to determine that? Man? Man is far from perfect and could never determine what he wanted for us. If we could then we all be perfect.

 

But the apostles must have known what Christ intended for man. For Christ to leave them with wrong impressions would have constituted a failure on his part - an error, which is not something that could have happened if Christ was truly God. Remember that God loves us and would not hide the truth from us; he wants us to know with certainty what we have to do. In any case, we DO know that there was no particularly Protestant doctrine in the first days of Christianity. That came much, much later. There were occasionally dissenting views, but the apostles and other bishops warned people to stay clear of those (you will find this in Scripture).

 

You also said that the disciples would know first hand what Jesus wanted us to do. But how is this so? Each one of them interepted Jesus in a different way. Remember Judas thought that Jesus actually meant a royal kingdom on earth (like the Roman's kingdom) and got fed up with Jesus. We know the rest of the story.

 

In the beginning, when they first knew him, I'm sure they did not all understand him or what he was trying to tell them, but they came to in time, and when he completed his mission, they knew what they had to do. However, you make a good point about the view points of various people playing a role. That is why Christ placed the "keys" in the hands of Peter and promised that the power of hell would never overcome his Church. In this, we have a setup such that people, even religious officials may hold various views and opinions, but the only thing that matters is what is declared by the one who has the authority of the keys, and God protects him from making mistakes (on issues of faith and morals) as per his promise. This is extremely important, because, as you say, people are not perfect, and so in order to have a perfect Church, we must rely on God's perfection. You take away that central authority and you get what has happened with Protestantism - it breaks up in to thousands of different groups all teaching different things, and they can't all be right. And Judas was probably not the best example to use there, since his "opinion" was proven to be wrong, and it died with him (though he did realize his error and try to undo it in the end, which should serve as a lesson to us that we cannot undo our sins - rather, we must seek forgiveness for them).

 

Also you said that the early church banned protective sex because it was immoral. Even though I don't think it's immoral I would like to believe you when you said that the church banned it because it was immoral. But the truth is people don't always tell the truth. They might have had their own selfish reasons for it. Now I don't know what their reasons were for banning it ,wether it be good or bad, but we will never know their true intentions.

 

Well, what I have said above pretty much covers that, but also remember that the first Christians did not have to figure out everything on their own. They had a firm grasp on morallity already from the Jewish tradition.

 

You also said that what Gunner did was worthy of hell but because he didn't know it he's off the hook? Can the same be said about Hitler of bin Laden? Both have killed lots of people but they thought what their were doing was right! So are they off the hook too?

 

Possibly. That is not for me to decide, after all; such things are in God's hands alone. What I do know is that is in order to commit a mortal sin, three conditions must be met. First, the act in question must be gravely wrong. Secondly, the person has to be aware that the action is gravely wrong. Lastly, the person has to actually give consent of the will to the action. If a person is insane, he may do things that are very evil, but since he is not in control of his will, he cannot give consent of the will. Remember that we go to hell because we choose to go to hell. God does not send us there, we send ourselves there. We do it by choosing wrong, by going against God, even when we know what is right. In doing that, we choose to seperate ourselves from God. This is not what GUNNER did. He did not do wrong deliberately. God is just and fair, but he is also forgiving and merciful.

 

You also said (I know it may seem that I'm picking on you a lot but bear with me I'm almost done ) somthing about God letting the church believe in artifical contraception was bad for two millennia. First times changes people's mind about things change. Vatican II is a good example. Second God gave us free will to do things. It's up to the person to decide what they do with it.

 

I think I've pretty much covered that above as well. Free will means we can choose between good and evil, not that we get to choose what is good and what is evil. I don't really follow you on Vatican II. This did not change any teachings on faith or morals, it was about liturgical reform. Perhaps you could be more specific about your point regarding Vatican II?

 

You also said that masturbation is wrong. I really don't understand why think so but maybe you can explain to me. If you're going to say that it gives sexual pleasure when you be waiting to be married and have sex. Their is also another reason. It also allows the person with release semen from the body without having sex. The only other way to release semen with sex is a wet dream which leaves a nasty mess

 

As I have explained, it is a violation of the Natural Law. God gave us our sexuallity for specific reasons, and when a person mastubates, he removes one of God's purposes for giving us that gift - that of procreation. It is not right for man to use what he has been given by God for his own purposes (especiallty selfish ones, as in this case) - rather, he must submit to the Creator's will in the matter. Are we the potter or clay? I wrote up another example of this somewhere in this thread. It was about eating. Read that and see if you get what I mean.

 

Regarding wet dreams, that's just something we have to deal with. There is no wrong in wet dreams, since you are not challenging God's purposes regarding sexuallity by allowing this to happen naturally (unless you do something to induce a dream). Personally, I don't see how it is any more messy than masturbation. But just think what women have to go through for their sexuallity! Off hand, I'd rather have a wet dream once in a while than go through that every month!

 

You also said something about the bishops not representing the church when they do bad things. Now I wish whole heartedly that this true I really do. But the thing is some people see something bad with one aspect of something and think that everything relating to that aspect is like that. I hate sterotyping I really do.

 

I am only saying that when bishops go against Church teachings, they are not making the Church itself less perfect - they are only harming themselves. But you are right when you say that people do not see it that way. They should, but they do not, and that's why we must take extreme precautions in who is allowed to serve as a bishop or priest, and we must take decisive action when a bishop or priest shows himself to be unworthy of the clerical state. This is important for the image of the Church, but also for the safety of the people. We must also gaurd against bishops who teach things contrary to what the Church teaches officially. Many people who are trying to be good Christians may not know their bishop is leading them off the path, and for their sakes we also have to make sure this is all being done correctly. Their religious superiors have the responsibility to make sure that that is being done, but so also do all the Christian faithful, by making sure they are well-informed of what the Church teaches. Parents play a vital role here, since they will be their children's first teachers about God.

 

And finally I don't think getting a vasectomy is bad. Would it have been bad for Hitlers dad to get vasectomy?

 

Yes, it would have been bad. The ends do not justify the means. You can always just come back and say "Well, what if Beethoven's dad had a vasectomy?" Or "what if Hitler hadn't been there and it opened the way for somebody even worse." This is why it always makes me cringe when people use the "aborted Beethoven" argument when debating abortion. The opposite side could just come back with "Well, Hitler might have been aborted too!" We have to approach the issues from the angle of objective morality.

 

We may have different ways of interpeting to Bible but we are all Christians. We all share the basic beliefs in the end we'll be happy in heaven (hopefully)

 

Yes - hopefully. And I have no doubt that many of our non-Christian brothers and sisters will be there too, by truly seeking God to the best of their ability in this life, even if they never had the opportunity to hear about the Judeo-Christian God. We can always help them along with our prayers - ourselves too, and also our departed brethren.