And for some Humor...

[Wedge009]

Originally posted by Farlander
A baptized baby, having commited no sin, would go to heaven.

I think it would be more precise to say that a baby would not yet be self-aware enough to commit a deliberate act of rebellion.

Originally posted by Delance
Not just for Catholicism, but for several other Christian Churches, in the East and in the West.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what a sacrament is supposed to mean, because formalities just become spiritual stumbling blocks, IMHO. I was thinking about it, and came to a conclusion that Communion, like joining in regular fellowship with other Christians, is not necessary for salvation, but if a Christian has an opportunity and is able to do so, he or she should take part in it, in accordance with Christ's instructions.

Originally posted by Delance
Well, Jesus was phisically ressurected, in body, and the wounds where there for all to see. That's the only example we have in the scriptures. Not to mention that a "spiritual ressurection" sounds contraditory - to ressurect is to rise from the dead, to be alive again.

You'd be surprised at how many people - including supposed Christians - denounce the reality of his physical resurrection, to make the gospel "easier to swallow". If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christians have been wasting their time - in fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19 that Christians are to be pitied.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Wedge009
...You'd be surprised at how many people - including supposed Christians - denounce the reality of his physical resurrection, to make the gospel "easier to swallow". If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christians have been wasting their time - in fact, Paul says... that Christians are to be pitied.

Yeah, it's kinda sad how some call themselves believers and yet deny the fundamental principles behind their supposed "faith".

BTW, You forgot the second half of the line:

...are to be pitied above all people. (emphasis mine)

(meaning specifically that, if Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead, their faith is in vain...However, since He *did*, it merely becomes sad that - as I noted above - some call themselves believers yet deny this.

::shakes his bowed head in bewilderment:: )

 

[Delance]

About the Resurrection, St. Paul was right. In fact, I've heard on a TV documentary a nice story about that. They said St. Paul was preaching to the Greek Philosophers, and they seemed very interested. But when it came to the part of the Resurrection, it triggered a massive debate if something like that could be possible or not, and it was so intense he decided to go preach elsewhere. Interesting, isn't it? I don't know how much truth is on this story.

What I do know is that, as long as human thinking goes, the Greek Philosophy did get a lot of good concepts. Actually it's somewhat hard to completely separate the early/medieval Christian from the classic Greek philosophy.

The separation of body and spirit, for example, came from the Greeks. Some say that's not actually the most accurate conception of man under Christian thinking. Well, under Catholic thinking, at least, since I heard about this while studying Christians and "Philosophy of Science" on a Catholic University.

Originally posted by Wedge009
I think it would be more precise to say that a baby would not yet be self-aware enough to commit a deliberate act of rebellion.

Interesting point. Must a sin be a deliberate act? If someone doesn't know anything about the Christian Faith, or don't beleive on it, it's still deliberate?

Do atheists say "Hey, I beleive in God, but as in a deliberate act of Rebellion, I'll say I won't, beacuse I am idiot".

Well, I'm not exactly sure what a sacrament is supposed to mean, because formalities just become spiritual stumbling blocks, IMHO. I was thinking about it, and came to a conclusion that Communion, like joining in regular fellowship with other Christians, is not necessary for salvation, but if a Christian has an opportunity and is able to do so, he or she should take part in it, in accordance with Christ's instructions.

From dictionary.com

1. Christianity. A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:
a. In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
b. In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.

 

[Wedge009]

Originally posted by Preacher
BTW, You forgot the second half of the line...

Yes, thank you.

Originally posted by Delance
Must a sin be a deliberate act? If someone doesn't know anything about the Christian Faith, or don't beleive on it, it's still deliberate?

You got me there. Morally upright people generally don't sin deliberately. Y'know, like go off on a murder spree, or embezzle millions of dollars, etc. But even such 'good' people can sin through apathy or ignorance, placing other priorities - education, money, family, fashion, sex, entertainment, etc - ahead of God.

Originally posted by Delance
Do atheists say "Hey, I believe in God, but as in a deliberate act of rebellion, I'll say I won't, beacuse I am [an] idiot".

Possibly. But willful ignorance is just as much a sin, a refusal to acknowledge God.

In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.

Well, yes, as an Anglican, I definitely am familiar with those. Just not the other five.

 

[Farlander]

Originally posted by Delance
Interesting point. Must a sin be a deliberate act? If someone doesn't know anything about the Christian Faith, or don't beleive on it, it's still deliberate?

Most certainly, for mortal sins, anyway. In order to commit a mortal sin, three conditions must be met:

1. The action must be gravely wrong (murder, adultary, fornication, etc.).
2. The person must be fully aware that the act is gravely wrong.
3. The person must give consent of will to the action (do it or resolve to do it).

 

[Ijuin]

Regarding babies and sin, Jesus said of children, "The kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these" (I don't know the verse number unfortunately). If children are considered innocent by the Lord, then newborn or unborn babies would be as well.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Farlander
1. The action must be gravely wrong (murder, adultary, fornication, etc.).

Is Fornication a sin? :O

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost
Is Fornication a sin? :O

Yep.

Sometimes it's referred to more generally under the term"sexual immorality", which encompasses other forms of specific sexual sin (adultery/incest/etc.), but the general term for any sex outside the God-given bonds of marriage is 'fornication'...

 

[Ghost]

So the word fornication is applied only for extra-matrimonial/incest/sex with aninals or homosexual sex?
Having sex with your girlfriend is fornication,right?

If you have sex with your wife using any anticonceptive is fornication,right?

In my prior post i used fornication as a synonymous of ''having sex'' only, not using any specification

 

[Delance]

Ah, the timeless debate of fornication. An opportunity for an "on topic" post.

But what is fornication? Did Bill Clinton fornicate with that woman, Ms Lewinski?

1st base? 2nd Base? 3rd Base? Third Watch?

Does a tongue has to be involved?

When Neo and Trinity have sex when inside the Matrix, is it fornication?

Do stupid teenagers tranvestites themselves as virtual lesbians on IRC is that fornication, or just very, very stupid? Which part is the fornication, when they are typing, or when they are... self... whatever.

 

[Farlander]

I think fornication is specifically the act of sexual intercourse between unmarried people. Having sex with your girlfriend is fornication. Having sex with your wife using artificial contraception is NOT fornication, but is certainly a mortal sin (though many Christian groups would contest that).

The sixth commandment is understood to encompass the whole of sexual morality, which goes beyond the common understanding of adultary and fornication. Basically, the act of deliberately arousing yourself or allowing yourself to be aroused outside the context of normal sexual intercourse with your spouse is a grave sin. This would include masturbation, looking at pornography, "heavy petting" with your girlfriend/boyfriend, etc. It would also include using artificial birth control, engaging in oral sex etc. with your spouse. But as I indicated earlier, many Christian groups hold less inclusive understandings of that commandment.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost

So the word fornication is applied only for extra-matrimonial/incest/sex with aninals or homosexual sex?
Having sex with your girlfriend is fornication,right?

If you have sex with your wife using any anticonceptive is fornication,right?

In my prior post i used fornication as a synonymous of ''having sex'' only, not using any specification

1) Sexual activity with anyone other than your wife/husband is fornication. Thus, to sleep w/ your girlfriend fits the definition
2) No, if it's your wife, it's OK, & thus not fornication (contraception or not)
3) The Bible's definition encompasses basically ANY sexual activity & lumps it under the term "sex" (or if illicit, fornication/adultery/incest/etc.)

He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from the mother's side. According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David.

This source is conveniently ignoring the fact that no one knew (or believed it IF they knew) of Jesus' divine paternity. As such, he was reckoned as the son of Joseph, and thus the "Son of David" by descent on Joseph's side - indeed, that's what the crowds hailed Him as upon His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Hey, if ya wanna get technical, He could be called the "Father of David", in a sense).

The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years....These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

Firstly, I would point out that the Jews have been regathered from their exile into modern day Israel back in 1948. And who did this? Primarily, it was the US & Britain, both predominantly (at least at the time) 'Christian' nations. As to the rebuilding of the Temple and world peace, well, they relate to the Second Coming, so of course they haven't been fulfilled as yet (Although I would also point out that there is a growing movement afoot in Israel for rebuilding the Temple, and in fact plans have already been laid to do so. They are just waiting on, shall we say, the 'real estate' issues to be settled). So what we have, in essence, is "one & a half down, one & a half to go" on those three predictions.

The main Christian responses to these objections are:

The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. Most importantly, the second coming idea is just an attempt at answering an obvious question but it certainly does not constitute proof of messianic claims.

I realize that the whole "Second Coming" thing proves an unsatisfying answer for most Jews, but I'd ask folks to consider a piece of logic: There are predictions that HAVE come true, predictions that have PROVEN themselves false, and predictions that simply haven't come to pass AS YET. When it comes to JC, all predictions involved are either of first or third categories; there are none that can be conclusively proven to have been in the second category.
--- Who said God *didn't* accomplish His goals the first time around with Jesus?... We Christians hold that He did. Jesus had to come first as the Suffering Servant, and give mankind the gospel, the "New Covenant" mentioned elsewhere. Before He ascended to Heaven (and AFTER he had been resurrected) He gave the apostles what we call the "Great Commission", wherein He commanded them to go out and preach the gospel (good news) and make disciples of all nations. He assured the disciples that when the gospel had been fully preached to all nations, THEN He would return in glory (this time not as the suffering Servant, but as righteous conquering King and Judge).
--- I agree that the "idea" of a second coming does not in itself serve as proof of JC's Messianic claims; rather, the *fulfillment* of that second coming will be all the proof anyone needs.

Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a prediction that "...The kingdom of God is at hand." That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet (as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed by the Romans like a common criminal. He had no army or government...

We take the position that yes, the kingdom of God HAS come. Christ was speaking figuratively of a limited "kingdom of God", not the ultimate, literal "Day of the Lord" type "full" kingdom, which will not be upon us until the end of human history. With his resurrection and ascension into heaven, and the spread of the gospel after Pentecost, the Church Age has been ushered in. The apostles "turned the world upside down" with their preaching, and the world has been a better place ever since. Not perfect by any stretch (obviously), but how many charities, how many relief agencies, how many hospitals, orphanages, research organizations, and philantrophic trusts, etc. have been established & run by folks who did so as a way of living out the Savior's call on their lives and resources, as opposed to those which came from secular origins or some other religion? Those which are of Christian origin simply dwarf all other kinds, and Jesus is the difference. That doesn't make Christians better than anyone else, it just goes to showwhat a difference the gospel has made to the world, and how much worse off the world would've been without the fruits that it has yielded.
--- Where is it written that Messiah must be a great scholar? I'd really like to know. On, that point, though, it needs be said that even the 12-year old Jesus "astonished" the priests & elders with His knowledge & understanding of the Law & the prophets. How much more so 20 years later, when He was in the midst of His ministry. Whether or not He had a diploma from the classic Jewish schools of His day, it's still quite obvious that the man's knowledge of Judaism (to borrow a phrase from elsewhere) "exceeded that of the scribes & the Pharisees", for "He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes & priests".
--- Actually He *was* 'anointed by a prophet' - John the Baptizer (Christ Himself states that there was never a greater prophet than John). Moreover, I don't recall reading that *every* king was anointed by a prophet. Saul & David were, but the rest of them were not ALL specifically mentioned as having been anointed (some was & some wasn't).
--- A people does not always accept the rightful king over them, so whether or not the people accepted Christ as king is irrelevant, and changes nothing: Remember, Rehoboam was the rightful king of Israel after the death of Solomon, but most of Israel (10 of the 12 tribes) rejected Him when he indicated his rule would be a harsh one. Interesting, because this is essentially what happened with Jesus: He indicated His "harshness" towards their Pharisaic leadership, and so said leaders conspired against Him & had him killed.

"From dominion and judgement he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

Not true.
What He said was that His kingdom was not of this world (meaning it was not a kingdom in the earthly human sense of the term, at least not yet). He elsewhere stated that, if he desired, he could call upon "12 legions of angels" to defend Him, but that wouldn't serve the puposes for which he had come (and so He willingly let Himself be crucified).

Originally posted by Delance

But what is fornication? Did Bill Clinton fornicate with that woman, Ms Lewinski?

1st base? 2nd Base? 3rd Base? Third Watch?

Does a tongue has to be involved?

When Neo and Trinity have sex when inside the Matrix, is it fornication?

Do stupid teenagers tranvestites themselves as virtual lesbians on IRC is that fornication, or just very, very stupid? Which part is the fornication, when they are typing, or when they are... self... whatever.

I find a good working definition of "sex" (from a numan standpoint, that is) is, what does/would your wife think - if you have one - constitutes "sex" if you do it with some other woman than her? Slick WIlly shoulda thought of that (then again, mebbe he did & just didn't give a rip).

Originally posted by Wedge009

...Morally upright people generally don't sin deliberately. Y'know, like go off on a murder spree, or embezzle millions of dollars, etc. But even such 'good' people can sin through apathy or ignorance, placing other priorities - education, money, family, fashion, sex, entertainment, etc - ahead of God.

Not necessarily. It ain't that we don't sin, it all goes to the attitude of the heart. I sin just about every day in one way or another. But the pattern of my life overall the last 14 years is that I sin much LESS than I did 5 years ago, and a WHOLE lot less than when I first came to Christ.

AFAIK, the Old Testament of the Bible is the Torah.

Yup. The only "Bible"' that Christ & the apostles had was what constitutes the entirety of the current (AFAIK) Jewish Bible.

 

[Preacher]

[Sorry: D/T space limitations, couldn't fit this in the last post]:

Originally posted by Farlander

...allowing yourself to be aroused outside the context of normal sexual intercourse with your spouse is a grave sin. This would include masturbation... It would also include using artificial birth control, engaging in oral sex etc. with your spouse. But as I indicated earlier, many Christian groups hold less inclusive understandings of that commandment.

You made some good points in that post, which I agree with , but the ones I cite above are not so clear-cut, at least as far as can be determined from the Scripture. (BTW, the reason other Christian groups' views are different is that we can find no justification for such views in the Scripture...).

--- I know that RCC theology holds that any sex act not open to procreation is a sin, but that is "the tradition of men, not the commandments of God" (Mark 7:6-13). For example, my Mom - a devout Catholic woman, btw - was told by her doctor not to get pregnant again after having us kids, because it could endanger her life/health if she did. Therefore, she used birth control with my Dad after that point.
--- As to oral sex, that's just stupid. Even if we were to buy into that "not open to procreation" deal, it doesn't hold water: Whoever teaches that is obviously ignorant of the fact that oral sex often LEADS to "real" sex, and thus the possibility of procreation (another argument for having a married priesthood; then at least these guys would have a firsthand idea what they're talking about).
--- As to masturbation, it depends on the context. If you're fantasizing about Madonna while you're doing it, then obviouly that falls under the heading of sin because of the concepts already stated in this thread. On the other hand, if you are married to, say, a woman who is chronically ill and can't/isn't up for having sex but once every couple of months or so, then it would be acceptable so long as your thoughts while doing so are on her and her alone (reliving in your mind your past sexual exploits with her, for example). In either of those cases, it would *still* be sin, though, if your so doing quenched your desire for your wife (like if she just came home ready to "fool around", and you told her no), because it would be robbing her of the love/intimacy she deserves from you.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Preacher
This source is conveniently ignoring the fact that no one knew (or believed it IF they knew) of Jesus' divine paternity. As such, he was reckoned as the son of Joseph, and thus the "Son of David" by descent on Joseph's side - indeed, that's what the crowds hailed Him as upon His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Hey, if ya wanna get technical, He could be called the "Father of David", in a sense).

But still, Jesus according you, is God´s son not joseph, so is irrevelamt what the people said or didn´t knew.

Originally posted by Preacher

Firstly, I would point out that the Jews have been regathered from their exile into modern day Israel back in 1948. And who did this? ....So what we have, in essence, is "one & a half down, one & a half to go" on those three predictions.

Not all of them, and about the temple God himself or the messiah will build it
And what is that ''half of them'' things, you fullfill them all or not.
A thing to be a thing must fullfil all the things that describes them as that thing not half or a third

Originally posted by Preacher

I realize that the whole "Second Coming" thing proves an unsatisfying answer for most Jews, but I'd ask folks to consider a piece of logic: There are predictions that HAVE come true, predictions that have PROVEN themselves false, and predictions that simply haven't come to pass AS YET. When it comes to JC, all predictions involved are either of first or third categories; there are none that can be conclusively proven to have been in the second category.

Of course proben by the Church. (catholic, anglican or the others)

Originally posted by Preacher

--- Actually He *was* 'anointed by a prophet' - John the Baptizer (Christ Himself states that there was never a greater prophet than John).

Again, Jesus call him, great prophet (and maybe the samaritans)not the jews.

Originally posted by Preacher

--- A people does not always accept the rightful king over them, so whether or not the people accepted Christ as king is irrelevant, and changes nothing: Remember, Rehoboam was the rightful king of Israel after the death of Solomon, but most of Israel (10 of the 12 tribes) rejected Him when he indicated his rule would be a harsh one.Interesting, because this is essentially what happened with Jesus: He indicated His "harshness" towards their Pharisaic leadership, and so said leaders conspired against Him & had him killed.

I like how you said here is irrelevant but not is irrelevant what the people say in the first post.
And then they formed a new Kingdom, then if i follow your line of thinking, i should say that the christians will be conquered by the ''pagans'' and be lost like the 10 lost tribes and the jews will be the only ones who will endure?

Originally posted by Preacher

I like this is great, you say that is irreveant what the people said here but not what people said about Jesus (first post) He said was that His kingdom was not of this world (meaning it was not a kingdom in the earthly human sense of the term, at least not yet) He elsewhere stated that, if he desired, he could call upon "12 legions of angels" to defend Him, but that wouldn't serve the puposes for which he had come (and so He willingly let Himself be crucified). ]

And the 12 legions thing is proven? can be this figurative like you wrote in another part of this post?
I can say that i can bring Moses to have a talk with you about this but it won´t serve the purposes.

Originally posted by Preacher

Yup. The only "Bible"' that Christ & the apostles had was what constitutes the entirety of the current (AFAIK) Jewish Bible.

This should include the Nevi´im and Chtu´vim.books

 

[Farlander]

Originally posted by Preacher
--- I know that RCC theology holds that any sex act not open to procreation is a sin, but that is "the tradition of men, not the commandments of God" (Mark 7:6-13).

This has always been the teaching of the Church, which was given its authority by Christ himself. I would therefore contend that the teachings of the Church are the commandments of God. If you wish a more "direct" indication, remember that Onan was
struck dead by God for "withdrawing."

For example, my Mom - a devout Catholic woman, btw - was told by her doctor not to get pregnant again after having us kids, because it could endanger her life/health if she did. Therefore, she used birth control with my Dad after that point.

Fair enough, but as a Catholic, the only propper course of action for her would have been to abstain from sexual activity when it might have resulted in her getting pregnant (or possibly altogether, if it were an exremely serious condition, I suppose). This is not open to debate in any way, if she had meant to comply with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

--- As to oral sex, that's just stupid. Even if we were to buy into that "not open to procreation" deal, it doesn't hold water: Whoever teaches that is obviously ignorant of the fact that oral sex often LEADS to "real" sex, and thus the possibility of procreation (another argument for having a married priesthood; then at least these guys would have a firsthand idea what they're talking about).

What it may lead to is not the issue. The issue is that the act of oral sex is, in itself, contrary the natural, God-intended purpose of our sexual faculties. Note that some confusion of definitions is possible here. "Oral stimulation" of the male is, I believe, fine if it is a prelude to normal sexual intercourse, and if no semen is lost. For the woman, oral stimulation to bring her to orgasm is also fine if it happens immediately before or after sexual intercourse.

Regarding married priests, experience with sex is not needed to convey the teachings of the Church about sex to the faithful. Furthermore, these teachings are set in stone - even if every priest and bishop in the world wanted them changed, it would not be possible to do so.

Also, the Catholic Church has many, many married priests.

--- As to masturbation, it depends on the context. If you're fantasizing about Madonna while you're doing it, then obviouly that falls under the heading of sin because of the concepts already stated in this thread. On the other hand, if you are married to, say, a woman who is chronically ill and can't/isn't up for having sex but once every couple of months or so, then it would be acceptable so long as your thoughts while doing so are on her and her alone (reliving in your mind your past sexual exploits with her, for example). In either of those cases, it would *still* be sin, though, if your so doing quenched your desire for your wife (like if she just came home ready to "fool around", and you told her no), because it would be robbing her of the love/intimacy she deserves from you.

I disagree. Masturbation is sinful in any context because it seperates the use of our sexual faculties from their primary purpose. The situation may be likened to eating, I think. We eat and we enjoy our food. It is a fine thing to enjoy eating. But the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies and keep us alive. So eating because you are hungry is good. Eating because you are bored is wrong. You must not seperate your ability to eat from the reason you were given the ability to eat in the first place. This would be an example of frustrating God's purpose in creating something - doing something according to YOUR will, and not God's.

With sex, it seems difficult. God sometimes demands very difficult things from us. Be he never fails to bestow the graces we need to meet the challenge.

However, you do make an excellent point regarding spouses' intimate obligation to one another. It is indeed wrong to deny your spouse sex (and especially if you use it to manipulate him - dreadful). Of course, there are limits to this - illness and so forth, and spouses must always be sensitive to one another's needs. Indeed, I would say that pretty much defines love - to put another's needs ahead of your own.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost

Not all of them, and about the temple God himself or the messiah will build it. And what is that ''half of them'' things, you fullfill them all or not.
A thing to be a thing must fullfil all the things that describes them as that thing not half or a third.

No. Go back & read my post again.
--- The temple: God or Messiah Himself may indeed build it; I'm just pointing out that even now, there are human plans afoot to do so.
--- As to the regathering from the diaspora, you must realize that "all of them" is a relative term. If you wanna get technical about it, if there's even ONE Jew who's, say, a prisoner somewhere in Russia, and can't get back to Israel, then "all" will not be regathered. Same principle if you have a Jew who's perfectly comfortable with their life here in the US (or Brazil, for that matter), and has no desire to relocate to Israel. Under that concept of "all", IIRC that there will NEVER be a time when "all" will be true. You have to look at the big picture, and relatively speaking, "all " IS true: A hundred years ago, there was no Jewish homeland per se. Now, it is *there* for any pretty much any Jew who desires to (prisoners & such excluded, natch) to emigrate to.
--- As to the prophecies, You missed the point, which is that the other "one & 1/2" that I spoke of were predictions which have not as YET come to pass. Doesn't mean in the least that they are "wrong", since ultimately only time will tell.
In other words, they are not prophecies that have been PROVEN false, which is the 2nd category I gave (like so many over the centuries who have "prophesied" that the world will end on a specific date, and the date came & went without incident...). Comprendes?... As far as "1/2" a prophecy, I was treating the Regathering/Temple rebuilding as one prophecy, which was a mistake on my part (lo siento). I realize now, reading thru it again, that it was actually two separate prophecies. I apologize for any confusion this brought.

Again, Jesus call him, great prophet (and maybe the samaritans) not the jews.

OK, how DO Jews view John the Baptizer?...

And the 12 legions thing is proven? can be this figurative like you wrote in another part of this post?

No, I was just quoting Yeshua. This is what He said. He was being literal, but as I said, to have called upon that authority He had, it would have ruined the whole plan of salvation, so He did not do so.

Of course proben by the Church. (catholic, anglican or the others)

Um, I'm not clear what you mean by that response. Plz clarify...

I like how you said here is irrelevant but not is irrelevant what the people say in the first post.
And then they formed a new Kingdom, then if i follow your line of thinking, i should say that the christians will be conquered by the ''pagans'' and be lost like the 10 lost tribes and the jews will be the only ones who will endure?

Sorry, plz provide clarification of this response as well, so I can respond to it appropriately...

Originally posted by Farlander

This has always been the teaching of the Church, which was given its authority by Christ himself. I would therefore contend that the teachings of the Church are the commandments of God. If you wish a more "direct" indication, remember that Onan was
struck dead by God for "withdrawing."

You misunderstand the concept of spiritual authority as Christ gave it to the Church/St. Peter. The "upon this rock I will build my church" declaration of Christ to Peter (Matthew 16:18-20) refers not to Peter as being the "rock", but rather, the "rock" is the confession of faith that Peter had just uttered. It is indeed upon the rock of faith in Christ and in His gospel that the church is built, not upon any one man (Peter) or His specific successors (da Popes). Thus, Christ wasn't giving (specifically) Peter blanket authority to make whatever pronouncements he feels like, but was giving it to the church as a whole. That Peter continued to be fallible and imperfect (Galatians 2:11-13) even after Pentecost (though no doubt LESS so than he was before) is a powerful argument refuting the whole concept of Papal infallibility.

Anyway, if that position were true, then it would mean that all the "indulgences" that were sold to folks in the Middle Ages were valid, and all those folks who paid for them are now in heaven (regardless of their evil deeds, or, even worse, their unbelief & lack of faith).
Entry into heaven for a mere few pieces of gold. Wonderful. Profanes the entire institution of the church (which is one of the many reasons why Luther ended up leaving the RCC).
There is no direct indication with the Onan thing; in fact, the Onan incident is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as you yourself hint at: Onan wasn't 'spanking the monkey', he was the first recorded practitioner of the "early withdrawal" method of birth control. THAT was his sin, and is why the Lord struck him dead.
Under the Levirite marriage law, Onan had a DUTY to his new wife & deceased brother to raise up a family for said brother, and he selfishly & sinfully refused to comply by "pulling out early". BOOM; he's toast.

Fair enough, but as a Catholic, the only propper course of action for her would have been to abstain from sexual activity when it might have resulted in her getting pregnant (or possibly altogether, if it were an exremely serious condition, I suppose). This is not open to debate in any way, if she had meant to comply with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Funny, I seem to recall her saying that the priests at her Church were cool with it (Prolly, I assume, since they knew it was a medical condition, and not the result of a "sinful choice" on her part per se - which, of course, is why MOST who practice birth control do so..).

What it may lead to is not the issue. The issue is that the act of oral sex is, in itself, contrary the natural, God-intended purpose of our sexual faculties. Note that some confusion of definitions is possible here. "Oral stimulation" of the male is, I believe, fine if it is a prelude to normal sexual intercourse, and if no semen is lost. For the woman, oral stimulation to bring her to orgasm is also fine if it happens immediately before or after sexual intercourse.

No, it is EXACTLY the issue, as I'm addressing it here anyway. I have to say I disagree that oral sex - and any "non-intercourse" sex activity (so long as is with one's spouse) is contrary to God's purposes for sex. I understand the importance of procreation here (and thus the RCC's focus on same), but a thorough read of scripture yields the fact that sex wasn't provided by God SOLELY for procreation:...
Read Song Of Solomon in the OT. You see all kinda talk by the lovers about their pleasure in one another's appearance and the fleshly joys of giving their bodies to one another, but not one mention of how either is looking fwd to being a parent in 9 months. The reason for this is to illustrate the beauty/importance of the God-given gift of sex ASIDE from it's procreative role. Sex is to be used to bond the couple closer together in love & intimacy in a way that nothing else can.

Anyway, you basically went on to support everything I said, so - thanx. Anyway, my POINT was to say that, at least in my experience, oral sex is usually just one course on the table of the entire sexual "meal" (the "entree" being, of course, 'regular' intercourse), and as such there is no sin, since whether before or after the entree, there is (the possibility of) "procreation" on the table.

Regarding married priests, experience with sex is not needed to convey the teachings of the Church about sex to the faithful. Furthermore, these teachings are set in stone - even if every priest and bishop in the world wanted them changed, it would not be possible to do so.

Really?... not even the "bishop of Rome"?...
Here again, we go back to the misappropriation/misunderstanding of church authority that I spoke of earlier. In any event, if priests could all be married, then most of yer Popes prolly woulda been married as well. As such, they likely wouldn't ever have come up with such an ignorant position in the first place, since they WOULD know firsthand what goes on in the bedroom with one's wife.

Also, the Catholic Church has many, many married priests.

Only those who were "grandfathered in" from other denominations (esp. Anglican/Episcopal/Orthodox) after they "convert" to RCCism. I'm talking about those who get to the priesthood the "usual way", which is to say, the majority of priests.

I disagree. Masturbation is sinful in any context because it seperates the use of our sexual faculties from their primary purpose. The situation may be likened to eating, I think. We eat and we enjoy our food. It is a fine thing to enjoy eating. But the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies and keep us alive. So eating because you are hungry is good. Eating because you are bored is wrong. You must not seperate your ability to eat from the reason you were given the ability to eat in the first place. This would be an example of frustrating God's purpose in creating something - doing something according to YOUR will, and not God's.

OK, so how 'bout when a married couple is having a sex session, and part of the activity that goes on before intercourse is one or both 'spanking the other's monkey', so to speak (this is of course assuming that they then go on to have "sex as usual" - see responses above - and the possibility procreation is thus preserved)?... See again my mention above about the Song of Solomon.
And to use your other example, what about if I get invited to a banquet?... I just got back from the store, and have plenty of food at home (and probably tastier than is served at the banquet), so I wouldn't be going to the banquet to nourish my body, I would be going for completely "other reasons" than to nourish myself & keep my bod alive. Would my accepting the invite to the banquet then be "wrong"?... Seems under your analogy, it would be...

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Preacher
--- As to the regathering from the diaspora, you must realize that "all of them" is a relative term.

But less than a half or a third doesn´t fullfil the prophecy.
And according you there are only 3 predictions to be fullfiled.

Originally posted by Preacher
OK, how DO Jews view John the Baptizer?....

Good question, AFAIK there is nothing official about him,he was just a guy who ''prophetysed'' in a river, he isn´t a prophet to the jews nor a rabbi or something else.

Originally posted by Preacher

No, I was just quoting Yeshua. This is what He said. He was being literal, but as I said, to have called upon that authority He had, it would have ruined the whole plan of salvation, so He did not do so.

Again it could be figurative or not (as you view it), as all in this thread is a matter of faith, you believe (or you are sure) that he could call 12 legions of angels, i don´t

Originally posted by Preacher
Um, I'm not clear what you mean by that response. Plz clarify...

That those miracles and propecies that ''have come true'' and the other predictions that fit between the third or first category (in relation to your prior post) were proven by the church only.

Originally posted by Preacher
Sorry, plz provide clarification of this response as well, so I can respond to it appropriately...

In one post, you say that what the ''people say is relevant'' (maybe not with those words) to prove your point, and in another one you say that what the ''people say is irrelevant'' to prove your point.
So basically if you think that it helps you to prove a point you will say that something is relevant or irrelevant

The other part was an analogy that you created between Jesus and the Phariseic leaders and the people and Rehoboam.
So i using your line of thinking created another analogy, nothing more.

Originally posted by Preacher
Onan had a DUTY to his new wife & deceased brother to raise up a family for said brother, and he selfishly & sinfully refused to comply by "pulling out early". BOOM; he's toast.

True, he wasn´t killed by God because he as Preacher said ''pulled out early'' , he was killed because he didn´t fullfil the duty with the wife of his brother, something similar happened with Juda in an early (or later) chapter..

 

[Farlander]

Originally posted by Preacher
You misunderstand the concept of spiritual authority as Christ gave it to the Church/St. Peter. The "upon this rock I will build my church" declaration of Christ to Peter (Matthew 16:18-20) refers not to Peter as being the "rock", but rather, the "rock" is the confession of faith that Peter had just uttered. It is indeed upon the rock of faith in Christ and in His gospel that the church is built, not upon any one man (Peter) or His specific successors (da Popes). Thus, Christ wasn't giving (specifically) Peter blanket authority to make whatever pronouncements he feels like, but was giving it to the church as a whole. That Peter continued to be fallible and imperfect (Galatians 2:11-13) even after Pentecost (though no doubt LESS so than he was before) is a powerful argument refuting the whole concept of Papal infallibility.

Peter is most certainly "the rock" of which Christ spoke. There is absolutely no credible argument to be made against this, linguistcally or otherwise. Even many Protestants and Orthodox assent to this, because it is really quite obvious. They merely debate the implications of it. Peter the man (and every pope after him) is certainly capable of sinning and being wrong, but when teaching ex cathedra he speaks with Christ's own authority and is backed by Christ's promise that the gates of hell would never triumph against his Church.

Anyway, if that position were true, then it would mean that all the "indulgences" that were sold to folks in the Middle Ages were valid, and all those folks who paid for them are now in heaven (regardless of their evil deeds, or, even worse, their unbelief & lack of faith).
Entry into heaven for a mere few pieces of gold. Wonderful. Profanes the entire institution of the church (which is one of the many reasons why Luther ended up leaving the RCC).

Evil actions commited by Church leaders are incapable of profaining the Church. The Church is spotless, the bride of Christ, perfect. Priests and bishops sin, but they sin on their own behalf and bring shame on only themselves.

I don't know what you are on about with the indulgences. Indulgences do no get one a ticket into heaven regardless of whether or not they are obtained licitly (which those sold were most certainly not). Indulgences remit the temporal punishment of sins that were already forgiven via sacramental Confession. To propperly obtain an indulgence, you must first make a sincere Confession. Indulgences have nothing to do with heaven whatsoever and never have.

There is no direct indication with the Onan thing; in fact, the Onan incident is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as you yourself hint at: Onan wasn't 'spanking the monkey', he was the first recorded practitioner of the "early withdrawal" method of birth control. THAT was his sin, and is why the Lord struck him dead.

The Church understands his sin to be the withdrawal, the wasting of semen. "Spanking the monkey" and withdrawal are morally equivalent.

Funny, I seem to recall her saying that the priests at her Church were cool with it (Prolly, I assume, since they knew it was a medical condition, and not the result of a "sinful choice" on her part per se - which, of course, is why MOST who practice birth control do so..).

They may very well have. Unfortuately, many priests do not pass on the Church's teaching regarding birth control. Why? I have no idea. Nevertheless, for a Catholic, there can be no compromise on this issue. You can verify that by refering to the CCC.

No, it is EXACTLY the issue, as I'm addressing it here anyway. I have to say I disagree that oral sex - and any "non-intercourse" sex activity (so long as is with one's spouse) is contrary to God's purposes for sex. I understand the importance of procreation here (and thus the RCC's focus on same), but a thorough read of scripture yields the fact that sex wasn't provided by God SOLELY for procreation:...
Read Song Of Solomon in the OT. You see all kinda talk by the lovers about their pleasure in one another's appearance and the fleshly joys of giving their bodies to one another, but not one mention of how either is looking fwd to being a parent in 9 months. The reason for this is to illustrate the beauty/importance of the God-given gift of sex ASIDE from it's procreative role. Sex is to be used to bond the couple closer together in love & intimacy in a way that nothing else can.

It is NOT the only purpose, but it is the PRIMARY purpose. We know there will be no marriage in heaven. There will be no more children, and so the need for marriage (and so, sex) will be gone. Spouses are meant to enjoy sex, but in its propper and natural context.

Really?... not even the "bishop of Rome"?...

No, not even the Bishop of Rome.

Here again, we go back to the misappropriation/misunderstanding of church authority that I spoke of earlier. In any event, if priests could all be married, then most of yer Popes prolly woulda been married as well. As such, they likely wouldn't ever have come up with such an ignorant position in the first place, since they WOULD know firsthand what goes on in the bedroom with one's wife.

This makes no sense. There have been married popes. All of them upheld this teaching.

Only those who were "grandfathered in" from other denominations (esp. Anglican/Episcopal/Orthodox) after they "convert" to RCCism. I'm talking about those who get to the priesthood the "usual way", which is to say, the majority of priests.

No, that is not true. The Latin Rite is the only one that does not usually ordain married men. All 20+ Eastern Rites ordain married men.

Furthermore, all Catholic rites ordain married men to the dioconate.

OK, so how 'bout when a married couple is having a sex session, and part of the activity that goes on before intercourse is one or both 'spanking the other's monkey', so to speak (this is of course assuming that they then go on to have "sex as usual" - see responses above - and the possibility procreation is thus preserved)?... See again my mention above about the Song of Solomon.

As I have mentioned before, there is no sin in this, assuming no semen is wasted. You see, the issue is not just having as many children as possible, or even HAVING children, it's keeping sexual activity in line with the will of God.

And to use your other example, what about if I get invited to a banquet?... I just got back from the store, and have plenty of food at home (and probably tastier than is served at the banquet), so I wouldn't be going to the banquet to nourish my body, I would be going for completely "other reasons" than to nourish myself & keep my bod alive. Would my accepting the invite to the banquet then be "wrong"?... Seems under your analogy, it would be...

No, that's not right. It would not be wrong to go to the banquet. It has nothing to do with how much food you have or anything like that. The issue is this: are you eating to nourish yourself - because you are hungry? Or are you eating because you are, for example, bored? Eating is a good thing, and enjoying your food is a good thing, but we must remember God's purpose in giving us mouths and teeth and stomachs.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Farlander

Peter is most certainly "the rock" of which Christ spoke. There is absolutely no credible argument to be made against this, linguistcally or otherwise. Even many Protestants and Orthodox assent to this, because it is really quite obvious. They merely debate the implications of it. Peter the man (and every pope... is certainly capable of sinning and being wrong, but when teaching ex cathedra he speaks with Christ's own authority and is backed by Christ's promise that the gates of hell would never triumph against his Church.

Argument? Here's your argument:
(1) Linguistic:
The word translated as "rock" (the one that he will build His church upon) is a *different* word for rock than the word that JC used as a nickname of sorts for Peter. I'm not 100% sure of which words were involved, but I believe the church "rock" word was "petros", whereas the nickname for Peter was the word "cephas", Different words, with differing meanings, applied to two different objects. This is hardly "irrefutable evidence" for the establishment of the Papacy
(2) Practical:
If the Orthodox believe this too, then why don't they follow da Pope as their spiritual authority?... Likewise Protestants?...

On a separate note, any soldier knows it is not necessary to win every battle to be triumphant in the war. That said, it is entirely conceivable for a Pope to speak on matters of the faith ( ex-cathedra) and to be wrong, or downright sinful in the concepts he promotes (such as indulgies, for example), and yet the gates of hell not ultimately "triumphing". Nonetheless, he certainly would've lost that battle. Oh, and btw, this whole ex-cathedra infallibility thing is not something I'm aware of that is contained in the Scriptures. Therefore, where did the idea come from? Could it be that it came from some prior Pope?....Hmmmmm...

Evil actions commited by Church leaders are incapable of profaining the Church. The Church is spotless, the bride of Christ, perfect. Priests and bishops sin, but they sin on their own behalf and bring shame on only themselves.

I guess we got us a semantic impasse here. Lemme clear it up: By "profaning the church", I meant that the sinful actions of the church's leaders give the church a black eye in the eyes of the world, they nullify the witness of the church to a lost & dying world. Paul was not shy about warning some of the early churches about this dynamic (the Corinthian church comes to mind here), and warning such churches to repent and conform themselves to the gospel. A recent case in point for this is the recent RCC "pedophile priests" scandal, which has sullied the RCC's reputation in the world, and even in the eyes of her own flock, a number of whom have left the church over this shameful institutional sin.

I don't know what you are on about with the indulgences. Indulgences do no get one a ticket into heaven regardless of whether or not they are obtained licitly (which those sold were most certainly not). Indulgences remit the temporal punishment of sins that were already forgiven via sacramental Confession. To propperly obtain an indulgence, you must first make a sincere Confession...

What I'm "on" w/ indulgences is that they are a one-time practice of the church that clearly was wrong, in that it essentially "sold" forgiveness (eternal or temporal, either way) to the masses, cheapening the grace of God and reducing it to an economic transaction This was very thing JC railed against in driving out the moneychangers from the Temple, btw. And, AFAIK, they had full Papal approval. This violated the very spirit of any "authority" that JC gave to the church.

Anyway, lemme see if I got this straight: You're saying that, to qualify for an indulgence, one must sincerely confess (& thus receive your forgiveness right then & there). Then after that, you pay the church a chunk of change to receive your forgiveness all over again? Sounds like a pretty good scam to me which just underscores the corruptness of such a practice.
Perhaps you meant that Indulgies remit the *punishment* for the sin, which is a separate deal from the forgiveness. Well, even if that's your meaning, it's still a corrupt practice (which is why, one would hope, they don't do it anymore) - since you're still "selling" the grace of God for filthy lucre.

The Church understands his sin to be the withdrawal, the wasting of semen. "Spanking the monkey" and withdrawal are morally equivalent.

So the church is cool with the fact that the guy was welching on his obligation before God to his brother's wife?...

"Morally equivalent" is irrelevant here; you can't use a Scripture condemning one sin to go on and condemn a different sin. To God, all sin is morally equivalent, but yet He took great pains to go into no small amount of detail on various sins separately. Adultery and murder are both sins, but there are plenty of passages in the Word dealing with each separately. I've never heard anyone try to condemn one by citing scripture on the other. That's basically what you're doing.

This makes no sense. There have been many, many married popes. All of them upheld this teaching.

Yeah, there've been a buncha married Popes, but that in itself raises a coupla very thorny issues for the RCC:
(1) AFAIK, the celibate priesthood was established c.400 or so AD, with the Council of (Trent? Nicocea? --I'm kinda shaky on the various Councils' names...) That means such Popes thereafter who got married were, de facto, "living in sin". As such, their authority was suspect, to say the least.
(2) Said Popes were last around in like, what: the Middle Ages or so, right?... Therefore, there's no one in recent memory (certainly not in our lifetimes) who "officially" knew firsthand about what being married/having sex with your wife was like FIRSTHAND.

No, that is not true. The Latin Rite is the only one that does not usually ordain married men. All 20+ Eastern Rites ordain married men.
Furthermore, all Catholic rites ordain married men to the dioconate.

Semantics again. My statement IS true as it stands.

Why? because I've been talking about the (~1 billion strong or so) Roman Catholic Church all along, dude... That's what I mean by the abbreviation "RCC" (You must missed the post where I explained that). The Deacon point is moot: Last I knew, deacons were not in the inner circle of those who set RCC policy. It's the Pope, and the College of Cardinals advising him, and that's it. Deacons & others need not apply.

No, not even the Bishop of Rome.

Sorry. I always thought the Pope was referred to as the "Bishop of Rome".

In any event, are you saying that not even the Pope can change the teachings of the church?... That's odd; where does that leave yer Papal authority & ex- cathedra infallibility, then?...

As I have mentioned before, there is no sin in this, assuming no semen is wasted.

Fine.

What's yer definiton of "wasted", then?... The physiological fact is that male arousal produces a small amount of fluid at the tip of one's 'tool', known as "pre-ejaculate", which is lower in sperm count than the usual stuff, but still capable of producing a pregnancy. This is an autonomic nervous system reflex; the male has no control over it whatsoever.
If some of this gets on one's sheets (or shorts) inadvertantly PRIOR to the sex act, does that constitute wastage, and thus sin?...
You gotta consider the big picture, and the intent of the hearts of the people involved here, since that's, after all, what God does. Wastage by your (or the RCCs) definition is irrelevant if the marital duties & obligations of the spouses are being fulfilled before God. If you/the RCC want to believe differently, go ahead, but you can find no Scriptural backing for this position.

No, that's not right. It would not be wrong to go to the banquet. It has nothing to do with how much food you have or anything like that. The issue is this: are you eating to nourish yourself - because you are hungry? Or are you eating because you are, for example, bored? Eating is a good thing, and enjoying your food is a good thing, but we must remember God's purpose in giving us mouths and teeth and stomachs.

Um, I just TOLD you that I wouldn't be going to the banquet to nourish myself, but for "other reasons"... Which part of that didn't you understand?...

It could be to simply get outta the house for a night, to meet women, to "network" with other colleagues of mine, whatever. But I definitely WOULDN'T be going to eat. That said, under your philosophy, my accepting the invite would be tantamount to sin. Now you're turning around and saying it wouldn't be wrong. All I ask is, plz make up your mind, or at least use more sensible examples in the future. Sheesh.

Originally posted by Ghost

.. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay"..... The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

Even if your source is right on this one point, it doesnt change much. For one, research shows that it was common to bind the hands & feet with cords to the cross before (& in addition to) the actual nailing of said limbs to the cross, so the reality of Christ's crucifixion is consistent with the Hebrew wording in Ps. 22. Secondly, the other events spoken of in Psalm 22 were fulfilled with startling accuracy in the Crucifixion.

"His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and G-D promises to open its "graves"...

Christ was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Aromat, a Pharisee. Pharisees were clearly "wicked" in Jesus' eyes (though Joseph specifically would appear to be an exception); thus, the verse is dead-on. And, the gospel account of the crucifixion includes a passage about the graves opening up after Christ's death and the dead in them walking around (Matthew 27:51-53).

 

[Farlander]

Originally posted by Preacher
Argument? Here's your argument:
(1) Linguistic:
The word translated as "rock" (the one that he will build His church upon) is a *different* word for rock than the word that JC used as a nickname of sorts for Peter. I'm not 100% sure of which words were involved, but I believe the church "rock" word was "petros", whereas the nickname for Peter was the word "cephas", Different words, with differing meanings, applied to two different objects. This is hardly "irrefutable evidence" for the establishment of the Papacy

You are mixing up the languages involved. "Cephas" isn't Greek. It's Aramaic. It is a transliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha," which is rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellenistic form. What Christ said was "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church."

You may be refering to the different Greek words "Petros"
(meaning "pebble") and "petra" (meaning "large rock"). In truth, they meant this in some Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ. By the first century, they were synonyms, as any Greek scholar will tell you. "Petra" means the same thing as "Kepha." So, you might ask, why does not the Greek read "You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church" instead of "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church?" The answer is because that Aramaic and Greek have different gramatical structures. In Aramaic, that would have been perfectly fine (Kepha and kepha), but in Greek, you cannot do that, because the nouns take different genders. Petra is the correct word, sure, but you cannot apply it to Peter's name, because it is a feminine noun. You cannot give a feminine name to a male. So that word must be rendered as the synonymous "Petros." It is an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic, but is was the best that could be done.

Furthermore, the structure of the whole narative does not allow for the downplaying of Peter. You can't read these things in vacuum, you know.

(2) Practical:
If the Orthodox believe this too, then why don't they follow da Pope as their spiritual authority?... Likewise Protestants?...

Pride? Pettiness? Ignorace? (Lets face it, some people just don't know, because they don't think about this stuff - you can't fault them for it, really, it just happens).

On a separate note, any soldier knows it is not necessary to win every battle to be triumphant in the war. That said, it is entirely conceivable for a Pope to speak on matters of the faith ( ex-cathedra) and to be wrong, or downright sinful in the concepts he promotes (such as indulgies, for example), and yet the gates of hell not ultimately "triumphing". Nonetheless, he certainly would've lost that battle. Oh, and btw, this whole ex-cathedra infallibility thing is not something I'm aware of that is contained in the Scriptures. Therefore, where did the idea come from? Could it be that it came from some prior Pope?....Hmmmmm...

It never says anything about any Holy Trinity in the scriptures anywhere either. Not everything is in the Scriptures. It even SAYS that in the Scriptures.

Anyway, lemme see if I got this straight: You're saying that, to qualify for an indulgence, one must sincerely confess (& thus receive your forgiveness right then & there). Then after that, you pay the church a chunk of change to receive your forgiveness all over again? Sounds like a pretty good scam to me which just underscores the corruptness of such a practice.
Perhaps you meant that Indulgies remit the *punishment* for the sin, which is a separate deal from the forgiveness. Well, even if that's your meaning, it's still a corrupt practice (which is why, one would hope, they don't do it anymore) - since you're still "selling" the grace of God for filthy lucre.

Selling indulgences was indeed a very wrong thing to do - that is beyond debate, of course. But that does not mean that indulgences themselves are somehow a wrong thing. They are a very good thing. They were NOT a one time thing - you can certainly obtain an indugence today, and many people do. It is a very holy and beneficial practice. There is no sort of payment involved.

To clarify the definition. An indulenge has zero to do with forgiveness. It is about a remission of the temporal punishment for sins already forgiven. If you have a mortal sin on your soul, no amount of indulgences will ever save you. Likewise, if you are bound for heaven, no lack of indulgences will keep from getting there.

So the church is cool with the fact that the guy was welching on his obligation before God to his brother's wife?...

No, of course not.

"Morally equivalent" is irrelevant here; you can't use a Scripture condemning one sin to go on and condemn a different sin. To God, all sin is morally equivalent, but yet He took great pains to go into no small amount of detail on various sins separately. Adultery and murder are both sins, but there are plenty of passages in the Word dealing with each separately. I've never heard anyone try to condemn one by citing scripture on the other. That's basically what you're doing.

I do not think it is clear at all from the passage in question that the sin that brought Onan death was what you say. It is, in fact, not extremely clear at all, and the interpretation must be guided by Tradition in this case. (In my opinion, but I am no expert in Scripture.) In any case, I don't think further discussion on this issue will be helpful, since our sources for Scriptural interpretation are different.

Yeah, there've been a buncha married Popes, but that in itself raises a coupla very thorny issues for the RCC:
(1) AFAIK, the celibate priesthood was established c.400 or so AD, with the Council of (Trent? Nicocea? --I'm kinda shaky on the various Councils' names...) That means such Popes thereafter who got married were, de facto, "living in sin". As such, their authority was suspect, to say the least.

Celebacy was made mandatory for clergy in the 10th century, I think it was. The sinfulness of a pope has nothing to do with his authority. A validly elected pope has authority until he dies or reliquishes it, regarless of whether or not he is a notorious sinner.

(2) Said Popes were last around in like, what: the Middle Ages or so, right?... Therefore, there's no one in recent memory (certainly not in our lifetimes) who "officially" knew firsthand about what being married/having sex with your wife was like FIRSTHAND.
Semantics again. My statement IS true as it stands.

There have been no married popes for 10 centuries or so, yes. Still, I fail to see why such experience should matter in teaching the objective moral issues associated with it. And even if it did matter for some reason, it STILL doesn't matter because it cannot be changed.

Why? because I've been talking about the (~1 billion strong or so) Roman Catholic Church all along, dude... That's what I mean by the abbreviation "RCC" (You must missed the post where I explained that). The Deacon point is moot: Last I knew, deacons were not in the inner circle of those who set RCC policy. It's the Pope, and the College of Cardinals advising him, and that's it. Deacons & others need not apply.

I'm not sure I understand. The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Excluding the Eastern Rites in your posts makes no sense. They are every bit as Catholic as a Latin Rite Catholic, they are every bit as obligated as Latin Rite Catholics to give religious assent to the Pope's teachings when he speaks ex cathedra, and their bishops have just as much authority as a Latin Rite bishop.

Deacons are valuable assistants of the bishops. Besides, there is nothing stopping any man who has been married, but whose wife has died from becoming a priest. Lots of men do that these days. And the Pope does not set all Catholic "policy". A lot of that is in the hands of the local bishops. He has decided the issue of priestly celebacy for the West, however.

Sorry. I always thought the Pope was referred to as the "Bishop of Rome".

No, no - you were quite correct - the Bishop of Rome is the Pope.

In any event, are you saying that not even the Pope can change the teachings of the church?... That's odd; where does that leave yer Papal authority & ex- cathedra infallibility, then?...
Fine.

Right, the Pope cannot alter teachings on faith and morality. He CAN explain them further and see them in new ways, but he cannot teach contrary to them. Note that there is no earthly "check" for this. If it ever happened, we would simply be forced to conclude the whole Catholic Church is full of it and always has been.

What's yer definiton of "wasted", then?... The physiological fact is that male arousal produces a small amount of fluid at the tip of one's 'tool', known as "pre-ejaculate", which is lower in sperm count than the usual stuff, but still capable of producing a pregnancy. This is an autonomic nervous system reflex; the male has no control over it whatsoever.
If some of this gets on one's sheets (or shorts) inadvertantly PRIOR to the sex act, does that constitute wastage, and thus sin?...
You gotta consider the big picture, and the intent of the hearts of the people involved here, since that's, after all, what God does. Wastage by your (or the RCCs) definition is irrelevant if the marital duties & obligations of the spouses are being fulfilled before God. If you/the RCC want to believe differently, go ahead, but you can find no Scriptural backing for this position.

By "waste" I mean "not ejected into the wife's vagina". Now, if an "accident" were to occur, there is no sin. Sin needs intent, remember? So, wet dreams and involuntary losses of semen are not sinful.

Um, I just TOLD you that I wouldn't be going to the banquet to nourish myself, but for "other reasons"... Which part of that didn't you understand?...

You said you have plenty of food at your house. Not that you were not hungry. If you were full and went only to stuff yourself with elegent food, that would be wrong. If you were hungry and decided to go to the banquet instead of making your own meal at home, that is obviously not a sin.

It could be to simply get outta the house for a night, to meet women, to "network" with other colleagues of mine, whatever. But I definitely WOULDN'T be going to eat. That said, under your philosophy, my accepting the invite would be tantamount to sin. Now you're turning around and saying it wouldn't be wrong. All I ask is, plz make up your mind, or at least use more sensible examples in the future. Sheesh.

You started this whole banquet example. Your primary purpose for attending the banquet has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is your motivation for eating, regardless of location. You have taken the analogy a bit far, here, really...