Socrates Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 20 2005, 05:17 PM']RESPONSE: (1) No. Some of the Church's teachings are wrong because they are in error in themselves. What I demonstrating here, is, if Catholic World News has run an accurate survey, the vast majority of Catholic physicians realize this and are evidently acting on their conscience rather than assenting to error. (2) Genesis 38:6-10: "Judah got a wife named Tamar for his first-born, Er. But Er, Judah's first-born, greatly offended the LORD; so the LORD took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. " This passage is not dealing with the issue of birth control but with Onan's failure to follow Mosaic Law and raise male children in the brother's line , so that the brother's property would be retained by his family. Women could not inherit property and, in this case, the brother's property would go to Onan, if he did not produce a male heir via his borther's wife. He refused to, so got zapped too! : The claim I was addressing is: "The Catholic Church is not about what it's people believe - it's about what Jesus taught." What I asked was if Jesus had ever taught anything about birth control or the use of condoms to prevent AIDs. I don't think that he did. In fact, that every sexual act has to be open to creation does not seem to have been his teaching at all. This church teaching seems to have started around the fourth century with Augustine, Jerome, and company. LittleLes [right][snapback]617195[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LittleTroll, (1) You have done absolutely nothing to prove why the Chruch teachings on contraception, etc. are "wrong in themselves." You merely made an assertion and gave some numbers for how many doctors supposedly believe something. If you want to use polls to determine who's right, why don't you check out the poll on this site about your own arguments? (2) Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. More assertions from yourself about how to "correctly" interpret scripture (which oddly is always whatever the Church does not teach). Since according to you, the Bible is just a pack of lies, why should we care how you choose to interpret it? Why should we trust the assertions of some silly troll over the teachings of the Church anyway? And Jesus didn't teach anything about nuclear arms, bio-engineering, or the destruction of the ozone layer either? What's your point? Judaic Law did not teach contrary to Catholic morality at the time of Christ on sexual issues, so there would be no need for Christ to reiterate this. In fact, His rules were stricter, forbidding even looking at a woman lustfully. Giving moral teaching about issues as they arise is part of the reason Christ gave us the Papacy. So far, you have yet to offer any proof that Jesus or the early Church taught that contraception, homosexuality, et al are acceptable. And now you're a "Bible Only" Christian? Did you get Born Again sometime after you last were talking about how the gospels were a bunch of anti-semitic lies? Edited June 20, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 20 2005, 06:41 PM'] So far, you have yet to offer any proof that Jesus or the early Church taught that contraception, homosexuality, et al are acceptable. And now you're a "Bible Only" Christian? Did you get Born Again sometime after you last were talking about how the gospels were a bunch of anti-semitic lies? [right][snapback]617285[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: (1) I don't have to offer any "proof" that Jesus or the early Church taught that contraception, homosexuality, et al are acceptable. The statment I challenged was whether Jesus ever taught anything about these at all. He didn't. As evidence I offer the New Testament. (2) Please evidence your claim that I stated that "how the gospels were a bunch of anti-semitic lies? " I believe I quoted John 8:44: "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires."(NAB) I doubt that Jesus actually said this but the writer of John claimed that he did. Are you disputing the accuracy of this quotation from John? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Socrates inquires: (2) Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. More assertions from yourself about how to "correctly" interpret scripture (which oddly is always whatever the Church does not teach). Since according to you, the Bible is just a pack of lies, why should we care how you choose to interpret it? Why should we trust the assertions of some silly troll over the teachings of the Church anyway? RESPONSE: I don't claim that I always interpret scripture. But I have evidenced that the Church has not always done so: An easy example, see Lev 25: 44 -46 "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." Leading to this Teaching of the Holy Office approved by Pius IX: 'Nevertheless, slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given... But the Church's previous interpretation of Lev 25 was in error. It was reversed by Vatican II: 'All offences against human dignity: such as... arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery... the traffic in women and children... all these and the like are criminal. They poison civilisation; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honour of the creator" And of course the Cathechism's 2414 specifically describes the buying and selling of slaves as a sin against the seventh commandment. And Pope John Paul II's Encyclical "Veritatis splendor, 80" taught that slavery, no matter how it is justified, is intrinsically disordered. The Church had misinterpreted scripture. Want other examples? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 And this from the writer Leonard Swidler republished in the National Catholic Reporter: "In the wake of the decision of the civil court to support the Vatican in its argument with Father Charles Curran, the imposition of a loyalty oath on Catholic theologians and officials, and closure of two progressive seminaries in Brazil, Catholics in general and American Catholics in particular, may begin to doubt their right, and at times obligation, to be a loyal opposition through reasoned dissent and dialogue." Loyalty oaths. This dates me, but I remember them from the McCarthy era. What does this say about intellectual freedom in the institutional Catholic church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 20 2005, 06:59 PM']RESPONSE: (1) I don't have to offer any "proof" that Jesus or the early Church taught that contraception, homosexuality, et al are acceptable. The statment I challenged was whether Jesus ever taught anything about these at all. He didn't. As evidence I offer the New Testament. (2) Please evidence your claim that I stated that "how the gospels were a bunch of anti-semitic lies? " I believe I quoted John 8:44: "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires."(NAB) I doubt that Jesus actually said this but the writer of John claimed that he did. Are you disputing the accuracy of this quotation from John? LittleLes [right][snapback]617305[/snapback][/right] [/quote] (1) The Jews he preached to were against these things. Since Jesus did not teach contrary. we must assumed he agreed. This is confirmed by the teachings of His Church. (2) Your own words: [quote]John's gospel, perhaps the most antisemitic . . . Do you think that this is "inspired" fact, or a little fiction by John? [/quote] I have no reason to doubt that Christ said this. What proof do you have that He didn't? Were you there? Read the whole gospel passage. He was referring those who wanted to kill him. Their murderous intentions came from the devil. That was what made them "children of the devil," not the fact that they were Jews! This has absolutely nothing to do with "anti-Semitism." Throwing around charges like "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" and "fascist" is a common cheap tactic to divert attention away from dealing with the truth of an argument, and usually is a sign that one's own arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Your mindless trolling is getting tiresome. Edited June 21, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 And apparently folks, we are attempting to get in every ounce of tripe we can, as soon as possible. Dissenting theologians (discussed already) slavery...........again!!!! Anti-Semitism (closed topic) Authenticity of the Early Fathers (discussed already) Anything new to add or are we gonna re-hash everything again? Getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 "Squaaawwwwk! "Unhistorical! squaaawk! slavery! squawwk! Charlie Curran says. . . squaawwwwk! NAB notes! Squaaawwwk! Anti-Semitic Awwk! True Believers! . . . Squawwwk! LittleLes wanna cracker! Awwrrk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 20 2005, 07:45 PM']"Squaaawwwwk! "Unhistorical! squaaawk! slavery! squawwk! Charlie Curran says. . . squaawwwwk! NAB notes! Squaaawwwk! Anti-Semitic Awwk! True Believers! . . . Squawwwk! LittleLes wanna cracker! Awwrrk! [right][snapback]617349[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/camilam42/Parrot_-_Cartoon_2.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 08:03 PM'][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/camilam42/Parrot_-_Cartoon_2.jpg[/img] [right][snapback]617361[/snapback][/right] [/quote] :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ok. In light of the goings-on in this thread it's being shut down. Please bring something new to the table, and please practice charity all. Thank you. God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts