Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Adoptions Of Children - SORS
Topic Started: Monday, 23. August 2010, 20:13 (272 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Monday, 23. August 2010, 19:10
Clare
Monday, 23. August 2010, 19:03
Sex is literally a matter of life, and sometimes death when that life is inconvenient.
How often is there a Vatican pronouncement about the teaching regarding just and unjust wars? War is about life and death. It is not sexy, not worth talking about.
Indeed.

But there is Church teaching on it, and it's perhaps not so clear cut.

The fact is that wars can be just (or could be before modern methods of warfare).

Fornication and adultery and all the other sexual sins are never permissible. There is no "just" version of them.

There is no "Might adultery be acceptable in this case?", whereas you can discuss whether a war may be just or not.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Monday, 23. August 2010, 20:13
But there is Church teaching on it, and it's perhaps not so clear cut.

The fact is that wars can be just (or could be before modern methods of warfare).

Fornication and adultery and all the other sexual sins are never permissible. There is no "just" version of them.
Jesus explicitly stated that violence is never ever acceptable, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. Our Church has decided to ignore that and state that war can be justified.

Jesus never ever mentioned homosexual sex let alone declaring it sinful yet our Church has decided it is sinful, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

Then she wonders why people have scant regard for her teaching. Go figure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Where did Jesus explicitly state that "violence is never ever acceptable, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions", Mairtin?

Your problem seems to be that you think you are a better interpreter of Scripture than the Church is, which compiled Scripture in the first place.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
I should also like to know how, given that sex outside of marriage is wrong, how on earth can homosexual sex ever be acceptable?

You say Our Lord never said it wasn't. So show me where He said it was acceptable?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:05
Where did Jesus explicitly state that "violence is never ever acceptable, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions", Mairtin?
"But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly.
29 To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well; to anyone who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it."

Luke 6


I don't see many ifs or buts in that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
saundthorp

Quote:
 
Jesus explicitly stated that violence is never ever acceptable, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. Our Church has decided to ignore that and state that war can be justified.


If that is the case Mairtin, why didn't Jesus give the Centurion a good telling off for being in the Roman Army and how do you square your interpretation with Jesus' actions in the temple?

Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

saundthorp
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:55
If that is the case Mairtin, why didn't Jesus give the Centurion a good telling off for being in the Roman Army
The Centurion wasn't claiming to be a Christian.

Quote:
 
and how do you square your interpretation with Jesus' actions in the temple?
  1. I don't regard what Jesus did in the temple as an act of violence.

  2. I don't regard myself as on a par with Jesus.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mairtin
Monday, 23. August 2010, 22:02
saundthorp
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:55
If that is the case Mairtin, why didn't Jesus give the Centurion a good telling off for being in the Roman Army
The Centurion wasn't claiming to be a Christian.
There were no Christians in those days. Sin is sin whatever one's religion.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Monday, 23. August 2010, 22:04
Quote:
 
The Centurion wasn't claiming to be a Christian.
There were no Christians in those days.
Yes there were, Rose, maybe no Catholics or Protestants but certainly "followers of Christ" with St Peter and the other Apostles being the first.

Quote:
 
Sin is sin whatever one's religion.

Yes, but the point I was making was that Jesus was laying down the rules that need to be obeyed if we want to follow Him, the Centurion wasn't setting himself out to be a follower, he was essentially just looking for a favour from somebody whose special powers he recognised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
saundthorp

Mairtin
Monday, 23. August 2010, 22:02
saundthorp
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:55
If that is the case Mairtin, why didn't Jesus give the Centurion a good telling off for being in the Roman Army
The Centurion wasn't claiming to be a Christian.

Quote:
 
and how do you square your interpretation with Jesus' actions in the temple?
  1. I don't regard what Jesus did in the temple as an act of violence.

  2. I don't regard myself as on a par with Jesus.

Is that the best you can come up with Mairtin :wh:
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

saundthorp
Monday, 23. August 2010, 22:32
Is that the best you can come up with Mairtin :wh:
Is Christ clearing the money lenders out of the temple the best you can come up with to justify Christians shooting innocent people - including fellow Christians - dead with machine guns or blowing them to bits with bombs just to settle who owns a particular piece of land?

By the way, would you care to tell us how many people suffered any form of injury when He did clear the temple?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:29
Clare
Monday, 23. August 2010, 21:05
Where did Jesus explicitly state that "violence is never ever acceptable, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions", Mairtin?
"But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly.
29 To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well; to anyone who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it."

Luke 6


I don't see many ifs or buts in that.
I'm not seeing any absolute blanket ban on violence there, Mairtin.

He isn't saying if someone hits your wife, then you should let him hit her twice.

He isn't saying if someone takes your brother's coat you should give him your brother's tunic too.

It's one thing to turn your own cheek, but does that really mean we should turn other people's as well?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Again, Clare, the difference between us seems to be that I go on the things that Jesus actually did say, you arguments are based on things that Jesus didn't say.

Can you give me even one example of where Jesus endorsed violence or said it might be acceptable in certain circumstances? Can you show me where any of the Church Fathers during the first 3 centuries endorsed violence or said it might be acceptable in certain circumstances?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:00
Again, Clare, the difference between us seems to be that I go on the things that Jesus actually did say, you arguments are based on things that Jesus didn't say.
Mairtin,

I go by the Church's interpretation, which you seem to think you can by-pass.

Quote:
 
Can you give me even one example of where Jesus endorsed violence or said it might be acceptable in certain circumstances? Can you show me where any of the Church Fathers during the first 3 centuries endorsed violence or said it might be acceptable in certain circumstances?


Off the top of my head, what was that He said about scandalising little ones, and millstones, and the depths of the sea?

And are you seriously suggesting that you would follow Our Lord's advice literally by giving your tunic to someone who stole your coat? Perhaps you'd say it doesn't apply anymore because we don't wear tunics these days... Would you pluck out your eye if it caused you to sin?

You shouldn't take things so literally, Mairtin! :wh:
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:19
I go by the Church's interpretation, which you seem to think you can by-pass.
Which interpretation do you mean? The one that existed for the first 3 centuries, the one that existed for the next 17 centuries or the one promulgated today which is so hidebound with conditions that it effectively returns us to the position of the the first 3 centuries without explicitly saying so?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply