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 (275 Views)
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.
Hang about!

Mairtin wrote:

Quote:
 
It never fails to fascinate me how much the Church ties herself in knots over sexual matters when Jesus had virtually nothing to say on the subject.


and:

Quote:
 
Jesus never ever mentioned homosexual sex let alone declaring it sinful...



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
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:37
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?
Mairtin,

The canon of Scripture was not settled for nearly four centuries.
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
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?
So where did He give anybody the right to tie a millstone around somebody else's neck? Or the right to pluck out somebody else's eye? Or cut off somebody else's hand?

Quote:
 
And are you seriously suggesting that you would follow Our Lord's advice literally by giving your tunic to someone who stole your coat?

I certainly see that as my Christian duty and the fact that I would probably fail to do so is a reflection of my failings as a Christian rather than any flaw in the teaching.

Quote:
 
Perhaps you'd say it doesn't apply anymore because we don't wear tunics these days

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else these days, Clare, I'm not aware of myself ever using facetious arguments like that in regard to our Faith.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:52
...So where did He give anybody the right to tie a millstone around somebody else's neck? Or the right to pluck out somebody else's eye? Or cut off somebody else's hand?
Thing is, we don't have the right to pluck out our own eyes or cut off our own hands (unless they are diseased, and it's generally better to get a surgeon to do it in which case!)

But that wasn't my point earlier. My point was, Our Lord asks us to turn the other cheek. For a start, it is not a commandment. Also, it does not apply to what one should do when somebody else is being assaulted.

And as Saundthorp (I think) pointed out (and, yes, this is again something Our Lord "didn't do" so you'll probably disregard it), He did not condemn the centurion for his career.

Turning the other cheek is something one personally ought to do. It is not something that nations and armies do.
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
You shouldn't take things so literally, Mairtin! :wh:
Yet again I am intrigued by the contrast between you insisting that we should take the Old Testament literally but that we can dismiss the direct words of Jesus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:28
My point was, Our Lord asks us to turn the other cheek. For a start, it is not a commandment.
:jaw:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:34
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:28
My point was, Our Lord asks us to turn the other cheek. For a start, it is not a commandment.
:jaw:
Do you think we are obliged to be hit on both cheeks?

Do you think we are obliged to give our tunics to anyone who takes out coats?

Of course they're not commandments.
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
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:30
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:19
You shouldn't take things so literally, Mairtin! :wh:
Yet again I am intrigued by the contrast between you insisting that we should take the Old Testament literally but that we can dismiss the direct words of Jesus.
As I have said, I am sticking with the Church's interpretation.

Even though Our Lord explicitly says to cut off my hand if it makes me sin, I feel I am not utterly out of line if I refrain from cutting off my hand when it causes me to sin.



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
Quote:
 
But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other...


Douay footnote:

"Not to resist evil"... What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23.
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
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:30
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:19
You shouldn't take things so literally, Mairtin! :wh:
Yet again I am intrigued by the contrast between you insisting that we should take the Old Testament literally but that we can dismiss the direct words of Jesus.
No, Mairtin. I just know the difference between what is to be taken literally and what isn't.

Our Lord took Genesis literally you know.
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, 14:38
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:34
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:28
My point was, Our Lord asks us to turn the other cheek. For a start, it is not a commandment.
:jaw:
Do you think we are obliged to be hit on both cheeks?

Do you think we are obliged to give our tunics to anyone who takes out coats?

Of course they're not commandments.
That's a first for you, in all my years as a Catholic, I've never ever heard anyone suggest that when Jesus said what we should and should not do, that he was only asking, not commanding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:50
Our Lord took Genesis literally you know.
Where did He say that the Creation took place over 6x24 hour days?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 15:43
That's a first for you, in all my years as a Catholic, I've never ever heard anyone suggest that when Jesus said what we should and should not do, that he was only asking, not commanding.
So, was He commanding us to pluck out our eyes when we sin using them then?

I'll ask again.

If a man steals your coat, are you commanded to give him your cloak as well?

No, of course not.

Of course, giving him your cloak would be virtuous, and like heaping coals on his head I guess. But it is manifestly not a commandment!
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
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 15:48
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:50
Our Lord took Genesis literally you know.
Where did He say that the Creation took place over 6x24 hour days?
Where did He say it didn't?
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, 16:05
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 15:48
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 14:50
Our Lord took Genesis literally you know.
Where did He say that the Creation took place over 6x24 hour days?
Where did He say it didn't?
So we're back to this nonsense of making arguments on the basis of things He didn't say :rolleyes:
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