Can people choose to be spriritual and live a loving life?

[PRmerger]

I have to be honest with you PR. I have not given this Phelps person any attention. But you say he hates homosexuals. Or he says God hates homosexuals. I’d honestly have to go back to see what you said about him. So yes I too believe he is wrong. But he will have to answer to God about it in due time I suppose. Not to either you or I.

Thank you for saying that he is wrong. However, I simply don’t understand. How can he be wrong in your paradigm? He is surely a man of prayer, reflection and has followed his conscience. He reads the Scriptures and hears the whisper, apparently, of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t know about you but I just meant I’m sure I have my own specks to deal with.

That’s fine. As do I. But it does make your comment below quite peculiar. You initially would not criticize the vile spewings of Fred Phelps–for fear of the speck in your own eye–yet just a few posts earlier felt comfortable stating this here:

Yes it is as is lack of politeness, personally attacking, or Catholics being uncharitable to other beliefs and practices.

How is this comment compatible with your inability to point out others’ (well, Fred Phelps) mistakes as you have your own log?

 

[CMatt25]

Well, then, you still have not provided me with a response. What belief do you have that you say, “Were it not for God’s revelation, I would believe…”

I have quite a few. If God had not revealed that divorce and remarriage is wrong I would love to tell my friends “Go for it! Be happy in your 2nd marriage!”.

Were it not for what God had revealed, I would use artificial birth control.

Were it not for what God had revealed, I would sleep in on Holy Days of Obligation.

You can see that I have conformed my beliefs to what God has revealed. I have not succumbed to the whisper of that serpent in the Garden millenia ago who said, “Did God really say…?”

You?

PR, you seem to jump to the conclusion that if someone is not in alignment with the CC on all matters that they are succumbing to the Serpent’s whisper. We obviously part ways on that thinking.

If God didn’t say thou shalt not kill, and how He said we have heard an eye for eye and not have added a but…

Perhaps then I’d be like some others and support the death penalty. But you surely don’t want to get me started again on weekday HDofO, mortal sin, and the different obligatory requirements for obedience in different dioceses do you now? In any case I am going to bed. Have a good night.

 

[PRmerger]

If God didn’t say thou shalt not kill, and how He said we have heard an eye for eye and not have added a but…

Perhaps then I’d be like some others and support the death penalty.

The difficulty you have with answering my request speaks volumes.

Where have you conformed your viewpoint to the Church’s teachings in the above?

You’re against the death penalty now because the Church is (but would prefer that you could support it???). Were you aware that the Church is not against the death penalty, given certain circumstances?

Again, is there any viewpoint that you have allowed the Church to change your POV, rather than stating that the Church must change its POV because you’re right and she’s wrong??

 

[Serap]

The difficulty you have with answering my request speaks volumes.

Where have you conformed your viewpoint to the Church’s teachings in the above?

You’re against the death penalty now because the Church is (but would prefer that you could support it???). Were you aware that the Church is not against the death penalty, given certain circumstances?

Again, is there any viewpoint that you have allowed the Church to change your POV, rather than stating that the Church must change its POV because you’re right and she’s wrong??

You should take a more kind approach PR. You seem like a nice enough fella once I read more than one of your posts, but you will definitely push many people away with your overly defensive approach to defending your faith.

 

[TedDC]

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

Whoa - hold it right there! For that conclusion to be valid, you need proof for the Bible’s assertion that Jesus was the son of God, or God Himself. That is not an insignificant bit of “history” - it is the entire foundation of Christianity. How does the Bible reliably document Jesus’s divinity?

 

[CMatt25]

If God had not revealed that divorce and remarriage is wrong I would love to tell my friends “Go for it! Be happy in your 2nd marriage!”.

Were it not for what God had revealed, I would use artificial birth control.

Were it not for what God had revealed, I would sleep in on Holy Days of Obligation.

PR, here is what God said in Matt 19:9, “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

It doesn’t make you spiritually squirm even just a little bit that a woman, terribly beaten time and time again by her extremely abusive husband, would stay with him just because he never committed fornication?

It does me.

 

[CMatt25]

The difficulty you have with answering my request speaks volumes.

Where have you conformed your viewpoint to the Church’s teachings in the above?

You’re against the death penalty now because the Church is (but would prefer that you could support it???). Were you aware that the Church is not against the death penalty, given certain circumstances?

Again, is there any viewpoint that you have allowed the Church to change your POV, rather than stating that the Church must change its POV because you’re right and she’s wrong??

Yes I am aware CCC 2267 states, “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Yet from what I can gather many conservative Catholics seem to support it in far more than very rare, if not non existent cases.

But PR, now I think I understand why we are at impasse. As I see now what you mean when you say “Were it not for God’s revelation”. What you mean is conforming to all Catholic Church teachings. But perhaps I’m not as certain as you that the Catholic Church is infallible on all Her POV. And no before you ask. I am certainly not infallible either. I just try to do the best I can with my current understanding walking along my faith journey. As a former Roman priest, now Episcopal priest, once told me. If we listen to God’s Spirit He will tell us where He wants us to be.

I don’t know if this answer will satisfy you or or not. Or if you will say it is a non-answer as well. But I have always to this point in my journey at least, just accepted the Blessed Mother was a virgin. But if the Church did not teach that, my brain might say otherwise.

Nevertheless PR, while I know you have stated you are not here to agree to disagree, agreeing to disagree when at an impasse on matters of faith is a motto I try to subscribe to. So I may have to agree to disagree with you. St Paul said something about not arguing over disputable matters. A Disciples of Christ pastor I once corresponded with put it this way. Christ breaks down walls. And despite differences, Christians are united in Him. He Whom is far greater than any differences we might have.

In relation to the thread though, I’ll take it a step further. Spiritual people seeking to exemplify God’s love with compassion towards their neighbors. Living by the Golden Rule. Can indeed live a life of love.

God bless you PR along your walk with Him and peace to you always.

 

[CMatt25]

Whoa - hold it right there! For that conclusion to be valid, you need proof for the Bible’s assertion that Jesus was the son of God, or God Himself. That is not an insignificant bit of “history” - it is the entire foundation of Christianity. How does the Bible reliably document Jesus’s divinity?

It all begins with placing faith in a Creator. Then Christians place faith in the NT. Catholics may then place faith in their church’s interpretation of Scripture and of ECFs. It takes a whole lot of faith steps and faith is not exactly proof. That’s why it’s called faith.

 

[guanophore]

PR, here is what God said in Matt 19:9, “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

It doesn’t make you spiritually squirm even just a little bit that a woman, terribly beaten time and time again by her extremely abusive husband, would stay with him just because he never committed fornication?

It does me.

Fortunately your squirming does not define the Truths or commandments of God.

She is free to separate from him, but she is not free to remarry. This is the teaching of Jesus. There is no greater love than to give up one’s life for another (is that not the topic of the thread?).

If one spouse sacrifices themselves in prayer and fasting for the one that is lost, they may be able to lead the other to heaven. Marriage is to get both people to heaven, not to keep you from squirming.

1 Cor 7:15-16
15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

I think it is fair to say that violence is an outcome of unbelief, so if she separated from her unbelieving husband, she can still participate in the salvaton of his soul by praying for him, and not committing adultery, so her prayers may be heard.

 

[CMatt25]

She is free to separate from him, but she is not free to remarry.

That makes me squirm too Guan. That she must never be able to remarry because her first husband was abusive.

 

[guanophore]

That makes me squirm too Guan. That she must never be able to remarry because her first husband was abusive.

It should make you squirm frankly.

It represents a gross departure from the mind of God in this matter. It has nothing to do with how he acts. Jesus taught that marriage was meant to be for life “from the beginning” - NO DIVORCE.

This is because marriage is a temporal sign of His own relationship with the Church, which is eternal.

When people in the Church sin, He does not abandon them, but makes intercession for them before the Father, and draws them back to Himself. A spouse can also do this, imitating Christ, and consecrating themselves to His eternal purpose, rather than gratifying their fleshly desires.

If God wants such a person to be married, one of these things will happen:

The abusive spouse will come into conformity with Gods love, and this behavior will stop and the two can be reconclied or

God will require his life from him, in which case, she is free to marry

She may seek an anullment, and if it is found that a marriage did not take place, she is free to marry.

 

[PRmerger]

Whoa - hold it right there! For that conclusion to be valid, you need proof for the Bible’s assertion that Jesus was the son of God, or God Himself. That is not an insignificant bit of “history” - it is the entire foundation of Christianity. How does the Bible reliably document Jesus’s divinity?

I will address your question, Ted, once you answer the few I’ve asked you in some pridian posts.

Specifically, as I asked here, is there another source for your beliefs about God besides your feelings about him? If so, please cite and provide a belief about God’s attributes that you derived from this source.

Also, in the same post I asked you, based solely on your studies of Catholicism (and not by searching Google) if you could cite where Scripture is in the Mass?

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t make you spiritually squirm even just a little bit that a woman, terribly beaten time and time again by her extremely abusive husband, would** stay with him** just because he never committed fornication?

I think, Matt, you are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church’s teaching here. She need not, in fact is obligated NOT to, “stay with him.”

 

[PRmerger]

That makes me squirm too Guan. That she must never be able to remarry because her first husband was abusive.

Does it make you squirm, Matt, if a woman wants to marry her high school sweetheart, but can’t because she’s already married to someone else?

That’s what happens when someone makes a vow (before God, I might add) to be committed to another.

Thus, just as you’d tell this woman, “I’m sorry, but you can’t marry someone else because you’re already married”, we must tell this woman in your example, “I’m sorry, but you can’t marry someone else because you’re already married.”

 

[PRmerger]

But PR, now I think I understand why we are at impasse. As I see now what you mean when you say “Were it not for God’s revelation”. What you mean is conforming to all Catholic Church teachings. But perhaps I’m not as certain as you that the Catholic Church is infallible on all Her POV.

Fair enough.

But it does seem you quote her often enough. To wit: here; and here, only just recently. It seems that you accept the Church’s infallibility in her discernment that Matt 7:3, Phil 2:12 etc are God’s revelation, yet, she is incorrect in other areas?

Same question, then, as I posed to Ted. How do you know when she is speaking inerrantly? Did she get it right in keeping Matt 7:3 in the Bible?

Or are you only declaring that God said something only when it agrees with your POV?

See where this leads you when you quote the CC as revealing God’s word…sometimes…but that she may be wrong at other times?

It does seem to convey the message that when God’s revelation agrees with your POV He’s right, but when it is revealed that He declared something that you don’t agree with, well, then, the other party must change its POV.

 

[PRmerger]

As a former Roman priest, now Episcopal priest, once told me. If we listen to God’s Spirit He will tell us where He wants us to be.

Then, sadly, Matt, in this paradigm you and your Episcopal friend cannot tell Fred Phelps that he is wrong to say that God hates homosexuals. For, of course, Fred will say, quite validly, “Why do you get to say you can ‘listen to God’s Spirit and He will tell us where He wants us to be’, but when I profess that this is what God told me, you tell me I’m wrong?”
No, in your paradigm you must say, “Yes, Fred, your position that God hates homosexuals (and laughs when one dies, as he is often quoted as saying*) is as valid as mine, because you have been striving in good faith, with a deeply prayerful and contemplative conscience, to spread the Word as you understand it.”

Thankfully, in the Catholic paradigm we most certainly can tell him, “Your vile invectives are NOT part of the deposit of faith. They are NOT the teachings of the Church handed down from the Apostles.”

I don’t know if this answer will satisfy you or or not. Or if you will say it is a non-answer as well. But I have always to this point in my journey at least, just accepted the Blessed Mother was a virgin. But if the Church did not teach that, my brain might say otherwise.

Yes, this is an answer! Thank you.

I saw Fred Phelps picketing in Topka, KS with a sign that said "A fg dies, God laughs." (Note to mods: I am only posting this repulsive message to substantiate my argument. Please delete if you must but I feel it was necessary)

 

[CMatt25]

Does it make you squirm, Matt, if a woman wants to marry her high school sweetheart, but can’t because she’s already married to someone else?

Not exactly the same for me as a woman being unable to divorce an abusive husband and finding love and companionship with another. Perhaps even lovingly raising a family together.

 

[CMatt25]

Same question, then, as I posed to Ted. How do you know when she is speaking inerrantly? Did she get it right in keeping Matt 7:3 in the Bible?

Or are you only declaring that God said something only when it agrees with your POV?

See where this leads you when you quote the CC as revealing God’s word…sometimes…but that she may be wrong at other times?

It does seem to convey the message that when God’s revelation agrees with your POV He’s right, but when it is revealed that He declared something that you don’t agree with, well, then, the other party must change its POV.

Know? It is faith and belief along a journey. And I don’t require the other party, PR, to change it’s POV.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, this is an answer! Thank you.

You’re welcome.

 

[PRmerger]

Not exactly the same for me as a woman being unable to divorce an abusive husband and finding love and companionship with another. Perhaps even lovingly raising a family together.

Think about the principles that you are using here, Matt.

You have compassion for this woman in an abused marriage and want her to find happiness. In your paradigm she should be allowed to have her happiness.

The same could be said for the woman who loves her high school sweetheart but is married to someone else.

Why, then, in your paradigm should she (woman #2) not be allowed to have her happiness as well? Is it because she is *already *married?