Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[larkin31]

If you want a measured account about the current state of the historicially recent occult ‘overground’, read books by and about ‘Dion Fortune’ a.k.a Violet Firth. Occultists are unapologetic sorcerers. Some people are witches. They even advertise, these days. There are whole sections in bookshops devoted to this sort of thing. Anything from ‘love spells’ to Enochian-magic-in-easy-steps.

All witches, whether they say they are white or not, invoke demons i.e. non-Christian gods.

It’s all superstition until you are directly affected by the efforts of such people. People in the middle ages were executed for simple theft, so to express outrage at such is to judge people in hindsight: easy sport. It was the law at the time.

I said that they were “wrong” and “murderous.” If they executed persons innocent of theft, then they were “wrong” and “murderous” as well in those cases. See my point? It is that “fear” does not justify “injustice.”

Moreover, if there is no underworld, overworld, evil world, then worshipping said world is simply a matter of imaginative work. So, you had better begin with establishing the existence of an underworld, and then, once this is done satisfactorily, you will have to establish that this world is more damaging than, say, the OT God who ravages the world periodically in anger and promises, in the NT, to destroy the entire world in one great ecstatic event. Let’s then decide, objectively, which “god” should be on trial for the worship of its followers.

 

[CradleCath]

I’m afraid you are operating on the mistaken assumption that the Catholic Church is the Bible only church. As I said there are very very few verses that the church has given binding interpretations of-John:6 being an example. The Church teaches that masturbation is a sin regardless of how one chooses to interpret the first is about Onan.

While we aren’t a Sola Scriptura Church as you said, we CANnot go against the Bible. We can’t ordain women, we can’t approve of homosexual sex, we can’t deny the Scripture concerning Onan. (Which btw., concerns the chief means of Contraception in Biblical times…spilling one’s seed). To do so, would bring an end to the Catholic Church. By denying Christ’s teachings & example, we would no longer be His Church. Thus His promise to be with HIS Church “to the end of the age”, would be null & void. It’s true that Tradition (captial T) is also one of our points of reference & that the Pope is infallible when it comes to faith & morals, but all 3, Sripture, Tradition & the infallibility of the Magisterium WHEN they are in agreement with the Pope…must all agree on an issue.

 

[StAnastasia]

Moreover, if there is no underworld, overworld, evil world, then worshipping said world is simply a matter of imaginative work.

Larkin31, proving an underworld will be realtively difficult, due to increasing subterranean heat with each kilmoeter descended:

“The geothermal gradient is the rate at which the Earth’s temperature increases with depth, indicating heat flowing from the Earth’s warm interior to its cooler surface. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25-30°C per km of depth in most of the world…The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232. At the center of the planet, the temperature may be up to 7,000 K and the pressure could reach 360 GPa.”

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

We can’t ordain women, we can’t approve of homosexual sex, we can’t deny the Scripture concerning Onan. (Which btw., concerns the chief means of Contraception in Biblical times…spilling one’s seed). To do so, would bring an end to the Catholic Church.

You need to defend the assertion that the practice of Onanism or other forms of contraception “would bring and end to the Catholic Church.” Do you have statistics to prove this? How do you measure the rate of practice of Onanism?

 

[Elizabeth502]

There isn’t a direct cause and effect correlation that we can observe because we can’t see the entirety of the variables involved, including the spiritual ones.

Which is exactly why we’re not in a position to argue backwards, from effect to cause.

I have close friends who live in a major Muslim country. They are of a different ethnicity to the majority. They say black magic is commonplace amongst their ethnicity.

My point exactly. Sorcerers are in the minority, even according to you. And you think God is going to strike down the majority righteous because of the minority who, whether from ignorance, desperation, lack of education, or deliberate malice, engage in sorcery? The sun and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. So do earthquakes.

People wonder why disaster falls but they don’t think about the offence they, their family, their townsland or their country might be giving to God. Abortion, contraception, sorcery, the 7 deadly sins lauded as good, God, Jesus and Mary mocked and St. Michael no longer invoked.

I’m astounded that you put sorcery in the same category as abortion and the seven deadly sins. Again, sorcery tends to abound among people whose culture lends itself to superstition as well as among people with less education. Second, there is far more murder, corruption, and the 7 deadly sins occurring than there is sorcery. God’s doing a pretty poor job of keeping up with a scope and frequency of evil that far exceeds that of sorcery. There should be a global catastrophe per day, in that case.

 

[Christopher68]

Your talking about America ,Aren’t you?? if the Republicans didn’t slap down the Party of satan ( democrats) America would have, NO DOUBT , Recieved some horrible Disasters!

I am a huge proponent of freedom of speech, so I support your right to voice your opinion. However, that freedom of speech goes both ways, and you deserve all the criticism that comes your way for making such irrational comments.

 

[StAnastasia]

Your talking about America ,Aren’t you?? if the Republicans didn’t slap down the Party of satan ( democrats) America would have, NO DOUBT , Recieved some horrible Disasters!

jackangelo1, the Republicans could as justly be called the “Party of Satan,” but it is better not to ascribe that title to either party. Both are composed of fallible human beings.

Moreover, God does not send natural disaster to punish countries for sin or apostasy.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin31, proving an underworld will be realtively difficult, due to increasing subterranean heat with each kilmoeter descended:

“The geothermal gradient is the rate at which the Earth’s temperature increases with depth, indicating heat flowing from the Earth’s warm interior to its cooler surface. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25-30°C per km of depth in most of the world…The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232. At the center of the planet, the temperature may be up to 7,000 K and the pressure could reach 360 GPa.”

StAnastasia

Satan, indeed, must be cooking things down there!

 

[larkin31]

Which is exactly why we’re not in a position to argue backwards, from effect to cause.

My point exactly. Sorcerers are in the minority, even according to you. And you think God is going to strike down the majority righteous because of the minority who, whether from ignorance, desperation, lack of education, or deliberate malice, engage in sorcery? The sun and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. So do earthquakes.

I’m astounded that you put sorcery in the same category as abortion and the seven deadly sins. Again, sorcery tends to abound among people whose culture lends itself to superstition as well as among people with less education. Second, there is far more murder, corruption, and the 7 deadly sins occurring than there is sorcery. God’s doing a pretty poor job of keeping up with a scope and frequency of evil that far exceeds that of sorcery. There should be a global catastrophe per day, in that case.

Do you accept the Flood literally as a catastrophic natural disaster that kills nearly all life on earth?

Do you accept the 7 plagues of Egypt as literal?

Do you accept the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as literal?

Not all that relevant, I am just curious if you extend your positions backwards through Biblical time.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you accept the Flood literally as a catastrophic natural disaster that kills nearly all life on earth?

Do you accept the 7 plagues of Egypt as literal?

Do you accept the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as literal?

Not all that relevant, I am just curious if you extend your positions backwards through Biblical time.

Do you not understand my post? I’ll say it again, and bold it:

Which is exactly why we’re not in a position to argue backwards, from effect to cause.

We, today. I’m not interested at present in getting into Hebrew Bible exegesis. Extremely O/T vs. the thread title and subject. Btw, scripture scholars don’t talk about “literal” vs. “figurative.” The terminology a scholar would use would be references to meaning and levels of meaning. Biblical contributors spoke in language that made sense to them to describe natural and human and even political occurrences. Sometimes that language is what we could call ‘figurative,’ but what would be for them a signal of a deeper meaning to the occurrence. They actually used allusion even more than they used what secular literary scholars would call “figurative” speech. So when they use ancient ‘figures of speech’ they often instead are equating one event or person with another event or person, to establish connection, causality, continuation, or even contrast. That’s because the arc of the history of the people of God, and man’s response to God, was the focus.The reason that ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ make less sense than what the meaning is, is that they understood their scriptures to be about truth, vs. mere facts. Recording facts was less important than revealing truth.

The above questions should be directed to the Scripture subforum, with anyone who wants to engage you with these.

 

[larkin31]

Do you not understand my post? I’ll say it again, and bold it:

We, today. I’m not interested at present in getting into Hebrew Bible exegesis. Extremely O/T vs. the thread title and subject. Btw, scripture scholars don’t talk about “literal” vs. “figurative.” The terminology a scholar would use would be references to meaning and levels of meaning. Biblical contributors spoke in language that made sense to them to describe natural and human and even political occurrences. Sometimes that language is what we could call ‘figurative,’ but what would be for them a signal of a deeper meaning to the occurrence. They actually used allusion even more than they used what secular literary scholars would call “figurative” speech. So when they use ancient ‘figures of speech’ they often instead are equating one event or person with another event or person, to establish connection, causality, continuation, or even contrast. That’s because the arc of the history of the people of God, and man’s response to God, was the focus.The reason that ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ make less sense than what the meaning is, is that they understood their scriptures to be about truth, vs. mere facts. Recording facts was less important than revealing truth.

The above questions should be directed to the Scripture subforum, with anyone who wants to engage you with these.

ok

It’s page 43. Just wondering.

 

[CradleCath]

You need to defend the assertion that the practice of Onanism or other forms of contraception “would bring and end to the Catholic Church.”

I
'm afraid that you’ve done some very selective reading. My point was just what I said it was, in answer to another poster:

While we aren’t a Sola Scriptura Church as you said, we CANnot go against the Bible. We can’t ordain women, we can’t approve of homosexual sex, we can’t deny the Scripture concerning Onan. (Which btw., concerns the chief means of Contraception in Biblical times…spilling one’s seed). To do so,(** ignore Scripture)** would bring an end to the Catholic Church. By denying Christ’s teachings & example, we would no longer be His Church. Thus His promise to be with HIS Church “to the end of the age”, would be null & void. It’s true that Tradition (captial T) is also one of our points of reference & that the Pope is infallible when it comes to faith & morals, but all 3, Sripture, Tradition & the infallibility of the Magisterium WHEN they are in agreement with the Pope…must all agree on an issue.

Think about it. We put the Bible together…we cannot ignore it & I don’t really understand how Protestant faiths can claim to be Sola Scriptura & justify throwing aside so many teachings from Scripture…Christ’s teachings on remarriage after divorce, Paul’s words on gay sex, women preachers when Christ had not one woman among his apostles. However, that’s not my business…what other religions do or don’t do.

I find it odd that you picked out one story in Scripture, the story of Onan & asked:

Do you have statistics to prove this? How do you measure the rate of practice of Onanism?

 

[StTommyMore]

You need to defend the assertion that the practice of Onanism or other forms of contraception “would bring and end to the Catholic Church.” Do you have statistics to prove this? How do you measure the rate of practice of Onanism?

Here is a paper I wrote on the subject for a moral theology class.

 

[larkin31]

Well, since there were no Birth Control pills, no barrier type contraptions, etc. I don’t think vasectomies were in vogue during that time & since Onan was condemned to death for “spilling his seed”…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. :doh2:

 

[StTommyMore]

CradleCath;7243198:

Onan wasn’t slain simply for wasting his seed; it was for disobeying God and a hereditary law. The spilling of seed was ancillary.

Maybe so, but the scriptures universally regard children as a blessing, and not something to be avoided

 

[larkin31]

Here is a paper I wrote on the subject for a moral theology class.

Your commentary on Onan amounts, really, to just one sentence in this document. The complexity of the context of the story requires more examination than this. At least I think it does…

 

[larkin31]

Maybe so, but the scriptures universally regard children as a blessing, and not something to be avoided

No one is suggesting that, generally, this is not true. This is beside the point, really. The question is not whether children are a blessing (generally of course they are!), but whether God ever makes a moral prohibition simply of sex without procreation. And Onan is a weak case contextually for making this point. They are not even truly man and wife, and their union is merely to produce a male heir to continue a hereditary line which God favors (above other lines, which he does not favor). Onan is another story of controverting God’s specific command in this case, not of controverting the general request (some see it as a blessing) to “be fruitful and multiply”.

 

[StTommyMore]

StTommyMore;7243473:

No one is suggesting that, generally, this is not true. This is beside the point, really. The question is not whether children are a blessing (generally of course they are!), but whether God ever makes a moral prohibition simply of sex without procreation. And Onan is a weak case contextually for making this point. They are not even truly man and wife, and their union is merely to produce a male heir to continue a hereditary line which God favors (above other lines, which he does not favor). Onan is another story of controverting God’s specific command in this case, not of controverting the general request (some see it as a blessing) to “be fruitful and multiply”.

A much stringer case for procreation and sex being linked is the command given to Adam and Eve, and again to Noah, if you are relying on Scriptures alone

 

[larkin31]

A much stringer case for procreation and sex being linked is the command given to Adam and Eve, and again to Noah, if you are relying on Scriptures alone

Wait.

You are changing your claim now.

OF COURSE “sex” and “procreation” are “LINKED.” No one claims that they are not LINKED. The latter is very difficult without the former, for crying out loud.

Please, stay on the point of my claim: The story of Onan is not simply a story of God being angry about failure of a husband to impregnate a wife. It is about defying God’s wish to continue a favored hereditary line and disobeying a direct command put to him.

Both Adam and Noah had the responsibility of repopulating an empty planet in a covenant. They were NOT told, “Never have sex without vaginal climax.” Indeed, drunken Noah likely did have problems in that area from time to time (if modern responses to alcohol are any indication). They were individually and specifically told, “Have children.” This is not a Mosaic Commandment, it is no law anywhere else in the Bible, it is simply in those two cases and in Onan. That’s it. And from this the RCC enlarged the general positions vis a viz these population starters into specific moral sexual laws regarding how EVERY married couple is supposed to behave ALL of the time, as if we are ALL progentiors of empty planets with God speaking to us directly in his authorial voice as new leaders of new lines of humanity in the covenant. Honestly, I consider that extension an absurd form of extremism. As did my liberal Protestant church.

 

[StTommyMore]

Wait.

You are changing your claim now.

OF COURSE “sex” and “procreation” are “LINKED.” No one claims that they are not LINKED. The latter is very difficult without the former, for crying out loud.

Please, stay on the point of my claim: The story of Onan is not simply a story of God being angry about failure of a husband to impregnate a wife. It is about defying God’s wish to continue a favored hereditary line and disobeying a direct command put to him.

Both Adam and Noah had the responsibility of repopulating an empty planet in a covenant. They were NOT told, “Never have sex without vaginal climax.” Indeed, drunken Noah likely did have problems in that area from time to time (if modern responses to alcohol are any indication). They were individually and specifically told, “Have children.” This is not a Mosaic Commandment, it is no law anywhere else in the Bible, it is simply in those two cases and in Onan. That’s it. And from this the RCC enlarged the general positions vis a viz these population starters into specific moral sexual laws regarding how EVERY married couple is supposed to behave ALL of the time, as if we are ALL progentiors of empty planets with God speaking to us directly in his authorial voice as new leaders of new lines of humanity in the covenant. Honestly, I consider that extension an absurd form of extremism. As did my liberal Protestant church.

When i say “linked,” I mean that the two are absolutely inseparable. The primary end of sexual relations is procreation. A secondary end is the union of man and wife. The pleasure that accompanies sex is not an end at all, but is a “side effect.” Sex without being open to life makes the pleasure the primary end, and as such is disordered.