Irritated by "sheep stealing"

[PRmerger]

But the good Samaritan could also have been a child of the devil and performed an act that illustrated neighborliness, though the act itself would have had no spiritual significance for a child of the devil.

For real? You think our Lord would provide us with an example of how a child of the devil is superior in actions? :bigyikes:

However, I do agree with you that it’s not always true that “by his fruits you will know him”. The Mormons provide great examples of clean living, yet their doctrines are un-biblical and false.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that a couple needs to keep re-affirming in order to prevent the one-flesh relationship from becoming . . well, not there any more? Can you actually lose your status of being a one-flesh couple if you stop engaging in the marital embrace? I certainly wouldn’t tell my wife we should stop, but I also wouldn’t tell her we have to do it every day or our status will disappear.

No, of course you can’t lose your status of being a one-flesh couple, except through death.

“Husband and wife are not joined by passing emotion or mere erotic inclination which, selfishly pursued, fades quickly away. They are joined in authentic conjugal love by the firm and irrevocable act of their own will. Once their mutual consent has been consummated by genital intercourse, an unbreakable bond is established between the spouses. For the baptized, this bond is sealed by the Holy Spirit and becomes absolutely indissoluble. Thus, the Church does not so much teach that divorce is wrong, but that divorce is impossible, regardless of its civil implications.” More here.

Will your church recognize the marriage of someone who’s been divorced and now is married to another?

 

[Bookworm88]

Thus, what I mean by a “more unitive aspect to the marriage” is that the marital embrace, shared within God’s original plan for love and sexuality, can only unify and solidify the union.

How does someone unify a union? I can understand the concept of “solidifying” since that is basically the point I was making about “our attitudes and goals and understanding of each other.” They can become more closely aligned with each other. But the Catholics seem to teach a pretty solid marriage union to begin with, if as you posted, “the Church does not so much teach that divorce is wrong, but that divorce is impossible, regardless of its civil implications.”

You are expressing a very Catholic viewpoint on marriage!

Well, I learned that viewpoint growing up in a Baptist church, so you Catholics must have a very Baptist viewpoint on marriage.

Indeed. But again, that would eliminte the need for you to engage in the one-flesh-union–if you are faithful to your wife, your whole life is re-affirming your one-flesh relationship and there’s no need to engage in the marital embrace.

Indeed, you are technically right. Every aspect of my relationship to my wife is an aspect that can solidify our relationship, the marital act being just one of them. If my wife needs a deep conversation or just a backrub, then it would be uwise of me to tell her that we “need” to be having sex. I see my whole life with my wife as that which affirms the one-flesh relationship.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well, I learned that viewpoint growing up in a Baptist church, so you Catholics must have a very Baptist viewpoint on marriage.

:newidea:
Yes, thanks for coming along 1500 years later and teaching the Church about marriage, Baptists!

 

[PRmerger]

How does someone unify a union?

By engaging in the one-flesh union, of course! Each and every time a married couple engages in the marital embrace, they are re-affirming their sacred vow to each other to give themselves to each other freely, totally, faitfully and fruitfully.

Now, a married couple that does not engage in the one flesh union is still married; if they are celibate for, perhaps, health reasons, then they are living in anticipation of the Real Thing, that is, True Union with the Bridegroom.

However, I will say that a marital couple that does not engage in the one flesh union is like a Christian who does not encounter Christ in the Eucharist. There is no closer union possible this side of heaven and some people are missing out!

Just wondering, Bookworm, will your church recognize the marriage of someone who’s been divorced and now is married to another?

 

[Bookworm88]

:newidea:
Yes, thanks for coming along 1500 years later and teaching the Church about marriage, Baptists!

I never said that Baptists were teaching the church. Where did you get that idea? I believe that both Catholics and Baptists have a Biblical view of marriage. Do you have a problem with a group that bases their theology upon the Bible? It seems a bit strange if you do.

 

[Bookworm88]

How does someone unify a union?

So they don’t actually have union with each other unless they are having sex?

Now, a married couple that does not engage in the one flesh union is still married; if they are celibate for, perhaps, health reasons, then they are living in anticipation of the Real Thing, that is, True Union with the Bridegroom.

Again, it seems you are saying that a married couple without sex cannot consider themselves a union but can only anticipate when they will really have union, which is when the Bridegroom comes. Is that what you’re saying?

However, I will say that a marital couple that does not engage in the one flesh union is like a Christian who does not encounter Christ in the Eucharist. There is no closer union possible this side of heaven and some people are missing out!

I believe there is no closer union possible than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. After all, when Christ left, he said He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to be His presence with the disciples until He returns, and he will someday return as the Bridegroom. I have His presence with me in the person of the Holy Spirit, so I am not missing out on a thing.

Just wondering, Bookworm, will your church recognize the marriage of someone who’s been divorced and now is married to another?

Matthew 5:32 says “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery.” So Christ even included an immorality exemption in the divorce guidelines. So I believe that if someone is the innocent partner of an adulterous spouse, and that spouse leaves the marriage, then the innocent party is free to get remarried. Would the Catholic position be that the innocent party has committed an unpardonable sin if they get remarried?

 

[Bookworm88]

Certainly when it says “households” common sense (and statistics) would tell us that there must be infants included in households.

But neither common sense not statistics form a valid basis for a theological position, do they?

I mean, really. If you hear someone from the CDC say, “The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today.” are you really going to say, “Well, there’s no indication that there’s any infants in these households”. It’s common sense!

Well, if I also saw statements in the report that only adults were legally able to use antibacterial products, then I would have to use that understanding to tell me whether infants were included in the household use of the products. In the Bible, we see people believing first, and then being baptized. That’s the pattern. Baptism is for believers, and infants are too young to be believers, so we have to take that Biblical knowledge into account when looking at the “household” verses. Otherwise we are pulling those “household” verses out of their Biblical context.

 

[PRmerger]

So they don’t actually have union with each other unless they are having sex?

No, but when they are having sex they are re-affirming their sacred vows to each other–there is no closer union than this. Certainly you could not argue that they cannot be any closer physically than when they are engaged in the marital embrace, yes? And the one-flesh union is not just a physical union, but a spiritual one!

Just like when we receive the Eucharist, there is no closer union to God this side of heaven. You seriously don’t want that, Bookworm?

Again, it seems you are saying that a married couple without sex cannot consider themselves a union but can only anticipate when they will really have union, which is when the Bridegroom comes. Is that what you’re saying?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. The Church’s teaching is that the marital embrace is just a foretaste–an icon that points to heaven–but is not the Real Thing. Pope JPII says, “It is obvious that the analogy of earthly…spousal love cannot provide an adquate and complete understanding of…the divine mystery.” (TOB, 330)

What I am saying, respectfully I hope, is that your relationship with Christ–without the consummation of the Eucharist, is like a married couple who are united fully, but never engage in the One Flesh Union. They are certainly happy together can give themselves to each other as selflessly as possible, without this one-flesh-union. Their “presence” is with each other always, in a metaphysical sense, but not a physical sense.

 

[PRmerger]

But neither common sense not statistics form a valid basis for a theological position, do they?

Oh. My. Here we diverge completely. I simply am astounded at that comment.

Yes, in Catholic theology common sense, science, math, statistics, reason, philosophy, biology, genetics, physics etc etc etc ALL form a valid basis for a theological position.

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 5:32 says “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery.” So Christ even included an immorality exemption in the divorce guidelines. So I believe that if someone is the innocent partner of an adulterous spouse, and that spouse leaves the marriage, then the innocent party is free to get remarried.

Ah, the “exception clause”. I find it defies common sense (that phrase again!) to believe that Jesus would say you can divorce if you’re immoral. Heck, every person wanting a divorce would have Christ’s approval to leave by just sleeping with his sweetheart. (And would the guilty party be unable to re-marry and the innocent one free to do so?)

It would seem, practically speaking, that a couple in your church wishing to divorce and re-marry should just commit adultery to get the permission to divorce?

Also, did you know that until the Protestant Reformation divorce was not permissible–even for “reasons of immorality”?

More likely the correct translation of the Greek pornea is as explained here.

Would the Catholic position be that the innocent party has committed an unpardonable sin if they get remarried?

The Catholic position would be that the innocent party is not free to marry someone else, as she is already married. What God has joined…

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism is for believers, and infants are too young to be believers,

Baptism is the circumcision of Christians. One did not need to be a believer to be circumcized–just have parents who were believers.

 

[Bookworm88]

Just like when we receive the Eucharist, there is no closer union to God this side of heaven. You seriously don’t want that, Bookworm?

As I’ve been telling you, I DO have the closest union this side of heaven. I see the closeness that Christ promised to his disciples IS the Holy spirit. That is His presence with us. Why do you feel you need more than that? Jesus specifically said that the Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Him until He comes, that is, until He comes as the Bridegroom.

Their “presence” is with each other always, in a metaphysical sense, but not a physical sense.

And I will have the physical sense when the Bridegroom comes or when I die. I am not going to try experiencing a physical presence of Him that is different from the one He promised.

 

[Bookworm88]

Oh. My. Here we diverge completely. I simply am astounded at that comment.

Yes, in Catholic theology common sense, science, math, statistics, reason, philosophy, biology, genetics, physics etc etc etc ALL form a valid basis for a theological position.

Really? What do common sense and science and biology say about the theological position of the resurrection of Christ. If you are going to use common sense and science and biology as your basis, then you would have to deny the resurrection.

 

[PRmerger]

As I’ve been telling you, I DO have the closest union this side of heaven…

without the consummation.

Again, you’re like a married couple who are wonderfully happy together–who enjoy each other’s presence at all times, even when one’s away at work. You just don’t enjoy the union enjoyed by the marital embrace.

Why do you feel you need more than that?

I dunno. I guess I like the marital embrace!

Jesus specifically said that the Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Him

We certainly do “remember” Him at the Eucharist!

And I will have the physical sense when the Bridegroom comes or when I die. I am not going to try experiencing a physical presence of Him that is different from the one He promised.

I accept that and honor you for that. Your love for the Bridegroom is quite evident. I just am wishing you could enjoy what I enjoy.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? What do common sense and science and biology say about the theological position of the resurrection of Christ. If you are going to use common sense and science and biology as your basis, then you would have to deny the resurrection.

I forgot to put historical evidence in there. Mea culpa!

 

[Bookworm88]

Baptism is the circumcision of Christians. One did not need to be a believer to be circumcized–just have parents who were believers.

Galatians 5:6 says *“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” *So why would Christians believe in some sort of “Christian” curcumcision if circumcision does not avail anything?
Romans 2:28-29 says *28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, * God wants a circumcision of our hearts, He wants our faith, not some outward “work” done upon our flesh.

I suppose this gets us back to the whole theme of this thread. I would witness to a Catholic and try to see a Catholic be converted due to what I see as a Catholic’s reliance upon an outward work of baptism getting them into a relationship with God rather than faith in Christ getting them into that relationship.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? What do common sense and science and biology say about the theological position of the resurrection of Christ. If you are going to use common sense and science and biology as your basis, then you would have to deny the resurrection.

Lest there’s some misunderstanding on the place of faith and reason in Catholic theology–here’s a quote from the CCC that explains we use common sense, logic, reason etc, but not common sense, logic and reason ALONE. There are indeed some truths that can be known only through Divine Revelation (eg. the doctrine of the most Holy Trinity).

(We) hold and teach “that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.(Gen 1:27)

In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty, and with no admixture of error.” CCC 36-38

 

[PRmerger]

Galatians 5:6 says *“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” *So why would Christians believe in some sort of “Christian” curcumcision if circumcision does not avail anything?
Romans 2:28-29 says *28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, * God wants a circumcision of our hearts, He wants our faith, not some outward “work” done upon our flesh.

How, then, is an infant saved? If no one can get into heaven except by the atoning blood of the Lamb, and this infant has not yet accepted Christ into his heart, how will he be saved?

I suppose this gets us back to the whole theme of this thread. I would witness to a Catholic and try to see a Catholic be converted due to what I see as a Catholic’s reliance upon an outward work of baptism getting them into a relationship with God rather than faith in Christ getting them into that relationship.

I dunno. I see “faith in Christ” as a work. It’s something YOU do–accepting Christ into your heart,–not something God does.

 

[pipper]

As I’ve been telling you, I DO have the closest union this side of heaven. I see the closeness that Christ promised to his disciples IS the Holy spirit. That is His presence with us. Why do you feel you need more than that? Jesus specifically said that the Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Him until He comes, that is, until He comes as the Bridegroom.

And I will have the physical sense when the Bridegroom comes or when I die. I am not going to try experiencing a physical presence of Him that is different from the one He promised.

Bookworm88 you keep insisting that Eucharist is purely in “remembrance” only. Perhaps it has not been explained this thread that the Greek word translated remembrance is a lot more involved that just thinking about an event that happened 2,000 years ago and then forgetting it.

Jesus said "do this for the anamnesis of me, anamnesis (the word our Lord used) means basically to bring back. We are actually at the crucifixion at the Eucharist.

In many ofnthe debates both in RL and on the net,people will bring up “in remebrance” as if those two words negate what Jesus also said " This IS my body", they do that by not knowing what remembrance “anamnesis” means.

I was raised Evangelical (actually fundamentalist in my case) and when I found out what Jesus really said at the Last Supper I had to get out of that church where they passed out Matzoth and grape juice, and get to the Catholic church where Jesus is truely present.