H
hellopeople
Guest
What if someone hears that the church is against it and refuses to accept it as a grave matter?
Masturbation: natural law and a sudden lack of faith in the Church
- Status
H
hellopeople
Guest
These quotes don’t really mean much. Jesus was only talking to Peter without mentioning some sort of apostolic succession.
O
OraLabora
Guest
How then do you suppose the Church was supposed to carry on without apostolic succession?
K
kage_ar
Guest
In your world, we missed the part where Jesus said “and I only mean this for Peter, after that I really don’t care, it is every man for himself”
H
hellopeople
Guest
I didn’t say the church wasn’t supposed to carry on…just that the whole “whatever you keep true on earth will be true in heaven” was specifically to Peter.
H
hellopeople
Guest
In your world you missed the part where Jesus says “and this goes for everyone that follows you.” It is MUCH easier to make the assumption that Jesus was only talking to Peter. You are the one that is adding something that is not there, not me.
F
frindro
Guest
To respond to the question of the Church’s view on masturbation, in Genesis 38:8-9, Onan commits sin by wasting his semen, so the Church is supported by scripture in it’s interpretation of natural law.
The passage in the Gospel according to St. Matthew shows the right of the Church to make such interpretations. John 21:15-17 reaffirms the the special leadership role of St. Peter.
As for apostolic succession, see here.
The passage in the Gospel according to St. Matthew shows the right of the Church to make such interpretations. John 21:15-17 reaffirms the the special leadership role of St. Peter.
As for apostolic succession, see here.
O
OraLabora
Guest
You didn’t answer my question: how was it supposed to carry on without apostolic succession, given that the Canon of the New Testament wasn’t established until some 400 years after Christ’s death? Who precisely was supposed to determine that Canon? If the Bible is infallible, then the Canon had to be established by an infallible source.
Logically, then, there had to be some manner of formal passing on of the Truth once St. Peter died.
If there was no infallible successor to Peter then the Canon of the Bible is not infallible either.
H
hellopeople
Guest
I don’t believe that the Canon is infallible, and I don’t even know if Jesus said those words to Peter.
B
bleh_confused
Guest
very interesting arguments…
however perhaps i haven’t dictated my question well enough…if you all could please be patient with me as i try to express what my thoughts are:
the problem i have isn’t with apostolic succession or the infallibility of the pope (when he speaks ex cathedra). my problem is this: how can i be sure that the Holy Spirit is so involved the Catholic Church, that they wouldn’t make a mistake reguarding morals.
it seems to me that after all the schisms, shortcomings of the Church in certain areas, and the seperation of the numerous Prostestant sects from the Church that God would find a much more effective way of communicating His will to His people then simply giving His teachings to the Church and expecting others to convert. i’m not trying to speak for God, but He loves us all equally; why would he simply let the monumentous amount of people who truly love Him, but are apart of the Prostestant sects, live in a state of ignorance with less of a chance to receive Grace and enlightenment than Catholics?
God is an architect with the blue print of the world, and we are to build it. However humans are fallible and we make mistakes when building that blueprint. rather than letting everyone to continue on building a flawed design, God can make changes to the blueprint to best benefit all of His people.
however perhaps i haven’t dictated my question well enough…if you all could please be patient with me as i try to express what my thoughts are:
the problem i have isn’t with apostolic succession or the infallibility of the pope (when he speaks ex cathedra). my problem is this: how can i be sure that the Holy Spirit is so involved the Catholic Church, that they wouldn’t make a mistake reguarding morals.
it seems to me that after all the schisms, shortcomings of the Church in certain areas, and the seperation of the numerous Prostestant sects from the Church that God would find a much more effective way of communicating His will to His people then simply giving His teachings to the Church and expecting others to convert. i’m not trying to speak for God, but He loves us all equally; why would he simply let the monumentous amount of people who truly love Him, but are apart of the Prostestant sects, live in a state of ignorance with less of a chance to receive Grace and enlightenment than Catholics?
God is an architect with the blue print of the world, and we are to build it. However humans are fallible and we make mistakes when building that blueprint. rather than letting everyone to continue on building a flawed design, God can make changes to the blueprint to best benefit all of His people.
K
kage_ar
Guest
It is a serious mistake to think that God loves all equally. God loves every person. God desires all men to be saved. God does have favored people and nations, read Scripture.
God gave us the Church.
People choose to reject that Church and walk away. Once they do that, they have no assurance that they are in a state of Grace.
It is like if you decide to drive from Baltimore to Dallas. You can start off with a GPS, programmed to get you there. You are pretty much assured if you keep your car in good working order, and follow the GPS you will arrive at your destination.
You can also just take off in a car, and head in the general direction. You have an old paper map, but, it was printed years ago - those roads may be closed or not even exist. You can go with no map at all, think you will just read the signs and figure it out for yourself. Chances are you will end up lost.
The Church is the GPS, it shows us the way to Heaven.
The rest is faded maps and bent compasses. You may get there and you may fall into a chasm.
H
hellopeople
Guest
Great points. To be honest, the way I see it, is that every religion based on compassion (pretty much all of them) are a means to salvation. I think the differences in religion (Christian sects and otherwise) are just details that do not really matter. If you live a good life with a good heart, you will be rewarded in the afterlife.
H
hellopeople
Guest
I see what you are saying here, but how do we KNOW the church is the GPS? How do we know that Luther didn’t get it right? How do we know that Muhammad didn’t get it right…or the Buddha, or Krishna, or Yahweh.
T
Think_About_It
Guest
You’re looking for a particular answer, when you’ve got a perfectly reasonable one before you already. It’s not a sin; it’s not anything. God placing a desire within us that can’t be satisfied with any relative ease is, if not impossible, very cruel. You can probably cook up a million reasons why it’s bad - let me begin: it might lead to addiction (as with food, but you still eat), it’s not the natural way (Oh, but toddlers do it before they can even comprehend it; it’s indeed in our nature to satisfy it), it incorporates lust, which is a mortal sin (thoughts of pleasure motivate us, they’re enjoyable, they are intrinsically perverse), it seperates us from God (only because someone said that it did - if the good book had said that masturbation brings us closer to God, no one would feel distant from God), the Bible said so (the bible said so on a lot of things people cast aside - selling all your possessions, giving to anyone who asks, turning the other cheek). When the bible says that some animals are unclean and science says “no they’re not,” we postulate an alternative to what was actually meant by that scripture. When the bible says that an act is unclean, and science tells us it’s healthy - it’s best to take the word, not of bronze-age speculation, but of enlightened modern thinkers (you do on everything else: medicine, biology, chemistry, physics). So why not masturbation? It doesn’t have to be a ritual, it can just be relief. No harm, no foul.
T
Think_About_It
Guest
Correction:
“(thoughts of pleasure motivate us, they’re enjoyable, they are not intrinsically perverse)”
“(thoughts of pleasure motivate us, they’re enjoyable, they are not intrinsically perverse)”
K
kage_ar
Guest
Faith and reason.
T
Think_About_It
Guest
Answers this specific are just too lofty to digest. You might want to break it down a bit for us.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Through Faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.Answers this specific are just too lofty to digest. You might want to break it down a bit for us.
Through Reason - the ability to weigh the evidence and come to a rational conclusion. Jesus was either who He said He was, the Lord or he was a liar or a he was a lunatic.
T
Think_About_It
Guest
B
bleh_confused
Guest
i see what your getting at, but there remains a large whole in your explanation. all those people who were born into those Religions, or turned away from the Church and honestly tried to do God’s will, how did they do anything wrong? to say God loves them less would contradict who His all loving nature…prefering someone based upon their birthright is illogical.
and to everyone again…HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHURCH DOESN’T FAIL IN MATTERS OF MORALS??? thats my main question, how do we know the Holy Spirit is so close to the Church (apart from just blindly accepting that fact).
- Status