Moral sin is based on one's opinion

[prettylarge]

What’s the point in you continuing this discussion. Its obvious to everyone here you have no clue what you are talking about.
You are simply someone who wants to continue sinning and is looking to justify sinning.

No clue about what?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Well we could get back to the OP, although I think it is your opinion that moral sin is based on opinion

 

[camerong]

And as for the NT being useless if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus…don’t you think that Jesus’ moral and ethical teachings are valid? Don’t you think that the golden rule is universal? You don’t have to believe that Jesus is God to get something out of the Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi, a Hindu who had great respect for Jesus and Christianity, but did not think that Jesus was God, valued the sermon on the mount tremendously. He loved it and he thought that it was a great ethical teaching. So trust me, you don’t have to believe Jesus is God to get something out of the NT…and I’m surprised you don’t know that.

I disagree. As C.S. Lewis points out, Christ is constantly making the claim to be divine. If he is not, in fact, divine, then he is either insane or an epic liar. The moral advice of Christ, if He is not divine, is either the rantings of an insane person or the lies of an epic liar. Neither can be trusted for real moral value–or, at the very least, their moral value is extremely compromised.

 

[fisherman_carl]

First of all masturbation is seen as a sin by every major Christian denomination, not just Catholics. It is also seen as a sin by Muslims. It is also discouraged by Buddhism. When you realize that with so many against your opinion how can you continue to rely on your own understanding?

“Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!” (Proverbs 14:12)

 

[prettylarge]

With regard to at least the seriousness of pre-marital sex, this is not just a Catholic belief. Can you name ANY Christian denomination that does not teach this to be a most serious sin?

I was comparing it to other religions to be honest.

 

[prettylarge]

I disagree. As C.S. Lewis points out, Christ is constantly making the claim to be divine. If he is not, in fact, divine, then he is either insane or an epic liar. The moral advice of Christ, if He is not divine, is either the rantings of an insane person or the lies of an epic liar. Neither can be trusted for real moral value–or, at the very least, their moral value is extremely compromised.

Did he make those claims? Or were the people that wrote the Gospels influenced by what people said and implanted that into the Gospels? I’m not really too sure to be honest. I mean this definitely happened in the gospel of John…at least in my opinion…but it just as easily could have happened in the synoptic gospels as well.

And even if Jesus was crazy, it doesn’t change the soundness of his ethics.

Basically, if you believe everything that it says in the gospels as fact, you would be crazy to believe that Jesus wasn’t God. But that is where my doubts lie. Did Jesus do those things?

 

[prettylarge]

First of all masturbation is seen as a sin by every major Christian denomination, not just Catholics. It is also seen as a sin by Muslims. It is also discouraged by Buddhism. When you realize that with so many against your opinion how can you continue to rely on your own understanding?

“Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!” (Proverbs 14:12)

My muslim friend told me that it never mentions masturbation in the Koran. I don’t know if that is accurate, but that is what he told me. As for Buddhism, I have never heard anything about masturbation while studying it. It does say you should not participate in “sexual misconduct.” I did have a Buddhist scholar who is now the chair of the graduate program at a well respected University for religious studies tell me that this basically meant adultery or having sex with someone under false pretenses. And he said it wasn’t about pre marital sex. So I can only imagine that masturbation wouldn’t be a big deal either.

I don’t know anything about the Hindu teachings on it, but they do have the Kama Sutra which makes me think they don’t really care too much about it.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Did he make those claims? Or were the people that wrote the Gospels influenced by what people said and implanted that into the Gospels? I’m not really too sure to be honest. I mean this definitely happened in the gospel of John…at least in my opinion…but it just as easily could have happened in the synoptic gospels as well.

And even if Jesus was crazy, it doesn’t change the soundness of his ethics.

Well, the Gospel of John was the only Gospel written by the actual person it is attributed to.

You definitely know what happened in the Gospel of John? That John was trying to prove that Jesus was divine?

Catholics believe that the apostles and those that wrote the New Testament, were divinely inspired. Basically they could not have lied even if they wanted to. It was their words, written of their free will, but it was in line with the Truth, aka God. This is why there are differences in the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles, but they do not contradict each other. The Truth can not contradict itself.

 

[prettylarge]

Well, the Gospel of John was the only Gospel written by the actual person it is attributed to.

You definitely know what happened in the Gospel of John? That John was trying to prove that Jesus was divine?

Catholics believe that the apostles and those that wrote the New Testament, were divinely inspired. Basically they could not have lied even if they wanted to. It was their words, written of their free will, but it was in line with the Truth, aka God. This is why there are differences in the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles, but they do not contradict each other. The Truth can not contradict itself.

I have never heard that the gospel of John was written by John the apostle. I always hear that it was written around 90 CE and not written by the apostle John. If it was written by him, why would he take 60 years to write it?

Also, I will throw in what I just edited into what you quoted:

Basically, if you believe everything that it says in the gospels as fact, you would be crazy to believe that Jesus wasn’t God. But that is where my doubts lie. Did Jesus do those things?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Did he make those claims? Or were the people that wrote the Gospels influenced by what people said and implanted that into the Gospels? I’m not really too sure to be honest. I mean this definitely happened in the gospel of John…at least in my opinion…but it just as easily could have happened in the synoptic gospels as well.

And even if Jesus was crazy, it doesn’t change the soundness of his ethics.

Basically, if you believe everything that it says in the gospels as fact, you would be crazy to believe that Jesus wasn’t God. But that is where my doubts lie. Did Jesus do those things?

No fair editing that last part in

Well, I think of it this way. Are the gospels true? Well if they are false, that means the Apostles were liars. All of them. Because if even just one “spilled the beans” or taught a different message about Jesus, it would have been noted. The early Church must have been very fragile, they had to meet in secret and such.

So were the apostles liars? What would have been their gain to lie? I know why David Caresh (sp) or other cult leaders lie, to gain something. Power, sex, money. What did the apostles stand to gain, also knowing that Jesus was crucified and the Jews wanted his followers dead too.

I can not fathom why all 11 of the apostles would lie about Jesus’ resurrection. I mean they could have just ran away back home and lived out their days, regretting that they ever believed in that Crazy Jesus guy. Therefore Jesus must have appeared to them. Why else would they continue to spread the message of Christ, knowing they would also be persecuted?

Because it was a good message? Nope, everything would have come crashing down, as they believed that Jesus was going to do something dramatic. Judas thought that Jesus was going to lead an army to war. The Old Testament prophesied about a Savior and they believed Jesus was that Savior. His death would have destroyed that.

So basically, the apostles must have seen Jesus resurrected, which is why they continued teaching and building His Church. Therefore, the New Testament must be right.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I have never heard that the gospel of John was written by John the apostle. I always hear that it was written around 90 CE and not written by the apostle John. If it was written by him, why would he take 60 years to write it?

My resources say:

“Despite doubts from various quarters, a good case can be made that the fourth Gospel was written by John, the “one Jesus loved” (as he referred to himself throughout the book), brother of James and son of Zebedee, just as early church tradition suggests. That same tradition places John in and around Ephesus, ministering to the churches of Asia Minor, until his death as an elderly man at roughly the end of the first century. The author would thus have been an eyewitness of much of the material he recounted and in a position to provide accurate information. The Gospel appears to be the first of five books he wrote in the A.D. 90s, the next ones being the three NT letters that bear his name and the book of Revelation.” The Apologetics Study Bible from Holman Publishers (Not a Catholic bible by the way :bigyikes: )

 

[prettylarge]

My resources say:

“Despite doubts from various quarters, a good case can be made that the fourth Gospel was written by John, the “one Jesus loved” (as he referred to himself throughout the book), brother of James and son of Zebedee, just as early church tradition suggests. That same tradition places John in and around Ephesus, ministering to the churches of Asia Minor, until his death as an elderly man at roughly the end of the first century. The author would thus have been an eyewitness of much of the material he recounted and in a position to provide accurate information. The Gospel appears to be the first of five books he wrote in the A.D. 90s, the next ones being the three NT letters that bear his name and the book of Revelation.” The Apologetics Study Bible from Holman Publishers (Not a Catholic bible by the way :bigyikes: )

I don’t think this is the main stream scholar view though.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I don’t think this is the main stream scholar view though.

And you may be right, but what were we talking about again, lol.

Oh and don’t forgot about my previous post, it answered your edit

 

[chessmane4e5]

I don’t think this is the main stream scholar view though.

From catholic.com

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee. Numerous other witnesses in the second and third centuries corroborate St. Irenaeus’s testimony. In addition, various elements within the Gospel strongly suggest John as the author. Most obviously, there is the attestation of the witnesses penning the Gospel that it is the testimony of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20)—a disciple to whom no one but John corresponds. The source of the Gospel is, quite clearly, a Jew familiar with the conditions of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Christ. He speaks Aramaic and Greek. He knows Jerusalem as it looked before Rome reduced it to rubble in A.D. 70. And he gives countless details which, if they are not the testimony of a first-hand eyewitness who was present at the Last Supper, are a singular occurrence of novelistic realism 19 centuries ahead of its time. That he was part of Christ’s “inner circle” of Peter, James, and John (cf. Gal. 2:9) is even more likely given that he was the disciple at the Last Supper who laid his head on Christ’s breast. He can’t be Peter, who is distinguished from him in the text, and he can’t be James (who died in the early 40s). So it all points to John. Additionally, the patristic tradition that the Gospel was composed in Ephesus also points to John. First, this is the city associated with the Assumption of the Virgin who was commended into his care. Second, the Gospel repeatedly answers a sect devoted to John the Baptist with the reply that John “was not the light” but had only come to “bear witness to the light” (John 1:8). We know from Acts 18:24 and 19:1-7 that there was such a sect centered in Ephesus. Finally, the sophistication of the Gospel fits the fact that the New Testament epistle with the most sophisticated exposition of theology is Ephesians.

So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

When in doubt, I believe the Catholic Church.

 

[mullenpm]

Thisle, I completely agree with you.

The OP says that he has a Catholic education and a strict Catholic mother. I do not for a moment believe a word he says about a Catholic education. He has talked hatred toward the Catholic Church because it does not permit him to watch pornography and commit acts against nature and God. I grieve for his mother; how she must feel.

For a man who never goes to church he purports to know a score of priests who also disagree with Church teaching. He talks utter garbage.

I also believe this thread should be discontinued.

 

[prettylarge]

Thisle, I completely agree with you.

The OP says that he has a Catholic education and a strict Catholic mother. I do not for a moment believe a word he says about a Catholic education. He has talked hatred toward the Catholic Church because it does not permit him to watch pornography and commit acts against nature and God. I grieve for his mother; how she must feel.

For a man who never goes to church he purports to know a score of priests who also disagree with Church teaching. He talks utter garbage.

I also believe this thread should be discontinued.

Have you ever talked to people that went through Catholic education? I didn’t actually mind it to be honest. I know a lot of people that actually HATE Catholoicism after it. Two of my friends are full blown atheists despite (or you could say “likely caused by”) their Catholic education. When you promote a message that is going to cause self hatred and guilt for something that is completely natural and normal (talk to any psychologist and ask them if masturbation is a normal action), you are going to get a backlash.

I don’t hate the Catholic Church, I just don’t agree with some of the stances the church takes on Condoms, homosexuality, and masturbation/premarital sex. I bet most people in the world have a problem with at least one of those teachings, and many of them are practicing Catholics.

And I have actually talked to priests that didn’t agree with some of the things the pope did. Have you ever talked to Jesuits? I went on a Jesuit retreat and one of the priests mentioned that they did not agree with a lot of the things the pope was saying. Does that make them bad Catholics, or free thinkers?

What about things that the Catholics have conceded to be wrong? What about if you lived at the time of the inquisition and you spoke out against it? Is that a mortal sin because you were going against the church, or would that have been the right thing to do (at least knowing now that the Church apologized and said it was wrong.)

So, if you were around during the inquisition, would you speak out against it? And if you did, going against the Church, would you be comitting a mortal sin? And if not, how do you know the Church teachings on some of the things I mentioned will not get changed in the future and you will have to re think your theology. The Catholic Church changes their minds on things, so maybe the priests I am talking about that don’t agree with the Church’s teachings are ahead of the curve. Or are you too dense to see that as a possibility?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Have you ever talked to people that went through Catholic education? I didn’t actually mind it to be honest. I know a lot of people that actually HATE Catholoicism after it. Two of my friends are full blown atheists despite (or you could say “likely caused by”) their Catholic education. When you promote a message that is going to cause self hatred and guilt for something that is completely natural and normal (talk to any psychologist and ask them if masturbation is a normal action), you are going to get a backlash.

I am a convert and went the RCIA program so I can only speak to that process. I loved it, I found it was not complete but it in no taught “self hatred and guilt”.

As for asking a psychologist, that is like saying to someone “Does God exist? Go ask an atheist, they will tell you.”

I don’t hate the Catholic Church, I just don’t agree with some of the stances the church takes on Condoms, homosexuality, and masturbation/premarital sex. I bet most people in the world have a problem with at least one of those teachings, and many of them are practicing Catholics.

I really am not qualified to say how most people in world feel about something, but I can say that most Catholics whom have actually read and learned what the church teaches on those subjects, agree with the church.

I have been pushing a book that I recently read because it seriously opened my eyes to how the God and the church view sex (premarital and marital, homosexuality, condoms, masturbation.) “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West explains in simple terms the teaching of the Church. Please read this and then comeback to debate this topic.

And I have actually talked to priests that didn’t agree with some of the things the pope did. Have you ever talked to Jesuits? I went on a Jesuit retreat and one of the priests mentioned that they did not agree with a lot of the things the pope was saying. Does that make them bad Catholics, or free thinkers?

There is a difference between disagreeing with a pope (current and past) and disagreeing with the Catholic Church. The dogma of the church has actually not changed that much. Catholic have concepts that form the core of what we believe. These things can not be changed, not even by the pope. These are Truths if you will.

The pope has the ability to speak infallibly.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp if you want to read it all.

“Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.”

I think gets at what you are talking about, with a priest disagreeing with a pope. Otherwise, the priest would be committing a mortal sin.

What about things that the Catholics have conceded to be wrong? What about if you lived at the time of the inquisition and you spoke out against it? Is that a mortal sin because you were going against the church, or would that have been the right thing to do (at least knowing now that the Church apologized and said it was wrong.)

So, if you were around during the inquisition, would you speak out against it? And if you did, going against the Church, would you be comitting a mortal sin? And if not, how do you know the Church teachings on some of the things I mentioned will not get changed in the future and you will have to re think your theology. The Catholic Church changes their minds on things, so maybe the priests I am talking about that don’t agree with the Church’s teachings are ahead of the curve. Or are you too dense to see that as a possibility?

Again, the main theology of the Church has not really changed. Try reading the Catholic account of the history of the Inquisition. catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I have been pushing a book that I recently read because it seriously opened my eyes to how the God and the church view sex (premarital and marital, homosexuality, condoms, masturbation.) “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West explains in simple terms the teaching of the Church. Please read this and then comeback to debate this topic.

The source is better, Man and Woman He Created Them by Pope JPII as this has the basis for the thoughts that West expounds on. I think West’s view on “man of concupiscence” vs “man redeemed” is too shallow and thus doesn’t intimate the huge gulf between us (concupiscence) and God (redemption), evidenced by West’s view of Hugh Hefner.

The nature of an act as well as it’s “end” (perfection), as it pertains to God, the source of that nature, is the basis for the correct understanding of creation. Those who reject this source are doomed to inordinate attraction and inordinate use of that creation as well as not understanding those who expound the correct use. One can only point out in charity and patience the correct way to view creation and leave it to God (with our prayers and sacrifices) to lead the pagan horde to repentance, Reading a book won’t help unless one is disposed to accept that which is in it.

The myriad of failed relationships based on mutual “using” contrary to the “giving” of oneself to another in resemblance of the Trinity lead some to realize there must be a better way. We should point out that the way we were made to give ourselves in love to one another and to God is in stark contrast to the “man of concupiscence” as demonstrated by Tiger Woods.

 

[bleh_confused]

firstly to the OP, you believe Jesus rose from the dead, correct? this is the greatest proof of His Divinity

now, to everone else: he made a claim that the Church was un welcoming and guilt driven, and you all respond by talking about how he may be sent to hell, how he is a heretic, and how he could be excommunitcated.

to truly get him to accept the Church and its teachings, show him its loving side! thats what it all comes down to in the end, love. the Church is built on love, show the OP that its not all guilt driven and he will be more apt to go along with your views. why would anyone want to go along with something that is entirely guilt driven?

and to the view the OP presented on masturbation, the best way to get him to change his view is to show how much greater the alternative would be…that’s what would convice me

and to your orgininal question, if you force ignorance on yourself, then yes you would be sinning. however if you truly don’t believe a teaching, then you would definitely have less of a responsibility for your actions. if you truly have OCD, this would fall into the latter category, i have it myself (its called scrupulocity) so i understand the anxiety that goes along with it. however whatever the answer is in the end, it has only been put in place because God wants our best interest, and the answer is only to benefit us

 

[prettylarge]

firstly to the OP, you believe Jesus rose from the dead, correct? this is the greatest proof of His Divinity

now, to everone else: he made a claim that the Church was un welcoming and guilt driven, and you all respond by talking about how he may be sent to hell, how he is a heretic, and how he could be excommunitcated.

to truly get him to accept the Church and its teachings, show him its loving side! thats what it all comes down to in the end, love. the Church is built on love, show the OP that its not all guilt driven and he will be more apt to go along with your views. why would anyone want to go along with something that is entirely guilt driven?

and to the view the OP presented on masturbation, the best way to get him to change his view is to show how much greater the alternative would be…that’s what would convice me

and to your orgininal question, if you force ignorance on yourself, then yes you would be sinning. however if you truly don’t believe a teaching, then you would definitely have less of a responsibility for your actions. if you truly have OCD, this would fall into the latter category, i have it myself (its called scrupulocity) so i understand the anxiety that goes along with it. however whatever the answer is in the end, it has only been put in place because God wants our best interest, and the answer is only to benefit us

I wouldn’t really say I have OCD. Maybe mild OCD. Anyway, I know the church is built on love, as was Jesus’ message. But I do think that it concentrates on sexual sins more than necessary and causes many people to feel guilty. I went to an all boys Catholic high school…I know about this well. My friend one time told me that the first time he masturbated he prayed and promised he would never do it again to God. Two weeks later he did the same thing. He continued to masturbate and he kept on feeling guilty. Almost 10 years later he is an atheist and I think that this guilt is part of the reason he was so open to the belief. I think that pushing guilt on people is wrong and it is making people leave the church. I just think that the church should go at it a different way. You know, don’t tell people that masturbation is OK, just don’t tell them to dwell on it and feel guilty about it. Tell them that you need to learn from your mistakes and not dwell on them.

After a while of feeling guilty, you start to resent what is making you feel guilty. And you could resent masturbation, or you could resent the church. And a lot of people are choosing the second.