What's YOUR beef?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do believe there is One True Church, I just don’t consider the cathlic denomination to be it, The One True Chruch is Christ- every beliver that makes up His body, not all of those believers are found in the catholic church.

Christ chose and appointed men over His Church, the body of believers. So, there is a structure to His Church. Without the structure, we have many different doctrines according to every distinct group of believers, which ‘divides the body of Christ’.

**

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

**

 

[elvisman]

A sperm by itself doesn’t go anywhere. Since the average issue of sperm is around 120 million or thereabouts, God doesn’t seem to be too worried about the fate of the other 119,999,999 even if conception is successful. Of course most are not, so He doesn’t care if the whole 120,000,000 go down the tube.

Likewise the ova. And even without the use of artificial contraceptives, it seems that about half of all fertilised ova are flushed out by the body’s own systems itself. That must account for billions of fertilised ova annually, without anybody even taking a pill.

For a God who’s allegedly so concerned about methods of contraception, He doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with sheer wastage.

And if someone is going to bring up Onanian sin, then if you’re obey that law, then you have to obey the whole law, including marrying your brother’s widow. And don’t move your neighbours lot pegs either.

My error - I checked up on Onan, and he wasn’t required to marry his brother’s widow. All Judah told him to do was have intercourse with her, so his deceased brother would have “children”.

So if you’re going to obey the whole law, you’ll have to make a point of sleeping with your brother’s widow.

My error.

**We don’t live by the Mosaic Law - or didn’t you know that?

Secondly - is an egg or sperm are “wasted”, as you say by God - it is HIS perogative. He is the author of life, not elvisman and certainly not you.

Those eggs that were not fertilized were nontheless entrusted to God’s divine providence and no artificial hurdles of rebellion were placed in front of him.**

 

[Nicea325]

**We don’t **live by the Mosaic Law - or didn’t you *know *that?

Secondly - is an egg or sperm are “wasted”, as you say by God - it is HIS perogative. He is the author of life, not elvisman and certainly not you.

Those eggs that were not** fertilized were nontheless entrusted to God’s divine providence and no artificial hurdles of rebellion were placed in front of him.

Amen brother!

 

[Nicea325]

A sperm by itself doesn’t go anywhere. Since the average issue of sperm is around 120 million or thereabouts, God doesn’t seem to be too worried about the fate of the other 119,999,999 even if conception is successful. Of course most are not, so He doesn’t care if the whole 120,000,000 go down the tube.

Likewise the ova. And even without the use of artificial contraceptives, it seems that about half of all fertilised ova are flushed out by the body’s own systems itself. That must account for billions of fertilised ova annually, without anybody even taking a pill.

For a God who’s allegedly so concerned about methods of contraception, He doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with sheer wastage.

And if someone is going to bring up Onanian sin, then if you’re obey that law, then you have to obey the whole law, including marrying your brother’s widow. And don’t move your neighbours lot pegs either.

My brother in Christ, I am sorry,but how do you know what God truly thinks or feels? How do you know He is **not worried **about the fate of 119,999,999 sperm?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

My brother in Christ, I am sorry,but how do you know what God truly thinks or feels? How do you know He is **not worried **about the fate of 119,999,999 sperm?

Because He designed the system that deliberately wastes them.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

**We don’t **live by the Mosaic Law - or didn’t you *know *that?

Secondly - is an egg or sperm are “wasted”, as you say by God - it is HIS perogative. He is the author of life, not elvisman and certainly not you.

Those eggs that were not** fertilized were nontheless entrusted to God’s divine providence and no artificial hurdles of rebellion were placed in front of him.

Then why did you refer to Onan who was under the Mosaic Law?

 

[elvisman]

Then why did you refer to Onan who was under the Mosaic Law?

I referred to Onan - not to us. Onan didn’t die because he refused to obey the Law and get his brother’s wife pregnant. Onan was struck down dead for spilling his seed.

 

[elvisman]

Then why did you refer to Onan who was under the Mosaic Law?

I referred to Onan - not to us. Onan didn’t die because he refused to obey the Law and get his brother’s wife pregnant. Onan was struck down dead for spilling his seed.

As John Kippley, author of Covenant, Christ and Contraception explains:
"Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act but refused to accept the consequences. He withdrew in order that the act could carry no reproductive consequences . . . [H]e went through the motions of the Levirate covenant, but he denied the reality of that covenant."

 

[Nicea325]

Because He designed the system that deliberately wastes them.

 

[Contarini]

My concern here is not how we relate to Christ, but how we relate to each other. If God has accepted a person as his Son/Daughter,

I don’t know how to reconcile the first part of your second sentence with your first sentence. Clearly if you think you can judge that God has accepted someone as his Son/Daughter, then you are concerned with how we relate to Christ. You are basing your concept of the Church on your belief that certain people have a relationship with Jesus. I, on the other hand, don’t think I can tell for sure who has a relationship with Jesus and who doesn’t. I’m even open to the possibility that non-Christians may in fact have a relationship with Jesus without fully realizing it. But in terms of public, observable description, Christians have always (as far as I can tell) understood membership in the Church as part of what it means to have a saving relationship with Jesus. (And thus, those who have a “hidden” or “imperfect” relationship to Jesus would also be related in some way to the Church, as Vatican II taught.) And again, this boils down to what we think salvation is. It seems to me, based on Scripture and Christian tradition, that salvation is very much about being united to the Body of Christ here on earth in a visible, communal way.

I don’t expect you to agree. I’m simply trying to point out that this isn’t a question of “arrogance” any more than it’s arrogant for Christians to say that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It’s a question of *truth. *You need to settle the question of whether the Catholic Church’s claims are true before you have the right to say they are arrogant. You can’t, with integrity, do it the other way round, dismissing them as obviously false because you find them arrogant. They are only arrogant if they are false.

who am I to say they’re not a member of the Church?

You can say that they’re not “visibly” a member of the Church. That doesn’t imply a judgment on their eternal destiny.

Or chide them for not being the ‘right kind of Christian.’

Would you “chide” a Mormon for not being the right kind of Christian? If you say, “Mormons aren’t Christians”–well, they generally say that they are. So by saying that they are not, you are in fact saying that there is a “right kind of Christian,” and you are, in your own pejorative terms, “chiding” those who are not.

I do believe there is One True Church, I just don’t consider the cathlic denomination to be it,

But by speaking of Catholicism as a “denomination,” you are, again, pre-judging the question. Thinking of the Church as made up of various “denominations” is a modern Anglo-American custom arising from the failure of the Church of England to coerce other Christians into remaining part of the state church, and then the importation of the resulting religious diversity (multiplied almost exponentially) to North America. We need to get beyond that way of thinking if we are going to think clearly about the Church.

There is, as you say, One Church. How about instead of asking “which church is the true Church,” which I believe to be a nonsense question, we asked instead, “how ought that one Church to believe and practice and how can I participate most fully in it, as Christ commands me to do?”

The One True Chruch is Christ- every beliver that makes up His body, not all of those believers are found in the catholic church.

You might be surprised to learn that Catholics would, to some extent agree with you. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism unites you to the Church, but that failure to accept all the teachings of the historic Church and/or to be in communion with the See of Peter make(s) that union with the Church imperfect to some degree.

So the questions to ask are:

1. Are all the teachings to which Rome demands our adherence actually teachings of the historic Church? (I’m not entirely convinced that they are.) and
2. Is Rome the See of Peter and is union with that See important? (I am convinced that it is, though I’m not convinced it’s quite as overridingly important as Rome claims.)

But the whole “arrogance” accusation is just a distraction. As C. S. Lewis says, you have to prove someone wrong before you have the right to explain why they are wrong. And calling someone “arrogant” is an explanation of why they are wrong, not an argument showing that they are wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My brother in Christ, I am sorry,but how do you know what God truly thinks or feels? How do you know He is **not worried **about the fate of 119,999,999 sperm?

Because a sperm is not a human being, by the common consent of all Christians.

I find it baffling that Catholics adopt this method of argument, when it so obviously undercuts the prolife position and lends credence to the prochoice blurring of the distinction between a fertilized embryo and the egg/sperm. If you are right in what you say about sperm, then clearly the argument that human life begins at conception is wrong, and our opposition to abortion needs to focus on a later point in pregnancy. I’m actually willing to entertain the possibility that this is true, but it’s not a point I expect Catholics to make

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Because a sperm is not a human being, by the common consent of all Christians.

I find it baffling that Catholics adopt this method of argument, when it so obviously undercuts the prolife position and lends credence to the prochoice blurring of the distinction between a fertilized embryo and the egg/sperm. If you are right in what you say about sperm, then clearly the argument that human life begins at conception is wrong, and our opposition to abortion needs to focus on a later point in pregnancy. I’m actually willing to entertain the possibility that this is true, but it’s not a point I expect Catholics to make

Edwin

But it most certainly is the beginning would you not say? And I find it more baffling how many non-Catholics also claim an embryo is not a human life?

Common consent of all Christians? Really? Show me your sources for such a claim?

 

[fred_conty]

Because a sperm is not a human being, by the common consent of all Christians.

Hi, I am empressed with you understanding in general, very good. I don’t think that we said that the male sperm is a human being for this reason( and if I did I apoligize). A human being by definition is body and soul which clearly is not the case here, besides the fact that it only contains have the chromozones for a human body. But it is living and from a human male, thus making it LIVING HUMAN LIFE, living on its’ own, tho not a human PERSON. But recognizing this, I can see that this living life form is a potential source for a living human being, living on its’ own, and its’ intention (designed by Holy God) is to be part of something that is above all things on earth, a loving human being, given a spiritual soul directly by God created in His own image and likeness.

There are different categories of laws which govern mankind: civil, ethical, religious, church, natural. And there maybe a couple more depending on one’s view point. But the NATURAL LAW is one that seems to be to be the one that is tatered, misunderstud, overlooked, or ignored. Sometimes it is the one nobody ever listens to or even thiinks exists. I guess since noone presented it to us in two tablets, the natural law really dosen’t matter. But in reality, the natural law is every bit as important as the law handed down in two tablets even tho this is denied by many. But the law

 

[fred_conty]

of nature is God’s holy law and is His divine will that it be followed, as we say, “thy will be done”. And what is to be done is to follow nature’s intent and purpose which Holy God has established. Therefore we ask ourselves, just what did He have in mind when he made us with each power of the soul and the body? And when we discover what each power is intended to do, and then use it for something other than what it was intended for, namely when our body takes control for pleasure, and Holy God’s order of creation is terminated, the Natural Law,the Will of God, has been broken, then we must say “forgive us our tresspasses”. When we take the law of God into our own hands, we become lawless, and become our own worst enemies, then we are without Holy God’s light to show us the way. I think it would be far better for someone to say, “I know its’ wrong, but I’m weak Lord. Please help me in you mercy and show me your way”.