M
mikew262
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
My main reference was a non-biased, neutral website.
- Status
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Yes, so? I AM biased, and not neutral. I am a Catholic, who approaches (as best as he can) questions concerning the Faith in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Church. Biased? You bet! Neutral? No way. Sorry about that? Not a bit!
And it they’re not biased and neutral on questions of the Christian faith, then they are indifferent to the truth.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
mikew262
Guest
I’m sorry you are perturbed, that was not my intention. However, I’m talking more from a more historical perspective, you’re taking the religious view. I suspect thats why you are getting angry. You disagree that gnostics were part of early Christianity; a part that was eventually declared heresy. I’ve provided references that prove what I said, you’ve (or somebody else) has provided references to the contrary. Thats fine, we disagree. This is called discussion.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
:bowdown: :yup:
:clapping:
:bowdown: :yup:
M
mikew262
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
Am I Catholic, yes, you bet and I always will be. However, that doesn’t make me deaf, dumb and blind to other opinions and viewpoints.
The main website I referenced was a neutral site that gave plain facts about all religions, just like an encyclopedia. If you choose a Christian biased reference, thats fine, after all, you are Christian, as am I. I’m not going to condemn you for that.
Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that. Things seem to be getting a little heated, and that wasn’t my intention. Discuss, yes, argue no. Besides, we have gotten way off the original thread.
I am Catholic too. So? However, I am able to take the “blinders” off sometimes and explore and study outside the box. Does that mean I automatically adopt and believe what I read. No. However, I find it interesting to study and discuss other viewpoints.
Am I Catholic, yes, you bet and I always will be. However, that doesn’t make me deaf, dumb and blind to other opinions and viewpoints.
The main website I referenced was a neutral site that gave plain facts about all religions, just like an encyclopedia. If you choose a Christian biased reference, thats fine, after all, you are Christian, as am I. I’m not going to condemn you for that.
Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that. Things seem to be getting a little heated, and that wasn’t my intention. Discuss, yes, argue no. Besides, we have gotten way off the original thread.
B
Brendan
Guest
Generally, when the heresy is a denial of aspect of the Creed of the Church ( generally the Nicean Creed). The Creed is the ‘baseline’ by which the Church considered to one to hold Christian beliefs or not.I have a question. At what point does heresy cross the line into not being Christian? Protestantism is a heresy, but we still consider them Christians…
As Gnostics deny both the Single Godhead and the Divinity of Christ, they are not considered Christians by the Church (and thus by me as well).
(BTW, the Mormons and JW’s fall into this category as well, not Christian)
B
Brendan
Guest
That is fine that you study that which is not Catholic. I think we all do.
The line gets crossed when one confuses what is not Catholic for what is or might be.
M
mikew262
Guest
No argument there. I know basic catholic doctrine as well as the next person. However, I am willing to discuss things outside that box.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
The only reason that I can think of to discuss things “outside the box”(
) is so that we can know our enemies. Christ did say that we should be cunning like the serpent (Matthew 10:16). I think mercygate said it pretty well with this:
M
mikew262
Guest
No argument. I don’t consider Gnostics Christian now either.
M
mikew262
Guest
I also like discussing things “outside the box” because it can be interesting. Surely, this isn’t a novel concept to you.The only reason that I can think of to discuss things “outside the box”(
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Reading this reminded me of advice that C.S. Lewis had his senior devil, Screwtape, give to his junior tempter nephew:
Only the learned read old books, and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer’s development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood (specially by the learned man’s own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the “present state of the question.” To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge - to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or your behaviour - this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But, thanks be to Our Father [Satan] and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant mechanic who holds that “history is bunk.” (The Screwtape Letters - No. 27)
The study of history is good. The scholarly methods historians have developed are not all good, even for the study of history. And using these methods to interpret or assess the teachings of the Church can be disastrous.
Take care, fellow Catholic.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
mikew262
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
I feel comfortable with my catholic faith and my relationship with God, but I do appreciate your well intentioned warning/comment.
M
Mark_Marilyn
Guest
To Breton:
In other words, (re. w. “artificial birth control, FT has “freed” women to become mere sex toys.”) you are implying that human sexuality per se is inherently sinful and evil. I thought God was the Creator of sexuality as a normal part of the human; and that God did not create evil per se, and surely He never created humans for the purpose of sinning…???
BTW, we do oppose abortion, and while opposing the persecution of gays/lesbians, we do not support the gay/lesbian agenda, least of all changing the definition of marriage.
Sincerely, Mark & Marilyn
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
MARILYN & mark
Your agenda was quite transparent from your very first post! I hope that by now you understand that this is probably not the best forum to try to convert those less enlightened than you! I believe that you are really nice people and because I think that; I can’t help but advise you that your time would be better spent elsewhere.
Your agenda was quite transparent from your very first post! I hope that by now you understand that this is probably not the best forum to try to convert those less enlightened than you! I believe that you are really nice people and because I think that; I can’t help but advise you that your time would be better spent elsewhere.
H
Holland
Guest
It would be nice if this question were truly “settled” so we could stop talking about it. As long as there are Parishes where those ideas are fully supported the debate will go on and on. Having to attend a Parish, where every Sunday you are fed complaints about the Vatican and its unreasonable constaints on the Catholic Church, is debillitating at best.
J
JimG
Guest
Sorry you have to live in such a parish; but the question really is settled. You might take comfort in the fact that all the complaining in the world will do no more to change this than it will do to change the weather.
B
Brendan
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
What he said was that “F.T. freed women to become mere sex toys”
Which means that women tend to be viewed as a object to which sex is done (which is a sinful outlook), as opposed to the correct, God created view, that the spouse is a life partner in which both parties make a physical expression of a desire to raise children together,
The first is inherently sinful, the second is inherintly beautiful.
One is a clear violation of the Divinely created sex act, the other is it’s ultimate fulfillment.
ABC and abortion have created an environment where people believe they have a right to have sex just because they both happen to consent, with no other qualifications at all, no promise of lifelong commitment, no desire to raise children together.
And that is plainly NOT true.
If he said that, I certainly missed it.
What he said was that “F.T. freed women to become mere sex toys”
Which means that women tend to be viewed as a object to which sex is done (which is a sinful outlook), as opposed to the correct, God created view, that the spouse is a life partner in which both parties make a physical expression of a desire to raise children together,
The first is inherently sinful, the second is inherintly beautiful.
One is a clear violation of the Divinely created sex act, the other is it’s ultimate fulfillment.
ABC and abortion have created an environment where people believe they have a right to have sex just because they both happen to consent, with no other qualifications at all, no promise of lifelong commitment, no desire to raise children together.
And that is plainly NOT true.
Just about anything God created can be used against His Will, including sex.I thought God was the Creator of sexuality as a normal part of the human; and that God did not create evil per se, and surely He never created humans for the purpose of sinning…???
Good
B
Breton
Guest
Yes, I said it. M&M’s conclusion is a classic ‘non-sequitur’. Thanks for filling in the gap for them.
M
mercygate
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
No, the objection to contraception does not imply that sexuality is inherently sinful. The objection to contraception declares emphatically that our sexuality has a divine and noble purpose which contraception thwarts, distorts, and mutilates.To Breton:
In other words, (re. w. “artificial birth control, FT has “freed” women to become mere sex toys.”) you are implying that human sexuality per se is inherently sinful and evil. I thought God was the Creator of sexuality as a normal part of the human; and that God did not create evil per se, and surely He never created humans for the purpose of sinning…???
- Status