- And yet you still can't tell us if this here RC buzzword, this other issue that should be redefined as "annulment in disguise", this other thing that virtually all evangelicals and Reformed reject, this here noble action, this huge RC buzzword, etc. are in keeping with the Gospel. The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.
- Gosh, thanks Alexander.
The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.
Right, b/c "God said so" is not nearly a good enough reason.
Posts
47 comments:
So what's the answer?
Is masturbation immoral and why?
Is divorce and remarriage immoral and why?
Is in vitro fertilization immoral and why?
Is embryo adoption immoral and why?
Is contraception immoral and why?
What say the contributors of Beggars All and friends?
Masturbation--promoted by Steve Hays.
Divorce and remarriage (Rhology incorrectly seems to think that an annulment, meaning that a marriage never took place is the same thing as a marriage)--promoted by some Reformed and condemned by others
In vitro fertilization--promoted by some Protestants and condemned by others.
Embryo adoption--Rhology calls it noble, but there are serious ethical issues involved which I believe he is overlooking.
Contraception (non-abortifacients)--Very few Protestants reject it today, the majority either promote its use or leave it to individual conscious.
The fallacy involved in your comment regarding homosexuality is that I've never insinuated that obeying God isn't a good enough reason. What I do maintain is that you might lack a reason other than a Divine command.
@ Alex, Mr Rhology the great here can't give you a definite answer maybe if you are lucky you'll get one-liners and deconstruction of what you have said.
Even Rhology's take on artificial contraception is head to head against the founding fathers of Protestantism....in his own house of division.
Alexander, what is "the gospel"? Can you define it for us?
I gotta run here. It's quitting time in my neck of the woods, and I've got about an hour-long commute. Lord willing I'll be back soon.
Please Jae, keep it clean and charitable. Let's let Rhology speak for himself.
I agree that Rhology is at odds with the Reformers, assuming that Rhology believes that contraception is moral, but they will undoubtedly make the case that if Scripture does not condemn something as sinful, then we cannot rightfully condemn the same regardless of extremely longstanding tradition.
So what's the answer?
AG:Is masturbation immoral and why?
Me:Yes, because it involves lust; and Jesus said that lust is sin just the same as physical adultery.
AG:Is divorce and remarriage immoral and why?
Me:Yes, except for cases where adultery has been committed. Because Jesus said so.
AG:Is in vitro fertilization immoral and why?
Me:Not sure. It doesn't seem right; but I can't think of a reason to call another anathema over it.
AG:Is embryo adoption immoral and why?
Me:What is "embryo adoption?"
AG:Is contraception immoral and why?
Me:Outside abortion and and abortive contraceptives it is a matter of conscience. Because there is no clear "thus says The LORD" concerning contraception.
What say the contributors of Beggars All and friends?
John B:
In order to simplify things, let's just assume for the time being that the topics I have presented are being questioned by someone in your church. If something is immoral, then wouldn't you agree that it offends God's justice?
First, can you answer to whether or not these acts are moral?
I'm going to have to take off soon.
Thanks Andrew!
Does masturbation necessarily entail lust, and if it didn't, would that then make it moral?
Doesn't Jesus just (reluctantly) permit divorce, but he ever mentions allowing the divorced to remarry; instead he states a man who remarries a divorced woman causes her to commit adultry?
Why doesn't in vitro seem right to you?
I'm refering to embryo adoption as the rescue of frozen embryos left over from in vitro procedures, etc.
Wouldn't that make the issue of contraception relative? Or are you applying the principle of one not going against their conscious? Also, when precisely does ensoulment happen according to your view. Scripture likewise does not mention this.
We can take one issue at a time if you prefer.
Why would adopting a fetus which will otherwise be destroyed be anything but noble? Maybe our definitions differ. I mean Operation Snowflake, not encouraging creation of lots of embryos.
Also, hear me on this. The next time I see anyone say "Masturbation--promoted by Steve Hays" or sthg similar, I will delete their comment and ban them from the combox. Hays is a godly man and a faithful brother, and I'm tired of seeing you unregenerate liars lie about him. Don't mention it again.
Also, are you guys unfamiliar with what Sola Scriptura means? It means that ALL PEOPLE are subject to correction and testing by Scr. It bothers me not very much that you think I'm in disagreement with "the Reformers". Give me the so what? first.
@ Beggars All, for your info:
Martin Luther on contraception (1483 to 1546):
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
JOHN CALVIN on contraception (1509 to 1564):
"Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race."
John Wesley on contraception (1703 to 1791):
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non-procreative sex as against Paul's teaching based on Natural Law (also gay-marriage as unnatural)and thus against God's Will. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world attempting to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the contraception dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood that would engulf the other Protestant Churches, too. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on contraception. The most terrible point is that just a few years earlier, in 1908, the Anglican Church condemned the very contraception that they would later embrace.
Historically, protestants follow the footsteps of Anglicanism in Lambeth 1930, 1960 and now 2007 (gay-marriage etc.)
Jae,
I would presume the fact that you're just rehashing stuff we've discussed at length before means you're insecure about how it went last time. I agree with you - it did not go well for you. But please, bring sthg new to the table.
@ Beggars All, for your info:
Martin Luther on contraception (1483 to 1546):
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
JOHN CALVIN on contraception (1509 to 1564):
"Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race."
John Wesley on contraception (1703 to 1791):
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non-procreative sex as against Paul's teaching based on Natural Law (also gay-marriage as unnatural)and thus against God's Will. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world attempting to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the contraception dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood that would engulf the other Protestant Churches, too. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on contraception. The most terrible point is that just a few years earlier, in 1908, the Anglican Church condemned the very contraception that they would later embrace.
Historically, protestants follow the footsteps of Anglicanism in Lambeth 1930, 1960 and now 2007 (gay-marriage etc.)
Steve Hays did an entire post on why it is moral. Why would bringing it up be a problem? Has he changed his mind on it? Did I misread his post? Does he believe that masturbation is immoral? If I misread him, then enlighten me. I am not trying to lie about his position. If I am wrong, then show me. If you want, I can go back and find his argument.
I'm tired of seeing you unregenerate liars lie about him.
For the record, this is certainly seems insulting.
@ Rhology you said, "
It means that ALL PEOPLE are subject to correction and testing by Scr"
May I ask who's DOING THE TESTING?
Oh don't worry the reason why I'm bringing it up again is the same reason as before...you have done nothing new to refute your founding fathers. All you could muster is "well what's wrong with disagreeing with them!" hmmm.
Jae,
It has been settled numerous times that while the Reformers are helpful, they could very well be wrong on a particular point. While Rhology and friends could reconcile the Reformer's teachings, they are not strictly subject to them and do not have to proceed in rejecting the condemnation of contraception by addressing the Reformers first. Plus, long standing tradition alone does not prove why it should be considered immoral.
Alex,
Hays qualified it, and you are not correctly representing it.
Go read him, come back and correctly represent him and you can keep discussing. Don't lie.
And when you lie, you get called out as a liar. Sorry.
Jae,
Who's doing the testing when RC documents come out?
The church?
Same here - the SCRIPTURE does the testing.
Rhology, I am not attempting to decieve. While what I said might be materially a falsehood, due to an error in understanding, it certainly isn't a formal falsehood, and therefore it is not a lie.
You state that there is a qualifier in Hays' reasoning. What is it?
Read it, come back and tell me. Thus I can know you cared enough not to lie, whereas throughout numerous comboxes you have lied about Hays. You've been corrected many, many times and have continued in your malicious behavior.
You're acting all nice, which is great and commendable, but my memory of your longstanding pattern of behavior is a little longer than 2 hours.
Rhology,
I'll go searching for it when I have time.
Meanwhile, what say you? Is masturbation (or any of the other issues immoral)?
Apparently you believe that embryo adoption is moral. What about the other issues?
Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in all this. I linked to what I think about divorce. I've said what I think about embryo adoption. I'm on the record about how ludicrous the RC position on contraception is.
I'm more interested in the big picture here, how RC epistemology is at best equal and more probably inferior to the Sola Scriptura position. Showing that some Prots disagree doesn't get you anywhere on that.
So theoretically then, one could go about possibly offending God by sinning unrepentantly, and this would not arise to an issue of Protestant epistemology?
9. Masturbation
This once went under the quaint name of Onanism. How it came to be associated with sin of Onan is puzzling. If you read the Biblical account, Onan achieved a state of sexual climax by having sexual relations with a woman, which is hardly the textbook meaning of masturbation.
At most, this would be a prooftext against contraception, but in that case we’d have to say that contraception is a sin, but polygamy is not. The account is really about Levirate marriage.
Traditionally, the church has frowned upon masturbation. One reason is the relation between masturbation and lust. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, lust is also aggravated by the absence of a sexual outlet. That is, indeed, in the nature of sexual tension, of a tension between sexual desire and sexual release. Unrelieved sexual tension only builds.
Another objection is the view that sexual activity is illicit outside the context of procreation. Yet if sex were impermissible outside of procreation, we would expect Scripture to forbid sexual relations with a barren, pregnant or postmenopausal woman.
The Bible does not directly address this issue. The Bible has general prohibitions against the sin of lust, but this takes external subjects, such as homosexual lust, incestuous lust, or adulterous lust, where a particular individual and a particular relation are in view.
It is striking that the Bible is silent on the subject of masturbation—striking, both because the Bible is quite specific and explicit about a number of other sexual sins, and because masturbation is extremely widespread. The argument from silence is always a bit tricky, but if masturbation were intrinsically evil, you’d expect of find a warning to that effect somewhere in Scripture.
Since the Bible doesn’t address the question, either directly or by necessary inference, we cannot be dogmatic one way or another. So a few suggestions are in order:
i) Since we are responsible for the revealed will of God, and he has not disclosed his will on this particular subject, I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice.
ii) On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime.
iii) Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night.
iv) But, by the same token, it is generally illicit for married men—except for periods of prolonged physical separation. Likewise, it should not become a permanent alternative to marriage, unless marriage is not an option.
v) As with any appetite, it runs the risk of becoming addictive or sinful if wrongly directed.
So I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html
I'm not sure where I've misread Steve Hays. He says that masturbation is permissible, i.e. not immoral. He isn't definitive in his decision, but he doesn't say that it is outright immoral. He allows for cases where it could be immoral, but that is hardly a full blown rejection of the act.
Am I mistaken?
I do find the following particularly peculiar, and only bring it up because some commentators here might principally agree with it:
i) Since we are responsible for the revealed will of God, and he has not disclosed his will on this particular subject, I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice.
In other words, if it is not condemned in Scripture, then we cannot condemn it. Essentially, I believe that this assumes that God decisively intended to reveal everything that that would offend Him. Am I mistaken?
Alexander -- I don't disagree with anything that Steve Hays said, or that Rhology has said. And as Andrew has said, Me:Outside abortion and and abortive contraceptives it is a matter of conscience. Because there is no clear "thus says The LORD" concerning contraception.
"Reformulated positively," God has given us great resources, in our minds, in our ability to reason, in our ability to understand and to serve Him.
Alexander said, So theoretically then, one could go about possibly offending God by sinning unrepentantly, and this would not arise to an issue of Protestant epistemology?
You are missing a key point, and if you were to consult the letter of 1 John, you would understand that a genuine believer will not even theoretically go around offending God by sinning unrepentantly, because God will always discipline the believer and call him or her back to repentance. "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning ... No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." This is a genuine promise of God to the believer.
And note the order of things here. It's not a question of "we work to maintain our state of grace, therefore God takes care of us." It is rather, "God, having justified us freely [a forensic, legal pronouncement, which effects the ontological change it promises -- by his Word, God creates the world, and by his Word, he creates us as new creatures], and He further effects our sanctification." One is not dependent on the other.
(At Alexander Greco's request) Here are the comments from the other thread:
(Greco) "TUAD: All of the above are taught definitively by the Church to be against the Gospel."
"I just want to take one issue at a time.
You're saying that the Roman Catholic Church (hitherto "the Church") definitively teaches that masturbation is against the Gospel.
In short:
Masturbation is against the Gospel.
Suppose a Catholic priest or bishop masturbates without going to confession prior to giving the homily. Is his masturbation going against the Gospel that his parishioners hear?
This doesn't make any sense to me. The parishioners still get the Church's Gospel even if the priest/bishop masturbates, don't they?
And with the donatist heresy, the parishioners still get the Real Presence even if the priest/bishop masturbates immediately prior to confecting the elements, don't they.
So I'm not sure what you mean when you say that masturbation is against the Church's Gospel when given priest/bishop masturbation."
------
So if the celebrant masturbates without penance prior to confecting the Elements and preaching the homily, the parishioners still receive the Real Presence and the Church's Gospel.
So then the priest/bishop's masturbation is not against the Church's Gospel. To be sure, it is a sin according to infallible Magisterium teaching, but the priest/bishop's masturbation will not negate the Church's Gospel.
That has to be right.
So this idea of "masturbation is against the Gospel" has to be reformulated or re-phrased in order to be coherent.
-------
Honestly, I'm not understanding you either, Alexander. You effectively said that masturbation is against the Gospel.
And I'm just saying that the Roman Catholic Church's Gospel is not negated by the priests and bishops who are masturbating.
------
(Greco) If they are masturbating, then they are acting against it. The Gospel isn't dependent upon their personal nature.
I still fail to see the logical connection which you are making.
------
Incidentally, google research shows the following percentage estimate of priestly masturbation:
"Pepe Rodriguez published his book length study of the sexual life of clergy in Spain (La Vida sexual del Clero 1995). He concluded that among practicing priests 95% masturbate;.... (Click Here).
Wow! "among practicing priests 95% masturbate"
That is a lot!!
Maybe that's just in Spain. So let's just take a whopping 30% off that figure. That would still be 65% of the priests are masturbating. That's still a lot of masturbating priests!
And what you wrote earlier was: "If they are masturbating, then they are acting against it." In which case there are a lot of priests acting (and masturbating) against the Church's Gospel.
-------
It doesn't matter to me how many Roman Catholic priests and bishops are masturbating contra formal Church dogma. But then again, I'm a Protestant.
I'm guessing that a lot of Catholic laity don't care about how many Catholic priests and bishops are masturbating, and they probably don't care whether their own priest and bishop masturbates either.
My guess is that a lot of "sinful" masturbation occurs among Catholics, both laity and clergy, and that a lot of it goes unconfessed (maybe because a lot of their masturbation is forgotten and not even remembered.)
Alexander -- I don't disagree with anything that Steve Hays said, or that Rhology has said. And as Andrew has said, Me:Outside abortion and and abortive contraceptives it is a matter of conscience. Because there is no clear "thus says The LORD" concerning contraception.
Neither of them have really expounded on their beliefs, so saying that you do not disagree with them is not very helpful in knowing what you actually believe. Do you believe that absent the sin of lust, the material act of masturbation is moral? What about the other issues?
"Reformulated positively," God has given us great resources, in our minds, in our ability to reason, in our ability to understand and to serve Him.
Agreed. We could arrive at an opinion on these matters. However, can those opinions be binding?
Alexander said, So theoretically then, one could go about possibly offending God by sinning unrepentantly, and this would not arise to an issue of Protestant epistemology?
You are missing a key point, and if you were to consult the letter of 1 John, you would understand that a genuine believer will not even theoretically go around offending God by sinning unrepentantly, because God will always discipline the believer and call him or her back to repentance. "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning ... No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." This is a genuine promise of God to the believer.
This assumes that the person will know what he is being disciplined by God about. Are sins only sins if they have been declared as such in the Bible? How would one know? Either the act is sinful, or it isn’t. Do you reject the idea that certain acts are intrinsically evil?
And note the order of things here. It's not a question of "we work to maintain our state of grace, therefore God takes care of us." It is rather, "God, having justified us freely [a forensic, legal pronouncement, which effects the ontological change it promises -- by his Word, God creates the world, and by his Word, he creates us as new creatures], and He further effects our sanctification." One is not dependent on the other.
Keeping aside the fact that I believe that your view of justification isn’t reasonable, historical, nor biblical (this can be argued elsewhere), even assuming that it is, there are further difficulties which are brought about.
Assuming that God brings about one’s sanctification in the coercive way you have described, how do we explain the difference between two Reformed believers who advocate doctrines which are diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, either remarriage after divorce is sinful, or it isn’t. The act of masturbation is sinful, or it isn’t. Therefore, one of the two Reformed believers is wrong and happens to be promoting (or allowing) the continuation of sinful acts. Are they true believers?
Alexander, I appreciate your comment to Jae:
It has been settled numerous times that while the Reformers are helpful, they could very well be wrong on a particular point. While Rhology and friends could reconcile the Reformer's teachings, they are not strictly subject to them and do not have to proceed in rejecting the condemnation of contraception by addressing the Reformers first. Plus, long standing tradition alone does not prove why it should be considered immoral.
Statements like this one, coming from someone like yourself, could go a long way toward clarifying a lot of misunderstandings.
"Quick, fun blurb on the RC view of the Scripture"
Maybe in the future Beggars All can do a quick, fun blurb on the difference between official RC dogma and RC clergy or laity practice.
Eg. RC Magisterial Dogma: Masturbation is a grave sin.
RC clergy practice: 95% of RC clergy masturbate. (according to one report).
Eg. RC dogma: Contraception is a sin.
RC laity practice: Lots of RC laity use contraception.
----------
55 mph speed limit.
Most drivers exceed 55 mph speed limit.
Hey, we have good doctrinal teaching that says that 55 mph is the speed limit. Your town doesn't have speed limit signs. We're better than you because of our official Magisterial teaching that's posted on speed limit signs. Neener, neener, neener.
Neither of them have really expounded on their beliefs, so saying that you do not disagree with them is not very helpful in knowing what you actually believe.
To be honest I've not thought or studied deeply about some of these issues. On my facebook page, I give my political theory, "do the right thing." Of course I would have to say that a process that destroys human embryos is wrong.
Do you believe that absent the sin of lust, the material act of masturbation is moral? What about the other issues?
I'll cite Dr. James Dobson on this one: "It is my opinion that masturbation is not much of an issue with God." (Preparing for Adolescence, Dr. James Dobson, p.83)
And with Matthew Schultz: modern bioethical issues are challenging to navigate. However, this is far from saying that Scripture doesn't provide clear direction on these matters.
You said:
Agreed. We could arrive at an opinion on these matters. However, can those opinions be binding?
Scripture is binding, and if my pastor and elders were to come to me on some matter and say "hey ...", that would be binding upon me. If you are talking about "binding and loosing" from Matthew's gospel (16:19, 18:18), R.T. France notes that the future perfect tense of those constructions ("will have been bound," etc) is "a promise not of divine endorsement but of divine guidance ... to decide in accordance with God's already determined purpose." (France, "Matthew," 627). This authority is shared "by the whole disciple group." "At the risk of becoming repetitious," he says, "it is appropriate to point out again that no specific officers or leaders are mentioned in these verses." It is the responsibility of the whole group, and "the access to God in prayer in v. 18:19 is promised to any two members of the community... What gives them their special privilege is not any appointment to office but the name of Jesus in which they meet. The authority and the answers to prayer come from "heaven," not via the channel of a formal church establishment but wherever some of God's people are together on earth." (696)
This assumes that the person will know what he is being disciplined by God about.
Your statement here assumes that God can't deal directly with each individual heart and mind.
Keeping aside the fact that I believe that your view of justification isn’t reasonable, historical, nor biblical (this can be argued elsewhere), even assuming that it is, there are further difficulties which are brought about.
I'm willing to argue that my view of Justification was very thoroughly explicated by Paul (therefore it is reasonable and biblical), and that historically, the sense of the pure gift of grace that Paul wrote about was lost or obscured within the church at a very early date. (This does not mean that God stopped saving people. And it does not mean that someone like Hilary or Ambrosiaster or Augustine did not regain some sense of it from their studies of Scripture.)
Assuming that God brings about one’s sanctification in the coercive way you have described,
It is not coercive: God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
An aspiring Thomist like yourself should understand this distinction.
how do we explain the difference between two Reformed believers who advocate doctrines which are diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, either remarriage after divorce is sinful, or it isn’t. The act of masturbation is sinful, or it isn’t. Therefore, one of the two Reformed believers is wrong and happens to be promoting (or allowing) the continuation of sinful acts. Are they true believers?
I think your desire to force these hypotheticals into firm, hard categories is not helpful.
Whether they are true believers or not is between them and their Lord.
Whether the young woman, who for example has been verbally and physically abused by an adulterous husband can remarry after a divorce is a matter of conscience between her and her pastor. I do think there is Scriptural justification for it, and God is not an unkind tyrant.
I asked you to provide your definition of what the Gospel is (since some of these behaviors are said to be "against" the Gospel.)
I've taken the time here to respond to your questions. Can you answer mine? What is this "Gospel" that these things are "against"?
Alexander,
Essentially, I believe that this assumes that God decisively intended to reveal everything that that would offend Him. Am I mistaken?
Unless you can provide a good argument for an alternate source of divine revelation, I'm not sure what other conclusion to reach.
TUAD,
Neener
Quite so.
Alexander,
I think I know the answer, but I'm genuinely not sure.
If 60% of RC priests were active serial killers, what would that change with respect to the validity of their clerginess and the sacraments they offer? And RCC's responsibility to perform church discipline?
An aspiring Thomist like yourself should understand this distinction.
Insulting and irrelevant comment. It is one thing to show me where I missed a proper distinction (which is debatable). It is another thing entirely to make the comment you made.
Insulting and irrelevant comment. It is one thing to show me where I missed a proper distinction (which is debatable). It is another thing entirely to make the comment you made.
Alexander, this is really getting old. So what are you then, a full-fledged Aquinas scholar?
John, you should be able to make the distinction between pointing out the error in reasoning in an objective fashion, with making an ad hominem attack. What does my being an "aspiring Thomist" have anything to do with your perception that I made an error in reasoning?
As a member of the Elect, you should't commit these errors. See?
Let me ask you a couple of questions?
1. What has brought about your recent, what shall I call it, repentance?
2. What do you hope to accomplish by coming here and finding fault with everything that everyone else has said?
3. What simply do you hope to accomplish by taking part in these discussions, generally?
Let me ask you a couple of questions?
1. What has brought about your recent, what shall I call it, repentance?
My attitude and treatment of my opposition here had been deplorable, unproductive, and absent of any virtue. It is opposition to what my Church teaches, and absent of God's Grace.
2. What do you hope to accomplish by coming here and finding fault with everything that everyone else has said?
First of all, I think that this is not the case. What I have done is simply pointed out where I am attacked personally and/or insulted. I find these comments degrading and detracting from the issues. I am hoping to see some candor from all of you, and a chage of attitude. There is no reason to continue to degrade me. Notice how Rhology preempts TUAD and Turretinfan from being held accountable to whether thier mockery is in accord with their election. I do not see how pointing this out is unreasonable. I am mocked for pointing it out, but when Matthew Shultz pointed out to me when I was being rude, TUAD, Rhology, etc. did not mock him for his "fragile ego." It seems that natamllc (and some time ago B.J.) are the only ones who see fit to hold folks of their own accountable.
3. What simply do you hope to accomplish by taking part in these discussions, generally?
Specifically in these discussions, learning what you believe on these ethical issues, interacting with your thoughts on what I find to be lacking. I don't think that insulting my intelligence should be a part of the discussion because as a Thomist I should know better.
Alexander Greco: "My attitude and treatment of my opposition here had been deplorable, unproductive, and absent of any virtue. It is opposition to what my Church teaches, and absent of God's Grace."
I don't recall complaining about you.
Nonetheless, your ownership and acknowledgement of your attitude and behavior is appreciated.
Peace and Blessings in Christ Alone.
Alexander, I don't have time to respond to you right now, but I'll get back to you.
That's fine John. I'm sure you have other more important things to discuss and allot your time to. I am happy to let this end and not spend any more time on it. I just ask that you consider what I said.
Alexander, I would be happy to discuss these issues with you. However, it would probably get hard to follow in this setting; and it's not really the topic of the origianl post. Leave a comment over at my excuse for a blog and we can get in touch privately if you like. That being said:
AG: "Does masturbation necessarily entail lust, and if it didn't, would that then make it moral?"
Me: I don't see how it wouldn't involve lust.
AG: "Doesn't Jesus just (reluctantly) permit divorce, but he ever mentions allowing the divorced to remarry; instead he states a man who remarries a divorced woman causes her to commit adultry?"
Me: I think Paul says it's okay in certain situations in 1Corinthians.
AG: "Why doesn't in vitro seem right to you?"
Me: I'm not sure.
AG: "Wouldn't that make the issue of contraception relative? Or are you applying the principle of one not going against their conscious? Also, when precisely does ensoulment happen according to your view. Scripture likewise does not mention this."
Me: Outside of abortion it is an issue of individual conscience.
JB asked: 2. What do you hope to accomplish by coming here and finding fault with everything that everyone else has said?
Alexander said: First of all, I think that this is not the case. What I have done is simply pointed out where I am attacked personally and/or insulted. I find these comments degrading and detracting from the issues.
In the world that we live in, this is just an unreasonable thing to ask, even among people who are good friends. Without going into too many details, you've taken two very minor comments, one questioning your motives, the other, "aspiring Thomist," something that I thought would be a compliment [given the website where your name links]. And you've made out as if you're the injured party here.
You certainly don't strike me as a full-blown Thomist -- especially not given the behavior you exhibited prior to your recent repentance. And given that you have been practically anonymous here until just recently, how could anyone have judged your level of education in the Scholastics?
I am hoping to see some candor from all of you, and a chage of attitude. There is no reason to continue to degrade me.
If you had not spent so much time here exhibiting your "deplorable, unproductive" attitude, "absent of any virtue," I'm sure you would have encountered some very different postures from us. At worst, you might, as a good Catholic, suck this in and recognize it for what a good Catholic would call it: the temporal punishment for past sins. Consider it time off of Purgatory.
As it is, while there is no reason for anyone here to continue to degrade or even chastise anyone, I hope you'll understand if not everyone is just full of joy over your new attitude, and wanting to see something like a track record from you. It's been, what, all of a day?
Specifically in these discussions, learning what you believe on these ethical issues, interacting with your thoughts on what I find to be lacking
You may be aware of the proverb, "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."
The Scriptures are realistic with this metaphor (it "interprets" for us) - and we recognize that this sharpening feature does not occur without some friction.
I'm grateful when people tell me what's lacking in my arguments -- it gives me an opportunity to make improvements.
John, it seems to me that you are trying to justify any sort of rudeness towards me because I have it comming. Is this what your faith teaches you? To minimalize insults and tell the offended party that they had it comming? To mock and ridicule others because they took offense at an objectively offensive comment, then minimalize the offense as well as shift the blame to the offended? I seriously doubt that this is what your faith teaches you. To tell me to basically get over it and offer it up as time off of Purgatory, knowing what you think of Purgatory, just adds more mockery to the situation.
I'm willing to let this be forgotten, and us move on. I now realize that I'm not going to get any sort of apology from either you or Turretinfan, or even an acknowledgement that I was being mocked and insulted. I'm okay with that now, and hopefully it won't happen again.
John, it seems to me that you are trying to justify any sort of rudeness towards me because I have it comming.
Rather, I'm putting things into perspective. You would think that this blog revolves around you, evidenced by your very careful accounting of who's saying what to you. You are acting as if you're some kind of china doll and we now all need to be careful so we don't hurt Alexander's feelings.
My faith teaches me that we are created in the image of God, we are sinners, we are redeemed, and we may enjoy life and the fellowship of our friends.
I'm sure we all got a little rowdy, but I'm also sure that neither Turretinfan nor I intended any insult.
Your preoccupation with yourself is very telling. You do need to get over it. I, personally, don't expect your repentant behavior to last very long at all.
Post a Comment