/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>187

>so don't make not being perfect your reason for not accepting his love.

That involves rejecting Catholicism. Because anything short of perfection gets you hell, which I find very Old Testament-like in logic: do as you're told, or else…

I crave God and have for years now. There's no question of rejecting His love. I just don't know who to trust; doing research tends to disprove a number of beliefs held by official Churches, or at least challenge them.

I still don't feel ready to pray again. This makes me a sad panda.

>>188

>anything short of perfection gets you hell

This is not Catholic teaching, you are either lying or you have been sorely misled.

>>188

>That involves rejecting Catholicism. Because anything short of perfection gets you hel

NO. Put your trust in Jesus and there will be a way

>>188

Abandoning prayer is not a solution and not being perfect does not get you hell. The last thing you want to do in a situation like this is stop praying.

>>193

this

>>188

There is no good reason not to pray. Nothing in Catholic teaching implies this and, even when people have been rude to you. no one has actually told you this over your months of posting on /christian/, to my knowledge. This is all projection.

>>191

>NO. Put your trust in Jesus and there will be a way

That's all I can do, since I am not getting out of the legalist mess I find every Church to be in.

Bear with me until I find more answers.

>>193

I hear you, but I don't have the heart to pray. I cannot pray if I feel there is either no God or that my faith is a mockery of wishful thinking.

I don't have much faith, so when complications arise, the little I have is endangered readily.

Keep in mind that I come from really, really far away, in spiritual terms. It was most unlikely that I ever got to Christ.

>>197

I didn't mean to say that anybody told me not to pray. I never said that. All I am saying is that I can't pray.

I'm not projecting anything, but it may help to have some context. I'm a person who was literally unable to pray some years ago, simply because I had never prayed in my life, and nobody prays around me, ever. Nothing could be more exotic and retarded than praying, and it took me a long time to pray honestly. I followed Lewis' advice and "faked it till I made it". My first prayers were horrible, I felt stupid. I'd always start with "God, if you exist" to deaden the retardation I felt. Eventually, I figured that unless I thought God might exist, I shouldn't pray at all, so I dropped the first line and from then on praying became more normal. But it was work. I started from less than scratch, since I started as a Christianity-hating atheist. I hope this explains why praying isn't a reflex to me. Nothing Christian is a reflex to me. I was not raised in the faith. I'm doing it all on my own (as far as humans are concerned, I mean).

>>205

>faked it till I made it

I was an agnostic and my first prayers were shit. I might be able to help you. Can you come on IRC, soon, please?

>>184

>Are there any beside the dogma? If you just couldn't agree with that you had to become an Orthodox and everything was fine

There's a lot more. Summed up, it amounts to this: there seems to be a divide between Christ and Church, regarding certain topics. Anything to do with the body strikes me as odd in current tradition and hardly to be found in Scripture; things like self-mortification and general dislike of the body. It's virtually Gnostic heresy in my opinion, the idea that Creation is evil.

>No. He also never mentioned a "trinity" though

Indeed.

>There is no salvation by fulfilling the law. Salvation is a grace bestowed by god

All Christians agree; it's in the details that things change. Catholics will say that, but then, not doing this or that makes you literally "fall out of grace" and your status changes based solely on your deeds.

Protestants also have to dance around on their position.

>"I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

By giving the law its true meaning. Christ broke many rules of old, so obviously, He didn't come to maintain the laws. Fulfilling seems to have a different meaning here. If He had come to change nothing, He wouldn't have come.

>>288

It was 2:26 am for me at the time, I was already worrying myself sick in bed. I get up at 5:45.

Also, to my great shame, I've never used IRC.

My problem with praying is God. In detail, if I feel like God is not a believable concept, then I can't pray. If I cannot trust what I feel inside, then I cannot pray either, and what I feel inside often conflicts with organised Churches and official dogma, although, so far, it never conflicts with Christ from the Bible.

I appreciate your offer, though. Thank you.

>>320

Why shouldn't there be tension and discomfort in trying to live a more perfect life in God? That seems perfectly believable and reasonable to me.

Likewise why wouldn't the precepts of the True Religion impinge on sexual morality (which I mention because that seems to be your main hang-up) and seek to turn sexuality outwards toward love and unity (marriage and procreation) instead of inwards toward self-service (masturbation and sodomy)?

What is it about any of this that seems unreasonable or difficult to swallow, or conflicts with Christ or the Bible in any inherent way?

>>330

>There is no dislike of the body.

Uh… Let me illustrate:

>hiding bodies

>hurting the body

>demonising the body's functions

>no focus on the body for prayers

I could list more, but this be enough to suggest the Catholic Church and others have a strong dislike of the body. Why would you hide the image of God in which we are made? Why would you want to inflict pain on it, of your own will, not as endured pains from a third party?

I am not familiar with Catholics' bodily methods for anything in terms of prayer or meditation, if there are any, but I certainly know none from the Bible. Other religions have a huge focus on the body, breathing, health, etc, and I find none of that in Catholicism. Orthodox have developed physical exercises to do as they pray the Jesus Prayer, but I am not familiar with what it is they do exactly.

You can't tell me there's no dislike of the body in Catholicism. Consider Lent, and the reason why you're not supposed to eat meat: meat is the result of reproduction. I've never heard that from Christ either, but that's what it is. Meat is perceived as sinful simply for being the result of sexual reproduction. That's a pretty wary attitude towards the carnal world, to say the least.

>>330

>Creation itself is not evil. But it is the devil who rules this world for now.

To what degree, though? Is it the devil who makes beautiful sunsets and waterfalls? Is it limited to humans?

I feel the idea of a Fallen World is taken to extreme considerations. I'm not a naive optimist, but the world could be much, much worse than it is. Consider your everyday life and tell me if it is a total nightmare.

>If you never conflict with your god then you probably made him up, he is an illusion.

I'm not sure how valid a comment this is. Did Christ conflict with God? Yes and no. As I mentioned, I once was an angry atheist, so that was major conflict. For now, I conflict more with intereptations of God than God Himself.

It remains to be seen why my understanding would be an illusion and yours an accurate portrayal of God.

>Lawyering yourself around the scripture and "interpretation" for yourself in your favour. It is called idolatry.

Sorry to burst that bubble but there's no shortcut by which anyone skips intepretation. You resort to someone else's interpretation, but that doesn't make it "the truth", it just spares you doubts and questions, perhaps.

I don't see how you have access to the pure and original text while everyone else has just "their interpretation". I've presented the case that the original tongues often conflict with modern translations. In this case, you are the one "lawyering yourself around the scripture", not me.

>in your favour

Possibly unlike you, I came to Christ not because I thought He was God, but because I thought He was good. I first read the Bible as an atheist, giving Christ zero credit on the face of it; in fact, Christ had negative credit with me originally. Yet His words and deeds had an impact on me, due solely to themselves. When I realised what I had in me matched what He had, I started changing my mind.

as to idolatry, I only know one meaning to this word: making objects which are then worshipped as gods/god. Not like gods, but as gods, as in, the item is thought to be God Himself.

Now, since you and your accurate and real God have conflicts, please share these conflicts, that I may know what a real relationship with God looks like.

>>356

>From the gospels and pauline epistles: the spirit of the law is above the law.

Those are Catholic sources :^)

>From the Catholic Church: I am the law.

Source pls

>>357

>Uh… Let me illustrate:

>hiding bodies

Not because they are bad or ugly or something but because they are too good :^)

>>hurting the body

Suffering leads to patience and helps you understanding the sacrifice of the cross. You do not have to do this but you mmay if you wish.

It is also not done because the body was bad or something, it is done to understand

>demonising the body's functions

No. Some of them are so highly regarded and sacred that you shouldn't belittle them by abusing them.

>>no focus on the body for prayers

What do you mean? Kneeing, making a cross, covering your head, lent etc all involves the body? Also flagella and the likes involve the body.

>Why would you hide the image of God in which we are made?

Decency

>Why would you want to inflict pain on it,

To widen your horizon/understand the suffering/repent

>>358

>To what degree, though?

to any degree that the lord allows

>Is it the devil who makes beautiful sunsets and waterfalls?

No. the devil is not an evil god but a disobidient servant. He cannot create he can only corrupt

> Is it limited to humans?

I… don't know

>>358

>I'm not sure how valid a comment this is

That is the point. We cannot be sure about the stuff we perceive or interpret for ourselves.

> For now, I conflict more with intereptations of God than God Himself.

You interpret the scripture and the nature of god in a way that is convenient to you. Coincidence?

>It remains to be seen why my understanding would be an illusion and yours an accurate portrayal of God.

Because I do not make something up/interpret it myself but put trust in the church which got the authority to do so.

>You resort to someone else's interpretation, but that doesn't make it "the truth"

If "someone else" is the church that got its authority by the lord, then yes, it makes it the truth.

> I've presented the case that the original tongues often conflict with modern translations. In this case, you are the one "lawyering yourself around the scripture", not me.

I am not a linguist so I can't really contribute here

>as to idolatry, I only know one meaning to this word

That is the problem.

Idolatry means that you worship a different god then the one that revealed himself through the prophets and the incarnation.

This can mean worshipping statues etc. Usually it is exactly what I was talking about, lawyering yourself around a topic and interpreting the scriptures in your own favour (which is why we should not do that)

IE a gay that claims that god is ok with pederasty committs idolatry. He does not worshipp the god of the bible who despises gay sex but a god that he made up for himself.

>Now, since you and your accurate and real God have conflicts, please share these conflicts, that I may know what a real relationship with God looks like.

Noted. But I need some time to think about this first. This may take a couple of days or a week or something.

>>370

>Those are Catholic sources :^)

>catholic

>Catholic

The Orthodox would say these are Orthodox sources. Catholicism, to me, just like Orthodox"ism", begins at the Great Schism. Before that, there was only one Church and it was arguable as Catholic as it was Orthodox, potentially more Orthodox than Catholic, for better or worse.

It doesn't matter in my argument, however.

>Source pls

Pic was the source.

>Not because they are bad or ugly or something but because they are too good :^)

I kekked a little.

>Suffering leads to patience and helps you understanding the sacrifice of the cross. You do not have to do this but you mmay if you wish.

I have over 50 scars on my forearm from troubled days. I am not sure I learned patience from them. I learned that physical suffering was nothing compared to the torments of my mind, and that self-harm (or self-mortification) only served to prove to myself that invisible problems were more serious problems than physical pain. Because of this, I am not thoroughly impressed by self-whipping Catholics, though flagellants are another story, though even worse in my opinion. Christ let it be done to Him so you wouldn't.

I understand your point, and it is likely possible that Catholic art does portray the body in its sensuality and not in a bad light. I just fine the line very thin between sacredness and hatred.

>No. Some of them are so highly regarded and sacred that you shouldn't belittle them by abusing them.

The thin pink line.

>What do you mean? Kneeing, making a cross, covering your head, lent etc all involves the body?

This is true, but it's all symbolical, meaning the principles that dictate these gesture are not based on the body as, say, fitness would be. You don't kneel because it has a bodily function that helps breathing or such.

>Decency

Adam and Eve needed no decency. I'm not advocating naturism, however, which I hate above all.

>To widen your horizon/understand the suffering/repent

Maybe I've suffered enough already and don't realise that some may feel like they have something to gain from self-inflicted pain. Pains of the body are weak in my opinion.

>>373

>You interpret the scripture and the nature of god in a way that is convenient to you. Coincidence?

Actually, yes. It's called the "good news", coincidence? Why would the "good news" be that most people are going to Hell? That's a hell of a good news!

More seriously, I believe I am lucid and critical enough not to believe in some interpretation rather than another simply because it suits me better. If anything, it is quite the contrary: I tend to give more credit to the stuff that annoys me, the same way negative criticism of myself will be heavier than positive criticism. Same thing here. What I argue for and what I personally believe aren't always the same thing.

My interpretation isn't based on my wishes, however. That's not a very serious way to analyse anything.

>Because I do not make something up/interpret it myself but put trust in the church which got the authority to do so.

The thing is, the people whose interpretation you trust are human beings. I am a human being too. I could ask how you choose which expert to trust, but we both know the answer: you choose those whose conclusions are convenient to you. Coincidence?

I do not believe in authority that merely means being selected by people who have no expertise in the domain for which they selected someone. Who does the research matters little compared to what the research is about, how it was done, and what the results are. That's what matters.

>If "someone else" is the church that got its authority by the lord, then yes, it makes it the truth.

That's where I can't follow Catholicism. Being led by the Holy Spirit doesn't teach you Aramaic.

>I am not a linguist so I can't really contribute here

I am.

>Idolatry means that you worship a different god then the one that revealed himself through the prophets and the incarnation.

I'm suspicious of this definition. Not one of us has exactly the same God in your sense. Nobody imagines God the same way, and we all fall short of what He really is like: does that make all of us idolaters? Of course not. We're spiritually short-sighted, but our focus is on the same thing, like a bunch of moles staring at the sun.

>Usually it is exactly what I was talking about, lawyering yourself around a topic and interpreting the scriptures in your own favour (which is why we should not do that)

Some Protestants will tell me the same thing to say Mary isn't special and shouldn't be prayed too. The problem here is that you take your interpretation as certain and reject everything else. Your interpretation, even if it was given to you by the Church, remains an interpretation. Maybe more learned people developed it, but it remains an interpretation, and you chose it, due to your own interpretation of what to trust. I put value in the brain God gave me and I am unashamed to go against any academics out there, being one myself.

>He does not worshipp the god of the bible who despises gay sex but a god that he made up for himself.

Arguable. The God who hates shellfish, etc. One must be careful about laws, especially Old Testament laws.

>Noted. But I need some time to think about this first. This may take a couple of days or a week or something.

Sounds like your relationship with God isn't all that conflicted. Or maybe it's overly conflicted? Either way, I'm a patient man and I'll read whatever you have to say about your relationship with God.

>>424

>Did you build that strawman yourself or did you get help?

That was more of a joke. I did respond to your questions, though. Maybe not the second one. I'll do it now.

>Why shouldn't there be tension and discomfort in trying to live a more perfect life in God?

>Matthew 11:30

>For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.

I don't assume automatically that finding God suddenly makes your life a battlefield. As I said in other places, some people like to substitute God with efforts and pain; the very discipline becomes the religion, and God is barely needed anymore. It's like a fitness freak who gets up at 5 every morning, only eats what he has chosen from a list, and thus feels the burden of his choice and derives great satisfaction from it, as a man who climbs over the Everest would. The sheer pain of the accomplishment is a trophy in itself.

>Likewise why wouldn't the precepts of the True Religion impinge on sexual morality

It would, as it does on everything else, though not primarily, and it remains to be seen what sexual immorality even is.

>(which I mention because that seems to be your main hang-up)

I must have posted 30 threads, not one of them was about that, yet you and many others keep thinking this was my favourite topic. Not my fault if Trinitarian theology and linguistics keep your attention less than this one topic.

>and seek to turn sexuality outwards toward love and unity (marriage and procreation)

Only you make these mutually exclusive.

>instead of inwards toward self-service (masturbation and sodomy)?

Extremely arguable for a variety of reasons. Playing chess against a computer is also self-service as it does nothing but satisfy my intellect. Watching movies, same, surfing, same, anything you enjoy, same.

>What is it about any of this that seems unreasonable or difficult to swallow, or conflicts with Christ or the Bible in any inherent way?

The fact that Christ mentions none of it, does not have sermons about it, that everything I ever heard about it came from humans long afterwards. Abusive interpretations, while not necessarily proving an opposite view, are not something I trust blindly.

As to the one topic - my monomiani, as you guys would have it - I think it is highly important because I find it a sinful shame to keep so many people from Christ because of a belief that may not even have its basis in Christ, but human psychology and human traditions. That is the heart of it to me and the reason why I care about it. The fact that it tends to make Christians focus their faith on the wrong axis intended is also important to me. I'm tired of Christians believing that their faith is measured by the number of days they spent without rubbing one out.

I hope this explanation satisfies you.

>>551

>I don't see that the Catholic Church does this or expects this of the laity though.

Agreed. Truth be told, I am not very familiar with actual Catholics, despite being around them a lot. I am not sure they all go to mass every Sunday, and I doubt they always confess before the Eucharist. Either way, I'm thinking of the more extreme ones.

>>551

>I believe in Natural Law so I think morality is objective and comprehensible and extends to sexual intercourse as much as any other department of human action. I don't obsess over it, as people like to accuse conservative Catholics, I just take it as a matter of fact and principle.

So do I, yet we arrive at very different conclusions.

>My apologies. Going way back this seemed to be the main thing that kept you from accepting Catholicism, and appears to still be.

It's more of a prominent issue within the same sort of framework. Reading the CCC, it was what stood out as something I could not accept, intellectually, spiritually, even scripturally. It remains so today. It's not that I'm obsessed with that topic, it's that, since it keeps me from full commitment, I do focus on the obstacle. When I focus less on it, as I do nowadays, it means I am less interested in joining the Church. Interest in the obstacle is truly an interest in the destination that obstacle keeps me from. It saddened me a lot that nobody on /christian/ understood that and kept shitting on me for trying to understand, as if they were ever so proud of not falling for what they consider a sin I fall to, whereas they should have encouraged me to follow their path, if they thought it was truly the right one. Some people got capslock mad; I have never seen anyone get this pissed off at anyone else on the chans, and that's saying something.

>While I admire your interest and dedicated study of Christianity, all the theology books and scholarship in the world are just a hill of beans if they don't lead you to actual spiritual growth.

I fully agree. This used to make me despair quite a lot, seeing as books are mostly my only resource. People prove less reliable. How do you improve spiritually without books? What else is there?

>Demonstrate how unitive love in Catholic marriage is mutually exclusive with procreation.

I'm not sure that is what I meant, since I have no idea how to respond to this. I think I meant that human sexual behaviour within marriage doesn't have to be solely for procreation purposes; it is one part of it but not the whole purpose of it. It is natural for humans to have sexual needs, and in today's age, you can't just pop out baby after baby. You could in the days of the Bible, but were we to do so day, it wouldn't work, for many reasons.

This topic is one of the most ludicrous I've come across from Catholics.

>Masturbation is ipso facto an abrogation of the natural end of the sexual faculty for the sole end of self-service, this is inherent to the act.

Again, you assume sex's only purpose is procreation, when it has many others, procreation being one of them. God's biological designs make good use of as many things as possible: female mammaries serve not only to feed the baby but also, before that, to attract a male, for instance. So with sex. I tend to believe sins are not healthy.

>I would agree that monomania about sex is unhealthy, but I don't think the Church does that.

To be blunt, were I to follow the Church's doctrine to a T, my faith would become a sexual monomania of lunatic proportions. I'd end up seeing tits and asses in every cloud and my whole mental life would be nothing but lust. All concerns for God would be pushed out by imagined titties and legs and flat bellies. I understand we are not all "tempted" the same way, but I don't want to become a slave to sex, one way or the other: either by becoming dependent on it, or by putting my whole spiritual life around the act of not yielding to sex. Both extremes are negative in my opinion, as neither gets you closer to God. Perfect moderation is better than absolute abstinence in this case, says I.

>As I've said elsewhere, chastity is one of those things you actually have to try to experience in order to fully understand. I can't explain it satisfactorily in a forum post and at some point we have to just put down our books and try these things. I'm glad that you enjoy studying and discussing religion, but I hope you work up the ability one day to actually live a spiritual life instead of just reading about it, you can do it.

There's a real argument to be made as to whether sex can never be spiritual, but I won't go into this lightly. Maybe we should have a thread about this, although I'd rather not get into it too soon. It's the risky zone and I'd rather not anger the whole board again.

I appreciate that we can discuss these things, though, that is precious to me and the reason why I'm here. I don't mind that we disagree. It's healthy. It means we don't stagnate.

>>573

>Because it means that not all go to hell

Would you cheer up at that? "Not all of you are going to suffer for all eternity!

I'd raise and frown my eyebrows at the same time, and get very concerned that I or my friends or family might be tortured forever. That is no good news for me. Also, it was never implied that prior to Christ, everyone went to Hell. Since this wasn't the common belief, a news that actually brings it about isn't good news at all.

>I didn't "choose" certain dogmas or interpretations I follow, I chose the Church because it islegitimately the true church.

I am suggesting that this is an interpretation. Protestants have another interpretation, for instance. You could argue Mother Mary also has another interpretation, if her apparitions are really her.

Sometimes I wonder what the Church's status really is, because I can see how legitimacy can come in two ways: either you are the Church because you do God's work, or you are de facto because you have the title.

>What languages?

Linguistics. I only speak two languages on a native level, but I have studied linguistics for years. The mechanics of language, if you want, how we make it work and the differences between them, how they evolve, how we use them. Pragmatism, sociolinguistics, etc. It wasn't a primary field of study for me but I studied for 8 years, so I have a good general knowledge of the field. I can explain why irregular verbs exist, for example.

>I simply have to because there can only be one truth in the end

So do I, this is the nature of truth. I never blamed Catholics for being categorical about truth and non-truths, as I believe a relativist approach to truth undoes truth and makes it irrelevant. I just don't get to the same truth in the end.

>I simply can't help it. I can only do the best I actually can do, so if I'm wrongI can't really be hold accountable to choosing wrongly, do I?

Indeed. Please realise that I could say exactly the same thing, and in fact, it's what I say to. I tend to believe we're both OK because Christ did not ask us to study and find the truth ourselves, but to have faith and answer the call we feel in our hearts. Christ didn't say, "Get thee to a school and understand all things until you know I spoke the truth." He said to have faith in Him and to love God. We both do this, and our monkey brains differ in other things. I'm still questioning things, and I change my mind often. I evolve, for better or worse. What matters, I hope, is that my intention behind all this is to get closer to God and do His will, trusting that His will is the best anyone could want.

>Shellfish was forbidden because of hygienic reasons and I am sure that you are perfectly aware of that.

Absolutely. My point is that some rules are situational: for a place and a time, and others are for all places and all time. Shellfish is the former, loving your neighbour is the latter.

There are rules some Christians think are for all places and all time even if they're nowhere in the Bible THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE that I think are situational. Paul's condemnation of long hair, for instance, is situational. Shellfish is a good example of a rule in the Bible that Christians shouldn't feel bound to. It helps when Paul makes it clearer, but Paul does go quite a bit into the idea that if you reach the same goal beyond the laws, you can drop all of them, or something not very far from that.

(cont.)

>>573

>I know a certain book that makes a statement regarding that :^)

I believe Christ very vaguely states that all the old laws regarding that should be maintained. reminder that THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE is not in the list. The way Christ responds to it without giving it further emphasis seems to suggest He doesn't think the stuff is worth spending too much time over. It remains to tell which law was situational and which wasn't, covetting your neighbour's wife was very much more situational than it'd be today, for reasons I could get into at a later time.

>Because it is mentioned in the OT and Jesus validated this again?

Not the GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE.

>If someone is "kept away" from the faith by the fact that we acknowledge that masturbation isn't good then he is a false believer to start with.

It remains very arguable whether this is a sin to begin with. And that is my whole point. Such emphasis on such a vague notion shouldn't prevent people from coming to God. It is much worse, I believe, that people should drop the whole Christian religion based on such a loose notion.

Everyone says I'm obsessed with this GHASTLY YADDA YADDA, but look at /christian/: they have whole threads about it! There's even one about admitting when you fall for that particular sin. I've never made a thread about it, I've mentioned it a shitload of times because in 80% of the cases, I was responding to someone who mentioned it first.

Fapping shouldn't stand between man and God, that is why I believe, especially when actual basis for this belief is rather thin. It should be no surprise that I think humans have a natural fear and disdain for their own sexuality (too often blamed on religion), since even doctors a century ago thought THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE could lead to illnesses and even death. Nothing religious in there, yet actual scientists believed this nonsense. I think it comes from humans' arrogance, not faith or religion, but I also believe it made its way into organised religion. That is why I argue about this: I think the origin of this notion are not of God, so I argue against it like the heresy I think it is. Anything that keeps humans from God is a thing to look upon with suspicion.

Humans don't need any help to feel bad about their sex lives. I can testify in court that I felt the guilt without even being religious, at a time when I didn't even think of God at all, and was completely neutral in my Godlessness.

>>664

>Practice contemplative practices and regular prayer.

That sounds simple, but I never really get the sense that praying makes me improve in anything. If anything, it's like a break from living.

>Look into Lectio Divina and pray the Rosary every day. Even if you have intellectual difficulty or blocks in doing so, just do it anyway. Read Catholic spiritual authors like Garrigou-Lagrange, Meister Eckhart, and St. John of the Cross.

Shame to say, but I don't know all the required prayers for the rosary, just Our Father and Hail Mary. Nothing I can't work on, though.

I have a book by Eckhart, but from what I gathered, he's about as heretical as I am, isn't he?

> don't see that just because I view sex as finding natural meaning in procreation, I therefore must deny the validity and licitness of other subordinate ends and meanings that it may acquire in seeking this end. What is so ludicrous about that?

My point is that if sex's only purpose is procreation, then one-night stands are OK if a babby is maed, and we both don't think so. Sex is for couples to enjoy, and couples are for babies. Sex is one element that keeps a couple together, along with other things, and the result of a good couple is a family. That is how I view the whole thing. Don't be shocked, but if I tried the Catholic way with my partner, we would have tremendous problems and our relationship would not survive (fun fact: she was raised Catholic, the hardcore sort - she frowns at me like I'm a witch when I suggest Protestants have some good points). We both want a huge family and she wants all the kids baptised, to which I have no objection (so far). I like to think of a couple as a way to get everyone's needs fulfilled, the way God promised us they would be, pointing out that birds had what they needed and all that.

If humans had a mating-season and only felt sexual desire then, I would agree with you, but it so happens that we are not animals. Or very special animals.

(cont)

>>664

>I addressed this above but I don't deny that sex can acquire other purposes and effects, just that procreation is the primary one to which it is naturally directed and achieves fullness of meaning and fullness of participation in God.

The idea that every time I feel like having sex, I should be thinking of babies bothers me on more than one level. I do want children, but that thought is a million miles away from my sexual thoughts, and I don't know a single person who combines the two, or even animals. One act leads, sometimes, to the other, but one thought certainly doesn't lead to the other!

>To be blunt, you don't know that because you haven't even tried, or seem not to have anyway.

I have tried. It's what happens.

> but the whole point was that they relied on God through every failure and attributed to God every success. *That* is what living as a Catholic is supposed to be about, and what Catholic teaching and doctrine direct us towards.

So whenever you fail, it's your fault, and whenever you succeed, it's God's grace. I understand how you think this is a good thing, but I personally feel it is not. If we are responsible for our acts, we are responsible for both good and bad, even if God is the inspiration for good. What's wrong with being proud of your own success? I feel this is necessary for being a good person, to have a modicum of self-esteem. Nothing very good comes from hating yourself or thinking bad things of yourself (love your neighbour like you love yourself).

>>735

>I never really get the sense that praying makes me improve in anything.

Which is why I recommended contemplative practices like Lectio Divina. Dialectical oral prayer is good and we all ought to do it, but it is not the only dimension of prayer. I recommend this for you since you seem to have an interest in mysticism.

>I have a book by Eckhart, but from what I gathered, he's about as heretical as I am, isn't he?

I'll be honest and say I've read more about him than I have by him, but to the best of my knowledge he was investigated by the Inquisition and was not convicted of heresy, in spite of the fact that the Franciscan inquisitors had a vested interest in doing so.

I have stuff to do this afternoon so I gotta go. I'll try to respond at more length when I return.

>>664

>When I decided to become a Catholic I decided I would swallow the whole pill

Because, for all I know, you can't have it any other way, as per Church doctrine.

>even the parts that grated against my intellect and intuition to some degree, and I don't regret it.

I'd be very interested in knowing which.

>For me personally the big difficulty was reconciling Semitic OT conceptions of God with the patristic and scholastic theology that I found so beautiful and convincing.

OK.

How did you resolve it? I resolved it by assuming OT stories are mostly stories, sometimes fiction, sometimes projections (one story has God killing people, another version of the same story has Satan doing it).

>I'm just asking you to do the same or at least try to do the same, howsoever your circumstances may differ from mine.

And I am trying, it just so happens that my path is different because my findings aren't the same and my reflection isn't the same either.

I really wish you'd get a trip, because I recognise you from the images. I'll remember you more easily with a name.

Thanks for responding to all these.

>>737

An addendum re: Eckhart.

He did die before the inquisitorial verdict could be made, but if he was in fact a heretic he would have been posthumously been declared one, as was the case for Pope Honorius and Origen.

As I said, I'll try to respond to the rest of your points when I have time. God bless.

>>737

>Which is why I recommended contemplative practices like Lectio Divina. Dialectical oral prayer is good and we all ought to do it, but it is not the only dimension of prayer. I recommend this for you since you seem to have an interest in mysticism.

Is that when you read the Bible slowly as in meditation? I confess this doesn't attract me at all, since I wouldn't even know which translation to do this with. I like mysticism, but I can't get my head or heart behind this particular practice.

>I have stuff to do this afternoon so I gotta go. I'll try to respond at more length when I return.

Thanks, whenever you want. I consult the board daily.

I may not pray too often, but I spend hours a day conversing with Christians: that has to count for something!

>>735

>Sex is for couples to enjoy, and couples are for babies. Sex is one element that keeps a couple together, along with other things, and the result of a good couple is a family. That is how I view the whole thing.

Fine, explain to me how Catholic teaching on sex contradicts this understanding of yours, because I'm not seeing it.

As I've been at pains to state, procreation being the *primary* end of sex does not negate any and every other possible positive effect or purpose. Have you even been reading my posts?

>The idea that every time I feel like having sex, I should be thinking of babies bothers me on more than one level.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is why people get upset with you. Catholic doctrine nowhere states or even mildly implies that you are to "think of babies" when you have sex. Seriously, what the fuck man?

It's like you're intentionally trying to interpret every sentence in the Catechism in the most absurd and ridiculous manner possible.

You are to be open to procreation, and not intentionally obstruct it, whenever you have sex with your spouse. That's the Catholic position as best I understand it. Nothing about that implies that you have to associate babies with sexual arousal.

For fuck's sake man.

I felt like responding at least to this point of yours, I'll get around to the rest if you're really interested, but I have to entertain family this evening.

>>891

>Fine, explain to me how Catholic teaching on sex contradicts this understanding of yours, because I'm not seeing it.

Catholicism forbids any sexual act that doesn't end in a baby. This is an untenable position if one were to act strictly upon it (are hugs OK? are unfinished BJ's OK? etc.).

>Catholic doctrine nowhere states or even mildly implies that you are to "think of babies" when you have sex. Seriously, what the fuck man?

You obviously missed the point. A Catholic person is supposed to only have an orgasm when trying to make a baby. That is what I meant, not som sick pedo shit.

>You are to be open to procreation, and not intentionally obstruct it, whenever you have sex with your spouse. That's the Catholic position as best I understand it. Nothing about that implies that you have to associate babies with sexual arousal.

It kinda does, since babies are the only reason why you should be having sex for Catholicism as defined by the CCC. I'm not suggesting some occult pedophile dark shit where you're supposed to get aroused thinking about babies in a sexual way. I'm only saying we are at a level of technology and society that we can separate marital sex and procreation. You can have either without the other.

>I felt like responding at least to this point of yours, I'll get around to the rest if you're really interested, but I have to entertain family this evening.

I'm always interested!

Sorry that I made you upset. It wasn't my intention and I apologise for wording my questions and remarks in ways that are easily misunderstood.

reminder that we need to stop secularism and have to reintroduce the church to state matters and responsibility.

http://www.opusdei.org/en-us/article/topic-15-the-church-and-the-state/

>The Church’s mission in this area is not limited to setting forth ethical guidelines. Rather it entails making clear the implications of the Gospel for social life, in accord with the integral truth about man, and the conduct this entails, while urging people to make it a reality in the world.

I never thought I'd see the day that I'd come rushing to the side of a trip fag, one that I stood opposed to in the past as well. But here we are.

Oolf, I think what you are running into is something that I have, myself also ran into. The simple problem is: church doctrine seems run head smack into a wall in so many places.

I fancy myself a philosopher (Granted, professionally, I'm a scientist, but that isn't my passion), and funny enough, my pursuit of philosophy lead me smack dab into Christ in college. I experienced the same thing I imagine so many Greeks or scholars of the ancient world, where you are seeking out Truth in the most meaningful way you can, and then you are exposed to the Gospel, and you just go "Wow…this is it. This is what I have been waiting for. This is what everyone has been waiting for." Every line just resonates with potency. That there is truth dripping from it. Reading the words causes an incredible spiritual awakening. This is it. Christ is it. He is the answer.

And I studied the Gospel intently. To this day, I still comb through them, reading several translations, looking for the most I can discern. It blows away any and all things ever written. It's like a puzzle box that keeps shifting, revealing new things every time you hold it.

And I learned, very early on, and to this day is the one thing that I cannot deny, and find trouble with anyone who does deny, that Christ = Truth. In every meaningful way. In fact I find it exactly equal. So much, that if you discover something to be true, it will be reflected in Christ. I have never been disappointed on this. And I believe I never will be.

But I found, as I applied things I learned, I came to conclusions that put me (often violently so) at odds with institutions. Mostly Catholicism (No, I do not think a work can ever justify you before God. The most grand thing ever made by human hand is nothing but dust and rock, a facsimile of form that time will erode away, and likewise the greatest thing you can do for your fellow man can never affect them beyond the temporary, except for perhaps sharing the Gospel. But even then, thinking this would excuse you is profane in itself, hence why I take affront with the idea of "issued penance", rather than a concept I call "emergent penance", a protestant would call it the "grieving of the Holy Spirit", but we can get to that later). And it bothered me tremendously. I do find myself in a position that a Baptist might find themselves in, but even that runs into problems.

One thing that is a direct corollary of Christ as perfect Truth, is that He is eternal, and his commands are found to all humans, anywhere, now and as to be seen. That any edict then, must be able to be arrived at, and accomplished, at any time. This was the first thing that made me hesitant with Catholicism. The rituals. What if I was a man in the arctic who discovered a Bible, never to be able to set foot within a Catholic church. What does the Catholic Church say? I get a shrug and a "Well I guess you're fucked." because you could not attend mass. And apparently mortal sin (another thing I cannot stand, considering Christ seemed pretty clear on this one) has an expiration limit (I was told a year more or less. Where did this time frame come from?).

I can never accept a situation where you can contrive someone to just go "Well gee, I guess you are all fucked now." Claims of necessity seem dangerous. What if a man meets a woman and they cannot reach a Catholic institution, or any institution, for that matter? I call this the "problem of being stuck in the arctic". Any doctoral claim must pass it (specifically doctoral claim, by any church). But that too is another subject for another time.

>>2700

I am sure someone will tell me I'm wrong in interpretation of doctrine, and I may be. But the problem is, the lack of necessity has a word, it's called "arbitrary". To what end then, do I take part in something that is arbitrary? Why do it at all in that case except for some benefit of convenience or temporarility? Which I don't think is bad at all (the problem comes from when it is claimed this is necessary, something Christ specifically warned against, religious institutions making impossible demands and trying to slam the door of heaven in the face of believers). This might sound strange, but I do believe in transubstantiation fully, along with other Catholic beliefs. How? That is another discussion for another time.

At this point, I am probably knee deep in heresy. Which is what puts me so far into odds with others. Even though some of these very ideas I gleaned from Catholic theologians and philosophers .

The other problem for me came from the sheer inconstancy (I used to call it "two faced-ness", but I don't want to ascribe malice to it) I ran into with other Catholics. They loved my explanations (apologetics, as it's called) when fielded to crush atheist inquiries or others who doubted Christ. But then, once on the inside, suddenly doctrine no longer had to be held to the exact standards I just used to disprove ideas held against it! Christ put it so perfectly (as He only can) in the single phrase Live by the sword, die by the sword. You cannot hold something as true to disprove an opposing idea, then ignore it to prove the truth of the idea you just defended it with. I am sure I cannot explain that any clearer as to why that is a huge problem.

This is the tip of the iceberg with this, as I have no doubt, you too understand. I see how much you have written. I now realize I too am writing much.

It's funny how you bring up sexuality. I too fully agree with many of your assessments in terms of the intent behind it. I am sure the mechanics are different for us in conclusions. That said, at one point you put it perfectly, "You cannot just let out so many kids in the modern world." People cannot support themselves right now in this economy, now you expect them to just start cranking a kid out every year? The kids will die of starvation or neglect. This can't possibly be the correct conclusion.

If we are to say then, "Well, then just don't have sex." The practicality of that is not "low", not even "miniscule". It does not exist with the great population. The answer is "none". So we come to a situation, "Well you can seek penance for it when they mess up." But now we are anticipating it. We expect it. So then what? Do we tell them "Just feel bad about it later" ? In that case we call into question if we view it as sin at all if we tacitly expect it! If we they counter with "Well Christ said it was going to be hard to follow him", then what are all these churches for? Why do we keep allowing everyone to join up, without first telling them "just so you know, you have almost no hope, you are fucked and will never succeed at our impossible demands." (Digression: this is what is already mentioned, Matthew 23:4, reading that rocked me). Do we do it because we like the collection plate money? It would be easy to fix. If the interpretation of scripture justifying apostolic succession is true, then they can let loose these requirements and they will be let loose in heaven. Why don't they then? And here again we see an example of the sort of inconsistency "two faced-ness". Something justifies one thing but then doesn't justify another. Even more digression, I use these as examples of conflicting views, not that they are incorrect views. I firmly believe none of us are capable at all of our own salvation through non-sinning, only by the infinite love of Christ. Hence why I said, protestant in that regard

>>2701

It's funny how much you bring up masturbation, because it's dismissed as such a little thing, but I think in this tiny example, it is the perfect microcosm of the entire issue of everything else. If you can resolve that one issue, you can resolve every other issue brought up. To which I find the same exact sentiment you stated at one point. Right now the entirety of the truth of Christ is put off to people because they can't wrap their head around why they might as well pack it up and never even try because they are screwed for rubbing one out. Or as the previous example, the Catholic population would cease to populate in a single generation if everyone followed the doctrine to the letter. Catholicism would disappear in western nations instantaneously (because no one would be reproducing at all). Since that is where it's anchored, you could argue disappear all together.

I could go on and on and on, as you have somewhat. But I think you see my point. What I want to transmit to you right now, is that you are not alone, but the opposite. Do you know where the title for C.S. Lewis book "Mere Christianity" came from? Because he wanted to explain what it meant to be "merely a Christian".

It was this fundamental belief, this fundamental fact, of Christ as the perfect and ultimate Truth that I feel leads you here. The proof for me was in how you can prove everything written in the Gospels as attribute to Christ, without any appeal to further scripture. It is my life mission at this point. This is another thing: apologetics can ONLY be done as long as you accept this fact. Of Christ as Truth. Every single thing, including the need of Christ Himself, can be demonstrated without an appeal to scripture. And live by the sword, die by the sword. I cannot abide by doctrine which fails these same test that prove Christ.

And to close it out, I wanted to say one last thing, a confession of sorts. In the past I have been violently aggressive towards you. Why? I am not really sure, I cannot remember. Maybe because it's a tripcode, or maybe we disagreed with something, I don't know. But I don't like that it happened. The hardest thing in my life has been stopping aggression towards others. I no doubt said unfair or unjust things to you, for which I apologize sincerely. Consider this long, ridiculously long and poorly edited, post proof of my contrition. Agree or not, a sign that I care enough to spend the last few hours belting it out.

Pray the Holy Spirit guides you, well…us, and that we are lead down the path Christ desires most for us, whatever path and whatever Church that may be, either a visible one that is established or of the invisible Church of all believers. Go in peace, brother.

also, check those sweet dubs on my first post

>ctrl+f

>no conclavist, sede, sspx, vatican 2 discussion

vital issues are vital

>>2369

Thanks, I missed this when it was originally posted.

>>3042

You are free to either discuss them here or open a new thread for each.

Sedes are schismatic, SSPX is part of the Church, Vat II is valid.

I'm not sure if it was said before, but do the Catholics here believe in ex cathedra? (Which is when a pope speaks with the authority of a pope, as opposed to simply giving his opinions.)

If the pope says, "Enabling homosexual marriage is ex cathedra," is the entire church obligated to switch positions and support the pope?

>>5148

He'd cause a schism, also he cannot change Dogma. This is impossible

>>5148

>I'm not sure if it was said before, but do the Catholics here believe in ex cathedra? (Which is when a pope speaks with the authority of a pope, as opposed to simply giving his opinions.)

You have to if you are a Catholic. What you are talking about is called papal infallibility and here's our thread about it:

>>1561

>If the pope says, "Enabling homosexual marriage is ex cathedra," is the entire church obligated to switch positions and support the pope?

No. The pope is not able to change dogma. If he did he would commit heresy, a pope commiting heresy ceases to be pope, the announcement is invalid and a proper pope elected.