My car is a wonder of modern American disposable engineering. A cheap compact with no frills and over 140 thousand miles, it astounds and delights me every time the engine cranks over (I am part Scot).
Lately, in addition to various other mysterious signs of aging, the speedometer just stops working at random. Mostly it works, but it can cut out at any time.
Now, when this happens, I noticed that I do one of two things; I either drive whatever speed "feels right", or I (consciously or un-) begin to adjust my speed to fit in with local traffic. This being the second car that I have been blessed to own having this defect, it struck me that A) maybe it was no accident, B) that a speedometer is an apt analogy to the human conscience, and C) that it was something out of which I could probably squeeze a blog post.
Of course, there may be many of you suggesting that D) maybe I should get the stupid car fixed, but given the actual value of the car, and the cost of pulling the dashboard and trying to find the problem (I have serviced my own car, like, twice in the last decade-and-a-half), it’s nearly prohibitive. It’s not really dangerous… just an irritation. Besides, I can often fix it by pounding on the dash just right… but I do plan to have it fixed as soon as possible.
But back to the conscience metaphor… The conscience (like the speedometer) is an internal guide that tells us how we’re doing. We are given external guides (like road signs and Revelation) against which we can pretty reliably measure how well we are keeping The Law. But our consciences are not infallible. Sometimes they are defective. In a few instances, maybe they just never worked right at all. In the case of a defective conscience, a person will naturally tend to do one of two things… either they will do whatever "feels right" (whatever they want), or they will conform to the pressures of their immediate society.
We really need the external law, too (the road signs, Church teaching), or the reading on the speedometer becomes nearly meaningless. Following your conscience does NOT mean just doing whatever "feels right". The conscience is made to conform to an authoritative standard. If a policeman tickets you for driving 75 when your speedometer was reading only 62, there is no appealing to the defective instrument… the cop wins. If the church tells you that fornication is a sin, you have no defense in noting that, personally, you have no big problem with it. Your speedo is out of whack. Period. You are bound by your conscience, but your conscience is bound by The Law.
A defective conscience can – and should be – fixed.
Thing is, though, that I have received a few minor traffic tickets in my life, and in none of these instances was I driving a car with a bad speedo. The problem was, I had been ignoring a perfectly functioning speedo. I’d lay odds that this is the case in the vast majority of speeding violations. People just aren’t paying attention… they are driving whatever speed they like, or they are going with the flow, or their mind is elsewhere, they are distracted.
For most of us, the conscience is working fine (or close enough), but we often ignore it. We can develop the habit of ignoring it.
One last thought… when you drive according to the traffic laws as faithfully as you can, you become like a living, moving representation – a personification of the law – to other drivers. You’re the living law, just as we are all meant to be a living Catechism for those around us. That doesn’t mean you won’t be honked at… just try to avoid the fast lane.
That’s it. Just something I pulled from random mental notes from a busy week. Tawk amongst ya-selves… got any good car stories?
If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
And here I thought this post was going to be about your swimsuit 🙂
“If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.”
And how do you know you are led by the Spirit?
“And here I thought this post was going to be about your swimsuit :)”
Gotcha.
Tim, I had the same first reaction as Franklin. 🙂
And how do you know you are led by the Spirit?
That’s up to the Spirit.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
“I am like a little pencil in [God’s] hand,” Mother Teresa would say. “He does the thinking. He does the writing. The pencil has only to be allowed to be used.”
“you become like a living, moving representation – a personification of the law – to other drivers.”
This affects the others whose speedos don’t work or aren’t paying attention. When there are more of us obeying the law, the others that are “going with the flow” will tend to match our speeds. We can begin to turn the culture around by small acts.
“That’s up to the Spirit.”
In other words “You’ll just know”. How many times have you heard THAT one?
“Religion *LITE*… that vague spiritual feeling you crave, with none of the responsibility!! Try it today!”
Mocking the Spirit, Tim?
Tawk amongst ya-selves… got any good car stories?
Possibly. I once drove my brand new car up a run-away truck ramp in the Olympic Mountains of Washington because I thought it would be fun.
See, my family used to take road trips when I was little, and I always thought the run-away truck ramps were just steep gravel roads where the steepness stops the run-away truck.
With that in mind, on a road trip out west in 2000 with my best friend from high school and a 1 year old ’99 Cavalier (my first new car), I decided on a whim to drive up one of the many truck ramps that we were passing in the mountains.
It turns out that run-away truck ramps are not just steep. They are deep. Deep gravel pits into which little bitty Cavaliers quickly descend when driven up at full highway speed.
It was thanks to a couple strangers in a jeep who helped dig out the wheels, jack-up the car onto some boards we found laying on the side of the road, and tow us out of the pit that we were able to continue our vacation.
Despite their help, the individual in charge of the jack did not have much concern for my car and did a lot of damage to its facade. I had to climb into the drivers seat from the passenger side for a few days because the driver’s side door wouldn’t open. My Cavalier was henceforth called “Scarface”. Moreover, I did about a thousand dollars worth of damage to the underside of the car.
Oh well. I imagine we could’ve been hurt. So the moral of the story is: don’t imitate Smoky. He’s a dufus.
“Mocking the Spirit, Tim?”
Okay, so mocking your silly, frothy, low-cal sophistry is the same as mocking the Spirit?
Let me know when the Mothership arrives…
Smoky, that was hilarious. thanks for sharing.
Okay, so mocking your silly, frothy, low-cal sophistry is the same as mocking the Spirit?
Yup.
Okay, so mocking your silly, frothy, low-cal sophistry is the same as mocking the Spirit?
Yup.
Whoa!
The Holy Spirit is actually ‘Mary’?
Learned something new today!
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. That’s the Spirit I came in.
Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1
Formation of conscience is supposed to change you perception of what “feels right”. So Mary is right. If we let the spirit form our thinking correctly then we don’t need the law. We will just naturally find the right speed. Speedometers are for those still forming their sense of what is right. We need to check our conscience against them. Still they are a tool for getting us there and not the end goal.
“Yup.”
Isn’t that special? No need to study scripture or Church teaching… just call Mary.
Why do I have this nagging feeling that the LAST person in possession of a direct pipeline to the Spirit would be the one to claim such a thing?
Formation of conscience is supposed to change you perception of what “feels right”. So Mary is right. If we let the spirit form our thinking correctly then we don’t need the law. We will just naturally find the right speed.
And how do you that what you think the spirit is telling you is actually right? How do you even know it’s actually the Holy Spirit, for that matter?
Thus, Saint Paul says in Ephesians:
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.
Formation of conscience is supposed to change you perception of what “feels right”. So Mary is right. If we let the spirit form our thinking correctly then we don’t need the law. We will just naturally find the right speed.
And how do you know that what you think the spirit is telling you is actually right? How do you even know it’s actually the Holy Spirit, for that matter?
Thus, Saint Paul says in Ephesians:
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.
We sometimes drove my in-laws’ car, which had a speedometer that would randomly decide to cut out. The tachometer was vaguely helpful then. Car had some issues, not so much age-related as “slap-together-because-this-is-the-last-year-we’re-making-it” related. And since it was touted as a “collector’s” type of car, well…they got away with it.
“Formation of conscience is supposed to change you perception of what “feels right”. So Mary is right. If we let the spirit form our thinking correctly then we don’t need the law.”
Umm, no. We DO begin to carry the Law within us, and to develop a feel for it (which allows us perhaps to enjoy the scenery with a bit more peace and confidence) but unless you claim to be able to do that perfectly, you run the risk of fooling yourself into thinking that “whatever I FEEL is right IS the law… it MUST be”.
That’s just dangerously wrong-headed. When you DO find your feelings running contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, Tradition or the Magisterium, it is – without a doubt – YOU who are in need of adjustment. There is great peace in knowing this, as well.
Smoky Mountain you so siwwy.
Speedo + Catholic blog = hilarity (:P)
I adore our 1993 Honda Civic. It has nearly 190,000 miles on it but it’s still chugging along. We call it “The Little Honda That Could.”
Mary, I may have you confused with another poster, so my apologies if that is the case… but unless I miss my guess you are of the opinion that Primacy of Conscience trumps all other considerations? This is 180 degrees contrary to the truth.
St. Augustine is supposed to have said “Love God and do as you please” (or something like that), but only a truly colossal spiritual ego would presume that they love God with such perfection that they needn’t bother with a little thing like obedience. In all areas in which we have no other instruction – neutral things like “Paper or Plastic”, by all means, love God and do as you please. Where the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church has spoken with authority, the Spirit could not POSSIBLY contradict, because the Truth is One… the Spirit can not contradict Himself.
Mary, I may have you confused with another poster, so my apologies if that is the case…
There are actually 2 ‘Mary’s?
That explains things…
It’s like the Bible. So many Marys it’s hard to figure out which is which sometimes.
Yeah — but J.R., when looking strictly at the posts by said Mary(s), it seemed as if it was the same person posting:
Actually, I was thinking of a Mary from an earlier thread.
Actually, I was thinking of a Mary from an earlier thread.
Thanks for the clarification, Tim J.!
For a moment there, I thought there were actually 2 people posting as Marys, assuming the other’s identity by continuing their responses.
Yet, I don’t quite think that the Mary that posted on this thread is ‘Catholic’ though.
The original statement she made “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law” is not too far from what a Protestant minister-in-training used to teach us way back when.
Incidentally — he was actually Korean!
(Sorry, J.R., I couldn’t resist mentioning this after the ‘projection’ question you had on the other thread.)
The original statement she made “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law” is not too far from what a Protestant minister-in-training used to teach us way back when.
It think it comes from Paul’s teachings in Galatians.
Note: this is merely a car story that has no bearing at all to the underlying subject of this post, but I wonder if anyone else has as a standard feature a mouse living in their car. A mouse has been living in the dashboard of my van for about two years now and has no desire or intention of moving out. Unfortunately, I didn’t discover his existence until he ate the title, the license registration and the receipts of all the repairs done to it…
Well, the Law for us is Love… love for Christ first, and love of our neighbor for His sake.
What this Law of Love looks like in practice, though, is something we must learn through the Church (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).
Otherwise, you have “The Spirit showed me that the best thing would be to encourage this girl to have an abortion”, or “The Spirit confirmed to me that tax rates are unfairly high, so it was okay to hide that income… I mean, I really love God, and everything, so it’s okay, as long as my conscience doesn’t bother me…”.
“It think it comes from Paul’s teachings in Galatians.”
Absolutely, but Paul had a great deal more to say than THAT. We also MUST recognize his distinction between the Jewish ceremonial law and the moral law. If we think we are “free” from the moral law, we decieve ourselves.
Our belief that we act in the Spirit is not a license to ignore the moral law.
I don’t think it’s immoral to not observe the speed limit while driving.
Hmm. I drove an 87 Corolla for 8 years (from 1996 – 2004) and shortly after I got it the backup lights quit working. Wonder if I could get a blog post outta that?
“I don’t think it’s immoral to not observe the speed limit while driving.”
I’m not arguing that traffic law is sacrosanct, that it is – necessarily – a matter of mortal sin (though it sure might be).
But by way of analogy, traffic law can represent the authoritative teaching of the Church in all its forms. One is not at liberty to say “Well, I’m a pretty safe driver… I don’t need to pay attention to the speed limit”.
I’d also like to see the reasoning behind your claim that observing the speed limit is not – ordinarily – a moral necessity. I mean, if you’re free to “not observe” it, you’re free to ignore it, which I would like to see defended. One of the moral laws is that we obey proper authority, unless its demands contradict the law of God. That’s scriptural (Paul again).
If I have a dying person in my car and I’m taking them to the hospital at 3 am, I’m not going to sit for two minutes waiting for the red light to turn green at a deserted intersection. The letter of the law says to wait, but the spirit of the law is based on protecting lives.
You are bound by your conscience, but your conscience is bound by The Law.
Tim, I love this statement (and the analogy, btw). I think that I’ll be repeating this one often.
not too far from what a Protestant minister-in-training used to teach us way back when.
It think it comes from Paul’s teachings in Galatians.
Phil:
I believe when Paul was speaking about “The Law”, he was actually refering to the Jewish customary laws.
However, the Protestant minister-in-training that was teaching us then had interpreted this in such a manner that he made it apply to the Catholic Church when, in fact, this wasn’t at all what Paul had meant when he had made mention of “The Law”.
In that case, Paul was talking about the Judaizers.
Tim,
Never said the church does not come into it. I thought the church (or the word of God) is there to form our conscience. First of all, it means obeying the commandment. Then it goes deeper. You need to learn to think with the mind of the church. Once you do that you become free from the law because you no longer desire to disobey. Your will becomes one with the will of Christ. That is what the text Mary was quoting means. You still need to insure that you don’t drift. Still there is no need to pay close attention to the details of the law. If you continue to abide in Christ obedience will flow naturally. If it does not you need to step back and reform your conscience in that area. The Christian life was never meant to be constantly checking you speedometer. It is about knowing the lawgiver so well the law becomes almost an afterthought. Of course we always have to guard against the things you talk about. That is when we let our conscience rebel against the law. Conscience is a way to let the law go much more deeply into our psyche. We must surrender even at the level of our private thoughts so we don’t let the devil get a foothold. I hope that clarifies things somewhat because you seem to have completely misunderstood me.
I haven’t posted on this thread yet.
Note the other Mary doesn’t have an email address. So her name isn’t underlined.
Not to mention that I disagree with her claims. . .
That doesn’t mean you won’t be honked at… just try to avoid the fast lane.
Where I live, every lane is the fast lane. To not go with the flow, i.e. to go the posted speed limit, can be a danger to others and self.
“Once you do that you become free from the law because you no longer desire to disobey.”
In that sense, of course I agree with you. One need not live in constant fear of breaking a law that one knows by heart and that it is one’s delight to live by. The odd, unintended infraction or momentary suspension for a higher good (let’s say I break the speed limit temporarily in an emergency, or to keep from jamming up the passing lane) is bound to happen, but that is not a case of me placing myself above the law… more like looking behind the letter of the law for the real intent.
“The Christian life was never meant to be constantly checking you speedometer.”
Absolutely, hence my comment about “enjoying the scenery”. Christ died to set us free. You can’t drive with your eye glued to the speedometer, but it IS there for a reason, and it is ultimately measured against a real, objective standard. Freedom and license are two VASTLY different things, and in fact oppose one another. I agree with just about everything you said… and of course, all analogies break down if pushed too far. The whole idea was a way to explore how things can go wrong when the conscience is defective, or when we neglect it, and how people might respond to that. To say, “Oh, I don’t NEED a speedometer anymore” is just inviting disaster.
But, speaking of conscience and the law of love, I do find that my earlier back and forth with Mary was needlessly aggressive (on my part) and not helpful. For whatever reason, I had a knee-jerk response to a line of thought I assumed she was taking, and I unloaded on her. I apologize. I may have been correct about the point she was trying to make (or maybe not), but I jumped the gun.
Maybe there have been more than the usual number of “I know you are, but what am I?” trolls in the combox lately, and I was in a mood. Don’t know, really… but anyway, sorry.
“If I have a dying person in my car and I’m taking them to the hospital at 3 am…”
So, that makes speed limits irrelevant the other 99.9% of the time?
So, that makes speed limits irrelevant the other 99.9% of the time?
I don’t know where you pulled that from. Speed limits can be quite useful.
Thankfully, there are state laws governing yearly inspection…(like the ecclesial law that we should receive communion once a year during Easter time, and go to confession before hand)…that will, depending on your state, require you to fix those swim trunks, er uh, speedometer. (Although not in NY…but you out there in Middle America may have stricter guidelines)
I just have to chime in and say…
140,000 miles? Bah! I bought my car with more than that on it! I’m now up to 230,900, and my last car went to 250,000 before I killed it! Mwahahahaa!
And I’m not even part Scot, Tim J! 😉
140,000 miles? Bah! I bought my car with more than that on it! I’m now up to 230,900, and my last car went to 250,000 before I killed it! Mwahahahaa!
Wow. Scarface is now 8 years old and is up to about 173,000 miles. I thought I was doing well…I’ll have some thinking to do as I weigh “must break 200,000 miles” against “can’t keep throwing repair dollars at this car”.
“Hmm. I drove an 87 Corolla for 8 years (from 1996 – 2004) and shortly after I got it the backup lights quit working.”
I had an ’88 Dynasty I drove until the tranny gave out at 250K miles. While driving it, the brake lights stopped working. I discovered that the fuse (a 5 amp, I believe) kept burning out; but that if I put a 10 amp in there, it worked fine.
Old cars and their endearing quirks.
Once you do that you become free from the law because you no longer desire to disobey. Your will becomes one with the will of Christ.
I thought our will becomes one with the will of Christ when we choose to do what is good despite our desires. We can’t always control our desire to disobey, but we can control what decide to do about it.
Doing my best to stick with the car analogy, it sounds like you’re saying we need to be a natural race car driver who does it all on God-given ability. But some drivers have less natural ability and have to focus more on technique and training. No matter how you do it, it’s about driving your car toward the finish line. (My apologies for throwing the speed limit out the window with my race car analogy)
Besides, I can often fix it by pounding on the dash just right…
This reminds me of that commercial where the guy’s car keeps making a noise and he pounds on the dash to make it stop. Then two seconds later the whole car falls apart.
“Where I live, every lane is the fast lane. To not go with the flow, i.e. to go the posted speed limit, can be a danger to others and self.”
Where I live, you’re never the last person through a yellow light….
LarryD and Katy – I will be praying for you! I HATE that kind of traffic, which is partly why I live in NW Arkansas.
I know some people couldn’t stand the slow pace, here, but I have grown to love this part of the country.
*friendly beep*
*waves*
I haven’t read all the other comments, but I really got something out of this ‘homily’. So much so I blogged about it, too.
Smoky Mountain,
I hear ya. I bought mine at 9 years old with 173K, and have been (perhaps unrealistically) planning to break 300K. However, my ‘check engine’ light came on again last night, so Baby might be biting the dust soon…
I think Randy has done a pretty good job of properly interpreting what Mary seems to have mis-interpreted. Like Tim J., I read her post as a justification for sin, by claiming that there is no sin for her, because she’s “in the spirit”. I could have misunderstood her, but the tone of her posts certainly implied that.
But I’d agree with Randy, that you are not under the law, only if you have so absorbed the law into your conscience that you have no desire to do differently. Where I disagree with Randy, though, is his claim that as Christians we are not supposed to be constantly checking the speedometer. Aren’t we supposed to be examining our consciences everytime we line up for communion? That would seem to require keeping a close eye on the speedometer.
Good point, Snowman.
The fact that we are *expected* to make an Examination of Conscience regularly means that we are not to just blow off checking our speed gauge against the road signs (the Ten Commandments, for instance).
Also, if all you needed was the Spirit, as Mary seemed to have claimed, then why did Paul say in Ephesians:
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.
Didn’t the Spirit descend on these Christians as well?
So, if all they needed was the Spirit, what need have they for even Saint Paul himself?
Tim J,
I like your analogy of vehicular controls to conscience and road signs to external Revelation. This line of analogous thinking could be taken quite far, encompassing side streets vs. the Interstate system, potholes & road construction, off-road driving, etc.
Having said that, most analogies fall short, and I fear yours does as well. Where, in your cosmology, do run-away truck ramps fall?
Where, in your cosmology, do run-away truck ramps fall?
Maybe they’re the equivalent of excommunication. They’re kind of like the very last failsafe before you head over cliff into spiritual death.
Where, in your cosmology, do run-away truck ramps fall?
It’s Limbo!
So, if all they needed was the Spirit, what need have they for even Saint Paul himself?
There’s no requirement that everyone read St. Paul. If it’s helpful to you, go ahead and read it. But it’s not required. It’s also not required that your speedometer work perfectly / correctly. It might be helpful, but it’s not required.
I DID enjoy your run-away truck ramp story, Smoky.
Brian’s reply was apt. Of course, for people who run up the things just for the THRILL… it sounds like some sort of weird ascetic practice.
There’s no requirement that everyone read St. Paul. If it’s helpful to you, go ahead and read it. But it’s not required. It’s also not required that your speedometer work perfectly / correctly. It might be helpful, but it’s not required.
Mark:
If that was the case, then the Apostles would’ve just baptized people and let them be.
They wouldn’t have established a local church at almost every place they visited in order to continue to preach and teach the Christian converts in those places.
Thus, Paul said in 2nd Thessalonians:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. 2Thes 2:15
You could extend this already extended metaphor into a book. Maybe set it up like a car owner’s manual or a defensive driving manual or something like that.
You could extend this already extended metaphor into a book. Maybe set it up like a car owner’s manual or a defensive driving manual or something like that.
How does “The Fast and the Furious” fit into this metaphor?
How does “The Fast and the Furious” fit into this metaphor?
Especially my favorite installment of this underappreciated franchise, “Tokyo Drift”?
If that was the case, then the Apostles would’ve just baptized people and let them be.
For some, that may be all the preaching that’s required. For others, more may be needed.
Especially my favorite installment of this underappreciated franchise, “Tokyo Drift”?
Smoky Mountain:
I’ve got to admit, when I first saw the commercial for it — I thought it was just one of those lame follow-ups.
But, when I saw it on DVD, I kinda liked the fact that it actually reflected some reality, in spite of the pathetic plot.
There were folks in college that were exactly like the type there!
In fact, I hate to admit it, but an Asian girl I was seeing then was actually a ‘race’ girl just like the type in that movie!
For some, that may be all the preaching that’s required. For others, more may be needed.
Mark:
Please demonstrate to me that what you say here is actually true — that there were cases where the Apostles just baptized people and let them be.
That goes against the historical evidence; not to mention, testimonies by the early church fathers themselves.
Esau, it’s a fact that a driver is not required to ever look at his speedometer. For most people, it’s very helpful to look at a speedometer but if a person can drive his car within the law without ever looking at his speedometer, more power to him.
There is no requirement that everyone has to read St. Paul to be a good Christian. Think of blind, deaf and illiterate people throughout the world. You’re welcome to read all the “testimonies” you want, but not everyone is even capable of reading, nor does it make your interpretation of what you read to be holding in respect to everyone else.
Mark:
You still haven’t addressed my particular inquiries on the matter.
You replied to my comment If that was the case, then the Apostles would’ve just baptized people and let them be.
… with the following:
For some, that may be all the preaching that’s required. For others, more may be needed.
Again, if the Spirit is all that is needed, then why did the Apostles establish local churches?
Why did Paul, in fact, continue to write letters to the local churches as well as continue to visit and preach to them?
If the Spirit is all that’s needed, he would’ve just let them alone.
Furthermore, there would not have been local churches in the first place.
Mark, you DO understand that you are making an argument for ignoring the Bible, the New Testament of which St. Paul mostly wrote? The Bible is not just some collection of “testimonies”… it is authoritative, inspired, inerrant and infallible. The “Just Me and the Spirit” mindset is a disaster waiting to happen.
“…if a person can drive his car within the law without ever looking at his speedometer, more power to him.”
Sure… you know anyone like that?
Mark, you DO understand that you are making an argument for ignoring the Bible, the New Testament of which St. Paul mostly wrote?
Jesus did not command everyone to read the Bible. There are many people who live in love who’ve never read it.
Sure… you know anyone like that?
Sure, you and I. I can easily drive down to the corner sandwich shop without any need to look at the speedometer. I bet you oould too.
“I can easily drive down to the corner sandwich shop without any need to look at the speedometer.”
And how do you KNOW that? You “just know”?
In addition, you said,
“…if a person can drive his car within the law without ever looking at his speedometer…”
That was “ever”, not “to the sandwich shop”.
But hey, the impulse to avoid looking at one’s conscience is extremely common… best let sleeping dogs lie, eh?
Jesus did not command everyone to read the Bible.
Mark:
Just because Jesus didn’t specifically mention something doesn’t actually give evidence to that which you’re wrongfully assuming here.
Jesus didn’t actually mention abortion, too, and give a specific command to be against it.
At any rate, you say Jesus didn’t actually command reading the ‘Bible’.
However, Jesus did establish a Church (Mt 16:18) and placed upon certain individuals His authority.
“As the Father has sent me, I also send you.”
John 20:21
“He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.” Luke 10:16
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
also in heaven” Matt. 18:18
In fact, the very bible we have now is the result of the Catholic Church — bishops who in the 4th century decided which books belonged to the Bible and which didn’t.
It is by the Church that the Teachings of Jesus is continued throughout the world and time as well.
And how do you KNOW that? You “just know”?
Call it experience if that pleases you.
That was “ever”, not “to the sandwich shop”.
I don’t need to “ever” to look at the speedometer while driving to the sandwich shop. I didn’t look at the speedometer at all this morning. Will I need to look at it on the way home? I might not, and if I do, it might not be out of need so much as habit.
But hey, the impulse to avoid looking at one’s conscience is extremely common… best let sleeping dogs lie, eh?
If you’re the impulsive type, maybe you will.
Try again Esau. The Church does not command everyone to read the Bible. It may encourage, but it does not command.
Try again Esau. The Church does not command everyone to read the Bible. It may encourage, but it does not command.
Try again, Mark.
As before, I was again referring to your reply to my comment If that was the case, then the Apostles would’ve just baptized people and let them be.
… wherein you said the following:
For some, that may be all the preaching that’s required. For others, more may be needed.
Also, what need have you of the Church or a church?
Don’t you have the Spirit?
Esau, you were claiming it is a command of the Church for people to read the Bible. It is not.
Also, what need have you of the Church or a church?
What is the Church without its people? I can go to church, but that doesn’t mean I hear what any human is saying. I can be deaf but still hear the Word.
Mark:
What need have you of the Word?
You have the Spirit, no?
The Word was before the Bible was written. The Word is not dependent upon the Bible. The Word is not limited to the Bible.
That’s odd — as you had claimed, I thought all you needed was the Spirit?
I said Paul’s preachings aren’t needed by everyone.
Mark, are you Catholic or some other Christian denomition? I can’t tell where you’re coming from.
You may be technically correct. Someone could for example be deaf and illiterate so they wouldn’t hear or read scripture while participating at Mass. And all their religious education could consist of paraphrases and summaries of scripture. But you’re arguing the exception rather than the rule. This type of thing would only happen in extreme circumstances.
The Word was before the Bible was written. The Word is not dependent upon the Bible. The Word is not limited to the Bible.
I think you’ve just defeated even your exception here. The Bible as you say, is a subset of the Word. Our deaf, illiterate friend in the example above has received the Word and therefore has received the Bible.
I said Paul’s preachings aren’t needed by everyone.
If Paul’s preachings weren’t needed by everyone, the Catholic bishops would not have included them in the Bible in the first place when they were deciding in the 4th century just which books belonged to it and which did not.
But you’re arguing the exception rather than the rule. This type of thing would only happen in extreme circumstances.
It even happens with people who can read.
Our deaf, illiterate friend in the example above has received the Word and therefore has received the Bible.
When I was using the word “Bible”, I was meaning the specific set of stories and examples as written in the well-known book. The deaf, illiterate friend isn’t going to be reciting those or relying upon them.
If Paul’s preachings weren’t needed by everyone, the Catholic bishops would not have included them in the Bible in the first place when they were deciding in the 4th century just which books belonged to it and which did not.
Not everyone needs to read all the books, even if it was deemed necessary to include them all for the benefit of the many.
“And how do you KNOW that? You “just know”?
Call it experience if that pleases you.
In otehr words, you don’t know, you assume.
Or, perhaps more correctly – you PREsume.
Mark:
If Paul’s preachings are not deemed necessary for the many, then why do Catholic priests/Protestant ministers often preach on them and read them at Mass/Worship services?
In otehr words, you don’t know, you assume
Those “otehr” words are your own, twisted.
If Paul’s preachings are not deemed necessary for the many
There are many who may need them, and also many who do not.
Mark:
How do you know that the Word you possess is indeed The Word?
The Word judges.
Try again, Mark.
Jesus said:
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mt 18:17
Also, in Acts, it is said:
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
Acts 2:42
Now, how is it that what you do/believe actually in accordance to that doctrine which Christ had taught/passed onto His Apostles?
And he taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in his doctrine
Mk 4:2
Not everyone needs to read all the books, even if it was deemed necessary to include them all for the benefit of the many.
Yes, but we do need to live by all of them. We can’t pick and choose.
The Word judges. It is your heart so you may obey it. Reading the Bible is not required, though it may be helpful.
It is in your heart so you may obey it.
“Mark” sounds just like “Mary”.
Hmmm…
Are all the gnostic websites down, or something?
The Word judges. It is your heart so you may obey it.
Wait a minute —
The Word is Your Heart???
Please tell me just what kind of Christian are you or if you’re a Christian at all, for that matter?
Do you not know the Word? The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
“It is in your heart so you may obey it.”
OOH! Let me play!
Grasshopper, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will… ummm… be in your heart. So, obey your heart… and stay away from trans-fats, if that pleases you.
No, let me start over…
Do you not know the Word? The Word is in your heart
OH!
I see — so, you mean all those crazy killers (like the one in Waco and the VA one as well) were really saints since, after all, they were following what was in their heart, no?
It’s Scripture, Tim.
It’s Scripture, Tim.
So is this:
…And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mt 18:17
they were following what was in their heart, no?
God put his laws in the hearts of his people.
“It’s Scripture, Tim.”
What’s scripture?
What’s scripture?
A collection of useful writings.
God put his laws in the hearts of his people.
And, thus, the guy in Waco who killed so many innocent people was one of God’s holiest servants, since he was following his heart.
since he was following his heart.
Was he?
Definitely — since it was his heart that told him thus.
How do you know?
How do you know?
Because it is my Heart that tells me so!
The precepts of the heart are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. Sinful man needs grace and revelation.
Tim J writes:
“Mark” sounds just like “Mary”.
I was sort of thinking that too, until Mark wrote:
God put his laws in the hearts of his people.
Rather than relativism, this suggests to me that Mark believes that there is an objectivity to right and wrong, but that “God’s people” will know that objective law in their hearts without external assistance.
The difference is subtle, but I think it’s there. It doesn’t make Mark right, though.
but that “God’s people” will know that objective law in their hearts without external assistance.
Those are your words. As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
“The precepts of the heart are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. Sinful man needs grace and revelation.”
You mean, speedometers and road signs are mighty fine things?
The Spirit in my heart tells me so and, thus, I believe it. For how can what the Spirit tells me in my Heart be so wrong when, in fact, it comes from God?
For it is said with such clarity that perception need not be, such that it is a part of me.
Being a part of me, how can it be called ‘perception’?
For, thus, as a leg or an arm is a part of one’s body, so it is not ‘perceived’.
Are you equating grace and revelation with speedometers and road signs?
For, thus, as a leg or an arm is a part of one’s body, so it is not ‘perceived’
The reprobate mind thinks many such things.
How can you call that which the Spirit says ‘reprobate’?
Do you not know the Word? The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
That’s your Bible talking.
As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
“Are you equating grace and revelation with speedometers and road signs?”
Are you? Are you not? What’s the sound of one hand clapping? That depends what the meaning of “is” is.
As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
Now you sound like Mary.
Those are your words. As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
Those are your words.
They’re also the words of the Church.
That’s your Bible talking.
You don’t have to read it.
The reprobate mind thinks many such things.
The Church teaches many such things.
The precepts of the heart are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. Sinful man needs grace and revelation.
Look, “Mark”, it begins to sound kinda Christian to say that “sinful man needs grace and revelation”… unless you have some amorphous, esoteric or idiosyncratic definitions of “sin”, “grace” and “revelation” that make meaningful agreement on anything impossible, which is my impression.
I’m just done Jello wrestling. Not that it can’t be FUN, but I’ve got stuff to do.
it begins to sound kinda Christian to say that “sinful man needs grace and revelation”… unless you have some amorphous, esoteric or idiosyncratic definitions of “sin”, “grace” and “revelation” that make meaningful agreement on anything impossible, which is my impression.
Grace and revelation clarify perception.
How do you know?
It’s what I’m told.
Now you sound like Mary.
I am like a little pencil in God’s hand. He does the thinking. He does the writing.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. That’s the Spirit I came in.
I see God in every human being.
How do you know?
Because I’m smiling with you.
Mark, I’m no match for your wit. Do you care to enlighten me instead of keeping everyone on the edge of their seats with your one liners?
Ooooooookay….
Um, I call my car ‘the Grape of wrath”, because it’s purple and also because it sounds angry whenever I put th’ pedal to th’ mettle…
crickets
“whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”
Do you care to enlighten me instead of keeping everyone on the edge of their seats with your one liners?
Jesus enlightens: “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.”
That’s your Bible talking.
Do you not know the Word? The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
I am.
How do you know?
“whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”
Amen, Sistah.
God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.
Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”
“but with the trial he will also provide a way out…”
But you may take the way out, or not.
” ‘Jesus said, “If those who lead you…’ ”
Say WHAT? Sorry, Jesus never said that.
Tim J.
Why’d you have to cancel my fishing expedition!
WHOA!
Esau, that is the “Gospel” of Thomas. Lay off the Google. It not only looks really bad now, but it could discredit you in the future. John is going to bug you for that.
Some Day:
That was meant for Mark.
If you haven’t noticed, these guys are Gnostics; if not, what they’re saying is certainly a reflection of Gnostic teachings.
I make a point of not having conversations nor thinking about machines Tim. Not even fixing my eyes on it with admiration or pleasure.
Sorry got nothing to offer other than I almost crashed on about the fifth time I ever drove.
And never move to Florida. The traffic is satanic.
Well, sorry Esau. I thought probably you were up to something like that (the gnostic psychobabble is pretty hard to miss) but I just didn’t want to leave it hanging out there. You never know who may be reading, and whetehr they would know that passage from the Real Thing.
Sorry.
Perversi difficile corriguntur et stultorum infinitus est numerus
A holy priest told me that you must be stupid if you believe in that. Specifically atheism.
But gnosticism is that of the devil. Knowledge will beget the knowledge that things should not exist and that we should return to nothing, because creation is a conflict within nothing and ta da da da…
Existence gives glory to God, so the Devil wishes EVERYTHING to cease to exist, because it glorifies God, even himself he wishes not to exist. The Devil “justifies”his crimes by gnosticism and egalitarianism.
Locos…
Why’d you have to cancel my fishing expedition!
Esau, you’ve exposed yourself.
come to think of it, the really relevant quote is
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” Or, “This is my command: Love each other.” Or, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
And this is relevant to the conversation how?
As Chesterton put it, discussing a certain newspaper article:
I will repeat somewhat hurriedly what the lady in question cried;
for the reader knows it already by heart. The message of Christ
was perfectly “simple”: that the cure of everything is Love;
but since He was killed (I do not quite know why) for making
this remark, great temples have been put up to Him and horrid
people called priests have given the world nothing but “stones,
amulets, formulas, shibboleths.” They also “quarrel eternally among
themselves as to the placing of a button or the bending of a knee.”
All this gives no comfort to the unhappy Christian, who apparently wishes
to be comforted only by being told that he has a duty to his neighbour.
“How many men in the time of their passing get comfort out of the thought
of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Predestination, Transubstantiation,
the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the belief that Christ will
return on the Seventh Day?” The items make a curious catalogue;
and the last item I find especially mysterious. But I can only say that,
if Christ was the giver of the original and really comforting message
of love, I should have thought it DID make a difference whether He
returned on the Seventh Day. For the rest of that singular list,
I should probably find it necessary to distinguish. I certainly
never gained any deep and heartfelt consolation from the thought
of the Thirty-Nine Articles. I never heard of anybody in particular
who did. Of the idea of Predestination there are broadly two views;
the Calvinist and the Catholic; and it would make a most uncommon
difference to MY comfort, if I held the former instead of the latter.
It is the difference between believing that God knows, as a fact,
that I choose to go to the devil; and believing that God has
given me to the devil, without my having any choice at all.
As to Transubstantiation, it is less easy to talk currently about that;
but I would gently suggest that, to most ordinary outsiders with any
common sense, there would be a considerable practical difference
between Jehovah pervading the universe and Jesus Christ coming
into the room.
But I touch rapidly and reluctantly on these examples, because they
exemplify a much wider question of this interminable way of talking.
It consists of talking as if the moral problem of man were
perfectly simple, as everyone knows it is not; and then depreciating
attempts to solve it by quoting long technical words, and talking
about senseless ceremonies without enquiring about their sense.
In other words, it is exactly as if somebody were to say about
the science of medicine: “All I ask is Health; what could be simpler
than the beautiful gift of Health? Why not be content to enjoy
for ever the glow of youth and the fresh enjoyment of being fit?
Why study dry and dismal sciences of anatomy and physiology;
why enquire about the whereabouts of obscure organs of the human body?
Why pedantically distinguish between what is labelled a poison
and what is labelled an antidote, when it is so simple to
enjoy Health? Why worry with a minute exactitude about the number
of drops of laudanum or the strength of a dose of chloral, when it
is so nice to be healthy? Away with your priestly apparatus of
stethoscopes and clinical thermometers; with your ritualistic mummery
of feeling pulses, putting out tongues, examining teeth, and the rest!
The god Esculapius came on earth solely to inform us that Life
is on the whole preferable to Death; and this thought will console
many dying persons unattended by doctors.”
In other words, the Usual Article, which is now some ten thousand
issues old, was always stuff and nonsense even when it was new.
There may be, and there has been, pedantry in the medical profession.
There may be, and there has been, theology that was thin or dry or
without consolation for men. But to talk as if it were possible for any
science to attack any problem, without developing a technical language,
and a method always methodical and often minute, merely means that
you are a fool and have never really attacked a problem at all.
Quite apart from the theory of a Church, if Christ had remained
on earth for an indefinite time, trying to induce men to love
one another, He would have found it necessary to have some tests,
some methods, some way of dividing true love from false love,
some way of distinguishing between tendencies that would ruin
love and tendencies that would restore it. You cannot make
a success of anything, even loving, entirely without thinking.
If you’re going to cut and paste, how about making it more readable by stripping the hard returns?
And this is relevant to the conversation how?
If you don’t see it, you’re either blind or obtuse. Your choice.
Tom, yes, it is obvious to everyone. You are trying to use smoke and mirrors to get away from the fact that you are propounding a moral irresponsibility nowhere proposed in the Bible. I was offering you a chance to back out.
Loving your neighbor is moral irresponsibility? I’ve heard it all.
Tom picked the wrong person to mess with.
This ‘Mary’ doesn’t operate on foolish Gnostic garbage but on sound logic; not to mention, Scripture and Tradition.
2 Thes 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Acts 2:42
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
What affects one, affects all. It’s no good to talk about loving my neighbor if I fudge my taxes or look at porn. These things pollute and weaken me, and are therefore bad for my neighbor.
Esau the gnostic speaks.
What affects one, affects all.
I couldn’t agree more. I bet even gnostics, atheists, wiccans and Protestants believe in paying their fair share of taxes too.
Loving your neighbor is moral irresponsibility? I’ve heard it all.
Talking about it certainly can be. Rather objective standards enter into play when discussing what is loving behavior and what is not.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
Talking about it certainly can be.
I said loving your neighbor. I didn’t say talking about it. That’s your department Mary.
Esau the gnostic speaks.
Mark —
Look back on this thread above — you’ll find something rather intersting!
The fact is that even you have testified against yourself (without even knowing it, it seems!) just how much of a Gnostic you truly are — not to mention, how much of an idiot!
Remember this little exchange here where you were replying to something I had said:
DID YOU NOT KNOW???? THOSE WERE ACTUALLY YOUR WORDS!!!!
LOOK HERE:
Those are your words. As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 4:33:57 PM
Hence, when I had actually confronted you with your own words, you said I sounded like Mary, the Gnostic who posted earlier to Tim J.!
You had, thus, incriminated yourself on this matter — not I — for those were your words and didn’t even know it!
The IDIOT doesn’t even know the words that are coming out of his own mouth!!! *ROFL*
That’s all Catholic Catechicm Esau. Try reading is someime. Maybe you’ll give up your gnosticism.
That’s all Catholic Catechicm Esau. Try reading is someime. Maybe you’ll give up your gnosticism.
Mark, the Gnotorious Gnostic —
Didn’t you also say:
“Jesus did not command everyone to read the Bible. There are many people who live in love who’ve never read it.”
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 1:05:35 PM
“The Word judges. It is your heart so you may obey it. Reading the Bible is not required, though it may be helpful.”
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 3:45:12 PM
So, based on that, why read the Catechism?
Jesus did not command us to read the Catechism. There are many people who live in love who’ve never read it.
The Word judges. It is your heart so you may obey it. Reading the Catechism is not required, though it may be helpful!
*ROFL*
Classic Comedy!
Mark says to Esau that what he said sounded like Mary, the Gnostic:
As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
Now you sound like Mary.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 4:53:37 PM
…Yet, did Mark not know that the very words Esau used were his own?
Those are your words. As I have already written, work of the Spirit is needed for clarity of perception.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 4:33:57 PM
*ROFL*
Hahahahahahahhahahahah!!!!!
So, based on that, why read the Catechism?
Maybe it will be helpful to you, so you won’t look so silly calling it gnosticism.
Yet, did Mark not know that the very words Esau used were his own?
Of course I saw that, just as I see that you refer to yourself in the third person.
You took my words (or the Catechism, take your pick) and I pointed them back to you as an opportunity to show you that you, me, Mary, Catechism, etc. are all speaking with similar words.
Mark:
You and the Catechism, the magisterium, and Scripture do indeed speak with similar words. That does not mean you speak with the same meaning. Surely you’ve heard the old chestnut about Tsar Alexander III, and how his Tsarina commuted a sentence of exile. The Tsar wrote:
Pardon impossible, to be sent to Siberia.
The Tsarina edited this ever so slightly:
Pardon, impossible to be sent to Siberia.
The two meanings are polar opposites, even though the words are exactly the same. And your meaning, as far as any meaning shows through your laconic prevarications, seems to me to be pretty nearly the polar opposite to what the Catechism, the magisterium, and Scripture mean by the statements that they couch in a similar vocabulary. If anything, you appear to be arguing with tremendous naivete in favour of the Antinomian heresy. In fact, you sound just like a Quaker; and in this connexion I do not mean that as a compliment.
The devil, by all accounts, is seldom happier than when a believer turns antinomian. First let a man believe that he needs no law when he has the Spirit within — an easy proposition to sell, if your man doesn’t know the context of St. Paul’s remark on the subject, and most don’t. Then, when he has got well and truly into the habit of ignoring everyone who would speak of the law to him, convince him that the spirit he hears speaking is the same Spirit whom he ought to obey. When that happens, the game is as good as made. You can make of him anything from a Marcion to a Timothy McVeigh, depending on the range of his natural talents.
There are of course abundant Biblical tests that he could apply to find out whether a particular spirit comes from God, but once he has convinced himself that the Bible is an unnecessary adjunct to his own Inner Light, he will never be reminded of those tests or think to apply them. He will be a prisoner of his own ignorance, and once he has mistaken his own feeble candle for the Light of God, the job of posing as an angel of light becomes child’s play.
once he has mistaken his own feeble candle for the Light of God, the job of posing as an angel of light becomes child’s play.
Isn’t time for you to come out the sandbox?
I said loving your neighbor. I didn’t say talking about it.
ROFLOL.
You admit to saying it. That’s talking about it.
Like you’re talking about “ROFLOL.” In your funny mind, saying something is talking about it. You must be a New Ager.
Tom Simon sends one deep into the bleachers behind left center field…
Yup. He rounds the bases, while the pitcher insists he struck him out.
The umpire ruled it a foul ball.
Ooohh, Mark has an Inner Umpire, as well.
“I bet even gnostics, atheists, wiccans and Protestants believe in paying their fair share of taxes too.”
My illustration included two sins – tax evasion and pornography. I notice your response deals only with one.
So, where do you figure gnostics, wiccans and atheists stand on porn? Does their inner spirit give them the green light on that? How very convenient, if it does.
I expect most Protestants would have no problem with the idea of forming one’s conscience according to the revealed Word of God… they are Christians, after all.
What a conversation! It started about Speedos and ends with a discussion of baseball!
What a conversation! It started about Speedos and ends with a discussion of baseball!
Oh man, I did not need that mental image of David Wells [or insert any fat baseball player here] in a speedo.
end italics
ok maybe this will work
Brian,
Sorry!!! 🙂
P.S. Thanks for giving me that mental image! :-(=
So, where do you figure gnostics, wiccans and atheists stand on porn? Does their inner spirit give them the green light on that?
As diverse as gnostics, wiccans and atheists are, whoever they are, they express rather diverse stands on the issue. Some say they’re opposed to it, that it degrades and objectifies. Some don’t have a problem with a chocolate Jesus. With one Christian poll reporting 50% of Christian men addicted to porn, is the dividing line determined by religious label?
“With one Christian poll reporting 50% of Christian men addicted to porn, is the dividing line determined by religious label?”
I’d like to see your source for that, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s true. That says nothing about where the Christian faith stands on the subject. If 50% of Christian men were alcoholics, would that mean that the Church promoted alcoholism?
If Wicca, Gnosticism, atheism – as belief systems – take no position on porn, then of course there will be a diversity of opinion on it among the adherents of each, just as there would be among any random sampling of people. But Christianity DOES take an unequivocal position. Those who still struggle with it, well, struggle. It is a moral battle.
If I were looking for a faith that allowed me to define my own beliefs, I could pick any number of religions, but not Christianity. Neither Gnosticism nor Wicca (I’ll leave out atheism, as it really isn’t a system) places the slightest obstacle in the way of one who wants to drink all day and watch porn all night.
But hey, as long as they pay their taxes, why NOT let your daughter marry one?
But Christianity DOES take an unequivocal position.
For whatever “unequivocal position” Christianity may take, it doesn’t mean the individual has adopted it or followed through.
I’d like to see your source for that
The survey says:
87% of university students are having sex over webcams, instant messenger or the telephone.
(Reuters, Ontario Canada, February 16, 2006)
42% of surveyed adults indicated that their partner’s use of pornography made them feel insecure.
(Marriage Related Research, Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. Christian Counseling Today, 2004 Vol. 12 No. 1)
50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography. 60% of the women who answered the survey admitted to having significant struggles with lust; 40% admitted to being involved in sexual sin in the past year; and 20% of the church-going female participants struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis.
(From the results of a ChristiaNet poll reported by Marketwire.com, August, 2006)
47% percent of families said pornography is a problem in their home.
(Focus on the Family Poll, October 1, 2003)
90% of 500 surveyed Christian men at a men’s retreat admitted they were feeling disconnected from God because lust, porn, or fantasy had gained a foothold in their lives.
(As reported in an article on Pastors.com by Kenny Luck)
Neither Gnosticism nor Wicca (I’ll leave out atheism, as it really isn’t a system) places the slightest obstacle in the way of one who wants to drink all day and watch porn all night.
Really? The Wiccan Rede is reportedly “An it harm none, do what ye will.” If, as you’ve alleged, porn “pollutes and weakens me, and is therefore bad for my neighbor,” it would be contrary to the Wiccan Rede.
As to Gnostics, the Nag Hammadi library is “full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence.” Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the “ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent” (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, 262).
“For most Gnostics, sexual indulgence was not so much a sin (a word not often found in Gnostic writings) as a distraction… The sexual urge, so powerful an aspect of bodily this-worldliness, is the very archetype of “ignorance” and diverts the seeker from the search for gnosis. And it is one of the most potent devices invented by a wily creator-god to keep sparks of spirit in thrall…
“At one level of thought, all Gnostics were antinomian (beyond the law, above the law, free of the law) in that they considered the norms prescribed by the demiurge or agents of cosmic powers to be a mark of the transitory worldly existence from which spirit sought escape. The demiurge’s law was a restriction on the freedom which everyone must have to find the way back to ultimate reality.
“Gnostic responses to the problem of sexuality tended to be extreme: complete abstinence, or complete license. Extreme austerity — encratism — was the more usual solution, at least in principle. For some sects, however, free indulgence of the sexual urge was not only permitted but commended.”
http://www.gnosis.org/thomasbook/ch4.html
In other words, neither Gnosticism nor Wicca places the slightest obstacle in the way of one who wants to drink all day and watch porn all night – as long as they feel it’s okay FOR THEM.
I’m sure there are other invented religions that do the same. Freedom of Crotch is a huge driving force in cheap philosophy.
“For whatever “unequivocal position” Christianity may take, it doesn’t mean the individual has adopted it or followed through.”
So? To the extent he hasn’t adopted it, he is not a Christian, and follow through is a matter of the individual’s struggle and their response to the grace of God.
At least the law of God gives some higher goal to shoot for. A constant teaching has been that private, individual sin (secret sin) affects everyone, not just the sinner – WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THAT or not.
In other words, neither Gnosticism nor Wicca places the slightest obstacle in the way of one who wants to drink all day and watch porn all night – as long as they feel it’s okay FOR THEM.
Again, for example, the Wiccan Rede is “As long as it harms NO ONE, do whatever you wish.” Did you “feel it’s okay (for you)” to ignore the part in bold, particularly the part that reads “NO ONE”? In practice, Wiccans seem to be greatly concerned with matters of ethics and morality. Accordingly, they seek to carefully analyze the potential future implications of their decisions as they may affect not only themselves but others as well.
At least the law of God gives some higher goal to shoot for… To the extent he hasn’t adopted it, he is not a Christian.
God put his laws in the hearts of his people, whether the human applied label on those people be Christian, Wiccan, Gnostic, atheist or whatever. But as you say, “to the extent he hasn’t adopted it, he is not a Christian.” So what are you Tim?
The Catechism defines pornography as “removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” If, on my desk or in a gallery, sits a photo of a busty naked woman folding clothes in a laundromat, is that pornography? What “sexual act” is it (deliberately?) displaying and what sexual act is it removing from what partners?
Tim J nailed this conversation several days ago when he described it as “jello wrestling.”
Again, for example, the Wiccan Rede is “As long as it harms NO ONE, do whatever you wish.” Did you “feel it’s okay (for you)” to ignore the part in bold, particularly the part that reads “NO ONE”?
Sure. Unless you can convince us that every Wiccan will know that porn harms them and act accordingly.
Is the gist of the above posts that Mark and Mary are saying that a person can do whatever he or she wants?
Sure. Unless you can convince us that every Wiccan will know that porn harms them and act accordingly.
Why put the cart before the horse? You can’t even convince “us” that every Christian agrees as to what is porn and what isn’t, or that every Christian follows it. As I asked before, is the photo of the busty naked woman folding clothes in the laundromat porn?
Is the gist of the above posts that Mark and Mary are saying that a person can do whatever he or she wants?
It depends what you mean by “can”. Can you get drunk in your house privately with your hubby? I suppose you can if you want. But if by “can” you mean “should”, who is going to decide for you whether to take another drink? Even if you were to open your Bible or or you phone the Pope and are unequivocally told not to take another drink, it’s still up to you and your free will to do what you want. You can obey if you want or disobey if you want. Even if you might enjoy another drink but you decide not to drink it, it’s still you doing what you want by the fact that it was you who made the decision. In that regard, you always do what you want even if you don’t “want” to.
Okaaay. I ask a straight-forward question and get a bunch of double-talk back. In other words, I asked for clarification, yes or no, and Mark plays games with the word “can.”
That is the tactic used by those amused with word games and not at all interested in a serious discussion.
I explained it to you Mary Kay. You can do what you want within the limits of your abilities and what you have to work with. You always choose whatever you want (as that’s the nature of choice), and when you do whatever you’ve chosen, you are doing whatever you want.
Mark, okay. I suppose there’s a truism in that people choose what they want.
But that’s not the point Tim made which is that Catholics are to have a well-formed conscience, the speedometer being an analogy for the authority by which Catholics form their conscience. (Tim, correct me if that’s different from what you meant.)
You always choose whatever you want (as that’s the nature of choice), and when you do whatever you’ve chosen, you are doing whatever you want.
Just because you’ve chosen whatever you’ve chosen, done whatever you want, doesn’t make the act “right”!
Many who are pro-choice believe that what they’re doing is right, that what they’ve chosen to defend is right — but is it?
Killers like the guy in Waco believed very much that what he was doing was right — not to mention, KKK people likewise — but are they actually right?
Also, it’s ridiculous to think that the Apostles just went around, baptizing people and viola! That’s it! Afterwards, the Apostles left them alone and were to never be heard from again. Absolute nonsense!
If that’s the case, why the Scriptures?
If all that everybody needed was just to be baptized, converted and, then, left alone to the Spirit; we wouldn’t have/need the Scriptures!
Also, one cannot dismiss the Church! In fact, Local churches were established. Moreover, Saint Paul kept in contact with all his converts both in person and by epistle.
To think that all a Christian needed is just the Spirit and that’s all is ignoring the fact that Jesus had, in fact, established a Church for the very purpose of guiding/guarding souls, preserving/carrying on the Teachings of Christ.
Now Mark is falling (stumbling) back on, “But what IZZ pornography, REEELY…?”, which is sadly predictable.
And porn is only one, small indicator. It is one of these sins that people do and often think “well, I’m not hurting anybody”, which is always a lie. Porn harms the viewer in every instance, without exception. It is sinful everywhere and at all times, for everyone. That is a moral absolute. It is true regardless of what you or I think about it.
Say what you mean, Mark… that there are no moral absolutes. You seem to advocate only a sort of highly idiosyncratic moral pragmatism… “If *I* don’t see any problem with it, it is okay for *me*”… “As long as it harms no one – IN MY ESTIMATION – I can do what I wish.”.
You play word games. You say;
“If, as you’ve alleged, porn “pollutes and weakens me, and is therefore bad for my neighbor,” it would be contrary to the Wiccan Rede.”
What you mean is, if *I* think it’s wrong, under the Wiccan Rede, it’s wrong… for *ME*. If I don’t, it’s not.
It’s the kind of feedback loop that you get when you deny the validity of any external Revelation, or any law that does not bubble up spontaneously from within.
If I had only twenty minutes and were trying to throw together a moral “code” that would let me do whatever the hell I pleased, and yet still sound high-minded and spiritual, I could hardly do better than what you’ve come up with here.
Actually, the problem is not with following the Holy Spirit… how could that be wrong?… IF that is really what we are doing. The problem is in following our own imaginations, or our own desires or feelings and confusing that with “The Spirit”. Some people will not even be honest and admit that this is a possibilty. They discount man’s talent for self-deception.
“Well, I feel really strongly about it, so that must be the Spirit speaking to me”… which is unadulterated barnyard borscht. The Spirit often speaks CONTRARY to our own desires and feelings.
How do we learn to recognize the authentic voice of the Spirit? Listening only to our own, fallen conscience we can go far off track. With the help of Scripture, we do better, but can still spin way out of control (this is so clear that it needs no evidence). With the addition of the teaching authority of the Church, we have much greater assurance. By checking one against the other, we can get a sense of whether what we THOUGHT was true really IS true.
Our conscience is NOT infallible, and does NOT come to us fully formed. It is like an athlete badly in need of training. The Bible is like a training manual. The Church is the Coach… who also happened to write the Manual.
Tim J.
U dah man, brutha! That was a great comment!
Jimmy Akin sure has a great wingman on his blog!
Keep postin’!
To tell the truth, I have had a bad cold this week, and have hardly had the energy to do anything useful, so I have been haunting the combox instead, and threw together a couple of posts. If anyone catches me in a grotesque lapse of logic, I can always claim I was delirious.
Jimmy has been really gracious about letting me play in his sandbox, but I know why people come to JA.O., and it’s not to read my stuff. If I can contribute occasionally and not end up a net liability, I will be very relieved.
Thanks, though.
Just because you’ve chosen whatever you’ve chosen, done whatever you want, doesn’t make the act “right”!
But who makes you act right?
it’s ridiculous to think that the Apostles just went around, baptizing people and viola! … If that’s the case, why the Scriptures?
Esau, I’ve already answered you quite clearly: they can be useful, without being a requirement. The work of the Spirit can be transforming without requirement of reading Scripture. Reading Scripture can be an exercise in reflection on such transformation.
Killers like the guy in Waco believed very much that what he was doing was right
He’s an example of a man who read Scripture.
Jesus had, in fact, established a Church for the very purpose of guiding/guarding souls, preserving/carrying on the Teachings of Christ.
Is the Church not guiding, guarding, preserving, and carrying on wherever you are 24/7?
Porn harms the viewer in every instance
You have yet to define the instance you are referring to. Again, the Catechism defines pornography as “removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” Now tell me, if, on my desk or in a gallery, sits a photo of a busty naked woman folding clothes in a laundromat, is that pornography? What “sexual act” is it (deliberately?) displaying and what sexual act is it removing from what partners?
Say what you mean, Mark… that there are no moral absolutes.
The Catechism teaches that “Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.” If you like, let’s call it a moral absolute… but who is absolutely saying that a given photo is pornography? You haven’t escaped that each person is still deciding for himself.
What you mean is, if *I* think it’s wrong, under the Wiccan Rede, it’s wrong… for *ME*. If I don’t, it’s not.
It is not Wiccan belief that a person’s will is always right. Wiccan belief calls for training of the will to do no harm and carries responsibility for harm caused. Training of the will involves love for all life, being mindful of one’s desires, thoughts, actions, motivations and the harm they could cause. Wiccans believe all is connected, and so “private” harm to oneself is harm to all. (Or so it is said.)
It’s the kind of feedback loop that you get when you deny the validity of any external Revelation, or any law that does not bubble up spontaneously from within.
No, they only deny, or struggle with, those revelations or laws that they do not agree with, in accordance with their level of understanding. But perhaps you want to claim you don’t Christ or struggle with Church teaching. Wiccans live in the same world you do. They have their forms of fellowship. I would expect many are influenced by Christian teachings, and more.
If I had only twenty minutes and were trying to throw together a moral “code” that would let me do whatever the hell I pleased
Does it not please you to serve God?
The problem is in following our own imaginations, or our own desires or feelings and confusing that with “The Spirit”.
And who knows your imagination better than you?
“Well, I feel really strongly about it, so that must be the Spirit speaking to me”… which is unadulterated barnyard borscht. The Spirit often speaks CONTRARY to our own desires and feelings.
And who decides when that is happening?
How do we learn to recognize the authentic voice of the Spirit? Listening only to our own, fallen conscience we can go far off track.
Wiccans, Gnostics and atheists also seek to not listen to falseness.
With the addition of the teaching authority of the Church, we have much greater assurance. By checking one against the other, we can get a sense of whether what we THOUGHT was true really IS true.
Yes, many people find benefit in other religions and what others have to offer.
The Church is the Coach.
The Church is more than what many people realize it to be.
Mark, you give many good trees, but I’m not able to see the forest. Can you give me the big picture of what you’re describing.
Where do trees point?
“You have yet to define the instance you are referring to.”
Every instance of the use of pornography. Your feigned ignorance is very telling… “Gosh, I’m so confused… whatever IS pornography?…”.
“No, they only deny, or struggle with, those revelations or laws that they do not agree with…”
Thanks for making my point.
“…But perhaps you want to claim you don’t… struggle with Church teaching.”
No, I don’t struggle with it. I struggle with my own concupiscence, the tendency to sin that I inherited along with my human nature. I struggle against my own Pride, Anger, Sloth, Gluttony, etc… but I don’t struggle with Church teaching. Where my natural tendencies and desires conflict with Church teaching, the Church is right and I am wrong, period. There is no struggle there. I can say that with complete confidence. If I hold any beliefs contrary to Church teaching, it is only through my own ignorance. I conform myself to the Revelation I received, not the other way around.
“…Training of the will involves love for all life, being mindful of one’s desires, thoughts, actions, motivations and the harm they could cause… Wiccans, Gnostics and atheists also seek to not listen to falseness”
As defined by each individual. They end up where they started, with their own opinions.
What you propose leaves all these terms to be defined according to each individual. In his natural state, every man (and culture) will establish his own moral code, anyway. Gnosticism and Wicca (and other systems) just give this process a fancy wrapper. They anoint this process and call it “moral truth”.
The Christian faith is founded on the direct PUBLIC (not secret) revelation of God. It is not man reasoning his way to God, but God revealing Himself to man. Every man is created in God’s image and bears the impression of God’s character in his heart, but – MAN IS A FALLEN CREATURE (this is where we really disagree, I think) – and the image of God within him is warped and broken. It can be healed only with “outside” help… we can not heal ourselves.
“Yes, many people find benefit in other religions and what others have to offer.”
The Revelation on which the Christian faith is based (the Deposit of Faith) is given directly by God. It is Truth. To the extent that any other faith aligns with this revelation, it is true and may have some benefit, perhaps a lot. It is not as if God has confined any and all knowledge of Himself to the Catholic Church, but to exactly the extent that any faith differs from the Christian revelation, it is false. There may be a lot of good in other faiths… but whatever good there is can already be found at full strength in the Christian faith and the Catholic Church.
Where do trees point?
What kind of an answer is that? If you’ve got something to say, say it. I’m interested in hearing it. If you’re just here to start arguments, there’s enough of that without you.
What you propose leaves all these terms to be defined according to each individual.
Much like deciding what’s pornography and what’s not. You dance around the issue in a circle just like the Wiccans Tim.
What kind of an answer is that?
http://www.usd.edu/~bwjames/humor/trees.html
“Much like deciding what’s pornography and what’s not.”
As I say, your feigned confusion is very telling.
“Pornography? What’s that? It’s all so complicated…”.
Do Wiccans really dance around in a circle? Like, during a full moon, or something?
Mark, you’re missing the point. It’s not the material that’s evil, it’s how we use it. Societal standards for what falls under the category of pornographic materials change, but the sin a man commits while using a form of media to lust is always the same.
Material specifically created for that purpose is definitely pornographic. While say a medical book is definitely not pornographic per se, but can still be used in a pornographic way. Other materials may fall into a gray area. The label of pornographic is a matter of judgment, the lust in a man’s heart is a matter of absolute truth.
Don’t get sucked into that argument, Brian. Mark is not looking for answers.
Tim, What argument? Are you referring to my last post, or to trying to get more information out of Mark?
If you’re referring to my last post, please correct me if something I said doesn’t fit with Catholic teaching. If you’re referring to me asking Mark for more information, I don’t buy what he’s saying but I would like to hear what his beliefs are rather than have him keep taking pot shots.
Brian, what I meant was, the whole argument about “what IS pornography?”. Mark knows very well what pornography is. His waffling on the definition is, I think clearly, an attempt to keep the discussion safely in the area of relativism… the continually shifting ground of individual perception.
I wasn’t offering any criticism of what you said, just telling you that, in my opinion, this is exactly where Mark would like to steer things… toward an endless, pointless discussion of what the meaning of “is” is.
This enables him to justify the idea that one can thumb through a copy of Hustler while quoting “To the pure, all things are pure…”.
His waffling on the definition is, I think clearly, an attempt to keep the discussion safely in the area of relativism… the continually shifting ground of individual perception.
That’s the point I was trying to make:
“Societal standards for what falls under the category of pornographic materials change, but the sin a man commits while using a form of media to lust is always the same.”
“The label of pornographic is a matter of judgment, the lust in a man’s heart is a matter of absolute truth.”
This enables him to justify the idea that one can thumb through a copy of Hustler while quoting “To the pure, all things are pure…”.
Let him make this argument, the very act of making Hustler is an affront to the dignity of the women photographed in it. The magazine promotes using the one’s sexuality selfishly, which is inherently sinful. This moves past whether or not he finds Hustler to be pornographic (or even whether or not a person can look through Hustler without lusting) and onto matters that can clearly be defined as sinful.
Esau, I’ve already answered you quite clearly: they can be useful, without being a requirement. The work of the Spirit can be transforming without requirement of reading Scripture. Reading Scripture can be an exercise in reflection on such transformation.
Mark:
You DON’T GET IT.
If all that was required as to convert people and then leave them be, then why did the Apostles establish local churches?
If all that Jesus meant to do was to baptize people and then leave them alone after that, then why did He establish a Church in the first place?
Why did the Apostles establish local churches?
Everything you’re saying goes against the historical events.
Scripture and the Church would not have come into being if all it was was ‘helpful’ but not required.
If that was the case, they would never have come into being in the first place if all that was needed was conversion to the faith and that was it.
You’re twisted Gnostic thinking can be found in such spiritually perverted movies as Stigmata wherein your Gnosticism heralds that all that’s needed is what’s in the spirit of the person — and that is ‘church’.
However, this goes against history, Scripture and even Jesus (not to mention, God) Himself!
What’s scripture?
A collection of useful writings.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 4:14:05 PM
The Word judges. It is your heart so you may obey it. Reading the Bible is not required, though it may be helpful.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 3:45:12 PM
What is the Church without its people? I can go to church, but that doesn’t mean I hear what any human is saying. I can be deaf but still hear the Word.
Posted by: Mark | April 26, 2007 at 01:45 PM
It is in your heart so you may obey it.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 3:46:55 PM
Do you not know the Word? The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 26, 2007 3:54:40 PM
The Church is the Coach.
The Church is more than what many people realize it to be.
Posted by: Mark | May 1, 2007 6:57:25 AM
As I had rightfully suspected all along, these are your Scriptures, Mark:
Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”
…and your favorite Movie, Stigmata:
Cardinal Daniel Houseman: [while trying to strangle Frankie] I’ll not let you destroy my church!
——————————————————————————–
Frankie: The kingdom of God is within you and all around you. It is not within buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Look beneath a stone and I am there.
——————————————————————————–
Frankie [to Father Kiernan]: Jesus said… the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood… and I am there, lift a stone… and you will find me.
Mark,
Porn is material that is intended to sexually excite the viewer. If you think that your hypothetical image on your hypothetical desk isn’t intended to arouse and excite lust, I have a beach front property in Kansas I’d like to sell you.
Also, a person who can use images which are meant for moral research, etc. It is often the intention, and not the pictures, which makes it sinful.
Porn is material that is intended to sexually excite the viewer.
From the Catechism:
“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.”
What is the antecedent to the word “them”? This should be admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion, for as Tim propounds, it’s an “unequivocal position.” Then tell me where this “them” is displayed in the picture of the busty naked woman folding laundry.
See what I mean?
this is exactly where Mark would like to steer things… toward an endless, pointless discussion of what the meaning of “is” is.
Nope, Mark prefers a conversation over the definition of “them”
Then tell me where this “them” is displayed in the picture of the busty naked woman folding laundry.
I thought the reason pornography was evil was the manner in which it objectifies the person — that is, not giving aknowledgment to the person as someone made in the image of God, but rather treat them as an object of lust?
Inadequacy or elaborateness of a Church document does not mean its ok.
Entering into a Masonic or such group is a sin that also implies excommunication.
This new Catechism does not say anything.
It is still dead wrong.
ANYWAYS, you cannot but yourself in occasion for sin, which is a mortal sin in itself.
Going to the beach or even turning on the TV when you know there is immorality there you already commited a sin.
So stop being an idiot.
Perversi difficile corriguntur et stultorum infinitus est numerus
And the very use of that language is sinful.
You are not only giving material for scandal, you don’t know if that language constitutes an occasion for sin.
And moral relativity is evil as well.
This new Catechism does not say anything. It is still dead wrong.
The Catechism is wrong? Did you decide that yourself Some Day?
“This new Catechism does not say anything. It is still dead wrong.”
The Catechism is wrong? Did you decide that yourself Some Day?
I think Some Day was referring to Masonry. The Catechism does not say anything about Masonry, but Masonry is still dead wrong.
No Prentice.
I never said nor implied that the new Catechism is wrong. “it is still wrong”would imply that I have mentioned it as being wrong before. That it is reffering to Masonry.
The old Catechism did. This new one does not. I am not going to get into why, but just realize that the Church has a human part too, and while the Church well never proclaim heresy nor be imperfect, the humans can. The new Catechism has no errors. But it certainly was “softened”, without contradicting the past, but rather adding and not mentioning the past laws.
So much so that the masons in Rome I believe opened a new temple named “John Paul II” thinking that he made it ok to be a mason.
Sorry the Pope would never do that. Not mentioning it is another thing.
Tacit things are still there. You just don’t see them.
I thought the reason pornography was evil was…
The question was not asking for a reason Esau. Try again.
I never said nor implied that the new Catechism is wrong.
Oh, must just have been your language. As you said, “You are not only giving material for scandal, you don’t know if that language constitutes an occasion for sin.”
The question was not asking for a reason Esau. Try again
Yeah — I can see it was asking for a “them“.
The implications are the usual — no need to wallow once again in the mud, as they say.
The usual non-answer.
What are you trying to say Prentice?
I am writing in plain English, though many linguists might dislike it strongly, it is a language and I can dominate it pretty well, so much I took AP courses on it.
If you are legitametely proposing that my chain of ideas and words concluded that the new Catechism is wrong, then please show me if.
If not (as it would seem) stop being an idiot.
THE MAX I HAVE SAID, is that the new Catechism is not perfect, and not in doctrine and orthodoxy, but rather the quantity and choice of diction in the rules. In essence, it lacks some things that the old one did not. Perfectly legit to say, I don’t mean it in a bad sprit but you yourself could compare them if you get a hold of them.
Got me?
And where did you come from anyways Pren?
Just popped out to start a fight?
I like the combativeness, but direct to a real problem.
From the Catechism:
“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.”
What is the antecedent to the word “them”? This should be admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion, for as Tim propounds, it’s an “unequivocal position.” Then tell me where this “them” is displayed in the picture of the busty naked woman folding laundry Mark 4:19 pm
Mark, why are you so preoccupied with a picture of a naked woman?
Mark,
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg’rə-fē)
n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
///////////////
pornography
noun
creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
///////
pornography
Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality.
good enough for you?
Let us change the subject.
The point of these conversations are to elevate the conversation to the point to where it elevates us to God.
Not perpetually got in contrary direction.
Well good night everyone, Our Lady bless all of you and sanctify you for the glory of God.
Mark,
Furthermore, even if looking at a picture of a nude women were not porn, it would still be a grave sin against purity. The Catechism vigorously condemns impurity, and Jesus Himself said: “if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery with her.
The usual non-answer.
My point exactly!
Thank-you, Mr. Gnostic/Relativist obsessed with naked women and, thus, struggles to justify himself on Jimmy’s blog.
Remember:
The Word is in your heart. You have only to carry it out.
Mark, why are you so preoccupied with a picture of a naked woman?
That’s cute Mary Kay. I’ve asked a simple question, and no one has answered yet.
good enough for you?
Nope David. You’ve pointed out how pornography has different definitions, but haven’t answered the question asked which is in respect to the Catechism definition. Your first definition speaks of “primary purpose”, the second definition requires that it have “no literary or artistic value” and the third definition puts it in the hands of popular opinion.
even if looking at a picture of a nude women were not porn, it would still be a grave sin against purity… if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery with her.
By that, it would only be a sin if one looked upon a woman with lust. Some would say a picture of a woman is not a woman, and not everyone would look upon a picture of a woman with lust. So by what you’ve written, it’s not necessarily a grave sin to look at a picture of a nude woman.
Still, no one has answered the question. Lots of good tries though.
What an idiot this guy eh?
Just like beating up a person isn’t against the 5th commandment, because I am beating you to an unreckognizable pulp but still leaving you with enough blood and brain funcion to live like a vegetable. Your like the Dolphins passing on Brady Quinn!
What an idiot this guy eh?
Yes, a total idiot. Tim says, “Porn harms the viewer in every instance, without exception. It is sinful everywhere and at all times, for everyone. That is a moral absolute. It is true regardless of what you or I think about it.”
But the Catechism says, “Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.” Just how are civil authorities going to do that without viewing it and hence sinning, for “it is sinful everywhere and at all times, for everyone. That is a moral absolute.”
But maybe the civil authorities can just choose their own definition of pornography from the list. No need to abide by Church teaching, right? Heck, just redefine whatever you want to please yourself.
“…just redefine whatever you want to please yourself.”
Oh, my… that’s pretty rich, considering the source.
Good night, all. I agree with Some Day when he pointed out that this thread is heading downward instead of up, and is of little profit to continue.
I will not play word games or indulge those who insist that pornography is a great mystery and, golly, WHO CAN TELL what the Church means by it?
I mean, HOW can it be a sin if you can’t show on a graph EXACTLY where the line of decency is crossed?
Anyway, I look forward to reading your comments on future threads. This is a dead horse.