REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
ok, again from the Catechism "all men are implicated in Adam's sin as St. Paul affirms: 'By one man's disobediance many[ that is, all men] were made sinners':'sin came into the world through one man and death through one sin and so death spread to all men because men have sinned '(Rom 5:12,19). The Aposltle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. 'Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.' "

Perhaps I'm being dense - are you saying this is the defn of Original sin? And if so, how is Mary exempt from it, since it says "all men"?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I present the definitions of the following...
submit: To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
love:
1) A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2) A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3) a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.

If Paul said "love your wives" and stopped there, then I could accept your definition of love. However, he DIDN'T stop there - he explained HOW they should love their wives - "even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her". Did William Wallace love his wife in the same way as Longshanks' son loved his wife (as portrayed in the movie Braveheart)? You would probably be happy if someone told your husband "Love Ruinel as Wallace loved his wife", but not so happy if someone told your husband "Love Ruinel as Longshanks' son loved his wife". Do you see what I mean? It's "love in THIS WAY - as Christ loved the church", and that is the most powerful and pure love ever.

If it were an equal relationship, then he would also submit to her, but he doesn't and is not told to.

Are you aware of the separate verse where Christians are told to submit to one another? And Christian submission by no means is mindless obedience.

I've actually heard a lot of men who were Christians say that the man is the head of the house, makes the rules, and over rules the wife as per god because of that one passage... wives submit to your husbands. Also, if she doesn't, she's not being a good Christian wife.

I've heard that, too, and I think they are dead wrong. And BTW, if they are not loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, then they are not being a good Christian husband, either. Nor do I think the Bible states a Christian wife submit to something she thinks is actually Biblically wrong, IMO.

It is the same submission used in the dictionary.. there is no separate definition for Christian submission.

That's why Christian submission is discussed, so that we know what it looks like - people know the concept of submission, and the Bible describes how Christian submission should be acted out.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Perhaps I'm being dense - are you saying this is the defn of Original sin? And if so, how is Mary exempt from it, since it says "all men"?

ok, this might take some time as I need to look up Mary in the Catechism and Original Sin. But, Gwai and Guillame feel free to jump in and take over till I get my stuff together!

[Rían]

OK, thanks Arien! No rush

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
If Paul said "love your wives" and stopped there, then I could accept your definition of love. However, he DIDN'T stop there - he explained HOW they should love their wives - "even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her". ... It's "love in THIS WAY - as Christ loved the church", and that is the most powerful and pure love ever.

Then why would Paul not say the same words? IMO, it was because that was what was expected of women. That daughters could be sold to pay debts, against her wishes, etc. To yield to another's will/wishes is like saying if the husband says, "I think you have an obsession with Tolkien, it takes your time away from me, and I don't want you to read his books or discuss Tolkien's stories with anyone anymore," then the wife is supposed to yield to that decision. That is what submission means. That is the definition. And I've actually heard this sort of thing go on in Christian marriages.

I've heard that, too, and I think they are dead wrong.

I'm glad you agree. I think it is wrong also. We do not live in 100 BC.

...Nor do I think the Bible states a Christian wife submit to something she thinks is actually Biblically wrong, IMO.

Oh, it doesn't have to be something "Biblically wrong". It can be something as simple as what movie the couple will see this weekend.

BTW: I responded to you in the gay thread.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Did William Wallace love his wife in the same way as Longshanks loved his wife? I doubt it. You would probably be happy if someone told your husband "Love Ruinel as Wallace loved his wife", but not so happy if someone told your husband "Love Ruinel as Edward Longshanks loved his wife".

WHOA! Totally unfair! Actually, King Edward was totally dedicated to both his first and second wife. If anything, he was a doting husband who spoiled them both. And lets set the record straight here, as far as English kings are concerned, Edward I was a darn good one! He was a reformer, a dedicated family man, a pious crusader, and a very clever opportunist. Sure he was a little greedy, and a bit self-aggrandizing, and in his younger days a hell raiser of sorts, but all in all, he definitely wasn’t the villain that Mel Gibson made him out to be.

I agree with what you said about love, though .

And what I mean about the Cana situation is that IF Jesus rebuked her (and it seemed more than just a "it's not time yet" - don't have time to look it up, tho) THEN there was sin involved, even tho her words look fairly innocent - it may have been a pride issue on her part...

If it was sinful, though, why did Jesus go ahead do exactly as she asked? This passage alone demonstrates the efficacious nature of her intercession. Jesus complied with Mary’s wishes even though he didn’t at first acquiesce.

I’m no expert in Mariology, so I’ll let Arein do the foot work.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B]Then why would Paul not say the same words? IMO, it was because that was what was expected of women. That daughters could be sold to pay debts, against her wishes, etc.

You quoted the section on love but are talking about submission - is this a boo-boo, or are you trying to tie the two together?

BUt anyway, I'd be glad to discuss submission, but not now - I have Arty's question to talk about first (NOTE - here I have evaluated what I think is right and decided to NOT submit to your wish to talk in detail about submission now)

To yield to another's will/wishes is like saying if the husband says, "I think you have an obsession with Tolkien, it takes your time away from me, and I don't want you to read his books or discuss Tolkien's stories with anyone anymore," then the wife is supposed to yield to that decision. That is what submission means. That is the definition. And I've actually heard this sort of thing go on in Christian marriages.

Well, that's mindless submission, which is NOT supported in the Bible. That's the danger of taking isolated verses out of context, IMO. You might as well quote the verse "go and do the same" to support you doing anything that anyone has ever done!

I'm glad you agree. I think it is wrong also. We do not live in 100 BC.

I think it's wrong, too, but I don't automatically think it's wrong because it took place with some people in 100 BC I think they did some things right that we nowdays mess up at.

Oh, it doesn't have to be something "Biblically wrong". It can be something as simple as what movie the couple will see this weekend.

Then it is a pleasure to submit. In fact, my husband is submitting to my wishes tonight and taking me to see ROTK. And THAT is loving his wife as Christ loved the Church (putting me first, IOW), for he wanted to wait until the lines were gone. He's coming home early to wait with me in line for an hour, which he hates. Go honey!

BTW: I responded to you in the gay thread.

I saw, but didn't respond because I thought we had pretty much reached the point where we were just repeating ourselves. But if you would like me to respond to a point, then I'd be glad to - let me know which one(s) (I'm submitting to you out of love now but it is an informed, intelligent decision to submit)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
WHOA! Totally unfair!

You caught me before I edited the post to read "as portrayed in the movie".

You're talking to a proud descendant of Robert the Bruce, BTW - I KNOW how the movie killed the facts! The portrayal of Bruce was historically inaccurate

If it was sinful, though, why did Jesus go ahead do exactly as she asked? This passage alone demonstrates the efficacious nature of her intercession. Jesus complied with Mary’s wishes even though he didn’t at first acquiesce.

Because it may have been a proper action, but asked with an improper heart attitude (which would have been evident to Jesus, IMO). Just as it is good to give your tithe (action), but wrong to give it to get praise from men (heart). Do you see what I mean?

I'm off, guys! I'll let you know what I think of ROTK tomorrow

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

LOL, Rian. I know what you mean... its amazing that a movie could be loved so much by so many people it managed to insult. Grrr, now I'm in the mood to slap it into the DVD player.

[Rían]

(BTW, Ruinel, it's submission in the case of my being willing to answer your response in the Gay/Les thread, because I don't particularly WANT to answer. I am putting aside MY wants and giving preference to YOURS, in this case, because I think it is the better choice in this case.)

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
I’m no expert in Mariology, so I’ll let Arein do the foot work.

I'm no expert either! Gwai has GOT to be around here somewhere!!! He's been reading up on Catholic doctrine I'll do my best though

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Valandil,
Nope. Mary is, needless to say, not the same as Christ. He was sacrificed for our sins; she was not. It was absolutely imperative that he be absolutely sinless; it was not so for her. Also, I think there could be a deal of difference between preserving someone else from original sin, and preserving oneself from original sin.

Another thing: Does it not make sense that God, as the creator of the law would fulfill it perfectly? And would not this include "Honour thy father and mother"?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
WHOA! Totally unfair! Actually, King Edward was totally dedicated to both his first and second wife. If anything, he was a doting husband who spoiled them both. And lets set the record straight here, as far as English kings are concerned, Edward I was a darn good one! He was a reformer, a dedicated family man, a pious crusader, and a very clever opportunist. Sure he was a little greedy, and a bit self-aggrandizing, and in his younger days a hell raiser of sorts, but all in all, he definitely wasn’t the villain that Mel Gibson made him out to be.

Ask the Scots- (I'm of English descent, so I tend to agree)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Valandil
Hmmmm... now we're touching on some of the dividing lines between Catholicism and most Protestants: Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception...

I'm a Big-Ender myself

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Valandil,
Nope. Mary is, needless to say, not the same as Christ. He was sacrificed for our sins; she was not. It was absolutely imperative that he be absolutely sinless; it was not so for her. Also, I think there could be a deal of difference between preserving someone else from original sin, and preserving oneself from original sin.

Another thing: Does it not make sense that God, as the creator of the law would fulfill it perfectly? And would not this include "Honour thy father and mother"?

Well, I still think it's a bit of a stretch, but neither of us is likely to convince the other.

To Guillaume's point about those non-Catholics here who are aware of some finer points of Catholicism: I actually didn't know until fairly recently just what "Immaculate Conception" really meant. I think I first found out a few years ago when I saw some information about a movement within the Catholic Church to name Mary as "co-redemtrix" or something like that. So - you Catholic 'mooters - I'm curious about your thoughts on this. And also curious to know how you would react if you're opposed to it (as I gather about Gwaimir from his opening sentence above), but it becomes accepted as church doctrine.

Otherwise, since becoming a Christian at 15, I've just tried to educate myself a little about what my own church believes - and what other churches believe in comparison to that.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I'm a Big-Ender myself

Now what's THAT? Not an anatomical reference, I hope!

[GrayMouser]

I pass all comments to Dean Swift: Gulliver's experiences with the Lilliputians.( no references to anyone here implied, of course)

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I pass all comments to Dean Swift: Gulliver's experiences with the Lilliputians.( no references to anyone here implied, of course)

Oh - I haven't read that yet... argh!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I consider my church to be in this same line. Do you? I'd like to hear your opinion on this, if you would, please.

Well, it’s possible, but highly unlikely. You see, “apostolic succession� means that the Apostles made successors, by laying on of hands. They made successors, and those successors made successors, etc. etc. etc. Any (true) Catholic or Orthodox clergyman was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, who was ordained by another bishop, all the way back to the Twelve. That is what is meant by apostolic succession; that an uninterrupted line of ordination by laying on hands is preserved from the time of the apostles. So, it's not really a matter of "opinion", but of actual fact. Does that make any sense?

But I consider the Protestant tradition to not be a break, but a branch off of the Catholic tradition. They have the same root, IOW. Do you see what I mean? The roots of the Protestant church are the same as the roots of the Catholic church, IMO.

You should see what the Protestants had to say about the Catholic tradition; I doubt they'd agree.

But seriously, that’s not really true. The Protestants broke all ties with the Catholic Church. Despite the fact that it’s called the Reformation, they did not reform what already existed, but started separate churches. There were others who worked to reform the Catholic church; the Protestants worked to found new churches. Does that make sense?

I think it is incorrect extrapolation backwards (extrapolation can go both ways, of course) to say that the writers of the NT were part of the Catholic church, if by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic. I think they ARE part of the Church, which includes any true church (and of course, the Church is the believers, not an organization).

They certainly are part of the Church. Now, I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago. I believe that the Church Christ founded then continues to this day, as the Catholic Church; which is why I believe that Paul, Peter, et al were Catholic.

Well, things like your sig referring to the One True Church, which I think you think is the RC church (is this right?) makes me think that.

I'm very sorry you got this impression. I did not intend to suggest that you aren't a "real Christian" or anything of that kind. To quote St. Augustine: “We know where the Catholic Church is. We do not know where she is not.� Those who are formally outside the Church are often within her spiritually. In fact, any baptized Christian is considered by the Catholic Church to be a spiritual member therein. I believe this refers to baptism by blood and baptism by desire as well, but I’m not sure. In other words, it is the RC Church; but I believe that that includes, invisibly, much more than is visibly included in it; such persons as Charles Spurgeon, C. S. Lewis, you, and many, many more I believe to be "invisible" members of the Church.

It's things like your "His mother was without original sin" - this may be implied, but is not stated anywhere, only implied by things like "full of grace", and IMO takes on too much importance. I tend to side with James and his focus on other-ness in "real religion", as he calls it, and with direct communion with God - for me, there's just too much emphasis on implied things in the RC church, and that's why I'm not a member of the RC church. But if it's right for you, then go for it, and God bless you!

Well, let me ask you: Do you believe in the age of accountability? Also, as I said before, the Catholic Church does not teach sola Scriptura, though some people have certainly come to the Church through it.

How can you make this argument, when homosexual behavior is explicitly called out to be sinful???
Will you change your mind on this?

I don't make this argument; I merely point out that it's the same line of reasoning.

I don’t make the argument; I merely point out that it is the same line of reasoning.

I do not think it is strictly symbolic.

Ah; my apologies. I was raised thinking so, and since we seemed virtually the same, I just assumed you did, too.

Then perhaps I misunderstand your sig. I need to read thru the article you sent me on this subject, but I also wanted to ask - were the articles written by accepted authorities in the church, or laymen?

Laymen.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(BTW, Ruinel, it's submission in the case of my being willing to answer your response in the Gay/Les thread, because I don't particularly WANT to answer. I am putting aside MY wants and giving preference to YOURS, in this case, because I think it is the better choice in this case.)

I saw this posted in the gay/lesbian/bi thread... are you uping your post count?

BTW... I was not telling you to submit to my wishes for you to answer. You had said in your last post that you no longer wanted to discuss in that thread. It was only to inform you that I had responded to your post. Your decision to respond was your alone. I only wish for you to do what you want to do.