Posted on 01/13/2004 6:30:40 AM PST by dead
I think 'sola scriptura' is right there next to the words 'faith alone'.
Since James is an "Epistle of Straw," according to Luther, I guess we can dismiss the proof text proving the opposite of "faith alone," even if we still haven't found "faith alone"?
The authority of St. Peter is a great gift to the Church. And because we Catholics know what the authentic teachings of the Church are, we can agree in this thread that what our Belgian cardinal said about condoms was not Catholic. We can joyfully mock the heathen media who hope the next Pope would condone condoms.
BS. You ADDED to his exact words that "he'd rather a woman die from AIDS."
I never presented that statement as a "QUOTE"; from john, nor did I ever claim he used those "exact words".
That was MY STATEMENT. It was clearly presented as my interpretation of his post.
And I stand by it.
When asked if use of condoms would be permissible in the case of a married couple where one had AIDS, he responded NO..that it would be wrong to commit this evil EVEN "if some limited good may come from it."
The "limited good" being nothing but the protection of one spouse from contracting AIDS, a terminal disease.
He DID NOT dispute the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of AIDS as you have done.
He just said flat out that it was wrong to use them EVEN if it was to save the life of the wife.
So once again, there is nothing unreasonable in my interpreting that "he'd rather a woman die from AIDS." than to use condoms.
In fact I fail to see any other plausible interpretation.
If he didn't mean this he is always free to clarify his statement.
Your "god" and my God are definitely two different entities.
Oh, since I challenge your opinion on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of AIDS, you feel this gives you the right to judge my faith as being in a false "god" compared to your faith in the real "God".
Notice that NOWHERE have I made such a damning judgement of your personal faith simply because I disagree with you.
And we haven't even discussed Biblical doctrine yet.
Incredible.
The author of the statement has already stated that your interpretation is not only unreasonable but also a lie, ruinous of his good name.
Spin your sin however you deem necessary. You ain't fooling us, and you sure as heck ain't fooling Him.
Yes, you did. But he never used the word "prefer".
No, I USED the word "prefer" in my interpretation of what he posted.
I never presented that word as a quote from him.
This is great, so I'm going include your entire quote, and then respond;
He only said that it would be wrong to commit an intrinsically evil act, even if some limited good resulted.
The Catholic position has always been that sin is the only real evil. Sickness or death is not an evil in the strict sense of the word. There is only MORAL evil. Sickness and death are inevitable outcomes of the fallen state of mankind. An individual is not culpable for the fact that he gets sick and dies. It remains true that one can NEVER commit a sin in order to avoid physical suffering or death. It's a hard doctrine, but so is the Cross.
Beautiful. So you are admitting that johnb2004's position was that it would be BETTER for the wife to catch AIDS (and die) RATHER than commit the sin of using condoms.
While your statement above shows you have more understanding of Biblical doctrine than most on this board, my disagreement is with your application of it.
The idea that we should do nothing to protect people from consequences of sin because there is nothing sinful about intrinsically "sickeness and death" and it is an inevitable outcome of sin is not only a horrible distortion of God's laws, but distorts the very nature and character of God.
It reminds me of the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for "violating the Sabbath" by healing people and allowed his disciples to pick corn(work on the Sabbath).
Jesus rebuked them with the statement "the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath".
Jesus wasn't rejecting the law but was setting priorities when it came to the law that reflected God's true intentions and good will toward man.
We do the same thing when we allow ambulances to ignore red lights and other traffic laws in order to get a patient to the hospital and save a life.
Because just like Jesus said, we know our laws are made for people, not the other way around.
Therefore I disagree with your assertion that it is better, or that God prefers to see people die from AIDS rather than use condoms.
The author of the statement has already stated that your interpretation is not only unreasonable but also a lie, ruinous of his good name.
Really? Where is it? I've seen no post by john2004 disputing my interpretation of what he said.
I more than welcome his right to clarify what he posted and to correct me if I have misrepresented anything he said, but he has NOT responded or challenged anything I've said.
Besides, another poster who AGREES with john2004's statement has defended it as correct..that it is better to get sick and die than commit the sin of using condoms.
So this poster who disagrees with me when it comes to Biblical doctrine, agrees with my interpretation of john2004's post.
So much for your claim that I have misrepresented john2004's post.
So much for your claim that I have misrepresented john2004's post.
You are so pathetic a debater, its not even fun any more shooting down all your lies and errors. Its downright boring:
You are so pathetic a debater, its not even fun any more shooting down all your lies and errors. Its downright boring:
Right. I guess that's why you've spent more time and posts responding to me than any other poster in this entire thread. LOL! I'm still waiting for you to show me ONE lie or error that I've posted. Where are they? I must have missed them
Now let's address the post from john2004 you quote; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: CAtholic Family Association To: cajungirl Yes. The act of contraception is intrinsically evil One may never commit an intrinsically evil act even if some limited good may come from it.
10 posted on 01/13/2004 11:10:17 AM EST by johnb2004
The above is my original post. Jorge is CFA has correctly represented my post and my intentions. Contraceptive devices are intrinsically EVIL and are always wrong. Using one with full knowledge, consent would be committing a mortal sin. That is not my teaching it is Christ's and I bind myself to Him. The post from Fr. Torracco of EWTN fame should settle this discussion. Too many do not except that there exists an eternal Truth. 263 posted on 01/14/2004 8:55:34 AM EST by johnb2004
-------------------------------------------
So john2004 posted the EXACT statement that I quoted him stating.
How is does this make me "a liar and murderer of reputations."?
Neither you nor John2004 have shown me where I have misrepresented a single thing he said. John2004 says that it is better not to commit the sin of using condoms, EVEN if it means saving lives.
And that is EXACTLY what I claimed he said FROM THE BEGINNING.
The truth is, neither you nor John2004 can present a coherent response to my challenge, and are afraid to admit where you really stand on this issue, so you resort to shrieking wild accusation and personal insults instead.
I'll pray for you.
Where have I lied about you or attempted to damage your reputation john?
I would gladly apologize if you can show me where I have done either of these things.
But unfortunately you prefer to make these accusations to others and not challenge me directly.
If somebody posted lies about me and attempted to "murder" my reputation I wouldn't hesitate to challenge them.
Let's be honest here, you have not challenged me because you know you can't back up these accusations you have made about me nor shown anything I have posted to justify your claims.
And the fact is, you know I am right.
That's right Deo. Take it from "CAtholic Family Association"...who has posted a dozen responses to me in the past 24 hrs. I'm not worth your time. Too funny!
Let's face it,"CAtholic Family Association" is really jealous because you posted a challenge to me that reflected a theological and doctrinal aspect of this debate that he/she/it just doesn't comprehend.
Wow, this is one of the most reasonable posts I've read in this thread.
I believe it recognizes the true heart of God when it comes to balanced priorities as to moral laws and God's intentions.
Well said!
I suspect many priests are giving your sage advice to their penitents, and God will not be harsh with them for doing so.
God does not condemn men and women to eternal death through no fault of their own.
But, you'll likely join me on the list of heretics here.
Sup heretic? What it is?
You like me. You really like me!
But I like you. Why don't you like me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.