Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
FYI ... all Christian denominations considered it a sin not long ago. I believe in the 40's ... is that correct father_elijah?
St. Augustine of Hippo: LETTERS
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
Letters
Letter 38 (A.D. 397)
To his brother Profuturus, Augustine sends greetings. I wish to know, if possible, whether you have seen, as you proposed, his successor in the primacy. We are not delivered from offenses, but it is equally true that we are not deprived of our refuge; our griefs do not cease, but our consolations are equally abiding. And well do you know, my excellent brother, how, in the midst of such offenses, we must watch lest hatred of any one gain a hold upon the heart, and so not only hinder us from praying to God with the door of our chamber closed, but also shut the door against God Himself; for hatred of another insidiously creeps upon us, while no one who is angry considers his anger to be unjust. For anger habitually cherished against any one becomes hatred, since the sweetness which is mingled with what appears to be righteous anger makes us detain it longer than we ought in the vessel, until the whole is soured, and the vessel itself is spoiled. Wherefore it is much better for us to forbear from anger, even when one has given us just occasion for it, than, beginning with what seems just anger against any one, to fall, through this occult tendency of passion, into hating him. We are wont to say that, in entertaining strangers, it is much better to bear the inconvenience of receiving a bad man than to run the risk of having a good man shut out, through our caution test any bad man be admitted; but in the passions of the soul the opposite rule holds true. For it is incomparably more for our soul's welfare to shut the recesses of the heart against anger, even when it knocks with a just claim for admission, than to admit that which it will be most difficult to expel, and which will rapidly grow from a mere sapling to a strong tree. Anger dares to increase with boldness more suddenly than men suppose, for it does not blush in the dark, when the sun has gone down upon it. You will understand with how great care and anxiety I write these things, if you consider the things which lately on a Certain journey you said to me.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Anger
The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive. The sin is then in a general sense mortal as being opposed to justice and charity. It may, however, be venial because the punishment aimed at is but a trifling one or because of lack of full deliberation. Likewise, anger is sinful when there is an undue vehemence in the passion itself, whether inwardly or outwardly. Ordinarily it is then accounted a venial sin unless the excess be so great as to go counter seriously to the love of God or of one's neighbour.
Yes, dangit!!!! I guess I'm just going to have to give up on getting any work done today. ;o)
Sarcasm is just one more service I offer.
BigMack
WhoooHooo.....great respsonce
Becky
And yet all of the scripture you've posted regarding saints doesn't prove your theology regarding them. Furthermore, it doesn't really even hint at your theology. Facts, logic, reasoning and faith oughta be presented by your side as well.
Just make sure you are not having fun while NFP'ing or you may be committing a sin. You can only have fun if she gets pregnant.
-Kevin
NO! You ... sarcastic?! No way!!!
.
;o)
I'll try and remember that. ;o)
I believe it does. Thus, we disagree, yes?
Hebrews 13:
[4] Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sex is God’s gift to married couples. It serves two purposes. First it serves to bind the two together. It is through sexual union that we truly become “one flesh” with each other.
We call this the "unitive" function or aspect.
Secondly, it serves to provide children. Children are called gifts from God and that the man who has his quiver full is happy.
The "procreative" function or aspect.
Neither of these two purposes take precedence over the other one. If the purpose for sex was strictly to have children than unfertile couples should never have sex with each other.
Indeed both aspects should be present.
It is not whether a child results from the union, but whether the union is "open" to both aspects. A childless couple, declared infertile, are still open to children, even if science deems it impossible. It worked for Sarah. And Elisabeth.
I think one of the things that pushes our kids to have sex before marriage is the attitude we Christians have traditionally shown towards the sexual act itself. We always say “No, no, no, no.” This tells the child that we believe sex is a necessary evil and it also serves to focus the child’s attention onto that which he thinks we want him to avoid. I guess you could call it the “Forbidden Fruit” syndrome.
There certainly is a forbidden fruit aspect to premarital activity. There is also the "free sex" attitude and the pill to reduce or eliminate unwanted complications. Throw in a sex-obsessed media culture and you get what we have today.
Instead of treating sex negatively with our children we should tell them the truth. I tell my children, if they ask, that intimate love is wonderful INSIDE of marriage. I tell them that God has given us a wonderful gift that is to be shared with your spouse, and no one else. The message they get isn’t “No” but “Wait”.
Agreed 100 per cent. I don't see where you have argued with me. Sorry. Nothing you said goes against Catholic teaching. It is just that we see sex without both aspects as immoral. When a teen screws his girlfriend they may not use contraception. So they are open to procreation. But without the bonds of marriage and a real committment they are making a mockery of the "unitive" aspect, treating it like a temporary "theme park."
Likewise, a married couple who places a barrier twixt themselves are celebrating the "unity" of their marriage, but denying the procreative aspect. In a sense, with mechanical barriers, they are even denying each other flesh-on-flesh union. This is unitive?
SD
Hebrews 13:
[4] Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sex is God’s gift to married couples. It serves two purposes. First it serves to bind the two together. It is through sexual union that we truly become “one flesh” with each other.
We call this the "unitive" function or aspect.
Secondly, it serves to provide children. Children are called gifts from God and that the man who has his quiver full is happy.
The "procreative" function or aspect.
Neither of these two purposes take precedence over the other one. If the purpose for sex was strictly to have children than unfertile couples should never have sex with each other.
Indeed both aspects should be present.
It is not whether a child results from the union, but whether the union is "open" to both aspects. A childless couple, declared infertile, are still open to children, even if science deems it impossible. It worked for Sarah. And Elisabeth.
I think one of the things that pushes our kids to have sex before marriage is the attitude we Christians have traditionally shown towards the sexual act itself. We always say “No, no, no, no.” This tells the child that we believe sex is a necessary evil and it also serves to focus the child’s attention onto that which he thinks we want him to avoid. I guess you could call it the “Forbidden Fruit” syndrome.
There certainly is a forbidden fruit aspect to premarital activity. There is also the "free sex" attitude and the pill to reduce or eliminate unwanted complications. Throw in a sex-obsessed media culture and you get what we have today.
Instead of treating sex negatively with our children we should tell them the truth. I tell my children, if they ask, that intimate love is wonderful INSIDE of marriage. I tell them that God has given us a wonderful gift that is to be shared with your spouse, and no one else. The message they get isn’t “No” but “Wait”.
Agreed 100 per cent. I don't see where you have argued with me. Sorry. Nothing you said goes against Catholic teaching. It is just that we see sex without both aspects as immoral. When a teen screws his girlfriend they may not use contraception. So they are open to procreation. But without the bonds of marriage and a real committment they are making a mockery of the "unitive" aspect, treating it like a temporary "theme park."
Likewise, a married couple who places a barrier twixt themselves are celebrating the "unity" of their marriage, but denying the procreative aspect. In a sense, with mechanical barriers, they are even denying each other flesh-on-flesh union. This is unitive?
SD
After reading it, it's clearly a prediction of apostacy
You may wish to reread, paying close attention to the phrase "forbidding to marry" and then compare that with Paul's list of things to look for in church leaders earlier in Timothy. Not to push any sensitive buttons now, but it is fairly obvious to any outside observer that Paul was right in I Cor. with the statement "It is better to marry than to burn".
Also, understand that I know of many individual RC's that will join us Protesters around the throne, because of their faith. I also know many individuals members of Prostestant denominations that will hear "I never knew you", because of their faith being non-existent.
I also believe that many leaders of the RC as an institution will have a lot to answer for on that great and dreadful day (2nd Peter Ch. 2).
Yes I know, its hard to believe ain't it. :)
BigMack
He better not get banned.
But if he did what do you think I would came back as, and they better let me if it's HIM that gets us banned:)
Becky
I believe it doesn't. So why do you always throw up the facts, logic, reasoning and faith defense? In the end it just boils down to your interpretation of the facts, logic, reasoning and faith. Is that not right?
Oh, so I can go dig my grandmother out of the cemetary and take her to dinner tonight then, right.. cause she really ain't dead... See, you're confusing spiritual death with physical death again. Ecclesiastes 9 doesn't confuse the two. It says whether spiritually alive or dead, the dead [bodily]have no more effect on anything here. And Paul told us that resurrection was not of our fleshly body if I'm not too much mistaken - 1 Cor 15. which nulls all your word games over who's dead and who isn't. Bodily death puts people in the realm of the spirit. And the realm of the spirit is off limits to us. It puts us in the position of talking to spirits when we try to talk to the dead - thus spiritism, necromancy, etc! All things strictly forbidden. All very cut and dry - until you like breaking God's laws because such things have taken your fancy - then you make all kind of perverse twistings of God's word to excuse what you do. Might as well say divorce, homosexuality and abortion are fine too; because they come from the same place as all these laws forbidding you to talk to the dead. Imagine that - a fine display of picking and choosing. You condemn people for breaking the laws you choose to follow, then encourage them to break the laws you deem nonsense. Pretty much makes you both decieved and a deciever. An accuser and a hypocrite.
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.