Own interpretation of the Bible?

booksale

How do know your own intepretation of the Bible stories are acceptable and do you no harms or what?

The reason I ask is that I sometimes have some personal interpretation about the Bible, but then my Christian friends would comment that it's not from the Bible. They would be afriad that I was having too much of my personal opinions instead of the God's opinions.

OK, to explain it clearly, let me illustrate with an example. (please bear with me my English, non native here).

These few years, I read the story of 'talents' in a different angle.

For many many years, I did not really understand the story in Matthew (25:14-30) . I did not understand why the master was so angry with the one who just wanted to keep the money safe. Even though the church told me that it's about the talents, that you have to use it to serve God, I still did not understand.

These few years, I have come across of things in life and gradually, I think that the 'talents' there does not just mean the gift God gives you. It's the 'Life' that God gives you. Some people have a lucky start, with good loving families and are really more lucky all through their lives... some people are less lucky, they maybe abused or once they are born, they are with physical or mental difficulties etc... average people like you and me have the average ups and downs in life... we dont know why God gives different kinds of 'luck' (or lives etc) to different people, but from the story, we know God wants us to live our lives to our fullness. No matter what you have, not just your money, talents, but also things you come across in your life that out of your control, God wants you to live your lives to the fullness.

What I told my friends this explanation of mine, they would remind me not to interprete the Bible according to my own opinions. But I reply them that I dont think my interpretation is against the Bible.

So, is it acceptable to inteprete the Bible with your own experience and how to not to go too far!?!??!

Hope you guys understand my questions and share some thoughts.

Have a nice Sunday!

ubertrad

Well for Catholics, we have the interpretation of the Church as the authentic interpretation, since as you say, there are so many possible interpretations, but not all of them can be true.

I recommend a good Bible commentary, such as this one.

When you read the Bible, one must be careful and attentive that your reading does not conflict with the teachings of the Church. If your interpretation conflicts with the teachings of the Church, then you know that you are mistaken and in humility you accept this and yield to the Church, whom God has given the authority to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn't interpret itself, and since God desired us to possess the truth, there is thus a need for an infallible, earthly interpreter appointed by God: the Church, who decided which books constituted Sacred Scripture and interpreted them authentically.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states thus:

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

I have sought to present the Catholic position with further background information available from the following sources:

http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Jesus%20Teaches%20How%20to%20Interpret.pdf

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

Fanny Cradock

A quick reply, Booksale.

I think it true to say that interpretation is a simple fact of life. We all do it, every day and in a thousand ways. With regards to your thread (sorry only have time for a general reply) you must understand that your interpretation shouldn't take primacy over the author's intended meaning. To do so would be nothing more than post-modernism - "there are many 'truths', all of them valid even if they contradict each other".

We can, of course, have great fun arguing about what it was the author intended, but in doing so we should try not to confuse our own particular interpretations with the what person who originally put pen to papyrus meant and his contemporary audience likely understood. If you want to get into the technical detail about how this is (in theory) achieved you could read up on exegesis and hermeneutics.

wolfsbane

booksale wrote: »

How do know your own intepretation of the Bible stories are acceptable and do you no harms or what?

The reason I ask is that I sometimes have some personal interpretation about the Bible, but then my Christian friends would comment that it's not from the Bible. They would be afriad that I was having too much of my personal opinions instead of the God's opinions.

OK, to explain it clearly, let me illustrate with an example. (please bear with me my English, non native here).

These few years, I read the story of 'talents' in a different angle.

For many many years, I did not really understand the story in Matthew (25:14-30) . I did not understand why the master was so angry with the one who just wanted to keep the money safe. Even though the church told me that it's about the talents, that you have to use it to serve God, I still did not understand.

These few years, I have come across of things in life and gradually, I think that the 'talents' there does not just mean the gift God gives you. It's the 'Life' that God gives you. Some people have a lucky start, with good loving families and are really more lucky all through their lives... some people are less lucky, they maybe abused or once they are born, they are with physical or mental difficulties etc... average people like you and me have the average ups and downs in life... we dont know why God gives different kinds of 'luck' (or lives etc) to different people, but from the story, we know God wants us to live our lives to our fullness. No matter what you have, not just your money, talents, but also things you come across in your life that out of your control, God wants you to live your lives to the fullness.

What I told my friends this explanation of mine, they would remind me not to interprete the Bible according to my own opinions. But I reply them that I dont think my interpretation is against the Bible.

So, is it acceptable to inteprete the Bible with your own experience and how to not to go too far!?!??!

Hope you guys understand my questions and share some thoughts.

Have a nice Sunday!

Hi, booksale.

I saw nothing wrong with your interpretation.

But to your question: we need to exercise care in interpreting any communication of man, be it from the tax-man or our spouse! There may be serious consequences if we misunderstand, so reckless interpretation is folly.

How much more so when we come to God's word! We must take every care. But even then we may get it wrong, so best to check with others who we see to be lovers of God. Perhaps they are more mature in the faith than us; perhaps they are more knowledgeable of what all of the Bible says ( for what may be a possible interpretation from an isolated text will not be so if compared to the rest of Scripture).

Roman Catholics believe their leader has the ability to infallibly define certain doctrines, and that their church never errs in its teaching. Protestants say this infallible teaching lies only in the Bible. The Bible reveals the truth by the Holy Spirit, as He wills. He has willed to keep His church free from fundamental error down the ages, and has kept them labouring to grow in understanding of the harder things. Just like in the NT.

So our understanding of many details will be faulty, but as we seek to learn more of His truth, we will improve more and more.

_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

ubertrad

wolfsbane wrote: »

Protestants say this infallible teaching lies only in the Bible. The Bible reveals the truth by the Holy Spirit, as He wills. He has willed to keep His church free from fundamental error down the ages, and has kept them labouring to grow in understanding of the harder things. Just like in the NT.

So our understanding of many details will be faulty, but as we seek to learn more of His truth, we will improve more and more.[/COLOR]

The trouble is though, the infallible Scriptures, according to your position, have a fallible interpreter, thus one cannot be sure that what one's interpretation is true. The Bible does not interpret itself.

What criteria would you use to define a fundamental error? There are vast differences of opinion on certain matters that the Lord placed great importance on, if his words are to be regarded as true.

antiskeptic

ubertrad wrote: »

The trouble is though, the infallible Scriptures, according to your position, have a fallible interpreter, thus one cannot be sure that what one's interpretation is true. The Bible does not interpret itself.

That problem applies to the Catholic churchs interpretation too. It's not a problem circumvented by declaring oneself (or interpreting scripture to declare oneself) infallible. The circularity of such an argument is obvious.

What criteria would you use to define a fundamental error? There are vast differences of opinion on certain matters that the Lord placed great importance on, if his words are to be regarded as true.

The Bible presents itself as an intricately woven tapestry. It seems to me that the poorest interpretations are those which interrupt the weave. By that I mean, for example, an approach that lays an interpretation onto the text rather than extracting it from the text (and other, parallel texta). Eisegesis rather than exegesis. The RCC view of "you are Peter and on this rock..." is an obvious example of this given the enormity of the doctrine which is laid onto so tiny a text.

It seems to me that the best position is the one which is exegetically more robust. Now it might be that a leading from the Holy Spirit will be the thing that gives the insight, but it would be the case that that insight would be backed up by scripture (else there is no way to test the spirits)

georgieporgy

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hi, booksale.

I saw nothing wrong with your interpretation.

But to your question: we need to exercise care in interpreting any communication of man, be it from the tax-man or our spouse! There may be serious consequences if we misunderstand, so reckless interpretation is folly.

How much more so when we come to God's word! We must take every care. But even then we may get it wrong, so best to check with others who we see to be lovers of God. Perhaps they are more mature in the faith than us; perhaps they are more knowledgeable of what all of the Bible says ( for what may be a possible interpretation from an isolated text will not be so if compared to the rest of Scripture).

Roman Catholics believe their leader has the ability to infallibly define certain doctrines, and that their church never errs in its teaching. Protestants say this infallible teaching lies only in the Bible. The Bible reveals the truth by the Holy Spirit, as He wills. He has willed to keep His church free from fundamental error down the ages, and has kept them labouring to grow in understanding of the harder things. Just like in the NT.

So our understanding of many details will be faulty, but as we seek to learn more of His truth, we will improve more and more.

_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Lovely post Wolfsbane. I've been on this forum just a few months and have to say I like your posts, even though we come from different christian viewpoints (I'm RC).

OP.... I think you're doing pretty fine with your interpretation so far. Just pray more for guidance.

As for the parable you quoted, the servant who buried his talent in the ground and did nothing with it, that is the person who makes no effort and fails to grow in their spiritual life. They do nothing with the gifts God gives to them. We all have a purpose in life. You have to find yours and run with it. Sounds like you are trying to do that.:)

wolfsbane

ubertrad said:

The trouble is though, the infallible Scriptures, according to your position, have a fallible interpreter, thus one cannot be sure that what one's interpretation is true. The Bible does not interpret itself.

The Holy Spirit interprets the Bible for those who are to be saved. He gives them hearing ears and understanding hearts as they hear/read the gospel, so they interpret it correctly. And He has ensured that pure gospel has been passed down through the ages.

We cannot be sure all we interpret in the Bible is true. But we can be sure that all we need for salvation is correctly interpreted by us.

What criteria would you use to define a fundamental error? There are vast differences of opinion on certain matters that the Lord placed great importance on, if his words are to be regarded as true.

Things that deny the plainly revealed nature of God and His gospel. If we deny His absolute holiness, for example. Or deny our salvation is all of His grace. We then worship another God and preach another gospel, and rightly deserve God's condemnation:
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Do you claim there are no matters of dispute in the Catholic Church? No differing opinions on, say, the timing and nature of the Second Coming?


_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

ubertrad

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Holy Spirit interprets the Bible for those who are to be saved. He gives them hearing ears and understanding hearts as they hear/read the gospel, so they interpret it correctly. And He has ensured that pure gospel has been passed down through the ages.

We cannot be sure all we interpret in the Bible is true. But we can be sure that all we need for salvation is correctly interpreted by us.
Do you claim there are no matters of dispute in the Catholic Church? No differing opinions on, say, the timing and nature of the Second Coming?

That's great, but if there are big differences among Christians on exactly what is and isn't a sin. So if a sin is not acknowledged nor confessed, it can't be forgiven. Some Protestants would say divorce and remarriage is ok, whereas the Catholic would say it isn't. I just used divorce as an example - there are others. This is pretty critical stuff.

Also, it is not what the Lord taught - He told His Apostles that they had authority and would receive the Holy Spirit's aid to bind and loose, to teach the faith in the full truth, not a dim groping around for the truth. Only the RCC has preserved the Deposit of Faith in its entirety. I've not read anywhere that the Lord wanted us to stumble around and find just a bare minimum of truth. Christ said the Spirit would guide the Church into ALL TRUTH.

As regards the Second Coming, only the Father in heaven knows the details about that.

homer911

ubertrad wrote: »

Only the RCC has preserved the Deposit of Faith in its entirety.

You can be 100% sure of that? I suppose as a Catholic you have to be..

Ever heard of Chinese Whispers? thats what this sounds like to a non-catholic.

If you are going to interpret Bible passages, its surely best to look for corroborating passages elsewhere in the Bible. If you can show me a written record of "sacred tradition" that is at least as old as the earliest NT texts, then I'll reconsider - until then I'll stick with Sola Scriptura

I've not read anywhere that the Lord wanted us to stumble around and find just a bare minimum of truth

You are confusing the issue - nobody has suggested that, but to suggest that the "truth" imparted to maybe one individual and passed down though the ages is without error is worse than suggesting that modern Bible translations are erroneous without knowing how they are made

wolfsbane

ubertrad said:

That's great, but if there are big differences among Christians on exactly what is and isn't a sin. So if a sin is not acknowledged nor confessed, it can't be forgiven. Some Protestants would say divorce and remarriage is ok, whereas the Catholic would say it isn't. I just used divorce as an example - there are others. This is pretty critical stuff.

What does the RCC say about smoking tobacco? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it.

What does the RCC say about oral/anal sex? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it.

What does the RCC say about drinking spirits? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it.

Very common sins or non-sins.

If I declare them to be sins, does that make my religion right? Or if I declare them to be non-sins, does that make my religion right? No, it may only be right or wrong about those specifics. It might have all the rest right or wrong.

Also, it is not what the Lord taught - He told His Apostles that they had authority and would receive the Holy Spirit's aid to bind and loose, to teach the faith in the full truth, not a dim groping around for the truth.

Exactly. That is what Protestantism teaches. And the only place we find their teaching in its entirety is in the Bible. It is the apostolic faith handed down to the saints.

Only the RCC has preserved the Deposit of Faith in its entirety.

The RCC has the Bible, but it has also put itself on a par with that infallible word of God, claiming to be the only one able to correctly interpret the word; and going on to assert they have knowledge not revealed in the Bible, truths passed verbally on to its bishops. These 'traditions' have equal status with the actual words of the apostles, in Rome's opinion.

I've not read anywhere that the Lord wanted us to stumble around and find just a bare minimum of truth. Christ said the Spirit would guide the Church into ALL TRUTH.

No, He said the Spirit would guide the apostles into ALL TRUTH. That enabled them to infallibly teach us all God wanted us to know.

As regards the Second Coming, only the Father in heaven knows the details about that.

Only He knows the exact timing. But I'm asking about the broad details - like those discussed by the Fathers - Irenaeus of Lyons, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, for example. Are there any parts of eschatology which are disputed by good-standing theologians in the RCC? That is, are there any truths (revealed in the Bible) of which the RCC is unsure? Any passages of the Bible it thinks may mean one thing or another?

_________________________________________________________________
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

ubertrad

homer911 wrote: »

You can be 100% sure of that? I suppose you have to be..

Ever heard of Chinese Whispers? thats what this sounds like to a non-catholic.

If you are going to interpret Bible passages, its surely best to look for corroborating passages elsewhere in the Bible. If you can show me a written record of "sacred tradition" that is at least as old as the earliest NT texts, then I'll reconsider - until then I'll stick with Sola Scriptura

It would sound like Chinese whispers if you doubted the promises of Christ.

Scripture and Tradition

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).

All of this unwritten stuff has been preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, but lost to non-Catholics. This loss is very grave, because it is part of the Word of God which is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition.

Read this article to understand what the Catholic Church means by 'Tradition'.

ubertrad

wolfsbane wrote: »

What does the RCC say about smoking tobacco? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (RCC would say it's a sin if done with full knowledge)

What does the RCC say about oral/anal sex? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (RCC teaches both are sins.)

What does the RCC say about drinking spirits? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (OK in moderation.)

Very common sins or non-sins.

If I declare them to be sins, does that make my religion right? Or if I declare them to be non-sins, does that make my religion right? No, it may only be right or wrong about those specifics. It might have all the rest right or wrong.

(What matters is what God tells us are sins.)


Exactly. That is what Protestantism teaches. And the only place we find their teaching in its entirety is in the Bible. It is the apostolic faith handed down to the saints.(Wrong. You've dumped the Apostolic Tradition. The Word of God is contained in both Sacred Tradition and Scripture.)

The RCC has the Bible, but it has also put itself on a par with that infallible word of God, claiming to be the only one able to correctly interpret the word; and going on to assert they have knowledge not revealed in the Bible, truths passed verbally on to its bishops. These 'traditions' have equal status with the actual words of the apostles, in Rome's opinion. (Read my links above. You misunderstand what Tradition is.)


No, He said the Spirit would guide the apostles into ALL TRUTH. That enabled them to infallibly teach us all God wanted us to know. (Exactly, and the Magisterium of the Church (Pope and bishops in union with him) teach the truth to this day.)

Only He knows the exact timing. But I'm asking about the broad details - like those discussed by the Fathers - Irenaeus of Lyons, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, for example. Are there any parts of eschatology which are disputed by good-standing theologians in the RCC? That is, are there any truths (revealed in the Bible) of which the RCC is unsure? Any passages of the Bible it thinks may mean one thing or another? (There are things that are debated and there are things that aren't. The Church teaches the truth on matters which are essential to salvation - the faith and moral truths we need to be saved. There are other matters which are incidental and not critical, like when is Christ gonna return etc...)

-

homer911

ubertrad wrote: »

It would sound like Chinese whispers if you doubted the promises of Christ.

You are going around in circles again ubertrad (appropriate name by the way)

The promises of Christ are recorded in the Bible - I have absolutely no doubt about them or in them. To place ones faith in never recorded or tested revelations is to open the backdoor to the Devil..

You seem to base your faith in God on the thoughts and interpretations made by others, wrapping yourself up in their rules, much like the pharisees of the old testament and gospels - try relaxing your perspective a little and leave some room in your life for the Holy Spirit to guide you. The Christian life is not about following rules, or about following tradition, its about God and you, and how you represent him to others.

If I was an alien reading your posts, I would be convinced that a Christian was someone who followed a set of rules made up by a bunch of people, some of which were written down and some of which werent, and that Jesus was the guy who started to right the rules, but these people decided to write a load more, and that anyone who learns and follows all the rules can call themselves a Christian.

(and yes, I know this is not the truth, but this is what your posts communicate)

To come back to the OPs point, he was referring to interpretation of the Bible - the Bible, in many cases, interprets itself through prophesy, fulfillment, and supporting themes, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the reader. If oral tradition is not consistent with the Bible, I know which I would trust. Dont forget that until fairly recently in RC history, personal study of the bible was discouraged - we need to get past this and people need to think for themselves

wolfsbane

ubertrad said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

What does the RCC say about smoking tobacco? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (RCC would say it's a sin if done with full knowledge)

Interesting! I agree with them on this. But so many priests smoke - something strange? Morally ignorant or wilful sinners?

What does the RCC say about oral/anal sex? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (RCC teaches both are sins.)

Very interesting! I can see the physical dangers of the latter, so it's a bit like smoking. But why is oral sex a sin? Have you the reference in RCC law?

What does the RCC say about drinking spirits? A sin or not? Protestants disagree on it. (OK in moderation.)

Again we agree.

Very common sins or non-sins.

If I declare them to be sins, does that make my religion right? Or if I declare them to be non-sins, does that make my religion right? No, it may only be right or wrong about those specifics. It might have all the rest right or wrong.

(What matters is what God tells us are sins.)

Another agreement!

Exactly. That is what Protestantism teaches. And the only place we find their teaching in its entirety is in the Bible. It is the apostolic faith handed down to the saints.(Wrong. You've dumped the Apostolic Tradition. The Word of God is contained in both Sacred Tradition and Scripture.)

Says the RCC, not the Bible. I'm sure the Jehovah Witnesses make the same claim.

The RCC has the Bible, but it has also put itself on a par with that infallible word of God, claiming to be the only one able to correctly interpret the word; and going on to assert they have knowledge not revealed in the Bible, truths passed verbally on to its bishops. These 'traditions' have equal status with the actual words of the apostles, in Rome's opinion. (Read my links above. You misunderstand what Tradition is.)

I've read the article. Seems to me it confirms what I say, that the RCC claims 'secret truth' (truth not written in the Bible) OR that the Bible is the full revelation of God's truth for us:
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

No, He said the Spirit would guide the apostles into ALL TRUTH. That enabled them to infallibly teach us all God wanted us to know. (Exactly, and the Magisterium of the Church (Pope and bishops in union with him) teach the truth to this day.)

Only if they are apostles. Since they are not, they are under the apostles' word (the Bible) like the rest of us.

Only He knows the exact timing. But I'm asking about the broad details - like those discussed by the Fathers - Irenaeus of Lyons, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, for example. Are there any parts of eschatology which are disputed by good-standing theologians in the RCC? That is, are there any truths (revealed in the Bible) of which the RCC is unsure? Any passages of the Bible it thinks may mean one thing or another? (There are things that are debated and there are things that aren't. The Church teaches the truth on matters which are essential to salvation - the faith and moral truths we need to be saved. There are other matters which are incidental and not critical, like when is Christ gonna return etc...)

Exactly! So we agree there are fundamental truths that must be believed, and others that we learn as we go.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Xizors Palace

Wolf, I believe oral sex is a grave sin and if done with full knowledge is a mortal sin. Some Catholics, influenced by Christopher West, who made his name peddling his own interpretation of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, say oral sex is OK. I don't agree with them. I consider such teachers wolves, if you excuse the term. They haven't a clue nor a solid insight into the fallen human condition or Catholic moral theology, imho. Alice Von Hildebrand took West to task on his .... teaching and approach, and he took time off to consider his future. I agree with Alice. Read this if you want to follow up what she said.

There is no specific rule or law that one must not do this but in my understanding of the Tradition and moral theology of the Catholic Church, oral sex is a mortal sin. I'm not a theologian, but I think those who are puffed up with knowledge can miss the truth.

Even if the act itself was not a mortal sin in itself, according to the bio-gymnastics that the aforementioned persons advocate (they claim that if the act of oral sex does not lead to climax it's OK. That's bull ****. This is what I am talking about: even if that wasn't a mortal sin, it IS a near occasion of sin... and that IS a sin... and a Catholic can't deliberately put himself in a near occasion of sin, because that in itself is a sin. So this is why I say these individuals have no basic foundation in moral theology of Catholic teaching, otherwise they wouldn't come out with what they come out with.

I hope this is clear. In case it is not: oral sex is a mortal sin. A person can quibble about it if they like and then maybe discuss it with Christ when one meets him and maybe argue it out with Him... I wouldn't take a chance that I might offend the good God in this way.

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace said:

Wolf, I believe oral sex is a grave sin and if done with full knowledge is a mortal sin. Some Catholics, influenced by Christopher West, who made his name peddling his own interpretation of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, say oral sex is OK. I don't agree with them. I consider such teachers wolves, if you excuse the term.

I'm all for slaying wolves (wolfsbane).

They haven't a clue nor a solid insight into the fallen human condition or Catholic moral theology, imho. Alice Von Hildebrand took West to task on his .... teaching and approach, and he took time off to consider his future. I agree with Alice. Read this if you want to follow up what she said.

I've just now read it. It condemns oral sex, but doesn't explain why it is a sin. The opposing writer quoted at least gives a principle to support his idea:
For another, Dietrich would have vigorously opposed Popcak's so-called ”one rule”--that married couples “may do whatever they wish,” as long as they don’t use contraception, “both feel loved and respected,” and the marital act culminates within the woman. (p. 193).

There is no specific rule or law that one must not do this but in my understanding of the Tradition and moral theology of the Catholic Church, oral sex is a mortal sin. I'm not a theologian, but I think those who are puffed up with knowledge can miss the truth.

But one must have at least a principle that condemns it, if one does not have a specific law against it. All I've read there is personal opinion, not RCC law or dogma.

Even if the act itself was not a mortal sin in itself, according to the bio-gymnastics that the aforementioned persons advocate (they claim that if the act of oral sex does not lead to climax it's OK. That's bull ****. This is what I am talking about: even if that wasn't a mortal sin, it IS a near occasion of sin... and that IS a sin... and a Catholic can't deliberately put himself in a near occasion of sin, because that in itself is a sin. So this is why I say these individuals have no basic foundation in moral theology of Catholic teaching, otherwise they wouldn't come out with what they come out with.

But that means you have to reject all manner of foreplay that might lead to pre-mature ejectulation outside the vagina. Holding or fondling the penis, just as much as oral stimulation. Is that what Catholic sex entails?

And it cannot be used as a defence of such practices on the female body. So what objection can be laid against that?

I hope this is clear. In case it is not: oral sex is a mortal sin. A person can quibble about it if they like and then maybe discuss it with Christ when one meets him and maybe argue it out with Him... I wouldn't take a chance that I might offend the good God in this way.

Thank you for your clearness about your view that it is a sin. I am still puzzled as to your grounds for thinking so.

__________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 5:18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.

PDN

Xizors Palace wrote: »

they claim that if the act of oral sex does not lead to climax it's OK.

While not necessarily having any bearing on the sinfulness or not of such an act, I can see how that would certainly reduce the fun.

antiskeptic

they claim that if the act of oral sex does not lead to climax it's OK.

PDN wrote:

While not necessarily having any bearing on the sinfulness or not of such an act, I can see how that would certainly reduce the fun.

You've obviously not had good oral sex..

(I'll get me coat)

Xizors Palace

Holiness is the objective of the Christian life. I don't see how that practice has anything whatsoever to do with living a holy life and only serves lust and our fallen inclinations. What has that got to do with Jesus Christ?

Antiskeptic 'gets it'. Perhaps without realising it, he/she has supported my position on this issue.

(I'll get my coat.)

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Holiness is the objective of the Christian life. I don't see how that practice has anything whatsoever to do with living a holy life and only serves lust and our fallen inclinations. What has that got to do with Jesus Christ?

Antiskeptic 'gets it'. Perhaps without realising it, he/she has supported my position on this issue.

antiskeptic doesn't get it I'm afraid. To live holy-ly is to live as God intends. Now God didn't see fit to perscribe in detail on the matter of sexual relations between man and wife - the optimal situation being one where the Spirit guided-conscience informs what's okay and not.

He doesn't inform me regarding a problem in that area so I'm not sure where you derive oral sex "only serving lust and fallen inclinations".

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

antiskeptic doesn't get it I'm afraid. To live holy-ly is to live as God intends. Now God didn't see fit to perscribe in detail on the matter of sexual relations between man and wife - the optimal situation being one where the Spirit guided-conscience informs what's okay and not.

He doesn't inform me regarding a problem in that area so I'm not sure where you derive oral sex "only serving lust and fallen inclinations".

I'm afraid you have fallen into the insidious trap which liberal 'Catholics' have also fallen into. Using an erroneous notion of conscience, they use it to give the go-ahead for all manner of perversions, all because their conscience 'OKs' it for them. It was similar that happened when wolfish Catholic priests and bishops rejected Pope Paul VI's encyclical on artificial birth control. They used a mistaken notion of conscience to 'allow' people to engage in contraception, forgetting that a conscience must be properly informed by the teachings of the Church.

To live holy is to live our lives, in all its aspects, as God would have it, not as fallen man would have it. You are the one who argues, and I'd had this out with you before , about contraception. Since Protestants reject the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition of the Church, they end up condoning sins. As I said before, unrepented sin cannot be forgiven and thus, we have a problem.

You did 'get it' when you intimated that you understood full well, just as I do, that the whole practise is ordered towards climax outside the female body. That is the biggest sin in this context, beyond the decision to engage in that activity, whereby the Natural Law and the natural order of the act of sexual intercourse is rejected in favour of a lustful mockery of the plan God has for human sexuality. The intention of the Creator is indeed proscribed in the design of the body, male and female.

The act itself is, even if not in the naive, idealised, unrealistic intention, which remain ignorant of the reality of the human condition, 'naturally' (fallenly) ordered towards what is an intrinsic moral evil. Thus the participants place themselves in a situation of near occasion of sin, according to Catholic moral theology. Thus even if the particpants do not actually commit the sin of 'Onanism', they commit a sin by placing themselves in a near-occasion of sin.

I'm happy to debate this aspect of Church teaching with any Catholic theologian who begs to differ, but I'd probably find myself wasting my time because such persons are usually blinded by pride. That is my experience, anyhow, when I debated a similar issue with somebody who thought they knew better! :pac: Although there is no specific Church 'degree' on this specific issue, I am confident that my position on this issue is correct and in compliance with Church teaching. If I am wrong, I am sure Christ won't hold it against me. On the other hand, if I presume to take a risk with offending God, then I will have only myself to blame.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I'm afraid you have fallen into the insidious trap which liberal 'Catholics' have also fallen into. Using an erroneous notion of conscience, they use it to give the go-ahead for all manner of perversions, all because their conscience 'OKs' it for them. It was similar that happened when wolfish Catholic priests and bishops rejected Pope Paul VI's encyclical on artificial birth control. They used a mistaken notion of conscience to 'allow' people to engage in contraception, forgetting that a conscience must be properly informed by the teachings of the Church.

Says who that a conscience must be properly informed by the teachings of the (presumably Roman Catholic) Church? The conscience presumably..

To live holy is to live our lives, in all its aspects, as God would have it, not as fallen man would have it. You are the one who argues, and I'd had this out with you before , about contraception. Since Protestants reject the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition of the Church, they end up condoning sins. As I said before, unrepented sin cannot be forgiven and thus, we have a problem.

Asd ever, I await revelation as to how the circular reasoning is broken out of. What, bar self, tells you who your teacher is to be?

]You did 'get it' when you intimated that you understood full well, just as I do, that the whole practise is ordered towards climax outside the female body. That is the biggest sin in this context, beyond the decision to engage in that activity, whereby the Natural Law and the natural order of the act of sexual intercourse is rejected in favour of a lustful mockery of the plan God has for human sexuality. The intention of the Creator is indeed proscribed in the design of the body, male and female

The act itself is, even if not in the naive, idealised, unrealistic intention, which remain ignorant of the reality of the human condition, 'naturally' (fallenly) ordered towards what is an intrinsic moral evil. Thus the participants place themselves in a situation of near occasion of sin, according to Catholic moral theology. Thus even if the particpants do not actually commit the sin of 'Onanism', they commit a sin by placing themselves in a near-occasion of sin.

I'm happy to debate this aspect of Church teaching with any Catholic theologian who begs to differ, but I'd probably find myself wasting my time because such persons are usually blinded by pride. That is my experience, anyhow, when I debated a similar issue with somebody who thought they knew better! :pac: Although there is no specific Church 'degree' on this specific issue, I am confident that my position on this issue is correct and in compliance with Church teaching. If I am wrong, I am sure Christ won't hold it against me. On the other hand, if I presume to take a risk with offending God, then I will have only myself to blame.

In a word. It's (arguably) against Catholic teaching, a teaching not held to by non-Catholics. Aren't you barquing up the wrong tree?

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

In a word. It's (arguably) against Catholic teaching, a teaching not held to by non-Catholics. Aren't you barquing up the wrong tree?

Not arguably, friend. There are some who would argue, however.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Not arguably, friend. There are some who would argue, however.

Yet another discussion peters out on the rock of self interpretation (whether self-choosing to interpret yourself (a la Proddies) of self-choosing to let another do your interpretation for you (a la Catho)).

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet another discussion peters out on the rock of self interpretation (whether self-choosing to interpret yourself (a la Proddies) of self-choosing to let another do your interpretation for you (a la Catho)).

''He who hears you, hears me.''

I hear the successors of the Apostles. I listen to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, just as Christ desired.

No friend, you misunderstand how it works. If you are looking for a specific decree from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the subject of oral sex, you aren't going to find it. Instead you find the Natural Law arguments of the Church, along with the constant Catholic moral theology. As I've reasoned above, it is clear that it would be a sin from the Catholic perspective.

If anyone wants to read about the argument I've used in more detail, you can read the following article. I don't vouch for any other page on that website. Just that one page.

georgieporgy

I would urge caution when reading anything by Ronald Conte jr. (in fact I would recommend avoiding him completely)
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=331

antiskeptic

In the Bible:

Xizors Palace wrote: »

''He who hears you, hears me.''

Not in the Bible*:

I hear the successors of the Apostles. I listen to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, just as Christ desired.

*...unless one is self-interpreting according to the "I can make the Bible say anything I like" school of eisegesis

Xizors Palace

georgieporgy wrote: »

I would urge caution when reading anything by Ronald Conte jr. (in fact I would recommend avoiding him completely)
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=331

Georgie, I know you mean well and all, but...

I find it ironic that CatholicCulture.org take it upon themselves to tell us all, via their site reviews function on their website, what is, and what is not, an authentically Catholic and orthodox site. Don't get me wrong - I like CatholicCulture.org - I find their news and commentary typically exemplary, but I find it ironic that they criticise others for 'Magisteriumism' and also see themselves as the arbiters for what are and are not Catholic websites. They don't always get it right, imho, since they criticised one of my favourite, solidly Catholic, websites. You will also note that I said I vouch for that one page on Mr Conte's website, because I know that he takes a pro-Medjugorje position, contrary to what successive bishops, backed up by the Vatican, have said about Medjugorje. According to CatholcCulture.org, there are other areas of concern with regard to his website content. I simply drew attention to his argument on sexual activity within marriage which I believe is the authentically Catholic one and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. And remember, there is no grey here: oral sex either is, or is not, a grave sin. I think it's kind of important that one gets this matter right, particularly if one is in, or intends to enter into, a Catholic marriage. The stakes are high for eternal life is at stake.

I don't know why you feel the need to raise doubt in people's minds about his arguments. Attack the argument, not the person that made it. Feel free to do that and I will engage with you on Mr Conte's behalf.

EDIT: I have been reading the Conte article, linked off from CatholicCUlture.org. It seems a mish-mash, but he does make one good point: there are some Catholics who do not accept as Church teaching anything which is not made explicitly clear in some Magisterial document. Such a Catholic would regard oral sex as fine, until such times as the following document is released:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
SEXICUS ORALIS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL
MEN OF GOOD WILL,
ON ORAL SEX

Such an idea is laughable and ridiculous, but believe me, some Catholics, even those who self-describe themselves as 'good Catholics' think such, because they are not grounded in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, and have no concept of the principals of Catholic moral theology. Such would come under the umbrella of 'Magisteriumism'. The two errors he points out in this regard are thus:

9. The idea that the teachings of the Magisterium are all explicitly taught in written documents

10. The idea that the teachings of the Church are all found in the written documents of the Magisterium.

The fact is, we already have everything we need to know so that we can say, with the Church, that oral sex is a sin. Anyone who says otherwise must be wrong, because there is only one correct answer. The answer to the question, 'Is oral sex a sin?' is to be found in the teachings of the Church on human sexuality which say that all sexual acts must be open to life within marriage. Oral sex is an act of sexual behaviour which is not open to life, thus it is a sin.

georgieporgy

I wouldn't go so far as to condemn Mr Conte as a scoundrel. I would simply urge the uninitiated to be cautious. I just didn't feel happy reading some of his writings. I suspect a slight tinge of Jansenism. When I have concerns about an author I simply avoid the author.

Could lead to excessive scruples.

And I am not going to get caught up in a public debate on foreplay.:o

Xizors Palace

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to condemn Mr Conte as a scoundrel. I would simply urge the uninitiated to be cautious. I just didn't feel happy reading some of his writings. I suspect a slight tinge of Jansenism. When I have concerns about an author I simply avoid the author.

Could lead to excessive scruples.

And I am not going to get caught up in a public debate on foreplay.:o

I didn't hear anybody call him a scoundrel.

That advice is good in general. I apply it also to certain publishers, like Columba Press. Some of their books might be OK, but because they are the publishers for dissenters like Fr. Hederman of Glenstal, and Fr. Brian Darcy, I avoid any of their books.

I think one of the good things about being single is the freedom from these concerns. Perhaps that's what Paul had in mind when he gave out his advice.:P

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Oral sex is an act of sexual behaviour which is not open to life, thus it is a sin.

This is the basis of your argument. But it does not make sense, unless one substitutes oral sex for the complete sex act.

Oral sex need not imply this. It can be merely a part of 'foreplay', the proper caressing of one another's body preliminary to full sexual union.

Also, all foreplay has a risk of premature ejaculation. So according to your premises that it is (a) a sin to climax outside vagina and (b) a sin to risk doing so, then RCC sex must be done in the dark, with minimum physical contact before entry. That is not in line with the Biblical injunction to delight in one's wife's body, nor in line with the basic facts of life about the need for female arousal to enable ease of penetration.

Sounds like something dreamed up by bachelor ascetics in a monastery! Indeed, the article you linked to promoted asceticism by name. Smacks to me of something less than Christian:
Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

___________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 5:18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.

Xizors Palace

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is the basis of your argument. But it does not make sense, unless one substitutes oral sex for the complete sex act.

Oral sex need not imply this. It can be merely a part of 'foreplay', the proper caressing of one another's body preliminary to full sexual union.

Also, all foreplay has a risk of premature ejaculation. So according to your premises that it is (a) a sin to climax outside vagina and (b) a sin to risk doing so, then RCC sex must be done in the dark, with minimum physical contact before entry. That is not in line with the Biblical injunction to delight in one's wife's body, nor in line with the basic facts of life about the need for female arousal to enable ease of penetration.

Sounds like something dreamed up by bachelor ascetics in a monastery! Indeed, the article you linked to promoted asceticism by name. Smacks to me of something less than Christian:
Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

___________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 5:18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.

Well you know, I don't know much biology, don't know much philiosophy, but I do know that I would sooner err on the side of caution that indulge in lustful activity. That quote from Colossians is not referring to sexual activity, but rather to food and other things like that.

Indulgence of the flesh is exactly what oral sex is.

You can take any Scripture passage and use it to justify anything. People do it all the time.

It's a difficult issue to talk with because of the sensitive and depraved nature of the topic, but there is a very good priest I know who would have a definitive answer for me. If I pluck up the courage to ask him, I will let you know.:)

I just know that I am a single guy and I know how easy it is to fall into sins of lust, even in marriage, which John Paul II controversially reminded us about. Anyway, most of this discussion is above my pay-grade and of little relevance to my life. I am happy with my position on this issue and I think I am right, based on Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. :cool: It is an unclean act and is to be avoided by good Catholics and all of good will.

This is the last word as far as I am concerned: http://www.presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp and really confirms everything I have said up to this point.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well you know, I don't know much biology, don't know much philiosophy, but I do know that I would sooner err on the side of caution that indulge in lustful activity. That quote from Colossians is not referring to sexual activity, but rather to food and other things like that.

Indulgence of the flesh is exactly what oral sex is.

You can take any Scripture passage and use it to justify anything. People do it all the time.

It's a difficult issue to talk with because of the sensitive and depraved nature of the topic, but there is a very good priest I know who would have a definitive answer for me. If I pluck up the courage to ask him, I will let you know.:)

I just know that I am a single guy and I know how easy it is to fall into sins of lust, even in marriage, which John Paul II controversially reminded us about. Anyway, most of this discussion is above my pay-grade and of little relevance to my life. I am happy with my position on this issue and I think I am right, based on Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. :cool: It is an unclean act and is to be avoided by good Catholics and all of good will.

This is the last word as far as I am concerned: http://www.presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp and really confirms everything I have said up to this point.

Not a single word dealing with the ..er.. thrust of Wolfbane argument. Catholic sex (as you'd suppose it) strikes me as a physical impossibilty.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not a single word dealing with the ..er.. thrust of Wolfbane argument. Catholic sex (as you'd suppose it) strikes me as a physical impossibilty.

I have unanswered questions too antiskeptic, ones which I probably don't need answered. It is this murkiness and doubt, and the danger of sin, which leads me to conclude that all of this must have played some part in Paul's decision to issue his advice about not seeking marriage if you are single. As well as that, we know that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is a higher vocation than marriage.

'The children of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those judged worthy of a place in the age to come and of resurrection from the dead do not' " (Lk 20:34-35). Celibacy points to the ultimate wedding feast in heaven (Rv 19:7).

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I have unanswered questions too antiskeptic, ones which I probably don't need answered. It is this murkiness and doubt, and the danger of sin, which leads me to conclude that all of this must have played some part in Paul's decision to issue his advice about not seeking marriage if you are single. As well as that, we know that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is a higher vocation than marriage.

None of which deals with the problems outlined. Marriage (and sex within it) is a blessed-by-God institution. As Wolfsbane has pointed out, your take on things makes sinning-in-sex effectively impossible (bar kicking for nonsense touch).

It isn't sufficient to claim 'unanswered questions' - if your theology stumbles it's way around even the most basic of problems then your theology isn't up to very much at all.

"The murkiness and doubt and danger of sin" ... in a God given gift. How I hate what Roman Catholicism has done to the minds of men.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of which deals with the problems outlined. Marriage (and sex within it) is a blessed-by-God institution. As Wolfsbane has pointed out, your take on things makes sinning-in-sex effectively impossible (bar kicking for nonsense touch).

It isn't sufficient to claim 'unanswered questions' - if your theology stumbles it's way around even the most basic of problems then your theology isn't up to very much at all.

"The murkiness and doubt and danger of sin" ... in a God given gift. How I hate what Roman Catholicism has done to the minds of men.

The bit in bold makes no sense.

When I talk about unanswered questions, I refer to my questions about what is and is not acceptable as foreplay in a Catholic marriage. I think we have gone far enough on this thread, and for reasons of modesty and purity, I am not prepared to get into a discussion of specifics.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The bit in bold makes no sense.

It means that any activity, bar penetration, which risks the possibility of ejaculation must be seen as sinful. Which makes for a nonsense sex life.

When I talk about unanswered questions, I refer to my questions about what is and is not acceptable as foreplay in a Catholic marriage.

What is acceptable as practical foreplay would be a better question to ask

I think we have gone far enough on this thread, and for reasons of modesty and purity, I am not prepared to get into a discussion of specifics.

There is nothing immodest or impure about talking about sex if done in decent fashion.

How do you walk what is in effect, a Catholic tightrope. if you cannot talk specifically and in detail? I would have thought the narrower the tightrope (as the one you walk appears to be) the more specific and detailed one would has to be.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It means that any activity, bar penetration, which risks the possibility of ejaculation must be seen as sinful. Which makes for a nonsense sex life.

Yeah it does seem some what nonsensical.

I'm not a Christian, but it seems that Xizors Palace is some what missing the wood from the trees.

The purpose of the interpretation that the RCC takes is that the purpose of sexual contact should be to engage in the production of life, not simply for pleasure.

That doesn't though mean that pleasure should be completely stripped from the act.

If sexual activity is entered into with that spirit it would seem that the activity during sex if that spirit is adhered to, is irrelevant.

If you think I want to make a baby with my husband, then tackle him after work, and start foreplay such as rubbing his neck, and he prematurely ejaculates, it would be a bit silly to argue that rubbing your partners neck to arouse him is a "mortal sin" because it did its job a bit too well.

While some Christians might pretend otherwise, sex is designed (by God if he exists) to a be a process that involves enjoyment and arousal.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah it does seem some what nonsensical.

I'm not a Christian, but it seems that Xizors Palace is some what missing the wood from the trees.

The purpose of the interpretation that the RCC takes is that the purpose of sexual contact should be to engage in the production of life, not simply for pleasure.

That doesn't though mean that pleasure should be completely stripped from the act.

If sexual activity is entered into with that spirit it would seem that the activity during sex if that spirit is adhered to, is irrelevant.

If you think I want to make a baby with my husband, then tackle him after work, and start foreplay such as rubbing his neck, and he prematurely ejaculates, it would be a bit silly to argue that rubbing your partners neck to arouse him is a "mortal sin" because it did its job a bit too well.

That would appear to be the position though. Risking sin .. and sinning as a result, makes it sin. Hence kicking to the touchline where Paul recommends unmarried life. :rolleyes:

While some Christians might pretend otherwise, sex is designed (by God if he exists) to a be a process that involves enjoyment and arousal.

An advantage of personal (as opposed to religious) relationship with God means you come to know the mind of God. That, allied with the express guidance given in a sample of lifes situations gives you the heads up when faced with the 1001 issues that are to be faced in the day-to-day of life. All is indeed in the spirit, not at all in law.

I'd be very surprised if God frowned on non-baby-making-love-making. Blow me down with a feather surprised.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Blow me

Sorry, I was distracted by this bit ... :eek::pac::P

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry, I was distracted by this bit ... :eek::pac::P

I was debating whether to let it stand. Then I thought: "ah sure, it's Wicknight - one of the more mature, sensible of the species"

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was debating whether to let it stand. Then I thought: "ah sure, it's Wicknight - one of the more mature, sensible of the species"

That was your first mistake

gbee

For openers, there are many Bibles, interpretations and republishing these interpretations are defined as religions or religious interpretations.

The Bible is not exclusive to any Church.

If you join a Church they will tell you which Bible to get and which set reading guides to get to fit their beliefs.

The Bible, Quaran and other holy books are supposed to be the word of God as interpreted from their origins and having been translated for centuries into different dialects and languages and for contemporary times from which meanings, even if meanings are the same, but not be the social or legal meaning today.

In Ireland and England today one cannot stone one's wife to death for infidelity. But I'm sure you'd find a chapter that says you must do so. There was a time when this would have been law [of the land] and you'll find it is still practised in some countries or executions based on this.

You are right to be careful with the Bible as if you were to have executed your wife for the aforesaid crime, you'd be locked up as insane. Now, IMO, this is not the word of God and was put in cheekily by some interpreter to condone his own vile intentions.

I think you'll find quite a few of these oddities and you need to take your basic belief, your own interpretation of God and match that with what makes sense to your view.

You'll need to study the various Bible editions and make up your own mind, after all God won't ask you what anyone else thought, will he? It's your genuine faith and spirit and your genuine and willing participation is what matters.

I personally think Christ was a great guy, but he was also a political pawn who's message was corrupted, dissected, censored and hidden with carefully edited releases designed more for political persuasion and populous control than the veneration of God and His message to mankind.

antiskeptic

gbee wrote: »

For openers, there are many Bibles, interpretations and republishing these interpretations are defined as religions or religious interpretations.

The Bible is not exclusive to any Church.

If you join a Church they will tell you which Bible to get and which set reading guides to get to fit their beliefs.

The Bible, Quaran and other holy books are supposed to be the word of God as interpreted from their origins and having been translated for centuries into different dialects and languages and for contemporary times from which meanings, even if meanings are the same, but not be the social or legal meaning today.

In Ireland and England today one cannot stone one's wife to death for infidelity. But I'm sure you'd find a chapter that says you must do so. There was a time when this would have been law [of the land] and you'll find it is still practised in some countries or executions based on this.

You are right to be careful with the Bible as if you were to have executed your wife for the aforesaid crime, you'd be locked up as insane. Now, IMO, this is not the word of God and was put in cheekily by some interpreter to condone his own vile intentions.

I think you'll find quite a few of these oddities and you need to take your basic belief, your own interpretation of God and match that with what makes sense to your view.

You'll need to study the various Bible editions and make up your own mind, after all God won't ask you what anyone else thought, will he? It's your genuine faith and spirit and your genuine and willing participation is what matters.

I personally think Christ was a great guy, but he was also a political pawn who's message was corrupted, dissected, censored and hidden with carefully edited releases designed more for political persuasion and populous control than the veneration of God and His message to mankind.

How could you tell that Christ was a great guy if you think his message was corrupted, dissected, censored etc?

(I mean, he was the one who talked most of all about people being cast out of God's presence "where there will be wailing and g-nashing of teeth" Was that all added??)

PDN

gbee wrote: »

If you join a Church they will tell you which Bible to get and which set reading guides to get to fit their beliefs.

Not in most churches of which I am aware.

homer911

gbee wrote: »

The Bible is not exclusive to any Church.

There is unfortunately no such thing as an agreed definition of the Bible..and therefore there are versions exclusive to certain churches

The Catholic bible, for example contains 11 books in the Old Testament (and additions to Esther) not recognised as the word of God by other faiths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

gbee wrote: »

If you join a Church they will tell you which Bible to get and which set reading guides to get to fit their beliefs.

Really? Thats not a church I would want to join

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Not in most churches of which I am aware.

+1

Perish the thought.

gbee

homer911 wrote: »

There is unfortunately no such thing as an agreed definition of the Bible..and therefore there are versions exclusive to certain churches Really? Thats not a church I would want to join

I've phrased this poorly, what you've said is what I meant.

Fanny Cradock

gbee wrote: »

If you join a Church they will tell you which Bible to get

Really? Care to mention any names?

gbee wrote: »

I personally think Christ was a great guy, but he was also a political pawn who's message was corrupted, dissected, censored and hidden with carefully edited releases designed more for political persuasion and populous control than the veneration of God and His message to mankind.

If you are so sure that everything has been carefully edited (been watching The Da Vinci Code recently?), I wonder why you think you can know that Christ was a "great guy" but a political pawn? It seems to me that if you throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water you cant say very much.

gbee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are so sure that everything has been carefully edited (been watching The Da Vinci Code recently?), I wonder why you think you can know that Christ was a "great guy" but a political pawn? It seems to me that if you throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water you cant say very much.

Because I get inspired and these thoughts come into my head, I've said a few times that Christ's Church has been lost and there is no way the enslavement and punishment meted out in his name through either Islam, Catholicism, Bible Belt Intolerance, Davidism or any other cult can really claim to be Christian.

I think Christ's message was purity of spirit.