tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post3999604165535239880..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: The Flower Of All Evil: A Quickie RuminationFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-39716971592722572792016-06-21T05:48:05.256-04:002016-06-21T05:48:05.256-04:00Clyde: I knew you would quote the continuation of ...<b><i>Clyde:</i></b> I knew you would quote the continuation of that passage from Matthew 19. It was a trap I laid for you, and <i>you fell into it.</i> There’s no requirement laid upon us to surrender all wealth or personal property if we want to be saved. The “rich young man” felt he had to do more. His conscience was pricking him, for reasons we’re not told. So Jesus – the Son of God, and therefore able to discern things about others that we regular mortals cannot – challenged <i>him personally</i> with a more severe test. Do you think you’ll be denied salvation because you aren’t a wandering mendicant?<br /><br />Concerning the other passage you referred to:<br /><br />>>>Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. [Matthew 15:17-20]<<<<br /><br />In the KJV quoted above, the word used is “fornications;” in the NRSV it’s “sexual immorality.” In either case the context <i>as Jesus spoke it</i> must be taken into account. Now, I’ll allow that this admits of uncertainty. However, my sense for the time is that “fornications” should be understood in the light of the marital bond, which developed for specific reasons:<br />1: To guarantee as far as possible the security of a woman of childbearing age and her minor children;<br />2: To guarantee that the man would not be obliged to support children other than his own.<br /><br />Sex between the entirely unmarried was fairly common then and there as here and now, but sex that produced offspring was regarded as imposing an obligation on the father-to-be to wed the mother-to-be. Not to do so was unacceptable, a denial of the <i>implicit responsibilities attendant upon sexual congress.</i> That’s my interpretation of “fornication” in the classical world: sex that rejects responsibility for the consequences. Homosexuality I’ll address at another time. For the moment, note that it clearly doesn’t constitute adultery, and it can’t give rise to pregnancy.<br /><br />I can understand that this grates on many persons’ sensibilities...which is why you’ve been equipped with an <i>individual conscience.</i> Let it guide you.<br /><br />Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-86819449838293543502016-06-20T22:34:59.488-04:002016-06-20T22:34:59.488-04:00Thanks for doing the Sunday one, Francis ...hopefu...Thanks for doing the Sunday one, Francis ...hopefully you did not use up all the midnight oil. I like it that usually there is also great participation in the comment box, some well worth reading. I think you have made a good point of the difference between churchology and the Church. Another thing ...the conscience. Some people think they have built it themselves; or that they can ignore it, or disparage it, or cover it up with pious intent (or evil intent). Thank God for His abundant grace...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07795222563523474963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-21759620317368550112016-06-20T21:09:24.620-04:002016-06-20T21:09:24.620-04:00You stopped quoting before you got to the relevant...You stopped quoting before you got to the relevant portion of Matthew 19 - the man goes on to say he has done all those things, so what else? Jesus doesn't say, "oh, that's great! Keep it up and I'll see you in Heaven!" He tells the man to sell everything he owns and give it to the poor. The man's heart isn't in it, and he departs.<br /><br />Jesus's point wasn't to list the behaviors that must be performed or avoided to work your way into Heaven; it was that one cannot work his way into Heaven. This is particularly important given the historical context of the Pharisees belief that the Law was simply a checklist rather than a way of connecting with God.<br /><br />Several passages quote Jesus as describing sexual immorality as sinful, including at least two (where Jesus) explains that food does not defile a person. Here the typical translation is fornication that is regarded as unacceptable. Fornication is defined as sex between unmarried persons. More generally, the Greek word translated as sexual immorality would've been understood at the time to include homosexual acts.<br /><br />I suppose you could debate the translation, although the burden would fall on you to show it is incorrect.Clydenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-22871893318847350192016-06-20T18:57:17.965-04:002016-06-20T18:57:17.965-04:00John was on Patmos around 95 AD. When and by whom...John was on Patmos around 95 AD. When and by whom were the present form of the Bible written?<br /><br />Nicolaitians<br /><br />Council of Jerusalem<br /><br />It seems the whole Bible is a form of baptism/death and resurrection/ go and sin no more/ a transformation of spirit<br /><br />Hebrews 8:8-13,<br /><br />We are our own priests who approach God the father through Jesus Christ, the rent in the curtain. It is between us and our Creator.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-3157701076886322572016-06-20T18:06:40.618-04:002016-06-20T18:06:40.618-04:00Thank you Francis, I appreciate your taking the ti...Thank you Francis, I appreciate your taking the time to interact with my questions. God bless. -BHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-43586176710788001702016-06-20T16:18:30.080-04:002016-06-20T16:18:30.080-04:00Anon: Yes, I do regard Paul’s writings as less aut...<b><i>Anon:</i></b> Yes, I do regard Paul’s writings as less authoritative than the Gospels themselves. The Gospels are the teachings of Christ, as far as anyone alive today knows. Paul imported much from the Levitical covenant into Church doctrine – much that has no connection to any teaching of Jesus. But unlike the Levitical covenant, which was assigned to the Jews specifically – my theory is that it was intended to prepare them to produce the Messiah – Jesus’s New Covenant was for the whole world and every man in it. Please see the comment above for further thoughts.<br /><br />The Bible is a multifarious document. Much of the Old Testament, though illuminating, must be taken as allegorical rather than a record of actual events. But regardless of which parts of the O.T. are historical records rather than religious allegories, when it comes to what’s binding upon Christians, Jesus is the Authority. The Church has often taught otherwise and occasionally does so today – consider the divorces the Church calls “annulments” and Pope Francis’s condemnations of capitalism and praise of socialism, for example – which, though I style myself a Catholic, is one of my major problems with the Church.<br /><br />I have an ecclesiatically approved pamphlet titled “What It Means to be a Catholic” by Father Joseph M. Champlin that says the following:<br /><br />>>> Catholics believe that an individual's conscience is the ultimate determinant of what is wrong or right for that individual. Moreover, God will judge us according to the fidelity with which we have followed our conscience.<<<<br /><br />That is also Church teaching. It makes a dramatic contrast with the Church’s frequent assertions of the authority to <i>override</i> the individual conscience with doctrines that cannot be associated logically with either the two Great Commandments or the ones Jesus proclaimed to the “rich young man” in Matthew chapter 19.<br /><br />Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-57857242220351020922016-06-20T15:59:28.730-04:002016-06-20T15:59:28.730-04:00Clyde: Paul, a former Pharisee, was an extremely f...<b><i>Clyde:</i></b> Paul, a former Pharisee, was an extremely forceful personality. Both his epistles and a lot of peripheral accounts testify to that – but even more important, <i>he was a loose cannon.</i> He traveled alone almost all the time. Much of what he wrote that's been incorporated into the New Testament appears to have no connection to the Great Commandments, nor to this critical passage:<br /><br />>>> And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [Matthew 19:16-19] <<<<br /><br />If those are the requirements for salvation, then no matter what Paul or any other mortal said, there are no others. I know of nowhere that Jesus added to them. Moreover, those requirements descend directly from the two Great Commandments, which many things the Church teaches do not. I hope you don’t need a thorough explanation.<br /><br />Concerning premarital sex, if you think Jesus forbade it, please show me the passage. I can’t find any such. As sex between unmarried persons is not adultery – i.e., it doesn’t violate any sworn vows – the commandment as I read it does not touch it. Atop that, the Church has altered its positions on sex, parasexual acts, and sexual pleasure several times over the years. I hope you don’t need a thorough explanation of that, either.<br /><br />The Church is an institution that offers stature to men, and men who seek stature are always eager for more. And stature – including perceived wisdom or authority – tends to be used. Over the years the Church has tried to condemn many things as sinful, including chess, other games, and a number of sports, ultimately to its own embarrassment. But all its pronouncements of that sort have pointed in a common direction: the proscription of activities that compete with the Church for attention, obedience, energy, and revenue.<br /><br />I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.<br /><br />Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-11248794137864404992016-06-20T15:13:55.899-04:002016-06-20T15:13:55.899-04:00Francis, I have a question. You seem to regard Pa...Francis, I have a question. You seem to regard Paul's writings differently from the four gospels, and especially the words of Jesus. The nuns taught me years ago that the whole Bible was God's word and was interpreted by the Church... are you coming from a different place than that? (sorry if that sounds like a noob question, I just haven't read enough of your stuff to know your position). -BHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-48309733389277134422016-06-20T14:30:35.568-04:002016-06-20T14:30:35.568-04:00If you love God, you obey his laws. That is what ...If you love God, you obey his laws. That is what is meant by all the law and all the prophets hang on the greatest commandment. It's not a statement overruling the old law (the moral law, at least).<br /><br />I believe the Gospels do condemn premarital sex, and Jesus himself defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.<br /><br />Further, if Peter and the other Apostles - who were intimately familiar with the teachings of Jesus - didn't express disagreement with the teachings of Paul, and even accepted him as an Apostle, I don't see how you or I are in position to argue.Clydenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-78531597457888187872016-06-20T10:52:25.869-04:002016-06-20T10:52:25.869-04:00So which traditions are Sacred, and on what author...So which traditions are Sacred, and on what authority, and why not the others?<br /><br />Human authority cannot decree something to be a sin. Only Christ can do that. If there is Gospel substantiation for, say, the Church's ban on contraception, please find it for me, as I cannot. Also, connect it to one of the two Great Commandments, from which hang "all the paw and the prophets."Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-8093076686063335112016-06-20T10:26:50.917-04:002016-06-20T10:26:50.917-04:00I believe that if you are a Catholic, all authorit...I believe that if you are a Catholic, all authority resides in Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition<br /><br />And it always was that way until some heretic started saying something about Sola Scriptura...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-38835573275873653912016-06-20T09:05:46.970-04:002016-06-20T09:05:46.970-04:00I am one of those who prefers your religious stuff...I am one of those who prefers your religious stuff above above your excellent other essays. Thanks.Ron Olsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254200694378708747noreply@blogger.com