Question for the Religious Types

[MR. Nate]

Why is it so hard to assume that the Tree of Knowledge was the test of free will: To see if Man could use this tool and thus live on his own without God's needing to intervene all of the time.

It's not hard to assume, but it is an assumption not supported by the fact that God is all knowing, as AlgyTaylor has pointed out, God doesn't need experiments.

Sure, it is percieved as some kind of crime against God, and for some reason this crime against God became a sin that spelled mankind's downward spiral. I hate to break it to you but stealing an apple and munching it does not lead to adultery, theft, and murder which are also sins punished the same way.

I am not sure the apple itself had any magical properties. I think the act of direct disobedience to God's command was probably more damning. Notice that Satan didn't pick the apple and carry it across the Garden to Eve, he pushed her into plucking it.

Isn't mankind supposed to be able to defy the word of God? That's what free will is. Why would God give mankind free will and then tell them not to use it or they'll burn in hellfire for all eternity? Sounds kind of petty and fallible, not like God at all.

So choosing God is somehow NOT exercising free will? I've got news for you. It's WAY harder to obey God than to disobey Him, and it required constant decisions to continue along that path. Scripture indicates that those who do not submit to God, are in fact NOT free. They cannot stop sinning. They are slaves to their disobedience. When Christ comes into a life He frees people from their sin, and enables them to choose to follow God.

[Stopper]

"Logic Dictates..." never dies, it just reappears as a new thread. Proof, if it were needed, of reincarnation!

Oh, there it is. I knew I'd mentioned "Logic Dictates..." recently somewhere, and probably reminded Caleb. Sorry everyone, it's my fault.

[daddy1gringo]

I'm not a religious type but they are all going to say 'no'.

well, duh. What would you expect people who believe in an omnipotent God to say?

Besides, you got a 50/50 chance ya cheater.

[vtmarik]

So choosing God is somehow NOT exercising free will?

Please point to where I said that. I was pointing out that free will allows us to defy God. Perhaps I should have also said that it allows us to choose to obey God as well, but since all other creatures are designed to obey God, I don't see it as an act of free will to do what everyone else is doing.

I've got news for you. It's WAY harder to obey God than to disobey Him, and it required constant decisions to continue along that path.

Well, I can't speak to that from experience, as by using my free will to not follow the Biblical path I have disconnected myself from that experience.

I'm certain that it is harder to connect yourself to an incorrect/skewed version of God than the pure nature of what the Being is purported to be.

Scripture indicates that those who do not submit to God, are in fact NOT free. They cannot stop sinning. They are slaves to their disobedience. When Christ comes into a life He frees people from their sin, and enables them to choose to follow God.

So by not living by a system of arbitrary rules and codes written down in a book of dubious pedigree, and by exercising my free will to do so, I'm not free? I can't help it if I was born into this world with an unwillingness to submit to anything without an overriding reason.

I've prayed to God and even attended Mass on a regular basis for a while but it left me spiritually unfulfilled. I asked for guidance and this is the path that I was shown. I believe that one need not submit to God since one can choose to simply understand God and walk beside him rather than in his shadow.

There's an inherent self-loathing that comes from a path that tells you that you're evil caused by forces beyond your control, and I don't subscribe to it.

But if it works for you, have a heyday. Love your view of God as much as you like, but if the fact that other people aren't following the exact same view bothers you maybe you should delve into the why of those feelings rather than retreating into scripture, dogma, and strange rationalizations of the free will/submitting to god paradox.

[luns101]

The WHO is part of the UN, so not really in the business of making money from distributing condoms. They may not be impartial in all matters, but unlike the Church they have no vested interest in this matter one way or the other, so in this case certainly have their integrity less compromised.

As you are cynical of the Catholic Church (and I as well but for different reasons), I am skeptical of the UN and its subsidiaries. The UNFPA, which procures condoms, is well-known for it's support of the heinous one-child per family policy in various countries. They are the ones screaming the most because the U.S. cut it's funding to them for these condom distribution programs. Of course there's $$ to be made by distributing condoms to 3rd world countries.

The UNFP itself has admitted that the "safe-sex" message (correct condom usage) has not been successful. I am extremely suspect of any organization which admits to a failed policy yet continues to preach its agenda of "give us more $$ for condom distribution". The Catholic Church, which has official status in the UN, has even been barred from attending AIDS conferences. That hardly sounds like an objective organization to me. Rather, it sounds like a body who wishes to disregard
any information which doesn't support its programs/ideology.

The Catholic Church cares for about 1/4 of the world's AIDS patients. Why wouldn't they at least be allowed to come forward and give some useful information to the UN participants in the conference? Once again, I'm cynical if these conferences are really unbiased or just cheerleading rallies for "more grants for condom distribution".

It was AD 195 when Clement said - "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" - things have moved on a bit now. As a loving father would you not have modified your position on this based on the suffering maintaining it is causing?

I'm not Catholic and don't buy into everything they've put out there. I don't know if I'm the best person to talk to about Clement or papal decrees. My own understanding of the Biblical position is to not have sex until you are committed in marriage to your spouse...and to not commit adultery against your spouse. CrazyAnglican or OnlyAmbrose might want to defend Clement, but I won't.

After your Jack Bauer comment, I was really thinking (in the back of my mind) that you would make some reference to AIDS and 28 Days Later. I'm very disappointed, man!

[daddy1gringo]

After your Jack Bauer comment, I was really thinking (in the back of my mind) that you would make some reference to AIDS and 28 Days Later.

Who the bee-jeepers is Jack Bauer?

[d.gishman]

After your Jack Bauer comment, I was really thinking (in the back of my mind) that you would make some reference to AIDS and 28 Days Later.

Who the bee-jeepers is Jack Bauer?

main character, tv show, 24

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just fyi, I'm going to need to bow out of this thread and pretty much the forums for awhile for reasons stated in the "Will" thread of the JF forum (family stuff, to be vague). Give me a week or so and I'll be back.

[Skittles!]

Ambrose.. Photoshopping skills much?

Nice picture, anyway.

[Bertros Bertros]

The UNFPA, which procures condoms, is well-known for it's support of the heinous one-child per family policy in various countries.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk being villified. Is this policy really so heinous, and if so why? We are already pushing the boundaries of the human population the Earth can suppport. Chris Rapley who recently became the new head of the British Science Musuem has some interesting thoughts on this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4584572.stm.

I'm not Catholic and don't buy into everything they've put out there. I don't know if I'm the best person to talk to about Clement or papal decrees. My own understanding of the Biblical position is to not have sex until you are committed in marriage to your spouse...and to not commit adultery against your spouse. CrazyAnglican or OnlyAmbrose might want to defend Clement, but I won't.

I wasn't really getting into Clement, it was purely an example of how the decrees which drive the Catholic position on contraception were nearly two millenia old and perhaps needed reevaluating for the 21st century. I certainly wasn't condemning Clement for what he said so there is no need for anyone to defend him.

After your Jack Bauer comment, I was really thinking (in the back of my mind) that you would make some reference to AIDS and 28 Days Later. I'm very disappointed, man!

I'm devastated I missed such an obvious opportunity for another flippant comment, dammit

[luns101]

Chris Rapley who recently became the new head of the British Science Musuem has some interesting thoughts on this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4584572.stm.

I couldn't open up the link which you provided, so I took the liberty of typing in my search engine and found this article and hope it accurately covers your points...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4585920.stm

I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk being villified. Is this policy really so heinous, and if so why? We are already pushing the boundaries of the human population the Earth can suppport.

First of all, world overpopulation is a myth. Many of the theories on overpopulation are based on the limited observations of the American colonies by Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. 97% of the world's land surface is empty. You could fit every single human in the world inside the state of Arkansas.

The World Bank, UNFPA, and Swedish International Development Agency are using this faulty theory to keep underdeveloped 3rd world countries from growing. The theory is that growing 3rd world countries would not be able to have sustainable economic & social development which would jeoparize them from becoming growing markets for developed countries' exports. (Keep them underdeveloped so they'll be dependent on our goods & services!)

[CrazyAnglican]

This is a bit like saying we told you that driving was dangerous so don't do it, but as your doing it anyway don't bother wearing a seatbelt.

Hmmm. Not exactly, more like saying, if you want to be safest on the road abide by the rules of the road. You know speed limit, lanes changes, and even preventive maintenance of your vehicle. If you drive unsafely there is a greater risk you'll get hurt.

1) The only (100%) effective way to avoid the spread of AIDS, through
sex, is abstinence (Approved by every Christian Church for the last
two thousand years).

2) The second most reliable way to avoid the spread of AIDS is to be in
a faithful monogymous relationship. (Also approved by most
Christian Churches).

3) Yes, proper use of a condom is another way to avoid the spread of
the disease, but if you are abiding by the first two there is a
decreased need for them. (Yes, one Christian Church disapproves,
but that church still supports the first two methods of
avoiding the disease. So you can hardly pin the deaths of 20 million
people on them.)

Once again, this is evidence that many of the rules that might seem capricious and unreasonable are in fact healthy ways to live. That fact alone would strenghten my faith in a God who is looking out for his people. At the very least there is a lot of wisdom and common sense carried along with those three thousand years of scripture and worship.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose.. Photoshopping skills much?

Nice picture, anyway.

Thank you. It was actually taken at a Norbertine Abbey across the street from my home. The only photoshopping involved was the text.

I wasn't really getting into Clement, it was purely an example of how the decrees which drive the Catholic position on contraception were nearly two millenia old and perhaps needed reevaluating for the 21st century. I certainly wasn't condemning Clement for what he said so there is no need for anyone to defend him.

The Catholic position on contraception is, and always has been, that it is a sinful perversion of the sexual act, and thus morally wrong. If it was a sinful perversion of the sexual act 2000 years ago, it's still one today. So far as I know, sex hasn't changed much.

(Yes, one Christian Church disapproves,
but that church still supports the first two methods of
avoiding the disease. So you can hardly pin the deaths of 20 million
people on them.)

Oddly enough, the original founders of the Protestant movement also disapproved. Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but just some trivia:

The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.

Furthermore, contraception is:

The murder of future persons.

If it was the murder of future persons then, it still is today.

For all you methodists out there:

taking 'preventative measures' is unnatural and will destroy the souls of those who practice it.

\

And the daddy of them all, Martin Luther:

[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime.

[CrazyAnglican]

(Yes, one Christian Church disapproves,
but that church still supports the first two methods of
avoiding the disease. So you can hardly pin the deaths of 20 million
people on them.)

Oddly enough, the original founders of the Protestant movement also disapproved. Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but just some trivia:

Okay a few Christian Churches took a dim view of it, but I think all but one have softened their stance Man, that's the last time I'm going to try defending YOUR church! jk

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well while we're on the topic, here's a lovely article in its regard:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

And more specifically for Anglican

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404fea2.asp

Of particular interest:

But Lambeth declarations, besides having no binding authority, can be superseded and contradicted. For instance, take Lambeth 1948, which condemned female ordination, and Lambeth 1908, where contraception was declared to be sinful and a threat to Christian morality. In 1930 that latter declaration was overturned, and contraception was allowed for serious reasons. The Anglican communion became the first major Protestant denomination to give way on this issue. In 1958, even the "serious reasons" proviso was scrapped, and sex became primarily recreational bonding with children as an option.

I just find it interesting that ALL Christians - including Protestants - fervently condemned contraception as a moral abomination until the 20th century. Why is it less of a moral abomination now?

[b.k. barunt]

Could it be that they're not as stoopid now? Why don't they burn witches anymore? Protestants and Catholics did that too didn't they?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Could it be that they're not as stoopid now? Why don't they burn witches anymore? Protestants and Catholics did that too didn't they?

How many witches have you run into lately?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Anyways, the parallel doesn't work. Witchcraft is still a sin. So is contraception. That doesn't change...

[vtmarik]

Anyways, the parallel doesn't work. Witchcraft is still a sin. So is contraception. That doesn't change...

So if you met a Wiccan, it would be your Christian duty to kill them. Right?
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" right?

It's also a sin to wear clothing of two fibers and to plant two different types of crops together in the same field. It's a sin to touch the skin of a dead pig.


How many of those sins are still in effect?

Times change, so must the catechism. We live in a world where premarital and extramarital sex is on the rise. Rather than sit in the corner and preach to them about fidelity and marriage and what is and is not a sin, maybe the teaching should evolve with the times and admit that man is fallible, and since man is fallible that man should be using contraception.

[MR. Nate]

I don't want to add any serious theological . . . . Oh, wait, I love doing that.

The change, from a protestant point of view, is based on a theological move about when life begins.

I can't find my notes on the subject, so this is entirely from memory, please forgive me if I misrepresent anything.

If I remember correctly, Catholicism, and most early protestants held that the soul was transmitted via insemination. Each sperm, therefore, contained a (potential?) soul. So, each sperm that didn't make it is like a stillborn child. To prevent that sperm from becoming a person intentionally would be sin. (It is held that THIS is why Christ was a virgin birth, because receiving a soul from a man necessarily meant it was corrupted with original sin.)

Some protestants now hold to a "creation of souls" where God imparts the soul miraculously & independent of the physical act, sometime after fertilization. As a result, preventing an egg from being fertilized is not sinful, because the sperm are potential persons, but do not have a soul.

[CrazyAnglican]

So if you met a Wiccan, it would be your Christian duty to kill them. Right? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" right?

I've met a few Wiccans, I've never felt compelled to kill any of them. Where did you find that scripture? I've never seen it before.

[daddy1gringo]

Does God need faith to survive? <Not a trick question, just wondering>

You never clarified: do you mean does he need to have faith, or does he need for others to have faith in him?

[daddy1gringo]

This is a bit like saying we told you that driving was dangerous so don't do it, but as your doing it anyway don't bother wearing a seatbelt.

to use the same analogy, the reason protestants at least oppose the"safe sex" programs is that they say: "Of course the safest way to drive is to follow the rules of the road, but since nobody actually does that and you're probably not going to either, wear your seatbelt while you're driving drunk on the wrong side of the road, or tailgaiting at 100 miles an hour with bald tires." Instituting a policy that includes condom distribution to students necessarily communicates this message, and as a result, teen pregnancies and STD's, including AIDS, frequently increase where they are instituted.

[OnlyAmbrose]

So if you met a Wiccan, it would be your Christian duty to kill them. Right? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" right?

I've met a few Wiccans, I've never felt compelled to kill any of them. Where did you find that scripture? I've never seen it before.

Exodus 22:18. Or 18:22. I think it's the former.

Anyways, in answer to your question vt, no, I am in no way compelled to kill Wiccans. C.S. Lewis always seems to have the answer, doesn't he?

"But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did."

[Bertros Bertros]

Instituting a policy that includes condom distribution to students necessarily communicates this message, and as a result, teen pregnancies and STD's, including AIDS, frequently increase where they are instituted.

Really? Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim or is it purely supposition?

I don't want to add any serious theological ...

I believe its Psalm 51 that says, "Surely I was sinful at the time of my birth, sinful from the moment my mother conceived me"? It would be intesrting to know what David would think of the interpretation.

Somewhat related to this the Catholic Church are set to pull their support for Amnesty International since the latter has chosen to support abortion as a human right for victims of rape - see http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... 59077.ece; I'm surprised it has taken this long for what has become an increasingly secular organisation to part ways with its roots. Another example of the increasing isolation of the Vatican as it stubborness prevents it from successfully moving with the times. In the long run if there isn't a backdown on these sort of issues I can see a time where the church finds it increasingly difficult to have any of the political influence it currently enjoys.