Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Rosmana]

No I am not, you are putting words and intent in my mouth, please cease.

Apologies. From my understanding you've said that sex outside of marriage should be permitted. Currently the teachings of the Church say it isn't. Isn't that a reversal? Or am I mistaken?

Well yes, sex outside of marriage should be permitted, but only when it is in a healthy, loving relationship, and moral guidance from one's conscience, preferably through prayer, to keep the explenation short, and it's not reversal, it is an alteration, in the same way the tradition on capital punishment was altered.

In my opinion that is.

Also, you can telegram me as well, so we will not clog up the thread.

[Sundiata]

I am not overreacting. Satan is that deceptive.

You're not being forced to practice Christianity or be celibate. Celibacy is a choice. Marriage is a choice.

Marriage, the marital sacrament, is a place for sex as a secondary feature. Married couples can have sex. The first feature of marriage is the communion with God. Intimacy and becoming a parent are secondary features of marriage, but God is first priority. Does that make sense?

Satan, really?

But without Marriage I will never have sex?, right? -_- Sorry but that is unfair.

Sorry, no.

Satan is what is wrong with the world in which we live, not a human being.

In his infinite sickness, he infected the world with his stain. This conversation isn't just about sex outside of marriage, at it's core its a reflection on the infinite depravity of sin and the Devil which promulgates it.

I get angry because we're experiencing stupid obstacles that we didn't necessarily have to experience just to return God's love. Why? Because of this stupid monster.

The stupid beast won't stop until he's dragged most of humanity away from God. He constantly infects our hearts with depravity. He is a scourge that needs to be scrubbed, a filth, a disgusting rat. He can't be reasoned with. Satan is the most vile of scum, a nasty beast who had everything a being could ask for, only to want more. The bastard is beyond repentance and rightfully so.

I hate Satan; God himself hates wickedness. And frankly, I can't wait for us to smite Satan once and for all.

[Rosmana]

Satan, really?

But without Marriage I will never have sex?, right? -_- Sorry but that is unfair.

Sorry, no.

Satan is what is wrong with the world in which we live, not a human being.

In his infinite sickness, he infected the world with his stain. This conversation isn't just about sex outside of marriage, at it's core its a reflection on the infinite depravity of sin and the Devil which promulgates it.

I get angry because we're experiencing stupid obstacles that we didn't necessarily have to experience just to return God's love. Why? Because of this stupid monster. The stupid beast won't stop until he's dragged most of humanity away from God. He constantly infects our hearts with depravity. He is a scourge that needs to be scrubbed, a filth, a disgusting rat. He can't be reasoned with. Satan is the most vile of scum, a nasty beast who had everything a being could ask for, only to want more. The bastard is beyond repentance and rightfully so.

I hate Satan; God himself hates wickedness. And frankly, I can't wait for us to smite Satan once and for all.

Sorry but that is not a very good explanation, its more of a emotional reaction.

As if sex outside of marriage is somehow demonic...

[Sundiata]

Satan is what is wrong with the world in which we live, not a human being.

In his infinite sickness, he infected the world with his stain. This conversation isn't just about sex outside of marriage, at it's core its a reflection on the infinite depravity of sin and the Devil which promulgates it.

I get angry because we're experiencing stupid obstacles that we didn't necessarily have to experience just to return God's love. Why? Because of this stupid monster. The stupid beast won't stop until he's dragged most of humanity away from God. He constantly infects our hearts with depravity. He is a scourge that needs to be scrubbed, a filth, a disgusting rat. He can't be reasoned with. Satan is the most vile of scum, a nasty beast who had everything a being could ask for, only to want more. The bastard is beyond repentance and rightfully so.

I hate Satan; God himself hates wickedness. And frankly, I can't wait for us to smite Satan once and for all.

Sorry but that is not a very good explanation, its more of a emotional reaction.

As if sex outside of marriage is somehow demonic...

Well, Satan is ultimately the cause of our sinful impulses. No person would be tempted to have sex before marriage, hate anyone, blaspheme, or waste human life if it weren't for Satan.

When I tell you that Satan is worthy of anger, I sincerely mean it. He deserves suffering.

I have sympathy for my fellow human beings; I have no sympathy for the Devil.

[Rosmana]

Sorry but that is not a very good explanation, its more of a emotional reaction.

As if sex outside of marriage is somehow demonic...

Well, Satan is ultimately the cause of our sinful impulses. No person would be tempted to have sex before marriage, hate anyone, blaspheme, or waste human life if it weren't for Satan.

When I tell you that Satan is worthy of anger, I sincerely mean it.

Well, what if sex before marriage was not sinful per se?, would you accept that?

It seems some just have an issue with sexuality, hence the emotional reactions.

[Tarsonis]

Apologies. From my understanding you've said that sex outside of marriage should be permitted. Currently the teachings of the Church say it isn't. Isn't that a reversal? Or am I mistaken?

Well yes, sex outside of marriage should be permitted, but only when it is in a healthy, loving relationship, and moral guidance from one's conscience, preferably through prayer, to keep the explenation short, and it's not reversal, it is an alteration, in the same way the tradition on capital punishment was altered.

In my opinion that is.

Also, you can telegram me as well, so we will not clog up the thread.

Oh we're not clogging up the thread, this is what it's here for.

However I would disagree with your assessment that it's an alteration, not a reversal. Capital punishment was altered, yes, but it's not an analogous situation. Capital punishment was never seen as virtuous in the same manner as the Sacrament of Marriage is, and thus it was something that was permitted, out of convoluted sense of necessity. The alteration was made because the Pope Francis, building on the tradition of many theologians and saints, declared such necessity moot, thus the Church can no longer tolerate Capital Punishment.


Changing the rules on sexuality, would be very different, as you're arguing for the permission of something that is not only prohibited, but contradicts sacramental theology which is a matter of dogma. While I don't deny that healthy loving relationships do exist outside the sacrament of marriage, that doesn't undermine the Church's position. In the views of the Church, marriage was instituted by God and it is considered infallible doctrine, preached by St. Paul, that sex is to be confined within the bounds of Marriage, ordinated towards procreation.

Absent revelation from God himself that this teaching has been loosened, the Church can't change this teaching, even if it desired to.

Personally, as much as I would like to agree with you, as admittedly I've never been one whose been good about following said rule, a rule it will remain.

[Rosmana]

Well yes, sex outside of marriage should be permitted, but only when it is in a healthy, loving relationship, and moral guidance from one's conscience, preferably through prayer, to keep the explenation short, and it's not reversal, it is an alteration, in the same way the tradition on capital punishment was altered.

In my opinion that is.

Also, you can telegram me as well, so we will not clog up the thread.

Oh we're not clogging up the thread, this is what it's here for.

However I would disagree with your assessment that it's an alteration, not a reversal. Capital punishment was altered, yes, but it's not an analogous situation. Capital punishment was never seen as virtuous in the same manner as the Sacrament of Marriage is, and thus it was something that was permitted, out of convoluted sense of necessity. The alteration was made because the Pope Francis, building on the tradition of many theologians and saints, declared such necessity moot, thus the Church can no longer tolerate Capital Punishment.


Changing the rules on sexuality, would be very different, as you're arguing for the permission of something that is not only prohibited, but contradicts sacramental theology which is a matter of dogma. While I don't deny that healthy loving relationships do exist outside the sacrament of marriage, that doesn't undermine the Church's position. In the views of the Church, marriage was instituted by God and it is considered infallible doctrine, preached by St. Paul, that sex is to be confined within the bounds of Marriage, ordinated towards procreation.

Absent revelation from God himself that this teaching has been loosened, the Church can't change this teaching, even if it desired to.

Personally, as much as I would like to agree with you, as admittedly I've never been one whose been good about following said rule, a rule it will remain.

I think you just want it to remain so......

[Tarsonis]

Oh we're not clogging up the thread, this is what it's here for.

However I would disagree with your assessment that it's an alteration, not a reversal. Capital punishment was altered, yes, but it's not an analogous situation. Capital punishment was never seen as virtuous in the same manner as the Sacrament of Marriage is, and thus it was something that was permitted, out of convoluted sense of necessity. The alteration was made because the Pope Francis, building on the tradition of many theologians and saints, declared such necessity moot, thus the Church can no longer tolerate Capital Punishment.


Changing the rules on sexuality, would be very different, as you're arguing for the permission of something that is not only prohibited, but contradicts sacramental theology which is a matter of dogma. While I don't deny that healthy loving relationships do exist outside the sacrament of marriage, that doesn't undermine the Church's position. In the views of the Church, marriage was instituted by God and it is considered infallible doctrine, preached by St. Paul, that sex is to be confined within the bounds of Marriage, ordinated towards procreation.

Absent revelation from God himself that this teaching has been loosened, the Church can't change this teaching, even if it desired to.

Personally, as much as I would like to agree with you, as admittedly I've never been one whose been good about following said rule, a rule it will remain.

I think you just want it to remain so......

My desires don't really factor in to it, nor yours for that matter. The situation is what it is.

[Sundiata]

Well, Satan is ultimately the cause of our sinful impulses. No person would be tempted to have sex before marriage, hate anyone, blaspheme, or waste human life if it weren't for Satan.

When I tell you that Satan is worthy of anger, I sincerely mean it.

Well, what if sex before marriage was not sinful per se?, would you accept that?

It seems some just have an issue with sexuality, hence the emotional reactions.

The problem is not sexuality. Before we even get into a conversation about the sinfulness of sex before marriage, it's important to understand what sin is and who it comes from.

My hatred of Satan isn't emotional or arbitrary. I assure you, the bastard deserves every bit of vitriol.

[Rosmana]

I think you just want it to remain so......

My desires don't really factor in to it, nor yours for that matter. The situation is what it is.

There are no infallible doctrines, only infallible dogma,s though.

But fine, be that way.

[Tarsonis]

Per the CCC:


2353 "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young"

Pretty straight forward.

[Rosmana]

Well, what if sex before marriage was not sinful per se?, would you accept that?

It seems some just have an issue with sexuality, hence the emotional reactions.

The problem is not sexuality. Before we even get into a conversation about the sinfulness of sex before marriage, it's important to understand what sin is and who it comes from.

My hatred of Satan isn't emotional or arbitrary. I assure you, the bastard deserves every bit of vitriol.

This is pointless, have a good day....

You scare me.

[Rosmana]

Per the CCC:


2353 "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young"

Pretty straight forward.

That is a tradition, not a Dogma.....

Not that you will ever believe that.....

[Sundiata]

The problem is not sexuality. Before we even get into a conversation about the sinfulness of sex before marriage, it's important to understand what sin is and who it comes from.

My hatred of Satan isn't emotional or arbitrary. I assure you, the bastard deserves every bit of vitriol.

This is pointless, have a good day....

You scare me.

...

[Tarsonis]

My desires don't really factor in to it, nor yours for that matter. The situation is what it is.

There are no infallible doctrines, only infallible dogma,s though.

That's a matter of semantics.

Dogmas are defined as infallible for being directly revealed by God or the Holy Spirit. They are inarguable, and must be accepted by all believers. All Dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are Dogmas.

Doctrines are teachings of the Church, that while not bearing the revelatory threshold of Dogmas, are considered authoritative and irreversible. There is some more wiggle room than with Dogmas, but not much.

Last but not least are opinions of the Church, which while have some authority, they are free to be ignored. (Like Limbo, was the opinion of the Church for a long time, but never codified as Doctrine and has since fallen out of favor with much of the Church.)

But fine, be that way.

I'm not being any way. I'm not the one who codified the teachings, nor am I the one who has any say in changing it. I'm simply telling you what the position of the Church is and why it can't be changed.

[Tarsonis]

Per the CCC:


2353 "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young"

Pretty straight forward.

That is a tradition, not a Dogma.....

Not that you will ever believe that.....

Your hostility isn't necessary. And I'm not sure you have an appropriate understanding of how the Church understands the relation ship between Dogma, Doctrine, and Sacred Tradition.

[Rosmana]

There are no infallible doctrines, only infallible dogma,s though.

That's a matter of semantics.

Dogmas are defined as infallible for being directly revealed by God or the Holy Spirit. They are inarguable, and must be accepted by all believers. All Dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are Dogmas.

Doctrines are teachings of the Church, that while not bearing the revelatory threshold of Dogmas, are considered authoritative and irreversible. There is some more wiggle room than with Dogmas, but not much.

Last but not least are opinions of the Church, which while have some authority, they are free to be ignored. (Like Limbo, was the opinion of the Church for a long time, but never codified as Doctrine and has since fallen out of favor with much of the Church.)

But fine, be that way.

I'm not being any way. I'm not the one who codified the teachings, nor am I the one who has any say in changing it. I'm simply telling you what the position of the Church is and why it can't be changed.

It can, I looked it up, but fine, I am done.

[Tarsonis]

That's a matter of semantics.

Dogmas are defined as infallible for being directly revealed by God or the Holy Spirit. They are inarguable, and must be accepted by all believers. All Dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are Dogmas.

Doctrines are teachings of the Church, that while not bearing the revelatory threshold of Dogmas, are considered authoritative and irreversible. There is some more wiggle room than with Dogmas, but not much.

Last but not least are opinions of the Church, which while have some authority, they are free to be ignored. (Like Limbo, was the opinion of the Church for a long time, but never codified as Doctrine and has since fallen out of favor with much of the Church.)



I'm not being any way. I'm not the one who codified the teachings, nor am I the one who has any say in changing it. I'm simply telling you what the position of the Church is and why it can't be changed.

It can, I looked it up, but fine, I am done.

Looked it up where?

[Rosmana]

It can, I looked it up, but fine, I am done.

Looked it up where?

On the Vatican's website and in my books, only DOGMAS can never be changed, it is WHY they are infallible, that is the whole point.

Traditions, like the one on sexuality, can, like the one about capital punishment.

[Sundiata]

I'm not scary. Am I scary?

[Rosmana]

I'm not scary. Am I scary?

No you just scared me, not the same thing.

[Sundiata]

I'm not scary. Am I scary?

No you just scared me, not the same thing.

I'm sorry.

[Rosmana]

No you just scared me, not the same thing.

I'm sorry.

Ok.

[Tarsonis]

Looked it up where?

On the Vatican's website and in my books, only DOGMAS can never be changed, it is WHY they are infallible, that is the whole point.

Okay, will you also consider my Master's degree in Theology? You're not wrong that Dogma's can never be changed, but there's more nuance to that. Dogmas cannot change because they are infallible, not the other way around. Christ rising again on the 3rd day, that is an example of dogma, directly revealed from scrpipture. Doctrines can be considered infallible, without ascending the level of Dogma, depending on the subject matter.

2353 "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young"


Note the word grave there. That is Catholic speak for a matter of serious moral import. The teachings on Sexuality, are not the same as say, eating fish on Fridays during lent, or do animals go to heaven. Sexuality is a serious moral issue, where the doctrines of the Church draw moral lines. Fornication, is something that the Church hasn't merely prohibited, but declared to be morally wrong. A person who commits these acts, commits a mortal sin, and must go to confession and seek reconciliation. A doctrine such as this cannot change, because to change it would be to change the moral ordination of the Church. This is why only God can change it, because only God can overrule God.

Now, doctrines can develop, in the same vein as the Capital Punishment doctrine did. But it can not develop in such a manner that the core moral theologies they are founded upon become changed. In terms of Capital Punishment, we are prohibited from committing murder, i.e, Killing without just cause or authority. Capital Punishment, was always permitted as having both those conditions. However, with the issue of false convictions, and the ability for the state to use CP erroneously, the Church as decreed these conditions cannot be satisfied, and thus CP cannot be considered permisable any more. The core moral teachings did not change, only our knowledge of our inadequate ability to satisfy them has.

Traditions, like the one on sexuality, can.

That's the problem, the teachings on sexuality aren't merely tradition.

[Rosmana]

On the Vatican's website and in my books, only DOGMAS can never be changed, it is WHY they are infallible, that is the whole point.

Okay, will you also consider my Master's degree in Theology? You're not wrong that Dogma's can never be changed, but there's more nuance to that. Dogmas cannot change because they are infallible, not the other way around. Christ rising again on the 3rd day, that is an example of dogma, directly revealed from scrpipture. Doctrines can be considered infallible, without ascending the level of Dogma, depending on the subject matter.

2353 "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young"


Note the word grave there. That is Catholic speak for a matter of serious moral import. The teachings on Sexuality, are not the same as say, eating fish on Fridays during lent, or do animals go to heaven. Sexuality is a serious moral issue, where the doctrines of the Church draw moral lines. Fornication, is something that the Church hasn't merely prohibited, but declared to be morally wrong. A person who commits these acts, commits a mortal sin, and must go to confession and seek reconciliation. A doctrine such as this cannot change, because to change it would be to change the moral ordination of the Church.

Now, doctrines can develop, in the same vein as the Capital Punishment doctrine did. But it can not develop in such a manner that the core moral theologies they are founded upon become changed. In terms of Capital Punishment, we are prohibited from committing murder, i.e, Killing without just cause or authority. Capital Punishment, was always permitted as having both those conditions. However, with the issue of false convictions, and the ability for the state to use CP erroneously, the Church as decreed these conditions cannot be satisfied, and thus CP cannot be considered permisable any more. The core moral teachings did not change, only our knowledge of our inadequate ability to satisfy them has.

Traditions, like the one on sexuality, can.

That's the problem, the teachings on sexuality aren't merely tradition.

Fine develop than, if that makes more sense, I think my idea follows that line.