23 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompSince when are Christians limited to the red letters in the Bible? If you want to argue that Christians should weight the quoted words of Christ heavier than others, start a new thread. Otherwise, this is just a red herring. Most Christian use the whole of the Bible as the means for understanding what is commanded by God, not just the the red text.
Just more extra-Christian doctrine.
Is there any support for this stance in Christ's words? If you answer , try and have a quote from Christ that's on point.
23 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnswer the question I asked and I'll deal with this latest irrational sophistry; is the statement of the Archbishop of Denver authoritative Church doctrine or not? I'm not going to waste my time proving from that document (in conjunction with the other documents) my points and then have you state that it is not an "authoritative" source like you did before with the approved article I cited. So answer "Yes" or "No" rather than trying to dig up some obscure Church doctrine to discredit it after I've went to all the trouble of arguing from it.
Two simple responses:
1. I said primary intent, not sole intent. No contradiction.
2. The unitive purpose cannot be separated from the procreative purpose by humans. Of course, God can, as He does in the case ...[text shortened]... ally linked together means they are not two persons.
Try again.
Your responses were simple I'll say that but that's not a compliment.
23 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, I thought you'd made your case. LOL
Answer the question I asked and I'll deal with this latest irrational sophistry; is the statement of the Archbishop of Denver authoritative Church doctrine or not? I'm not going to waste my time proving from that document (in conjunction with the other documents) my points and then have you state that it is not an "authoritative" source like ...[text shortened]... rguing from it.
Your responses were simple I'll say that but that's not a compliment.
Yes, the Archbishop's views are consonant with Church teaching as they pertain to the norm; i.e. married, fertile, different-sex couples.
23 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiTHE word of the Kingdom doesnt come from Paul
Since when are Christians limited to the red letters in the Bible? If you want to argue that Christians should weight the quoted words of Christ heavier than others, start a new thread. Otherwise, this is just a red herring. Most Christia ...[text shortened]... understanding what is commanded by God, not just the the red text.
it must please Christ much to see his words called a "red herring".
If you want to be a Christian ,,,read Christ's words! If you want to be a Pauline than read Paul.
You clearly are not a christian , plain and simple: you follow Paul not Christ
23 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou left plenty of room to "fudge" but I'll accept that for now. I don't have time right now to go through the whole argument so I'll post later tonight.
Oh, I thought you'd made your case. LOL
Yes, the Archbishop's views are consonant with Church teaching as they pertain to the norm; i.e. married, fertile, different-sex couples.
I'll still curious how sex with the "primary intent" being the unitive "purpose" is consistent with paragraph 12 if it is done with the knowledge that procreation cannot result. How is such sex not the sole "purpose" of sex in those circumstances? I still don't think your prior statement can be logically reconciled with the Archbishop's statement.
23 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompLike I said, start a new thread. Your argument is a red herring - repeating it does not remove the fishy smell. 😉
THE word of the Kingdom doesn't come from Paul
it must please Christ much to see his words called a "red herring".
If you want to be a Christian ,,,read Christ's words! If you want to be a Pauline than read Paul.
You clearly are not a christian , plain and simple: you follow Paul not Christ
Can you change your icon into a little red fish?
23 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiI will just repeat the same smelly ( to your obnoxious self) idea. Christs words are the word of the Kingdom anybody else speaks only for themselves.
Like I said, start a new thread. Your argument is a red herring - repeating it does not remove the fishy smell. 😉
Can you change your icon into a little red fish?
If you can't see the relevance to this topic being discussed I suggest you read a different thread.
24 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is the question Archbishop Chaput is trying to answer in para 12?
Answer the question I asked and I'll deal with this latest irrational sophistry; is the statement of the Archbishop of Denver authoritative Church doctrine or not? I'm not going to waste my time proving from that document (in conjunction with the other documents) my points and then have you state that it is not an "authoritative" source like ...[text shortened]... rguing from it.
Your responses were simple I'll say that but that's not a compliment.
"But why can't a married couple simply choose the unitive aspect of marriage and temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative nature?"
He is not addressing the question of intent - he is addressing the question of human action. A couple can engage in sex with the unitive aspect as the primary intent as long as they do not block the procreative aspect.
24 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAmazing; the word "choose" has nothing to do with "intent" in Lucifershammer's world.
What is the question Archbishop Chaput is trying to answer in para 12?
"But why can't a married couple simply choose the unitive aspect of marriage and [b]temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative nature?"
He is not addressing the question of intent - he is addressing the question of human action. A couple can e ...[text shortened]... th the unitive aspect as the primary intent as long as they do not block the procreative aspect.[/b]
25 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not saying they have nothing to do with each other. But intent, choice and action are not synonymous, either. A person can have intent but not translate it into action. A person can have no choice and still perform an action etc.
Amazing; the word "choose" has nothing to do with "intent" in Lucifershammer's world.
25 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere is always a choice, even if it gets down to act or not act. with the single exception of reflex which doesnt involve the conscience mind so should be excluded from any discussion of morality.
I'm not saying they have nothing to do with each other. But intent, choice and action are not synonymous, either. A person can have intent but not translate it into action. A person can have no choice and still perform an action etc.
Once a choice is made the intent is present whether the act takes place or not.
25 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompHuh?
There is always a choice, even if it gets down to act or not act. with the single exception of reflex which doesnt involve the conscience mind so should be excluded from any discussion of morality.
Once a choice is made the intent is present whether the act takes place or not.
Anyway, Bishop Chaput was focussing on the action rather than the intent in his letter - that's all I wanted to say.