Paladin D Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 (edited) [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 06:41 PM'] I see. So the Pope could suddenly sit down in Peter's chair one day and say "My loyal subjects can only have sex wearing purple thongs at 7:34 PM on a wednesday of the 8th month, except when the moon is full" and that would be a part of 'sacred tradition'? [/quote] Well if that were to happen, that would be a discipline or a [b]t[/b]radition. It won't be part of [b]T[/b]radition (or Sacred Tradition). Edited October 20, 2004 by Paladin D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 hold up ICTHUS, that's not what I said at all. how is it CONTRARY to God's word? God's word says that children are a blessing from God. He commands us to be fruitful and multiply. The only guy to use contraception in the entire Bible is also killed for disobedience (i don't even want to argue about whether or not he was actually killed for contraception, it's still not that great of an example from scripture) so yeah, show me in the Bible God ALLOWING for contraception. You're assuming it was taken away by the Church, but how can we take away what was never allowed for in the first place?! SOLA SCRIPTURA- The Bible does not say that you can use contraception, thus stick with not using it like Christians did for 1930 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Paladin, don't even entertain such wild ludacris statements. That has nothing to do with what I said, everyone with ties to the Apostles has opposed contraception for 1900 some years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 [quote]how is it CONTRARY to God's word? God's word says that children are a blessing from God. He commands us to be fruitful and multiply. The only guy to use contraception in the entire Bible is also killed for disobedience (i don't even want to argue about whether or not he was actually killed for contraception, it's still not that great of an example from scripture)[/quote] It's not contrary - if a couple want to refrain from contraception and have like ten kids, then more power to them, as long as they can support them adequately. What I'm arguing is that Scripture does not [i]require[/i] us to abstain from contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Scripture does not permit us to use contraception. The only person to use it in the entire Bible was killed. Regardless of which command he was actually disobeying, it's still the ONLY example of using contraception in the Bible, the only Scriptural example on which to base ideas about contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 (edited) [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 05:19 PM'] Where is non-aborifacient contraception forbidden in Holy Scripture? I defy you to show me! Sola Scriptura! [/quote] Where in the bible does it support the Sola Scriptura theory ? Give me the passage please . And how do you explain Eucharistic miracles ? God Bless, Ricky. Edited October 21, 2004 by reelguy227 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DojoGrant Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 05:41 PM'] I see. So the Pope could suddenly sit down in Peter's chair one day and say "My loyal subjects can only have sex wearing purple thongs at 7:34 PM on a wednesday of the 8th month, except when the moon is full" and that would be a part of 'sacred tradition'? I don't see how the Pope, councils, etc, can just pull stuff out of their hats which flatly contradicts, or at best, is not present in, God's inspired Word, and call it 'holy tradition' [/quote] What a red herring! Demonstrate ONE SINGLE Catholic moral position that is not traced back to ancient times. Show one moral position that came about "on a whim" by the Pope, which has no logic or moral foundation. Do it. You just gave a glaring "example" of what you believe the "Church of Rome" to be like, so back up your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DojoGrant Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 05:43 PM'] Jesus seemed to think that the Holy Scriptures were sufficent to judge all our doctrines by. (Cf. Mark 7) [/quote] I see Jesus quoting Isaiah and speaking of "God's Word," but nowhere do I see anything about the "sufficiency" of "th Scriptures" to "judge all doctrines" in Mark 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Yu tell em dojo ,yu tell em !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 [quote name='reelguy227' date='Oct 20 2004, 09:38 PM'] Where in the bible does it support the Sola Scriptura theory ? Give me the passage please . [/quote] Mark 7, 1 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency of the Scriptures written all over it, and Acts 17:11 all seem to indicate that the Scriptures are the judge whereby we are to determine the veracity of all doctrines presented to us. [quote] And how do you explain Eucharistic miracles ? [/quote] Well, without having been omniscient and seen everything that happened, I'd say Rome either made the stories up or replaced the bread and wine with bits of flesh and blood from any old person. This is not to say that I deny real presence - I deny [i]transubstantiation because of the logical issues inherent in it. [/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 (edited) [quote name='DojoGrant' date='Oct 21 2004, 04:03 PM'] I see Jesus quoting Isaiah and speaking of "God's Word," but nowhere do I see anything about the "sufficiency" of "th Scriptures" to "judge all doctrines" in Mark 7. [/quote] ARE YOU JOKING!???? He rebukes the Pharisees for replacing the Word of God with their own traditions, just as Rome does with her doctrines about Mary, etc. Reading between the lines, I can easily see how, in combination with Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 could indicate sufficency of the Scriptures. Edited October 22, 2004 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 [quote name='reelguy227' date='Oct 21 2004, 10:30 PM']Yu tell em dojo ,yu tell em !!!!![/quote] Oh please. Must you be so immature? This isn't a football game, you fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 02:36 PM'] ARE YOU JOKING!???? He rebukes the Pharisees for replacing the Word of God with their own traditions, just as Rome does with her doctrines about Mary, etc. Reading between the lines, I can easily see how, in combination with Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 could indicate sufficency of the Scriptures. [/quote] So your interpretations and reading between the lines gives you this? And thats how dogma is made? Whta about the constant interpation of the Church who chose the book you are extrapolating from? Its the CHURCH that guarantees the book!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now