Coming soon to a billboard near you

[Socrates]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1030678' date='Jul 25 2006, 05:03 PM']
It probably isn't past your bedtime. . .this thread is actually THAT boring!

And yes, good guess, I have "issues" with the authority of the church. . .insofar as I do not accept every teaching they dish out. I love the church, but I love Jesus even more. My faith is anchored in Christ's moral teachings, as written in the Gospels.
[/quote]
If you love Jesus, you will love and heed the teachings of His Church.
John 14:15: "[b]If you love me, keep my commandments[/b]."

Jesus Christ gave His teaching authority to Peter and his successors in the Papacy:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [b]And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/b]" (Matt. 16:18-19)

Christ's moral teachings are the same as are taught by His Church today. There is no contradiction between the moral teaching of Christ and that of His Church.
It is your own pride, not your love of Christ, that causes you to deny Catholic moral teaching. Catholic morality is not contradicted by Christ in the Gospels, but only by your own imagining of Christ. It is the Church's moral teaching that is truly anchored in Christ's moral teachings, as written in the Gospels.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Socrates

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1030489' date='Jul 25 2006, 08:35 AM']
Wow. That's the first time I've heard someone call Jesus "rude". I would rather think of it as tough love. He knew the gravity of the situation and loved His people so much to call them on the carpet. He knew these were issues of eternal damnation or salvation.

In the beginning, this started with the idea that Jesus didn't discriminate:
"He (Jesus the Christ) will separate chaff from grain, and burn up the chaff with eternal fire and store away the grain." Luke 3:17

What's he got against chaff?! And is that grain the more nutritious "whole grain"?
[/quote]

I think a simple mistake can be overlooked, so assuming that that's what it is...

I meant that the last sentence in that quote from my post be a question. I didn't mean to put a period there, I meant for it to be a question mark because it was a question. Even with the period there, it still reads: Did he convert Mary Magdelene, Zaccheus, Matthew, or anyone else by being rude to them

Even though it has a period at the end, it still reads like a question. I'm assuming you didn't do that to twist my meaning and put words in my mouth. I didn't call Jesus rude. I'm not a liberal, I'm not heterodox, I'm just taking a different, and from what anyone in their right mind could see, wiser approach to a problem.

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1030678' date='Jul 25 2006, 05:03 PM']
It probably isn't past your bedtime. . .this thread is actually THAT boring!

And yes, good guess, I have "issues" with the authority of the church. . .insofar as I do not accept every teaching they dish out. I love the church, but I love Jesus even more. My faith is anchored in Christ's moral teachings, as written in the Gospels.
[/quote]

You're saying that you follow Christ's teachings, but it looks more like your prooftexting Christ's teachings and limiting them to what he said in scripture, almost like [i]sola scriptura[/i], only in this case, it's [i]solo evangelio[/i]. There are places in the gospels that say when Christ came upon a crowd, he just taught them. Doesn't talk about what he said, he just taught them. For three years, all of the gospels together can't possibly tell all that he taught crowds. Sometimes he taught them for whole days. All that we believe about Christ is contained in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, yet merely a portion is in the gospels. Your argument just doesn't square, Like a Child. What about at the end of John when the evangelist writes about how Jesus walked with the disciples for 40 days, yet speaks NOTHING of what he discussed with them? John even says:

[quote name='John 21:25']There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.[/quote]

You can't merely follow what you see in the gospels and be a follower of Christ in the fullest sense. That's almost as incorrect as saying that you can know the fullness of the faith by reading the Bible alone.

[son_of_angels]

First, Christ lays down one moral principal "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The philosopher Immanuel Kant, although mistaken in many ways, stated that the practical side of this imperative could be interpreted "Behave only in such a way that a human being is treated as an ends and not a means."
For the religious aspect of this, Our Lord proved that man was so, that God loved mankind infinitely, and that, in fact, the existence of man was an end for the will of God, and that we should treat others likewise.

However, moral issues like this, especially considering the rationality of many liberals, seem to get fuzzy where sexual matters are considered. It seems like everything else is subject to cold reason, for example, an understanding of creation and miracles, but this one thing is not.
The moral answer is, however, definitely in the negative. After all, if a human being is supposed to be treated as an ends and not simply a means, then any sexual act which in fact treats the other person as a means of sexual pleasure, objectively speaking, is morally wrong, it matters not your religious stance. Likewise this is clearly an abuse of the body, as almost any biologist will tell you.

Now for the religious aspect of it. When Paul uses the term "prostitutes" he is likely referring to a catamite, in Latin "cinaedus." This was, in addition to referring to the actual profession, a bit like calling a woman a whore. Whether she is or not she demonstrates a quality like it, having lots of lovers. Likewise, in ancient Rome and Greece, men who allowed themselves to be abused were often called catamites. This is simply paul using a slightly crude term, probably the only one he knew, for a sin he knew very well.