Church and Chastiy

Avery

curious You got me wrong.
What I meant was, that hardly ever switches between different Christian alignments occur, because most people superficially might know what Christianity stands for but lack the knowledge about the more minute differences between various Christian alignments (e. g. catholics vs protestants).

I apologize, I did get you wrong.

Your point is most likely very true here where I live in New England in the US. Most Catholics would die before becoming Protestants but few (including me) could talk sensibly about what are the differences. I just had to look up whether Protestants celebrate Good Friday (many do).

Sin

Conrad They had no desire to rule over anyone and many fled into the forests to continue in blessed dispassion and prayer for the world.

So like @Avery they discovered they didn't need to venerate the Church and the Altar, they were able to develop a personal relationship with God, free from the politics and histrionics of a self-serving instituition. I like those guys, they sound cool.

Conrad

Sin

Their (the Saints) complaint against the Church is that by becoming legalized it became secularized. The level of spiritual focus was dumbed down from people who genuinely wanted to live in freedom from their passions to also include Roman aristocracy and to cater more to families. The monastic tradition keeps the Spirit of the Saints very much alive.

All the commandments in the New Testament are oriented first and foremost towards freeing humans from passions. Creating a good society is not a primary focus of the Church. The main concern of the Church is to free us from the tyranny of the demons.

Avery

Conrad I would say that to the extent that a body of believers departs from the original dogmatic teachings of Christ, they have left Jesus.

And what were Jesus' teachings? Consider the story of Jesus rescuing the adulteress from those who would stone her. He told the men "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone". He told the woman "go thy way and sin no more". That's most of what one needs to live a good life and has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God or whether his mother was a virgin.

Let me say I have no desire to denigrate what others believe.

There's a lot in your post. You mention the original dogmatic teachings of Christ. No one knows for sure what they were. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not in fact "witnesses", which is not just a quibble about a word you used. Jesus was dead for 60-70 years before these men came along and there were no written records of what he said. Even St. Paul came maybe 30 years after Christ (though their lives do overlap) so what he wrote is suspect. It irritates me when during Mass after a reading from one of Paul's letters they say "the word of the Lord". No it's not, it's one of Paul's letters. No doubt many of the "Saints of the Church" were cool guys. I'm sure Cardinal O'Malley (our archbishop) is too. He is a great Red Sox supporter and Wikipedia credits him with being the first Cardinal to have a blog.

curious

Avery That's most of what one needs to live a good life and has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God or whether his mother was a virgin.

And to lead a good life, you don't need to believe in the existence of some supernatural being. Just follow the rule of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Conrad

Avery

The Christian faith was founded when there were lots of historical records being kept. There is a pretty clear idea of what His dogmatic teachings were although it gets skewed by translation. The Jewish historians admit they killed Him for claiming to be God Incarnate, which deserves the death sentence in rabbinic Judaism . John, James, Peter and Matthew were certainly eye witnesses. Their books are in the Bible. Mark and Luke were not eye witnesses but both were disciples of Peter who dictated the Gospel to them (Peter was not educated), Many other eye witness records are available which are not in the Bible, from Roman and Jewish historians. Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, whereas other so called “Messiah’s” did not. Nobody else has ever claimed to be God and been taken seriously, even thousands of years later. Paul knew the Lord in the Spirit and so do many Orthodox Christians including myself. His words are still not the word of the Lord, the Gospels only contain the actual words of the Lord. Maybe you’re taking it too literally, surely the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Paul’s words, are literally from the mouth of God, that is Protestant nonsense.

John was the most powerful Theological voice proclaiming Christ’s Divinity… “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (equal to) God”

Christ the Logos is the God of the Old Testament. The pre-incarnate “Angel of great council” and “Lord of Glory”

@curious I would counter that Christianity has nothing to do with being a “good” person but is concerned with knowing and worshipping the only true God (dispassionately, without emotion but with clear perception of God.) Our God made everything out of nothing. I.E. I don’t believe in God as a theory I know God as a resurrected Christ who helps and protects me every day. I know and worship Jesus Christ, who was crucified and rose again on the third day.

Avery

curious Just follow the rule of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Excellent. And his formulation of the golden rule in the negative "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" has particular relevance in our forum for those who would force hardware on youngsters in their care when they don't wear it themselves.

curious

Avery
Actually the golden rule does not even come close to the Categorical Imperative, which has a much wider implication.
The Golden Rule is simply for the less educated / intellectual people putting them into the centre so that they should deal out to others what they want to be dealt.
But demanding that something becomes a rule for each and everyone is something different.

Avery

curious Actually the golden rule does not even come close to the Categorical Imperative, which has a much wider implication.

For sure.

curious The Golden Rule is simply for the less educated / intellectual people putting them into the centre so that they should deal out to others what they want to be dealt.
But demanding that something becomes a rule for each and everyone is something different.

But one has to think about implementation. Expecting folks to study the Categorical Imperative seems a Quixotic exercise. Suggesting a few simple formulations like the golden rule seems practical at least.

I particularly like Kant's criticism of laziness. I often think chastity hardware is a lazy person's solution. teach your kid your moral framework.

curious

Avery a few simple formulations like the golden rule seems practical at least.

I completely agree. That's the reason why I have little objection against many rules that stem from the Bible. While the 10 Commandments fall short to cover more complex moral questions (I. e. would be killing Putin be acceptable if this can 3nd a war in which hundreds die every day?), as a basic rule 'thou shall not kill' is very reasonable.
And not everyone is intellectually capable or willing to put in the mental effort to base decisions on Kant.
In regards to chastity it is not only about lazyness. Depending on how strict you want chastity to be (I. e. just not sleeping around or absolutely no stimulation / orgasms even by masturbation) there is the physiological urge to overcome when masturbation as an outlet is not acceptable to you.

Avery

curious a basic rule 'thou shall not kill' is very reasonable

But is that a good translation, or should the rule be written, in English, 'thou shall not murder'? This introduces the possibility that blowing Putin's brains out is justified, though it does involve killing him.

curious And not everyone is intellectually capable or willing to put in the mental effort to base decisions on Kant.

Or select a national leader, evidently. The Constitution of my country gives citizens the right only to vote for "electors" who then gather and elect the president.

curious there is the physiological urge to overcome when masturbation as an outlet is not acceptable to you

And I would maintain that giving in to the urge is more about lazyness, perhaps, than others would. Take a walk, take a shower, keep a belt handy as a tool when walking or showering aren't enough or feasible.

curious

Conrad concerned with knowing and worshipping the only true God

Problem is that petty much every religion claims to have the only true God. For obvious reasons not every religion can be right, so that leaves us in a position of fundamental disagreements between believers of different religions. Depending how aggressively the own opinion is pushed, a more or less violent clash is difficult to avoid because independent evidence to determine who is right does not exist.
For that reason alone I argue that religions in general do more harm than good to mankind.

Avery

Conrad John was the most powerful Theological voice proclaiming Christ’s Divinity… “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (equal to) God”

I rather think that refers to the creation. John certainly wasn't present for that. In any case I can't see how it refers to Jesus' divinity.

Arguing about what we believe I think is pointless and might have bad effects neither of us wants.

I believe the most reliable gospel is the gospel of Mary. There is some doubt about which Mary it is but all the Marys were witnesses to Jesus' life. Many feel it was Mary Magdalene who is recorded by John as the first witness of Jesus' resurrection (John 20:14–16). Certainly she and Jesus had a personal relationship and she must have known his teachings.

Conrad

Avery

I’m sorry for being a little argumentative. I would prefer to be sharing and discussing. I just want you to grow in your faith. Keep praying.

I guess the original intent of this thread was about wearing a chastity device inside a Church, I would not wear it to Church but I would certainly pray while wearing. Since God gives freedom from passions it means that it’s possible for me to stop masturbating without wearing a cage. I can taste that freedom when I worship and I don’t get erect during worship. I just like the cage to keep me from erecting so often at home etc.

Avery

Conrad ’m sorry for being a little argumentative.

I was talking about me, actually. I don't want to seem to be busting your balls about something you obviously care about.

Conrad Since God gives freedom from passions it means that it’s possible for me to stop masturbating without wearing a cage. I can taste that freedom when I worship and I don’t get erect during worship

See these concerns are something I never knew existed until I came to this forum. I may not be sensitive enough to people who have a related problem. I do try to be sensitive to those who truly feel it's wrong. I was pleased to hear a Mormon girl say her religious advisor told her once a week was probably OK.

« Previous Page Next Page »