Hi

I have a simple but serious question. Ever since I stopped masturbating more than 4 years ago, the frequency of my wet dreams has increased quite dramatically. As far as I remember I only used to have them about once a year when I masturbated but now I have them a few times in a month(I even had two of them in one night!).

I know you might laugh,but it's quite a nuisance having to get up in the of the night and doing the 'cleaning' (especially since I share the house with housemates and a roommate).

I'm considering re-starting masturbating just so that I can stop having lots of wet dreams. Any advice?

Please be understanding.

-- Anon (openbook@castle.net), August 12, 2004

Answers

If your body is producing this much sperm you may have a medical problem - consult your doctor.

Another thing you might think about is what else you do - do you fantasize about sex during the day/night? Arousal may contribute to the production of sperm.

Try an experiment: get involved in sports, some physically demanding work or hobby and keep your mind fixed on these pursuits. At night and evening concentrate on praying for all the poor children who don't have loving parents, who are emotionally abused and need a good friend (this should keep your mind/heart off yourself).

If your sperm production continues unabated you'll know it's a physical problem not a psycho-emotional one.

-- anonymous (anonymous@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

You should be proud of yourself for asking the question! Don't give up. God is proud of you for not talking the easy way out and re- starting because you are following God's will and not your will.

Sorry I can't give you any suggestions, but I will certainly pray for you.

Jennifer

-- Jennifer (jrabs@jrabs.com), August 12, 2004.

Here's a related dilemma: How do you properly confess this and firmly resolve never to do it again, when you *know* you're going to do it again?

-- anon#2 (not@naddress.com), August 12, 2004.

That would depend on whether you have firmly resolved to take whatever steps are possible to try to avoid such sin and are actually taking those steps to the best of your ability; or whether you have simply resigned yourself to ongoing sin, and are not making any real effort to change the situation. To continually try your best and sometimes fail is one thing. To decide you are not going to try because you fail is quite another.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 12, 2004.

Thank you Paul, your answer makes sense. Unfortunately, I find that if I don't "do it," then it becomes difficult to avoid impure thoughts, and even more difficult to concentrate on prayer, which is a VERY big part of my daily life. Therefore, I always know that pretty soon (within a couple days) I'm going to have to "do it" again.

I know the Church teaches that we are not allowed to commit a sin in order to avoid other sins, but what's a healthy, single guy to do?

-- anon#2 (not@naddress.com), August 12, 2004.

Anon,

BTW, I've never heard of a medical situation that would cause this from "too many sperm" as one poster suggested. I'm not saying there ISN'T one, just that I've never heard of it. Try some strenuous exercise, and if that doesn't do it, 10 years' time will...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 12, 2004.

Wet dreams are a very natural occurrence, and they certainly do not mean that you are producing too much sperm. Your body uses wet dreams as one of several ways to naturally dispose of sperm. I respect your attempts to control your urges to masturbate, but unfortunately you may never be able to completely eliminate the wet dreams that result. If you are unable to do so, do not feel that it is a failing on your part. A sport team or hobby may help by focusing your energy elsewhere, but there is no evidence that links the amount of time that sex is thought about to sperm production or wet dream frequency.

-- anonymous3 (MidnightRevolt30@hotmail.com), August 12, 2004.

Anon#2, no offense but I think you’re probably kidding yourself. I’ve never heard of masturbation PREVENTING impure thoughts, but in fact it very often increases the occurrence of impure thoughts, as well as affect the way you relate to women and reduce your respect for them. Even if you think that masturbation DOES help you to avoid other sins, no that is no excuse. Impure thoughts are a less serious sin than impure actions. I’d say from your statement that "you *know* you’re going to do it again", that you have an addiction to it. Like any other addiction, it can be conquered if you persist. Especially persist in prayer and in healthy activities, preferably with other Christians, and avoid those who try to tell you that this sin is “natural” or “healthy”.

Anon#1, I see no need to get up in the middle of the night and disturb your housemates. What’s wrong with just having a shower in the morning and putting your pajamas in the wash?

Nina, I feel for you but all I can suggest is that you get a second opinion, if possible, from a doctor who you know is a committed Catholic. I assume there is some reason you can’t breastfeed your baby?, because that would probably help.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

Steve, Nope. Not kidding myself at all. Refraining from masturbation makes me feel (for lack of a better term) horny and frustrated. Which in turn, makes my impure thoughts worse and more persistent. However, sex is the LAST thing I on my mind after masturbation. I go for hours without thinking about it.

"Even if you think that masturbation DOES help you to avoid other sins, no that is no excuse."

That's what I said.

-- anon #2 (not@naddress.com), August 12, 2004.

I think as a general rule of thumb for any particular kind of temptation, it helps to call upon the name of the Lord and pray to Him. I find that when I pray, Satan flees. Reading the word helps too.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 12, 2004.

Why and how did you stop "more than 4 years ago"?

-your "Dilemma" is not really a "Dilemma" unless you are relatively arguing it...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 12, 2004.

Hello, thanks for some of the advice. I'll try to address all the questions and comments.

Jennifer, I am flattered by your comment but I can tell you that God had a part in me stopping (read on if you want to find out). =)

Hi Anon2!Don't mind if I quote you: "Here's a related dilemma: How do you properly confess this and firmly resolve never to do it again, when you *know* you're going to do it again? "

The only time I ever went to confess masturbation (which was twice) was when I was firmly deciding that I wanted to really stop. If I knew that I would start again then I didn't go and I didn't want to say sorry because I didn't want to insult God by apologising for something I would do again. And by the way, when I finally did stop, I only went to confession about a month or two later because I needed to be sure.

Second answer to your quote, if I may: =)

"Thank you Paul, your answer makes sense. Unfortunately, I find that if I don't "do it," then it becomes difficult to avoid impure thoughts, and even more difficult to concentrate on prayer, which is a VERY big part of my daily life. Therefore, I always know that pretty soon (within a couple days) I'm going to have to "do it" again. I know the Church teaches that we are not allowed to commit a sin in order to avoid other sins, but what's a healthy, single guy to do? "

Ah, that does sound familiar! I often thought(at the time) that it's not so bad to masturbate because :

1. Nobody is involved. 2. Better that than to be involved in pre-marital sex. 3. Great tension reliever. 4. Great anger reliever (if a girl gets on your nerves, just lock yourself up in a room and jack off imaging you're doing it to her). 5. etc. 6. etc. 7 etc.

And I will even agree with you that in the short-term it did brighten up my days and afterwards I felt relaxed and not wanting to be interested in sex (for about 2 hours). But I can tell you that looking back, in the long-term it's not a good thing. It can be an addiction, it works like an addiction. I realise now that I found myself almost fantasing having sex with every woman I saw, and looking for the wrong qualities in a girl. Bottom line is that too much masturbating makes you think of sex too much, it affects your thinking. And I thought 'who cares, i'm not doing anything and i'm not planning to do anything. The problem though is that when you finally want to get married you might find yourself looking for the wrong qualities in a woman. Here's a quick story I've heard that relates to sin (and masturbation). The eskimos leave blades covered in frozen blood sticking out of the ground so that the wolves will lick them until the blade is exposed and then they end up licking their own blood until they bleed to death. I know that might sound like an exaguration but since can work similarly.

Now regarding the part about lack of sex or masturbation able to cause a medical condition. I did read some article about 'experts' finding that lack of sex leads to a higher risk of prostate cancer, but I find that total rubbish. As someone earlier pointed out and it makes logical sense, because we don't get rid of the excess sperm manually, it gets automatically ejected via wet dreams (might even ooze out by itself sometimes when you feeling horny and not doing anything about it). Which basically explains why my wet dream amount increases. It was actually kinda 'exciting' at the start but that was because I was still a student. Now (and answering another question), I'm a full time worker, so getting up extra-early in the morning to do the washing and hanging up can be a drag not to mention other housemates get up at that time as well and they might give me a suspicious look.

Before I forget. Originally, my real question was that: Masturbation is regarded wrong because of the lust it can cause etc. but what if I simply did it to significantly reduce the amount of my wet dreams? I.e. just duck into the bathroom and get it overwith. Although I'm sure I will get answers that it might cause me to get addicted to it again, and I'm aware of that risk. So for the moment I have no plan to start masturbating again and will put up with the 'inconveniences', no big deal, it's only until my wedding night right? *GRIN*

Final question: "why and how did I stop?"

OK, I bet any non-Christian who has been reading this right now is laughing their head off at this whole discussion and forwarding it to their friends. But for the sake of information... =)

I had been trying to quit it about twice but failed. The first time I managed to go without for about a month and it was tough! I became so responsive to any form of sexual images on tv and the urge felt overwhelming. It's like the story in the Bible about the evil spirits who leave the house and the house gets cleaned out, but later the spirits return and much stronger than before. Actually I read that passage so long ago that I bet I've totally messed it up quoting it (hope someone can post the proper version).

The second time was after I went on holiday. Before I left, I went to confess it for the first time because I thought that 1 month on holiday will help me take my mind off it and by the time I returned my body would have grown out of the addiction. The Christian churches I went to while on holiday seemed to have a really positive effect on me. To summarise I just felt like God was giving me a taste of the glory of being with other Christians and being part of His fellowship (and the music sounded great too). Having returned I didn't think much about masturbating for the first 2 or 3 months. Then on the 4th month my desire seemed to have exploded or something. I was suddenly fighting the urge so hard. I told myself that if I still feel it for the next 2 weeks then I'm restarting. I did pray and pray about it, I did go for the Holy Hour. But I restarted and pretty much returned to the way I was before, if not worse.

I don't remember exactly what I prayed or said afterwards, but I wanted to be sincere with God and tell him that I don't want to apologise or go to confession because i've failed before and I needed to first find a new way to stop. I asked Him to help me stop. By the way, I did quite a lot of sports. I spent about 10 to 12 hours a week doing sports and some social activies, and that didn't help much, in fact sometimes after feeling 'good' from a workout I felt like a wank!

The last time I masturbated was on a late weekend night. About less than an hour after having just done the deed, I had a supposed panic attack (my first and only one as far as I know). I felt my throat closing, my whole body shivering and I thought I was going to die. It stopped about 10 minutes later. I spent the next week busy worrying about it and not daring to masturbate because I thought I might die or something or God was punishing me. Now I'm really rushing(since this reply is getting pretty long), but for about the next 6 months I had all sort of symptoms like headaches,stomach pains,throat aches etc. and I tried all sorts of things to get rid of them, fasts,natural medicine, frequent consultation. No luck.

Eventually it turned out to be psychosomatic symptoms relating to anxiety. After six months of what felt like every-hour torture, I started getting better because I learnt to deal with my problem. Looking back I have no regret that it happened and I believe that God simply decided to "put His foot down" and discipline me the hard way. =)

These days my thinking feels so different. I don't think sexual thoughts much often, I don't look at porn, and even if I did it doesn't seem to have any sexual effect on me, believe it or not I can just look at it and carry on as if it was nothing. I don't seem to get any crushes on sexy women and then feel hurt when I learn they've been sleeping with some jerks.

And when I do feel aroused and tempted, I simply chill out and accept it. It's a natural feeling, don't resist it (that's what I did after my first confession), don't fight it, just let it pass, and it will pass through and out of you. Eventually I've simply learnt to ignore it most of the time. It's not a big deal anymore. My supposedly high sex drive feels like it's simply dormant until I get married.

Regarding other people who masturbate, I wouldn't be hard on them coz I've been there myself and I feel REALLY pleased and glad in the heart for any person who is saving themselves for marriage, even if they are masturbating. But don't be afraid to want to stop, don't be afraid to ask God, you might miss it(OK,A LOT) at first for a few months, but in the long-term, it will make you a better person I.M.O.

Phew! That was a lot! Hope I didn't leave anything out.

Remember, God made us and knows what's best for us. Trust Him! =D

-- Anon (original poster) (openbook@castle.net), August 13, 2004.

Addictions of this sort are really hard to break because they provide instant gratification while weakening the will's control over passion. Unlike itching a mosquito bite or eating when you feel hunger, this type of urge is both physical and psycho-somatic. Your body gets in the habit of producing sperm alot (it's supply is exhausted alot so kicks into overdrive to keep producing). At the same time the mind and imagination gets used to thinking or imaging certain things which produce arousal - like getting obsessed.

OCD - obsessive compulsive disorders look alot like addiction to masturbation and people who have them feel enslaved to their passion - they feel like they "can't say no" - or that it'll kill them...until they try to refrain from the urged action and realize that they actually can live without it.

So what to do? First, knowing that you are addicted is a big step. Knowing that your will is weak is another - don't give yourself concessions, don't put yourself in danger (alcoholics have to avoid liquor stores, etc). Perhaps you need to tell someone about it so your conscience can be held accountable to someone *(this is why AA groups come in so handily psychologically. All human beings are social by nature. So when addicted, it stands to reason that other peoples' help is essential to curing ills).

Finally the spiritual dimension. Our Lord spoke about his word setting us free - yet today's hedonistic world laughs at this thinking that Christians are slaves of the gospel, morality, rules etc.... they think because we aren't doing what our urges tell us to do that this makes us slaves of God (whereas they don't realize that their own slavery to vice is worse because their wills are weaker than ours!)

Saints are supremely free because to be holy, to be "reserved for God" in all things, requires us to continually make acts of self- renunciation, actions of will, using our freedom to go against feelings and urges... step by step becoming our own people, possessing ourselves once more rather than being owned by vice.

Frequent prayer and confession are useful (see above about the help other people have in this struggle with private vice). Avoiding porn and learning to see without looking (seeing a beautiful half-naked woman is not the same thing as looking at her, drinking her image in...oogling, memorizing, staring at her...)

Finally, know that many people are praying for you and ask you to pray for us.

Peace of Christ

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Regarding the practical element of dealing with the 'evidence' of wet dreams, I have found it much easier to let it dry (it does so very quickly) and then just throw the undies in the laundry machine the next day. You don't have to bother anyone; don't have to lie about what you're doing when you wake someone up (i.e., the 'cleaning'), and the rest of the 'evidence' comes right off in the shower.

Regarding kicking the addiction--it's tough, it's a long term process, and even after several months of grace, we can fall again. Positive attitude + frequent Confession + strong resolution to fight the habit (and cutting out the bad influences) = you can live in peace and let God do his work within you.

-- two cents (anonymous@blank.poster), August 13, 2004.

Regarding receiving the Holy Eucharist when one has slipped into this sin please make sure you make a good Confession before you approach the Eucharist.

For Catholics to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, while in the state of mortal sin (having committed a mortal sin –by act, thought, or omission– which has not been confessed and forgiven in Sacramental Confession) is itself a mortal sin — a mortal sin of sacrilege (a grave violation of that which is sacred – abuse directed at God Himself). NOTE: An absolution received is invalid if there is no intention to make an effort to avoid committing the confessed sins in the future. Also, if one knowingly fails to confess a serious sin the absolution is invalid. T

-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.

Thanks for being so honest anon#1. Anon #2, maybe committing this sin stops you from committing similar sins for a few hours, but committing it also means you will be even more strongly tempted next time (next day or maybe even later the same day).

I don’t think you should postpone going to confession until after you’ve stopped committing a certain sin for a month or so, in the mistaken belief that because you’re still addicted, you mustn’t be truly sorry. The Sacrament of Reconciliation gives you the grace to stop sinning – that’s what it’s there for! To make a good Confession you need only to be sorry (for any reason) for your sin and to have a FIRM RESOLVE not to sin again. You are not required to be SURE that you will never commit a particular sin again or in the foreseeable future. After all I’m sure every one going to confession can be almost certain that he will commit SOME sin in future. That doesn’t mean he isn’t sorry for the sins he’s committed in the past. God meets you in the present. Ask Him to help you with the future.

It’s true you need to break the addiction, but try not to spend your whole time thinking “I must stop this sin”. Do things that will focus your mind on other things. Prayer and spiritual activities, also physical activities especially things like swimming, rowing, digging that exercise the upper body.

Oh and don’t fall for the trap of thinking “I’ll only be tempted to commit this sin while I’m young and single.” If you allow your addiction to control you, it may well ruin your future marriage.

I’ll be praying for you, anons and Nina.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 14, 2004.

Steve, thanks. This clears up a lot of my doubts.

-- anon#2 (not@naddress.com), August 15, 2004.

Hi, I just have a quick question. Where in the bible does it say that masturbation is bad? When God even sends you "wet dreams", to help your body to release these urges, how can it be sin if I do the "work" myselve ?

I would be very glad if someone could give me the exact passage, where the bible says masturbation is a sin, for further refference.

Thanx

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

The only biblical refence is in Genesis 38 where Onan spilled his seed upon the ground and the Lord was displeased with him (which is why masturbation is sometimes referred to as onanism). However, the correct question is not "where in the Bible does it say that?" but rather "where in the Word of God does it say that?". And the answer to that is, "In the moral teaching of His Church, to which He said "he who hears you hears Me", and "Whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". This is difficult for those who have rejected the only moral authority Jesus Christ gave us, His Church. There are a great many important questions which simply cannot be answered from the Bible, and a great many more which cannot be correctly answered by personal interpretation of the Bible. That's why Christ founded a Church and gave that Church full authority to preach and teach in His name. That's why His written Word says that His Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

Ok thanks a lot.

And since "Christ founded a Church and gave that Church full authority to preach and teach in His name", there must be a passage in the bible about this. Else every church could claim to be "that church" and you know how manny there are claiming to be the "one and only". Could you please give me the passage in the bible, where this "transfer" of authority is mentioned.

The only paragraph I found was: Jn 14:6-JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME.

Somehow I still search the paragraph, where he said "...by me or the people who represent me."

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

Sure, any church could "claim" to be the the one Church Christ founded for all men. But only one Church has the historical record to back up the claim - the only Church that existed for 1,000 years after Christ founded it - the Holy Catholic Church. Maybe you haven't heard the news, but Christ ascended. He no longer physically walks the earth. It is through "those who represent Him" - the leaders of His Church - that He speaks to us and guides us today.

I already quoted for you two of the passages indicating the authority Christ transferred to His Church. They are Luke 10:16, and Matt 16:19 (or 18:18). Others you might want to consider are: John 16:13 (Divine guarantee of the truth of His Church's teaching); 1 Tim 3:15 (His Church identified as the foundation of truth); Matt 18:17 (His Church identified as the final authority).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”

Isn't this a direct contradiction to what Jesus told us in the bible.

You already quoted: John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

Don't you think modern catholic church has disconnected itselve from the original word of Jesus. He made clear to his apostles, that not the institution is of importance, but HIS word. And the only true refference we have of Jesus is the holy bible.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

And clearly HIS WORD cannot contradict itself or conflict with itself, which alone is sufficient evidence to condemn the doctrinal chaos of denominational religion. Where HIS WORD truly reigns, there is necessarily UNITY of belief. That's what He meant when He said "that they all may be ONE". Such doctrinal unity can be found ONLY in the Church He personally founded on the Apostles, the Holy Catholic Church. Division means untruth. Thousands of conflicting manmade denominations means widespread and pervasive untruth. Jesus said the TRUTH would set us free. How can you reconcile that word of God with a system so obviously riddled with untruth?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

Yes and as predicted by Jesus, that Spirit of Truth came on the first Pentecost Sunday and had guided the Catholic Church ever since. The Catholic Church PRODUCED the Bible. If you think the Bible is “the only true reference we have of Jesus” how can you disregard the church which wrote, compiled and preserved all of the words of Jesus which you can read in the Bible? If you disconnect yourself from that Church which heard the “original word of Jesus” and which much later wrote down some of Jesus’ words, then it is you who are disconnecting yourself from the original word of Jesus, which was spoken, not written.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

I asked you, if you think that "modern catholic church" disconnected itselve from the word of Jesus Christ. The bible was writen centuries ago as you know.

If you honestly want to tell me, that todays catholic church is the same it was 400 years ago, I find it necessary to mention that burning witches and torturing in the name of the catholic church was common practice. So maybe you could elaborate on why you don't think that the catholic church distanced itselve from certain views and ideas. I am very keen to know.

This brings me directly to the next point: "How can you reconcile that word of God with a system so obviously riddled with untruth?"

Do you really think it is wiser to trust an institution, which has bend and changed it's views time after time, instead of simply trusting the one word that has never changed? Jesus never persecuted someone for neglecting that the world is a disc. He never accumulated gold and jewels, he never build huge cathedrals, he was a modest man with a clear message and this message was neither be added nor substracted from.

And just for your information, most parts of the holy bible have been writen far before the catholic church was even founded. If you read other religious texts like the Quoran, this becomes quite obvious. Always remember,that vanity is one of the seven deadly sins.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 17, 2004.

"I asked you, if you think that "modern catholic church" disconnected itselve from the word of Jesus Christ."

A: The teaching of the Catholic Church IS the Word of Jesus Christ. The Church received that teaching directly from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, and faithfully preached that Word for 350 years before the Bible was compiled. The New Testament is a compilation of some of that early Catholic inspired teaching, taken from the inspired writings of early Catholic clergymen.

"If you honestly want to tell me, that todays catholic church is the same it was 400 years ago, I find it necessary to mention that burning witches and torturing in the name of the catholic church was common practice."

A: No institution on earth is the same as it was 400 years ago. Or even a hundred years ago. But the doctrinal truth of the Catholic Church is timeless and never changes. Church-authorized courts did execute a number of heretics during medieval times, but the witch hunts and witch burnings were primarily the work of superstitious Protestants.

"So maybe you could elaborate on why you don't think that the catholic church distanced itselve from certain views and ideas. I am very keen to know."

A: That questions is too general to answer. What kinds of "views and ideas" are you talking about? I'll be glad to comment once I understand what you are asking.

"Do you really think it is wiser to trust an institution, which has bend and changed it's views time after time, instead of simply trusting the one word that has never changed?"

A: That is not a valid question. The correct question to be asked is this ... Do you think it is wiser to trust an institution founded by God Himself, with a divine guarantee of doctrinal truth, which has taught the Word of God consistently in unity for 2,000 years, OR an institution founded by men which has fragmented into thousands of conflicting, competing, contradictory denominations in 450 years?

"He never accumulated gold and jewels, he never build huge cathedrals, he was a modest man with a clear message and this message was neither be added nor substracted from."

A: He was and is also God Almighty, and as such deserves that we worship Him with all that we have and all that we are. the Church does not "accumulate" riches. It USES riches for the honor and glory of God, both by constructing suitable places of worship which draw the faithful to an appreciation of His limitless majesty, and by ministering to the people of God in providing more human services than all other churches of the world combined.

"And just for your information, most parts of the holy bible have been writen far before the catholic church was even founded. If you read other religious texts like the Quoran, this becomes quite obvious. Always remember,that vanity is one of the seven deadly sins."

A: Yes, the old Testament was written before the Catholic Church existed, and the New Testament was written by early Catholic leaders. But the decisions as to which writings would constitute the Christian Bible were made entirely by the Catholic Church. There is no place for vanity, as everything the world has received through the Holy Catholic Church is a free and undeserved gift of God. Praise be His name, now and forever! Amen!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

"That questions is too general to answer. What kinds of "views and ideas" are you talking about? I'll be glad to comment once I understand what you are asking."

In my understanding it was part of the catholic doctrine that earth was a disc and the sun was evolving around it.

If you claim the Inquisition was merely an idea of protestants, then I find it necessary to point out, that in 1478 it was Sixtus IV to establish the Inquisition in Spain and later in 1542 Paul III to establish the "Sacra Congregatio Romanae et universalis Inquisitionis seu sancti officii" by the Constitution "Licet ab initio". Even though there where daily reports of how the inquisitors unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed, the catholic church did not abandon this practice untill the 19th century. During the 16th century it even served to repel Protestantism and it was reaproved by Pius VII in 1814, only to be abolished by the revolution in 1820.

So the torture and execution of heretics was without doubt viewed as just by the catholic church in former times. The trial of Jean d'arc should be enough to convince you that burning "witches" was authorized and executed by the catholic church and there is no way to shuffle this responebility of to other religious institutions.

So I ask you again, is it wise to lay all your trust into an institution, which has a history of abusing Christs word for their own agenda and their own glory ?

You can't have it both ways, either you state the catholic church is never wrong and hereby claim earth was in fact a disc and the sun evolved around the earth during 1400. Or you share the conception that those who act as a broker between god and mankind are not like god an thus do make mistakes in what they teach.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 18, 2004.

What an interesting discussion! Also glad that you're both keeping your cool and it's not turning into a catfight.

-- Anon (openbook@castle.net), August 18, 2004.

"In my understanding it was part of the catholic doctrine that earth was a disc and the sun was evolving around it."

A: Your understanding is incorrect. Such an idea was never part of Catholic doctrine. If it was, it still would be, as Catholic doctrine never changes. No doctrinal truth has ever been abandoned or reversed by the Church. The Church does not have the authority to change its doctrine since, unlike the various conflicting doctrines of manmade churches, Catholic doctrine was not the product of the Church. It is divine in origin and the Church is merely the assigned steward, protector, preacher and interpreter of that divine truth.

Geocentrism, and the concept of a flat earth, were the generally accepted scientific beliefs of the time, held by all educated people of the time including scientists, physicians, lawyers, clerics, etc. Such beliefs had no doctrinal standing in the Church. The Church just accepted what was the prevailing scientific theory, just as it does today. Gallileo was not tried for his scientific theories, but for publishing a paper in which he suggested that the universe could theoretically be maintained without the action of God.

"If you claim the Inquisition was merely an idea of protestants ..."

A: I didn't claim that the Inquisition was the idea of Protestants. The Inquisition was the idea of the King of Spain, who was Catholic. However, the Inquisition was about heresy, not witchcraft. The great witch hunts which led to the death by hanging or burning of hundreds if not thousands of innocent women was the work of superstitious Puritans in America and their counterparts in Europe.

In any case, the Church is made up of men and men sin. The fact that members of the Church including leaders of the Church sin is not a reason to distrust the teaching of the Church, because Jesus Christ, God, knowing full well that the leaders of the Church were sinners, nevertheless guaranteed that He would be with the Church until the end of time, and that the Holy Spirit would guide those sinful men to all truth. Either you take Him at His word, or you don't.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

"In any case, the Church is made up of men and men sin. The fact that members of the Church including leaders of the Church sin is not a reason to distrust the teaching of the Church"

But if the teaching of that very church contained the legitimization of torture and killing, isn't it a contradiction with the words of Jesus, to not question those very teachings ?

After all you acknowledged, that the leading members of the catholic church have a known history of sin, so isn't it wise to question and controll them, to ensure that they do not abuse the word of god.

If known siners authorized the inquisition, then how can we be sure that those very siners did not authorize the change (addition/substraction) of god's word. Wouldn't it be wise to sole rely on the one text, we know that has not been changed, instead of relying on countless other texts made by mere men, who where subject to sin and error ?

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 18, 2004.

"But if the teaching of that very church contained the legitimization of torture and killing, isn't it a contradiction with the words of Jesus, to not question those very teachings?"

A: The teaching of the Church never condoned torture and killing. Some members of the Church acted contrary to the teaching of the church. That is called sin.

"After all you acknowledged, that the leading members of the catholic church have a known history of sin, so isn't it wise to question and controll them, to ensure that they do not abuse the word of god."

A: How would you suggest we do that? All men abuse the word of God. It's called sin. However, when it comes to teaching and interpreting the word of God, no-one is more qualified than the specific men God Himself assigned to the task.

"If known siners authorized the inquisition, then how can we be sure that those very siners did not authorize the change (addition/substraction) of god's word."

A: We know it from history. We know exactly which 73 texts were included in the original canon of Scripture, and we know for a fact that absolutely nothing was changed until the Protestant Rebellion in the 16th century, at which time massive changes were made to the bible, entire books being ruthlessly ripped out and words being inserted into the remaining text in an effort to support the new doctrines of men which were being introduced.

"Wouldn't it be wise to sole rely on the one text, we know that has not been changed, instead of relying on countless other texts made by mere men, who where subject to sin and error?"

A: What one text? The original manuscripts are long gone, and even if they were still available, most people today don't read Greek or Hebrew. If one text were to be selected based on its literal accuracy it would have to be the Latin Vulgate version translated by Saint Jerome, and the most accurate English version would have to be the Douay-Rheims, translated directly from the Vulgate. However, that is not necessary as there are several excellent English translations available that are easier for the average person to read and comprehend.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.

Well put Paul, clearly our newly awakened friend has been somewhat misinformed in the past, although I do similarly believe that apparent inconsistencies(at least from my self confessed superficial perspective) relating to past church teachings regarding religious freedom and tolerance, pose the greatest challenge to the assertion that our Church has never erred on matters of faith and morals. I do have a request

Are you , in your trademark pithy and compact style also able to explain for the benefit of all the following:

1. The difference between dogma and doctrine? 2. Explain how doctrine develops over time? 3. The different levels the Church teaches at and the level of assent needed?

I was going to attempt to answer my questions myself but feel I may do you, your readers and the Church an injustice- although the many battle’s with self styled traditionalists over the past few years has certainly helped sharpen my teeth on these issues . I feel newly awakened may have failed to distinguish between “differences of morality” and “differences in facts”, as CS Lewis says “ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things”.

As always thank you.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Actually my mistake was, that I do not distinguish between perople who have been burned on the stake because they where witches and people who have been burned at the stake for other reasons.

Sorry ;)

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 19, 2004.

Awakening, it is only quite recently that anybody considered it possible to have a “pluralist society”. Protestants believed, even more strongly than Catholics, that unless ALL of the population had the “correct” faith, the whole of society would be corrupted. Heresy against the State religion was a crime against the State. The Inquisitions (plural) were set up by the Popes to SAVE the lives of people accused of heresy or witchcraft (i.e. working in league with the Devil) who had until then often been killed without a fair trial by the CIVIL authorities. The Inquisition’s role was to investigate and declare whether a person was a heretic. VERY occasionally and reluctantly they used torture or the threat of it to encourage answers from witnesses. The inquisitions’ trials were much fairer, and their accused persons kept in much better conditions, than the civil authorities provided. Often prisoners in civil jails would claim to their jailers that they believed all sorts of heresies, just to try to get a transfer to the inquisition’s care. The Church and its agencies did not kill anyone. The civil authorities sometimes chose to execute someone whom the Inquisition had found to be a heretic. The total killed over several centuries was a couple of thousand people, the last of them over two centuries ago. Yet the Church is endlessly scolded for this by the popular media, while they virtually ignore the over 100 MILLION people, within living memory, DIRECTLY killed by atheists, simply because they refused to accept atheism!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

Steve, the Inquisition was a defining force of the past fourhundred years. You may want to believe, that your church was "fair and balanced", but the reality was much darker as you may want to be aware of. There are manny historic references about atrocities the catholic church was directly involved in and the fact that so manny people scorn the church for what you think never happened, should be enough, to make you consider to reevaluate what might be the truth.

When you talk about millions of people beeing killed in the name of atheism, you make it sound like an excuse for what the catholic church did in past centuries ?

The question in the beginning, was if it would be wise, to trust in an institution, which has changed it's practices and standards over the course of time and has a known history of abusing the word of god in order to serve it's own glory.

I just wanted to point out, that you can't be sure, that this institution who has unarguably done wrong in the past, wount do wrong today or in the future. Men are bound to make mistakes. And instead of trusting men, wouldn't it be much better to trust the Lord directly ?

In recent days, we had to witness one of the most gruesome acts of abuse of this power over people, when the catholic church had to remove several officials from their ranks in response to several cases of child abuse. These kids trusted in men who claimed to have been choosen by God, yet all they did was using this power to serve their own perverted desires.

Even if these cases where just few and may hopefully represent a minority in the catholic body, it shows where blind trust and unquestioned loyalty leads to.

So, am I so wrong in questioning this men made institution, you trust so deeply in ?

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 20, 2004.

And just how would you trust the Lord "directly", without turning to the Church? First, how would you even have heard of the Lord, except through the Church? How would the Lord instruct you and teach you what is the truth and what is not, except through the Church? And please don't say "through the Bible". First of all the Bible was produced through the Church, so if you can't trust the Church to preach the truth, you certainly can't trust a collection of its writings, compiled by that same Church, the authenticity of which rests solely on the authority of that same Church. Secondly, 450 years of ongoing fragmentation and doctrinal chaos among those who attempt the "Bible only" approach clearly demonstrates that that method does not and cannot yield truth. How would you receive the graces of the sacraments except through the Church?

If you can't trust the Church, why does the Word of God refer to the Church as the "foundation of truth"? Why did Christ tell an untrustworthy Church, "he who hears you hears Me"? Why did He tell an unreliable Church, "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven"? Why did He say to a group of sinful men who could not be trusted, "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth"? Why does the Word of God tell us to bring disputes about the faith to the Church for final settlement, and that if a person doesn't listen to the Church's word on the matter, we should have nothing more to do with that person? Apparently God has an extremely high regard for the Church, even though He knows the weaknesses and faults and sins of its members. If He didn't, it is unlikely He would have committed Himself to remaining with the Church until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2004.

As you already stated, the bible is hundreds of years old and was written by people Christ trusted. But as it is writen in the bible, he trusted those very men and made clear that whoever changes their message or does not "listen" to them is doing wrong.

So basically you support my claim, that an institution, wich does not rely solely on the bible for it's answers is not legitimized by god. Jesus never said annything about the "catholic" church to be is sole representation on earth he spoke of "a" church that follows his teachings and his alone... he never spoke of a pope or cardinals, he never spoke of cathedrals or golden chalices and he certainly never spoke of inquisition or homophobia... those are man made components and have long abandoned the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 20, 2004.

You didn't answer my question. How would you listen to God without listening to the Church's teaching? You say that changing the biblical message is doing wrong. Do you think it is possible for a dozen Christian groups to read a given text and come up with a dozen conflicting interpretations of what the passage might mean, without "changing the message"??

Obviously the command not to "change" what is in the Bible does not suggest that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth. Those are entirely separate concepts. Obviously the Bible cannot be the sole source of truth, or all those who use it would find the truth, and would therefore necessarily all believe the same thing! Truth cannot conflict with truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2004.

Paul, I could tell you the "truth", here and now, but I really don't think you would accept it or even consider it. And that is fine with me, since I understand why you think the way you do and I can also understand what the catholic church is giving you in return.

But I can assure you that exactly because there are so manny contradicting religions, you need nothing more but the bible to become perfectly aware of what the "truth" is.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 21, 2004.

Awakening,

I am sure that you could tell me your interpretation of the "truth" here and now. And I am sure that you sincerely believe it to be the actual truth. But as soon as you did so, members of twenty other denominations would step forward and tell you and me why you are wrong, and each of them would then proceed to give us their interpretations of the "truth", each of which would conflict not only with one another, but also with your version. Each of them would hold their particular beliefs just as sincerely as you hold yours, and each of them would tell me I "need nothing more than the bible to become perfectly aware of what the "truth" is." Faced with this scenario, and recognizing that no one of these groups has any more authority than any other to define or recognize truth, why would I accept or even consider that any of the conflicting versions presented by them would actually be the truth?

What the Catholic Church gives me is what Jesus Christ said it would give me - the fullness of truth, without division or denomination or conflict or contradiction, backed up by divine authority. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as revealed to the Church by its founder, God Himself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

What you just said is very important and in a way the basis necessary to realize the truth. And honestly it is a bit of a pity that you are so close on realizing the truth about life, religion and God and yet so far from it. It took me 25 years of self reflection to come to where I am now and I know only to well, that the realization must come from within each person themself and it is nearly impossible to lead the way from the outside.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 21, 2004.

And speaking of masturbation...

C'mon Awakening, what are you, some White Knight come to save all of us poor "church worshippers" so that we can have a direct, 1-1 line to Jesus? Get over yourself. The Catholic Church has yielded saints whose personal connection with Christ was unfettered and pure beyond your wildest imaginings. Let us be, and take your trolling somewhere else. You're not so great.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

"the realization must come from within each person themself and it is nearly impossible to lead the way from the outside"

A: Really?? Could you direct me to a scripture passage to support that idea? How does that fit with the command of Christ to His Church, to "go forth and make disciples of all peoples"? Do you seriously think that the early Church was "of one heart and one mind" as a result of each individual person looking within, exclusive of outside guidance?

Are you claiming that you personally have the truth because you "found it inside yourself", while all the other people who "found the truth inside themselves", and whose "truth" conflicts with yours are wrong? Or are you saying there is no such thing as objective truth, and that truth is only what you define it to be for yourself? If that's the case, I'm sorry to inform you that you are actually a Buddhist, not a Christian.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

"I am sure that you could tell me your interpretation of the "truth" here and now. And I am sure that you sincerely believe it to be the actual truth. But as soon as you did so, members of twenty other denominations would step forward and tell you and me why you are wrong, and each of them would then proceed to give us their interpretations of the "truth", each of which would conflict not only with one another, but also with your version. Each of them would hold their particular beliefs just as sincerely as you hold yours, and each of them would tell me I "need nothing more than the bible to become perfectly aware of what the "truth" is." Faced with this scenario, and recognizing that no one of these groups has any more authority than any other to define or recognize truth, why would I accept or even consider that any of the conflicting versions presented by them would actually be the truth?"

This statement was beautiful and actually I would really like you to read it again. But this time try to read it from a different viewpoint. Try to imagine you are someone else, someone who is not catholic... what are the logic implications of this statement ? Which by itselve is very sound and based on logic as I have to repeat.

"Faced with this scenario, and recognizing that no one of these groups has any more authority than any other to define or recognize truth, why would I accept or even consider that any of the conflicting versions presented by them would actually be the truth?"

Brilliant! But, do you understand what this means ?

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 21, 2004.

Well, if I were a non-Catholic I might mistakenly think that the Catholic Church is just one more option, in some way comparable to the thousands of Protestant churches, and that what I said above could be applied to the Catholic Church as well. Which would mean that no church could offer me the fullness of truth. However, if I thought about it for a moment I would realize that such a conclusion directly contradicts what God Himself promised - that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church He founded into all truth.

However, as a Catholic I can fully understand what the above situation truly means. It means that Jesus Christ had a purpose in founding only ONE Church to be the means of guiding all men to salvation. It means that separation from that ONE Church means separation from truth. And since it is the will of God that all men know the truth and be set free by it, it therefore cannot be the will of God that manmade churches which draw men away from the truth exist at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

And you don't think, you are just bending reality untill it fit's your point of view?

Don't you posses the least amount of empathy, to realizy that every other religion thinks just the same about their teachings?

The first thing that should occure to a believer, is that his teachings are in direct contradiction to every other religion on this planet... and this goes for all religions, including catholic church. But curiously enough, this is the last thing a believer wants to reflect about... because he would have to realize that if he claims the basis of other believes is just based on old books or scriptures made by men, he would have to say the same about his believes...

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 28, 2004.

Well of course every other religion thinks just the same about their teachings! Otherwise people would not belong to those religions. However, the essential point is not what people "think" about their church's professed beliefs, but rather the underlying objective facts which support, or don't support, the validity of those beliefs.

Because each church "thinks" that everything they profess is true, while each conflicts with the others, two possibilities exist. (1) Every church professes a mixture of truth and untruth, and no church possesses the fullness of truth; or (2) One church possesses the fullness of truth and all others profess a mixture of truth and untruth. What is not possible is that two conflicting churches both profess the fullness of truth. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

If option (1) above is true, then no-one in any church has any means of knowing with objective certainty that anything they believe is actually true. There is no objective authority against which truth can be measured. Many churches try to force the Bible into that role, but it is immediately obvious that it doesn't work. The source of their beliefs is not anything objective or authoritative, but simply their own subjective interpretations of early Church writings. Which is why there is widespread disagreement among them over the meaning of the texts. Which is why none of them can validly claim to know with certainty (as opposed to "feeling certain") that their beliefs are true.

However, Almighty God Himself came to earth as a man for the dual purpose of (1) allowing Himself to be sacrificed in mediation for the sins of mankind, so that men could be saved in spite of those sins; and (2) establishing one Church for all mankind, through which all men could know the fullness of truth with absolute objective certainty. He told the appointed leaders of this one Church that anyone who listens to them listens to Him. He told them that anything they defined as binding truth here on earth is likewise bound in heaven. He promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them, no-one else, to "all truth". This was necessary since He taught that the truth would set men free, and He wanted us to be completely free. If truth produces freedom, then partial truth can provide only partial freedom. He said that His followers were to be "one", even as He and His heavenly Father are "one", which obviously means no differences in beliefs whatsoever. And He Who identified Himself as "the Truth" promised to remain with the Church He founded until the end of time.

History plainly reveals that the Church which God in the Person of Jesus Christ founded for all men, and to which He made the above divine promises of truth, began calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century; and that no other Christian Church existed for more than 1,000 years after Christ ascended. Therefore it is objectively undeniable that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded for all men, and is the Church which alone holds divine promises of the fullness of truth.

Therefore, while all churches may have strong "feelings" about the validity of their beliefs, the objective facts do not support those subjective feelings. Christ gave one Church, the one He Himself founded on the Apostles, and no other, the absolute guarantee of doctrinal truth. Either you accept what Christ taught or you don't. By definition, any belief which deviates from the teaching of the Church with divine assurance of truth is necessarily untrue. There is an objective standard and an objective authority by which men are to know the fullness of truth. One that actually works. One that has remained faithful to the truth as revealed by Christ, for 2,000 years. One which has not resulted in fragmentation into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching partial truth, within a few hundred years. Jesus Christ provided us with one guide to the truth, which is why His Word refers to His Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth". That one Church doesn't just "think" that its beliefs are true. That one Church can KNOW with absolute objective certainty that its beliefs are true, because God Himself guaranteed it. God loves mankind far too much to have it any other way. Guesswork and partial truth just won't do when our eternal salvation hangs in the balance.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 28, 2004.

Well said Deacon Paul. Quod erat demonstratum!

-- Par Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), August 29, 2004.

"However, Almighty God Himself came to earth as a man for the dual purpose of (1) allowing Himself to be sacrificed in mediation for the sins of mankind, so that men could be saved in spite of those sins; and (2) establishing one Church for all mankind, through which all men could know the fullness of truth with absolute objective certainty."

So allow me me play the advocatus diaboli here for a minute. Your perception of truth is based on the assumtion, that Jesus was in fact God's son unlike the teachings of the quoran for example, who see Jesus as prophet among other prophets.

So following your definition, you base your belief system on something you have no way of validating. The mere fact that noone who vitnessed his wonders is alive today, makes it impossible to you, to validate if what is writen in the bible has really happened the way it is written.

To give you another example. The old Greeks for example believed at the beginning the bird, Nyx, laid an egg. From this egg came the god of love, Eros. Then the shell pieces became Gaia and Uranus, the Earth and sky. This is fundamentaly different from what the bible tells us. And yet it was believed bejond doubt by the ancient greeks.

According to the African Bushmen all the creatures of the earth once lived in an underground world. In this place humans and animals lived together peacefully. They could understand each other and did not fear each other. Later all this changed, but at one time there was equality among animals and people. This contradicts with the bible, telling us that " God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping animal that creepeth upon the earth."... this view, also it strongly reflects our current relationship to animals, is in direct contradiction with recent findings. Koko the gorilla, who is a mere animal not created after gods liking as the bible tells us, is capable of speaking more than thousand words in the american sign language and it was only recently, that he even asked for a dentist apointment, because he had a bad tooth. www.koko.org This is neither a hoax, nor was it a genetically modified gorilla of some sort... but the fact that he has an IQ of nearly 90 makes it very hard to believe that the bible, which the catholic church is founding it's entire teachings upon, is telling us the full truth or as you would put it... "is not telling half truths or a mixture of truths..."

I think these questions have to be answered by a religion, before one religion claims to posses the ultimate truth. And therefor be the ONE religion.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 29, 2004.

"Your perception of truth is based on the assumtion, that Jesus was in fact God's son"

A: On the contrary. I don't have to make assumptions. Jesus proved He was God every day of His public life, by doing things no mere man could do. I have eye witness testimonies to these historical events, unlike most events in history. It is precisely because of the lack of such hard evidence that other religions rely on assumptions. Recognition of the necessity of God is a universal characteristic of human beings. However, God is not reachable by mere human effort. Contact can be made between Him and us only on His initiative. Therefore, before the true God revealed Himself to men, the efforts of men to acknowledge God were necessarily based on assumptions, superstitions, and fictitious "deities" of their own creation. Once God Himself appeared, proved He was God, revealed the fullness of truth, and established a Church as the repository of that truth, assumptions and guesswork were no longer necessary.

"The mere fact that noone who vitnessed his wonders is alive today, makes it impossible to you, to validate if what is writen in the bible has really happened the way it is written."

A: You don't believe in history? Is it impossible for us to "validate" the War of 1812 or the voyage of Christopher Columbus or the existence of Cleopatra, just because there is no-one alive today who witnessed these historical realities? There is no reason not to accept the historical writings of the time, especially when several different writers describe the same historical events. And we have a lot more texts written by contemporaries of Jesus than we have by contemporaries of Cleopatra.

"To give you another example. The old Greeks for example believed at the beginning the bird, Nyx, laid an egg. From this egg came the god of love, Eros. Then the shell pieces became Gaia and Uranus, the Earth and sky. This is fundamentaly different from what the bible tells us. And yet it was believed bejond doubt by the ancient greeks."

A: Exactly my point. Such fanciful myths were believed without a shred of actual evidence, simply because men felt the need for God, and God had not yet revealed Himself.

"According to the African Bushmen all the creatures of the earth once lived in an underground world. In this place humans and animals lived together peacefully. They could understand each other and did not fear each other. Later all this changed, but at one time there was equality among animals and people. This contradicts with the bible"

A: It also contradicts everything that is known about the development of life on the planet, again from available evidence, not from superstition and folklore. We know that life originated in the oceans of our planet, not underground. We know that human beings did not appear on this planet for millions of years after animal life appeared, and that when humans appeared there were already many large carnivores that would not hesitate to have a man for lunch. There was certainly not "peaceful coexistence". There was "eat until you are eaten" and "survival of the fittest", which is exactly how God created it. Again, we know all this from hard evidence, not from myths of unknown origin.

"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping animal that creepeth upon the earth."... this view, also it strongly reflects our current relationship to animals, is in direct contradiction with recent findings. Koko the gorilla, who is a mere animal not created after gods liking as the bible tells us, is capable of speaking more than thousand words in the american sign language and it was only recently, that he even asked for a dentist apointment, because he had a bad tooth."

A: Oh come on now. It has long been known that gorillas and chimpanzees are the most intelligent animals. Therefore it is hardly surprising, much less amazing that the most intelligent adult gorilla even found, the "Einstein of the species" so to speak, has abilities roughly comparable to those of a normal two year old human. What does that prove? A human toddler can "point to a boo-boo", including a toothache. To call such an action a "request for a dentist appointment" is ludicrous. The animal doesn't know there are such things as dentists. Or appointments. But it can indicate "where it hurts". Just like any higher form of animal life. I have a cat that is nowhere as intelligent as a gorilla, yet it can clearly tell me "I'm hungry" or "I want to go outside" by "sign language". While this is all very interesting from the point of view of animal behavior, I frankly don't see any relevance to the subject matter at hand. What does sign language in a gorilla have to do with the presence or absence of truth in the doctrinal teaching of a religion?? You lost me here.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.

"There was certainly not "peaceful coexistence". There was "eat until you are eaten" and "survival of the fittest", which is exactly how God created it. Again, we know all this from hard evidence, not from myths of unknown origin. "

You are not talking about evolution are you ? Because evolution, stands in direct contradiction to the creation as it is described in genesis as well as anny other creation myth on the planet. So maybe you can clear this up to me.

The problem with taking the life of Jesus as it is depicted in the bible as a historic fact is, that there are supernatural components about it. When you want to compare what is writen in the bible, to other historic events we accept as reality, then you also have to acnowledge, that every other historic document was striped of it's supernatural components according to scientific knowledge.

For example, when reconstructing what we know aout ancient egypt, we come across manny references of priests and pharaos, who had supernatural powers... you will find nothing about their power over the dead or their invulnerability in modern historic texts. Same with certain Greek military leaders, they are claimed to be the sons of gods... even though we are sure Achiles existed as well as Troj, modern history books contain no refference on his godlike powers. Rasputin, a famous advisor to the russian czar of the 19th century was witnessed to posses magical powers. Yet we don't find anny reference on that in modern history books. Why is that so ?

Because historians are well aware, that during certain times in human history, people had a different perception towards mystic or the supernatural. It was common belief that diseases where caused by demons and the dead could come back and haunt the living... So instead of taking refferences to such occurances for a reality, historians simply take the common missinterpretations of that given time into account and extrapolate what really happened on the basis of a scientific world. That is, why the bible is no historic document.

And now to the "Einstein among apes" Koko already masters 1000 of the 1300 phrases used in the american sign language... this is more than just pointing at the door in order to signal she wants to go out. She knows the difference between good and bad, she utilizes a gramatic "because", "if", "in contrast" and most importantly she already learned about God and the Devil. You are greatly underestimating this beeing, if you think her mental abilities are no match for a human. http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

The Bible makes the claim that humans alone are "created in the image of God. this does not refer to the physikal characteristics, because god is surely no mamal with two eyes and two feet, it refers to the human conciousness... I think we both agree to this. And Koko as much as she is an animal, is showing exactly this conciousness, the bible claims to be inherited by humans only. I hope you see the gravity of this discovery.

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 29, 2004.

"You are not talking about evolution are you? Because evolution, stands in direct contradiction to the creation as it is described in genesis as well as anny other creation myth on the planet."

A: I am not specifically talking about evolution. I am simply talking about the fossil record, which clearly reveals that any time in history or pre-history when there were "peaceful" herbivores, there were also viscious predators which fed on them. This went on long before human beings appeared, and it continued after they appeared. There are primitive cave paintings in many parts of the world depicting the earliest men killing animals and animals killing them. As for evolution, it certainly does not contradict creation in any way. In fact, evolution demands creation since evolution describes the manner in which already existing species change over time, and nothing can change until it exists. Therefore species had to come into existence (be created) before they could evolve.

"The problem with taking the life of Jesus as it is depicted in the bible as a historic fact is, that there are supernatural components about it. When you want to compare what is writen in the bible, to other historic events we accept as reality, then you also have to acnowledge, that every other historic document was striped of it's supernatural components according to scientific knowledge."

What "supernatural components" did the War of 1812 have? The discovery of the New World? The life of Cleopatra? Yes, the life of Christ certainly did have "supernatural components", and those elements of His life were just as clearly portrayed in the writings of eye witnesses as the natural elements of His life. They saw him walk on the sea, calm a violent storm by verbal command, cure lepers and raise the dead by verbal command, multiply natural matter to thousands of times its original volume, be raised up from them and disappear into the sky. They reported what they saw. Their descriptions of what they saw is anything but "stripped of its supernatural components". Rather, it is overflowing with supernatural content, indicating that the person they directly observed doing these things could not have been just an ordinary, natural human being.

"For example, when reconstructing what we know aout ancient egypt, we come across manny references of priests and pharaos, who had supernatural powers... you will find nothing about their power over the dead or their invulnerability in modern historic texts."

A: Of course not, because there was never any evidence that they had any such powers. If their contemporaries had actually seen them exercising power over the dead or invulnerability in any concrete, observable ways, you can bet that such acts would have been recorded by historians. But there were no such acts for eye witnesses to record, because there were no such powers.

"Same with certain Greek military leaders, they are claimed to be the sons of gods... even though we are sure Achiles existed as well as Troj, modern history books contain no refference on his godlike powers. Rasputin, a famous advisor to the russian czar of the 19th century was witnessed to posses magical powers. Yet we don't find anny reference on that in modern history books."

A: If such claims are not referred to in modern historical writings, how do you know about them? Still, there was no eye witness verification of "godlike powers" among Greek military leaders, precisely because there were no such powers. Claiming to be godlike, and even forcing people to treat you as godlike under pain of death is one thing. Actually doing things that could be done only by God is quite another thing. Early Greek and Roman leaders took the former course. Jesus took the latter.

"It was common belief that diseases where caused by demons and the dead could come back and haunt the living... So instead of taking refferences to such occurances for a reality, historians simply take the common missinterpretations of that given time into account and extrapolate what really happened on the basis of a scientific world. That is, why the bible is no historic document."

A: Yes, these are scientific inaccuracies and superstitions, and subsequent scientific findings have proved them wrong. In contrast, there is no scientific explanation for what hundreds or thousands of people saw Jesus Christ do, with their own eyes. Some of them recorded these events as accurately as possible, based upon their own first hand observations. There have of course been attempts to discredit their observations on scientific grounds, but all such attempts have been pitiful at best, ludicrous at worst (maybe Jesus wasn't really dead, but suffered an epileptic seisure on the cross and went into a coma, and woke up later in the tomb, and blah blah blah). Give me a break!

A: And now to the "Einstein among apes" Koko already masters 1000 of the 1300 phrases used in the american sign language... this is more than just pointing at the door in order to signal she wants to go out."

A: No it isn't. A dog can learn many signs that signify complex ideas to us, the observers, such as "there is a pheasant hiding behind that bush". However, the dog has no real concept of what it is "saying". It has simply been conditioned to strike a certain pose in response to a particular stimulus. I know of a cat that jumps up on the porch railing and rings the doorbell when it wants to enter the house. That doesn't mean it understands electricity. Koko, being more intelligent than a dog or cat, has been able to assimilate a greater number of such conditioned responses. And I, being hopefully more intelligent than Koko, have a still greater repertoire of signs and gestures than she has. Also, the documentary films I have seen about Koko were frankly not very impressive. It appeared to me that she had indeed "mastered" perhaps 20 or 30 common signs. Beyond that it appeared that the slightest twitch of her face or finger was interpreted by the scientists as a "sign". It looked like a clearcut case of seeing what you want to see, an all too common natural tendency I have observed frequently as a researcher. In any case, as I said before, this is interesting as animal behavior but it has no bearing whatsoever on theological truth.

"She knows the difference between good and bad"

A: So does a dog. When he chews up a shoe and the master comes home, he runs and hides behind the couch. But neither a dog nor an ape understands good and bad in any moral sense because animals do not possess moral capacity.

"most importantly she already learned about God and the Devil"

A: Really!! And how do we know that? Because she has been taught to make a certain gesture when she sees a picture of "the Devil"? Facial recognition is a characteristic of any higher animal. A dog or a parrot recognizes its master, sheep their shepherd. If you had the time and motivation you could teach a dog to do a back flip when it sees a picture of Bush, and to growl when it sees a picture of Kerry (not a bad idea, wish I had more time). But it would be ludicrous to say that the dog had "learned" anything about either man.

"You are greatly underestimating this beeing, if you think her mental abilities are no match for a human."

A: I already said earlier that her mental abilities may indeed be comparable to those of a normal 2 year old human. So?

"The Bible makes the claim that humans alone are "created in the image of God. this does not refer to the physikal characteristics, because god is surely no mamal with two eyes and two feet, it refers to the human conciousness... I think we both agree to this."

A: No, I'm afraid we don't. All higher animals have "consciousness", which is a function of neuronal activity. Mammals generally have a higher level of consciousness than birds or reptiles because their brains are larger and more complex. Higher primates have greater consciousness levels than other mammals for the same reason; and humans have higher consciousness levels than apes for very the same reason. This is physiological, not spiritual, as shown by the fact that a person's consciousness can be altered or even eliminated with drugs. We are made in God's image and likeness because of our immortal soul and moral capacity, including free will, not by the complexity of our nerve synapses. It is true that consciousness plays a role in exercising moral capacity, since a person who is unconscious cannot make moral decisions. But consciousness and intelligence alone do not make us "like God" or different from animals. Even if Koko learns to do advanced calculus, she will still be just a smart animal, not a creature in God's image and likeness.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.

“In fact, evolution demands creation since evolution describes the manner in which already existing species change over time, and nothing can change until it exists. Therefore species had to come into existence (be created) before they could evolve.”

That is only half the truth. If you in fact talk about evolution as a valid concept, you also accept that evolution works on every scale and in every chemical substance. And if we go back far enough, it is thinkable that from mere molecules one day components evolved, wich we would call live. Self sustaining, copying and using raw material in this process. When we look at RNA, which by itself is not very complicated in structure, we can guess how these first fragments of live would have looked like. If you ever had to wait for your girlfriend 30 minutes at a shoe shop, you can roughly imagine how billions of years could resemble eternity. And who would want to claim that eternity is not enough for some RNA strings to form in a hot pool full of chemicals.

“Of course not, because there was never any evidence that they had any such powers. If their contemporaries had actually seen them exercising power over the dead or invulnerability in any concrete, observable ways, you can bet that such acts would have been recorded by historians. But there were no such acts for eye witnesses to record, because there were no such powers.”

Have you ever been to Egypt? Their old ruins are full of eye witness reports… in fact they even drew pictures of what their priests could do with the sun, the moon and the dead. Do you honestly believe, they would have build them the hugest temples known to mankind, if they where not absolutely sure, their pharaos where godlike creatures? What you have to realize is, when you claim their believes are not based on eye witness, you have to say the same about your believes. Only because it is written in a book, that someone saw Jesus walk on water, does not mean he actually did it. I don’t want to turn this into a psychology debate, but the people who composed the bible where no eye witnesses, they wrote what they heared Jesus had done… and we all know how this works. “I saw it with my own eyes, the dragon was 15 feet tall and he levelled the entire village” (Peter O’Toole 1534). In fact it is a bit strange to see you deny the Egyptian god pharaos and at the same time talk about what Jesus did, as if it was the most natural thing on earth. Don’t you realize, that by accepting this unquestioned, you are actually proving the mechanism I try to explain you here? You, just like the authors of the bible simply assume that the supernatural components of the bible are real. The only difference is, the people 2000 years ago did not know better and are fully excused for their perception of reality, while you should know by now that people can’t walk on water or turn water into wine… well actually today they can, but not the way Jesus was supposed to do… ;-)

Simple question, if tomorrow someone came rushing into your room and told you the second coming of Christ was happening right then and there and he had seen a guy opening the portal into paradise in your backyard… what would your first reaction be?

Right, you would grab your shiny 12-gauge and burn him a second a- hole for kicking your door in… ;-)

“In contrast, there is no scientific explanation for what hundreds or thousands of people saw Jesus Christ do, with their own two eyes.” You are doing it again… you assume hundreds of thousands of people saw him do these things… because it is written in a book. But as even you will have to realize, there are no hundreds of thousands of testimonies for what Jesus did, there is only what was written about him, by the few guys who composed the bible. And why do you assume that Achiles was worshiped because he was cruel? These guys loved him because he was a brilliant leader and that is why he was reserved a special place in Greek mythology. Same with Jesus, the people loved him, that is why they mystify him… if you are hated you are demonized. We have this with Rasputin for example. People hated him, because he “magically” stole their women, so they said he was in league with Satan. Of course they didn’t realize that his magic “rod” was everything else but mystical, it was in fact very real 30 cm in length. So no magic here… still “eye witnesses” claim he did not even die from a bullet in the head, the chest and the heart… Do you believe he was a supernatural being or do you believe me saying he was just a crazy Russian… ;-)

“There have of course been attempts to discredit their observations on scientific grounds, but all such attempts have been pitiful at best, ludicrous at worst (maybe Jesus wasn't really dead, but suffered an epileptic seisure on the cross and went into a coma, and woke up later in the tomb, and blah blah blah). Give me a break!”

Now this is interesting, while you perfectly fine with the explanation that Jesus went to hell and back to life, you have a problem with scientific explanations for the reports about his resurrection.

There are dozens of explanations, which are more likely than believing he was resurrected. What if the whole story was simply made up, to further strengthen the belief in Jesus? Interestingly enough, we even get contradicting testimonies about the women who vistited the grave… Luke: "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24) Directly contradicting this: Mark: "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8) Now what can we make of this? Mark is obviously wrong, because had they not told about what they saw, then we would not read about it today…. Mhhh but how can this be, wheren’t you telling me that these reports where all made by eye witnesses and that there is no doubt about their credibility?

But the contradictions go on: After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear? Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16) Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14) Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36) John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24) Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (I Corinthians 15:5) As you can clearly see Paul is way off here, but maybe Judas was resurrected too and the others forgot to tell us about this… ;-)

Now let’s see what the credible “eye witnesses” have to say about where he first appeared to the disciples? Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17) Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14) Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36) John: In a room, at evening (20:19) Imagine someone would make a case out of this and try to win in court… boy oh boy… “Kobe Bryant raped me in his room… no wait it was on a mountain in Galilee…” ;-)

Maybe you see now, that your believe is not quite so different from what the old Egyptians believed, when they where told about their great pharaos.

“We are made in God's image and likeness because of our immortal soul and moral capacity, including free will”

What makes you think, that Koko does not have a moral capacity or a free will? This is a pretty heavy claim to make, without actually having spend time with that being. From all I can tell, even dogs have a moral capacity and a free will. There have been reports of dogs jeopardizing their own lives for humans. And you don’t do this against your own will or without a moral consciousness. And if you claim they don’t have a soul, what makes you so sure you have one either? Only because it is written in the bible? You are turning in circles here... if the bible is wrong, if evolutionists are right, then there is no soul, then we all descended from the same amoeba… So before we talk about souls, how do you explain this ?

http://www.susannassoapbox.com/osdog.html http://www.k9magazinefree.com/k9_perspective/iss16p9.shtml http://www.moggies.co.uk/articles/wtc_hero.html

-- Awakening (nospam@please.com), August 29, 2004.

"And if we go back far enough, it is thinkable that from mere molecules one day components evolved, wich we would call live."

A: I think you meant "unthinkable" here? If so, I fully agree. It is certainly unthinkable that life came into being spontaneously, by mere random interactions of chemicals. Anyone who claims such a thing is obviously an atheist, and atheism does indeed contradict the teaching of the bible. But evolution doesn't. The fact that life could not have begun by mere chance indicates that a conscious design must have been involved. So again, evolution, even at its most primitive stages, requires God. The Bible says that God created all that exists. It doesn't say how. Evolutionary biology sheds some light on that question. Exploring the mechanisms God may have used in creating living organisms doesn't take anything away from God. He is still the Creator, regardless of what natural systems He may have designed and used in the creation process.

"Have you ever been to Egypt? Their old ruins are full of eye witness reports… in fact they even drew pictures of what their priests could do with the sun, the moon and the dead."

A: Their temples are full of drawings depicting ancient myths. Every primitive culture had such myths (for reasons already discussed) and many if not most used artwork to depict them. but there is no reason to suspect that any of the "deities" represented in such mythological representations ever existed, and there is ample reason to expect that they did not. In contrast, Jesus Christ was a real Person. Of course, that fact doesn't prove that everything written about Him was necessarily true. But at least first person accounts of observations of a real person carry a lot more weight than mythological stories about fictitious characters.

"Only because it is written in a book, that someone saw Jesus walk on water, does not mean he actually did it."

A: And only because it is written in a book doesn't mean that George Washington actually was the first President of the U.S.A. But no-one who saw him take the oath of office is still alive today to confirm the fact. If we are going to have any knowledge of the past at all, it has to be based on what reputable people recorded at the time of the event. That's called history. It's the only channel of knowledge we have concerning past human endeavors, other than occasional supporting archeological evidence.

"the people who composed the bible where no eye witnesses, they wrote what they heared Jesus had done"

A: Some of the information about Jesus, like the details of His birth and childhood, were second person accounts, undoubtedly received by the writers from His mother, an eye witness. However, most of the gospel accounts of His public ministry were written by those who personally witnessed it.

"you should know by now that people can't walk on water or turn water into wine"

A: Of course I know that mere people cannot do such things. My point exactly. Only God can do such things, and since Jesus was observed doing such things, he is therefore God.

"Simple question, if tomorrow someone came rushing into your room and told you the second coming of Christ was happening right then and there and he had seen a guy opening the portal into paradise in your backyard… what would your first reaction be?"

A: It would depend on the reliability of the witness. If it was a stranger I might call the police. But if it was a close friend whom I knew by experience to be consistently stable, reliable and truthful, then I would certainly get up and go see what he was talking about.

“you assume hundreds of thousands of people saw him do these things because it is written in a book. But as even you will have to realize, there are no hundreds of thousands of testimonies for what Jesus did, there is only what was written about him, by the few guys who composed the bible."

A: Actually I said "hundreds or thousands", not "hundreds of thousands". In any case, if I went to a concert or other public event, and later told you that over two thousand people were there, would you have reason to doubt my word? After all, I was there. Maybe you would doubt my skill at estimating crowd sizes, but at the very least you should be willing to accept that a great many people were there, based on my personal eye witness account. So, when a biblical writer states that Jesus, after His resurrection, appeared to over five hundred paople at once, I see no reason to doubt the witness of one who was in a position to know. That's history.

"And why do you assume that Achiles was worshiped because he was cruel? These guys loved him because he was a brilliant leader" and that is why he was reserved a special place in Greek mythology."

A: What do you mean he was a brilliant leader? "He" was a figment of their imaginations! A MYTH. That's why "he" holds a special place in Greek MYTHology!

"Same with Jesus, the people loved him, that is why they mystify him"

A: Yes, they could love Him because "He" existed! They didn't need to "mystify" a person who did the things they saw Him do. And only a fraction of those events are recorded in the Bible! Jesus did such things virtually every day! things only God could do. You can't get much more "mystical" than that without going off into fiction.

"if you are hated you are demonized"

A: Like maybe ... crucified??

"Now this is interesting, while you perfectly fine with the explanation that Jesus went to hell and back to life, you have a problem with scientific explanations for the reports about his resurrection."

A: There are no "scientific" explanations. Legitimate scientists are not interested in investigating the divinity of Christ, as the subject does not fall within the realm of science. Such ludicrous "explanations" are put forth by unbelievers desperate to demonstrate to themselves if not to others that their rejection of God will not result in eternal damnation as God has said it will. Their silly fabrications have no basis scientifically, logically, or historically. "There are dozens of explanations, which are more likely than believing he was resurrected. What if the whole story was simply made up, to further strengthen the belief in Jesus?"

A: Anything is more likely than His Resurrection, from a purely worldly viewpoint, since His Resurrection is utterly impossible from a strictly worldly viewpoint. Nevertheless there are multiple recorded accounts of His having been seen and conversed with after the fact. No matter how unlikely something may theoretically seem, the fact that it happened, supported by multiple reliable witnesses, carrys far more weight than any theoretical probability. The odds of a given person winning the lottery are millions to one. But when he wins, and it is confirmed that he won, the odds don't matter anymore. When you consider the fact that God can do anything, and that He predicted His Resurrection, the "odds" of it actually having happened are 1 in 1. Absolute certainty.

"Interestingly enough, we even get contradicting testimonies about the women who vistited the grave"

A: Yes, there are minor discrepancies in some peripheral details in accounts written by different authors in different times and places. No surprise there. But the essentials are always the same. They went to the tomb, found the stone rolled back and the body gone in spite of the heavy Roman guard who had been placed there specifically to prevent such an occurence, saw an angel or two, went back and reported their findings. Who cares how many angels they saw, or whom they told first? The basic story is the same in every case.

"What makes you think, that Koko does not have a moral capacity or a free will? This is a pretty heavy claim to make, without actually having spend time with that being."

A: I know Koko does not have moral capacity or free will for the same reason I know she doesn't have wings - I know she is a gorilla, and neither moral capacity nor free will nor wings are part of the makeup of a gorilla. Does a gorilla who kills its trainer commit murder?

"From all I can tell, even dogs have a moral capacity and a free will. There have been reports of dogs jeopardizing their own lives for humans."

A: Many animals have survival insticts which extend to their families - either their own mates and offspring, or their adopted human families. A bear will attack a person who even wanders near, much less attacks, its cubs. A sparrow will attack a hawk - or a human - which threatens its next. So will hornets. Do hornets have moral capacity just because they will risk their lives for the good of their "home and family"?

"And if you claim they don’t have a soul, what makes you so sure you have one either? Only because it is written in the bible?"

A: No. Because God has revealed it to His Church, the sole channel of truth on such matters. That is also the reason it is in the Bible.

"if the bible is wrong, if evolutionists are right, then there is no soul, then we all descended from the same amoeba"

A: "Evolutionists" are scientists. They don't make statements about "the soul" one way or the other. Again, it is atheism, not biology, that is in contention with the Bible and the teaching of the Church. Regardless of the natural process God used to form our bodies, at some point in time (very recent time, in geologic terms) He breathed immortal spiritual life into the bodies of the first human beings, and at that moment they were created in His own image and likeness. At that precise moment they became human, received moral capacity and free will. Such an event never occurred in any other species.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.

“Steve, the Inquisition was a defining force of the past fourhundred years.” LOL! It hasn’t even EXISTED for the past 200 years. For the 200 years before that it was in decline, and disappeared from everywhere but Spain after the 1600s. All you could say is that the BLACK LEGEND of lies about the Inquistion was a "defining force" in myths promoted by the protestant ascendancy and believed by the uneducated mass of their subjects over most of the past 400 years.

“There are manny historic references about atrocities the catholic church was directly involved in” – Give me ONE reference by a reputable historian to any one “atrocity” committed by the Catholic Church. You can’t!

“When you talk about millions of people beeing killed in the name of atheism, you make it sound like an excuse for what the catholic church did in past centuries ?” No, I’m just exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of the bigots who run the mass media (which have pulled you in hook, line, and sinker) who endlessly blame current members of the Church because it was peripherally involved in a relatively few relatively minor abuses centuries ago, but virtually ignore the greatest (and CONTINUING) holocaust in history committed by atheists, many of them still living, against Christians (mainly Catholics and Orthodox).

“if it would be wise, to trust in an institution, which has changed it's practices and standards” – but not its faith!

“this institution who has unarguably done wrong in the past, wount do wrong today or in the future. Men are bound to make mistakes.” Yes they are. Every Catholic, every priest, every bishop, is a sinner. But I put my trust, not in the saintliness of the Church’s leaders (though it is true that especially in the last 450 years they have been much more saintly than the average man) , but in the fact that God founded the Church and gave it its faith which it has not changed and cannot change. Yes some people maybe had “blind trust” that because a man was a priest he could not possibly be a pedophile (though it is true that Catholic priests as a group are far less likely than laymen to be pedophiles). They too perhaps confused the impossibility of the Church erring in faith with the possibility of its priests erring in personal moral behavior. Some of the medieval Popes were also sexually immoral. But none of them ever TAUGHT that sexual intercourse outside marriage is OK. Nor did they water down what the Church holds and teaches in any other area of faith and morals, despite their personal immorality.

“am I so wrong in questioning this men made institution?” You should question every man-made institution. You should even question the behavior of officials of the Church. What you should not question is the essence of the Church itself, because it was made by God, not men.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 30, 2004.

Excellent post Steve. I could'nt improve on it if I tried. Since I argue with you elsewhere I feel obliged to agree with you 100% when you hit homeruns like this.

Keep up the great work!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Thank you Joe. And thanks when you do argue with me, for doing so with reasoned and well-founded arguments and (nearly) always a Christian attitude. It seems our friend Awakening has left us for awhile. I hope he/she is pondering our replies above.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 02, 2004.

Hi er...I am a Catechumen, attending a catholic church in Asia. Going to be baptised next coming easter, and honestly I couldnt help but feel excited about it. Ooops...enough abt myself.

I want to say thank you to Anon, Steve and especially, Paul. Thank you so much. I have learnt so much from these replies to this discussion. And I am hopeful and draw strength from all of you and God to overcome my own temptations.

Felt rather encouraged. Just like some of the replies, I will pray too for all of us, including Awakening(irregardless of which religion the latter may come from). May we be able to follow God's Word, renounce our sinful ways of often Arrogance and succumbing to temptations of the flesh. Amen.

I have no idea why after reading the discussions right up till recently, this passage keep coming into my mind... "If anyone says,'I love God,' but hates his brother, he is a liar;for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." 1 Jn 4:20-21

Perhaps Jesus's message of Love is one of the greatest teaching. Dont ya all think so? ;)

Sorry forgive me for my ignorance and at times perhaps irrelvance. I have really much much to learn from the God's Word and His Church.

Good day then, my brothers and sisters in Christ =)

-- Sinner (fxwong18@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

Yes, love as Christ teaches it is the greatest liberating force in the universe. It's the medicine to cure the disease that began with original sin.

When Adam turned away from self-less, magnanimous, gallant love of God and Eve, in order to selfishly protect his life and eat the forbidden fruit, he set in motion the great civil war that all human beings must fight both interiorly as well as exteriorly in our relationships with God and each other.

Love then as Christ teaches it involves self-sacrifice for the good of the other - whether this other is our neighbor or God. All sexual morality revolves around this dimension of "self-lessness for the good of the other".

Men don't have sex with women they are not married to out of selfless love for them! Yes! Out of true friendship! The motive for chastity (pre-marital and marital) is friendship, loyalty and love. We so love the other person - so desire what is the best for them, that we will not allow our selfish desires and lusts to get us to use their bodies or souls for our "own good".

When Christ died on the cross he showed us the example of love - he died not for his own sake but for ours, he calls us "friends" and so assured the apostles that he was leaving them for them. A man does the same with a woman who he cannot marry or is not married to "leaves her for her own good".

Friends also respect boundaries for the same reason: they seek the greatest good of each other and that good doesn't include sexuality except in committed monogamous marriage.

May you come to experience the joy of being friends with Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joe

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.