I'm well aware of the gleening laws in the OT, as in Levitcus and shown in Ruth. The stealing was a smart alec comment, no more. What Jesus was accused of was working on the Sabbath and he was justified as was David to sustain life per the Law. Jesus and his rebels likely could have been pursued at this point by Herod and were in need of food thus allowing it.

OT laws in regard to divorce were blessed by the god. If you can find in the OT where god says Moses Law conflicts to his law please document.

The NT  quote you cite is NT and only indicates what Jesus Believers thought, find it in the OT where the god disagrees with Deuteronomy 24. 

Remember, Yahweh is very fickle and given to changing his mind as well shown in the OT. Citing Genesis is before Yahweh altered his directions and promises. Find it somewhere in the OT after Moses.

What is it you think, Moses pulled this law out of the air? 

If so, you are not far from finding the truth.

If Moses made this particular law up or pulled it out of the air, maybe he pulled all of them out of thin air.

Anonymouse quote:

Lack of abstinence and self control education ? Since Pepfar that's all they've been getting as far as prevention was concerned, so there is no lack whatsoever. Obviously, and according to the authorities who have to deal with this situation, it's not working, and they're putting the C back in.

You also seem to be skipping a lot of steps. First came the aids awareness campaign. Then they switched to the abc-program. Then numbers started going down, and kept going down, thanks to organisations such as TASO , the Kibale Tree Planting Project, and people like Philly Lutaya who helped break the taboo.

Then came Pepfar and up went the numbers.
Actually, they've been up for longer than the article suggest. The National Guidance and Empowerment Network's stats have been showing this trend long before the official government rates.


Response 1

Abstinence and self control education has been and is working. The "comprehensive sex ed" programs, which focus mainly on condoms and education on condoms of surrounding countries like Zimbabwe and Botswana have not worked.

Here are so more articles to support my point.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/143/27/

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/530/27/

Here is a list of studies on the subject:

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/category/6/149/27/



Anonymouse quote:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly qualifies you to criticize an informed opinion of an experienced medical professional, who's been dealing with the AIDS situation in his country for his entire working life ?

Response 2

What qualifies me to criticize this doctor's informed opinion is my own informed opinion(I have that right), and 100s of other doctor's opinions making the opposite claim with both experimental and anecdotal evidence to back them up.


Anonymouse quote:

Have we read the same article ? In the very paragraph you're quoting "inconsistent use of condoms" is listed as one of the factors. More like no condoms at all, since they are no longer as freely available in Uganda as they were in the 90s.

Most of the other factors simply drive the point home that abstinence is a fairy tale. You keep forgetting : Pepfar is already pushing abstinence-only prevention. They have already failed.


Response 3

I did read the same article. Inconsistent use of condoms was one of the problems, but so weren't multiple sex partners, and an increase in the sex for money industry. These two things are directly linked to the promotion of condoms and the idea of "safe sex." 

Let's take a look at another quote:

"Ms Agnes Kibwota, 25, also a commercial sex worker says she has been in the business for six years. "Mine is business as usual so long as Shs100,000 is in my pocket daily there is no problem, why should I suffer?" Kibwota says. She says she does not bother about using condoms because the buyer has to decide on the game."

This is not an isolated incident. Again the same problem is going on in other African countries as seen in the above articles. If they are choosing not to use condoms then better education in their use will not work. Better education about self control and the sanctity of sex will and do have better results. See the above articles and studies.

It's important to note that the increase in and the promotion of condoms and other contraceptives is directly linked to an increase in sexual immorality/promiscuity not only in Africa, but in the USA and the world over.
 
Anonymouse quote:

What it shows is that the numbers are back up, and abstinence-only prevention isn't helping. You can preach abstinence till you're blue in the face, it doesn't work, and these numbers prove it.

Response 4

see the articles and studies I have provided link to above.

Anonymouse quote:

Once again, abstinence-only prevention was already going on. That's what the Pepfar prevention program was all about. It was already happening. Nobody was encouraging illicit sex, quite the opposite. For pete's sake, deliberate infection gets you the death penalty. How is that encouraging ?


Response 5

Again telling people not to have illicit sex, and then handing them a condom (contraceptive) is sending two conflicting messages. "Don't have sex, but since you will anyway I'll provide you a condom."

Again I'll liken it to my previous alcoholic analogy. "Don't drink any more alcohol, but since you will just remember to take a cold shower and drink of cup of joe in the morning."

Threatening a person who is already slowly dying with death is not a big threat either. Especially if they are willing, even while using contraceptives, to spread the disease to others.
 

So what I'm supposed to think is that Jesus had AB blood type is that it? Since a relic of cloth from an unnamed source likely from the middle ages based on the 1988 radiocarbon tests had AB blood and this heart chunk has AB blood, everything must be true is that it?

Barnum was right.

If the Church had unassailble proof it would be on display in the middle of St. Peter's.

You so like to twist things don't you. Did I say I agreed with the public perception. No, I didn't say that. Did I say that no one should search for the truth? No, I didn't say that either.

Do you not understand how public perception works? If a large group believes something to be true and acts on that basis as in this case, the effect was the loss of members. This happens to individuals as well who are convicted in the eyes of the public and the media even when innocent facing a lifetime of stigma though innocent. That is so very wrong.

You need to ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions when you don't understand. 

These many articles all seem to come from the same source. I could give you just as many articles from the Royal Society claiming the exact opposite.

Also, not a single one of yours concerns what we are discussing, namely the current situation in Uganda, where there is no proof that abstinence played any role in the success their early campaigns were having.

But thanks to Pepfar insisting on increased funding for abstinence-only prevention, we now have sufficient reason to suspect that condoms at least were the only effective part of the abc-formula.

Even Pepfar itself seems to be slowly coming around to that conclusion.

Of course you have that right, but surely you realise that doesn't make a lick of sense. You have no medical qualifications, and no experience with the situation we are discussing. And these 100s of doctors of yours must be feeling pretty silly by now, as Dr Semugoma's quotes have already been shown to be quite correct.

How many times do I have to repeat this : Condoms weren't being promoted anymore. Pepfar was actively discouraging the use of condoms. Didn't I just tell you that several times already ?

Okay, I'm going to say this again, but please listen this time : Condoms were not being promoted. The exact opposite was happening. The numbers in that article are the result of Pepfar. If they want to turn this around, they're going to have to change their strategy.
 

See my response.

Looks like I'll have to say it one more time : Condom use was not being encouraged. Pepfar was actively discouraging the use of condoms in favor of abstinence. What you want to happen was already going on, and those increased numbers are the direct result of that.

If you think that's an analogy for prevention then I think I see the problem.

The point was that illicit sex was not being promoted, and the numbers still went up. That at least I won't have to repeat anymore. I hope.

Several things to consider in this question.

1- In Judaism sex was a women's right, see - http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm So if the sole purpose was to gratify the man I don't see how this would be acceptable. If somehow the woman also was gratified then probably. This is a gray area.

2- It appears that as long as seed isn't spilled even unnantural sex may be allowed see - http://koshersex.com/oralanalsex.html 

Sex with your pregnant wife is allowed as is sex when you are past child-bearing years which both would seem to be a form of spilling seed, somewhat a contradiction. 

In regard to chemical birth control by women, Cliffjumper ignores what Judaism allows to justify his interpretation and the Catholic Church's prohibition desiring to keep women in a 2nd class status. The Talmud prescribes a minimum of 2 children yet requires in the laws of onah regular sexual relations. This means that sex has a purpose beyond procreation in Judaism.

Believing in the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic Church will help one properly comprehend justice, love, choice, and responsibility. Can you give me an example where you see this as being contradictory? 

I've read the some texts on the development of morality. None of them were all that great at explaining its development.

I said there was a non-decaying piece of flesh in Lanciano, Italy, because there is a piece of non-decaying flesh there. The Church has had many many many studies done on that piece of flesh and blood and the results are the same.

The Church as the font of rationality can be explained through its teachings on moral justice, love, choice, responsibility, and many other things.  Again please provide me with one that is not in your opinion.

1. Then you have neither read your Bible or Church history. Purgatory/indulgences - not just. Killing people by lying about condoms - not loving. Confession/forgiveness - abdicating responsibility.

2. The Church has had many studies done on that piece of flesh and the results are the same? Hmm. maybe we should get someone not beholden to the church to do a study? You think the church would pay for a contradictory result?

Non-decaying flesh could be:

A. frequently replaced fresh meat

or

B. a piece of divine carcass (if Jesus was really living don't you think he'd miss that piece? Or does he replace it as Lanciano needs it?)

3. see 1. I gave you three examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano <-- Has nice picture.

So there are some obviously dried pieces of something in two sealed containers.  The only modern test was done by the Vatican, and they determined that it was indeed human heart tissue.  That's it.

I'm confused as to where the miracle is though...flesh lasting that long in a sealed container isn't unusual, and I don't see anything about the flesh as unusual.  Well, besides the fact that someone apparently took the time to carve up some poor bastard's corpse to get some heart tissue.  Well, I can only hope the original monk didn't kill someone to get the heart.

The story even seems to indicate there was only one witness to the original event???  That can't be right.

I really, really, really don't get this kind of miracle claim.  Have Catholics never seen David Blaine, or heck, any modern stage magician?  If they can fool people without real magic, why is stuff like this considered miraculous?

"And Lo, Jesus Christ did make a tiger dissapear, and then Jesus did dissapear, and in the place of Jesus, a chorus girl then stood.  Applaud, and be saved!"

Why can't the faithful figure it out for themselves?  Is God obtuse?

Edit:  God damn you Gadfly...damn you to hell!

All this fuss is for divine desiccated meat? Passover Pemmican? Jesus Jerky?

I'm underwhelmed.

Mellestad said:

"I meant in a broad sense.  Yes, specific beliefs are different, but both believe in woo-woo magic from God.  For you there is a vast difference because the details matter.  To me the details don't matter, because non of it is real to me.  Does that make sense?  To me yuor magic beliefs aren't any better than a Wiccan's beliefs, or an evangelicals."

Response 1

In a broad sense Catholicism is majorly different from all other Protestant faiths. Examples are Protestants' belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fida (faith alone). Catholics do not believe that, yet those two ideas are the fundamentals of the protestant faiths.

Unlike Wiccan beliefs Catholicism is based in rational thought. Look at the writings from the Church doctors, Catherine of Sienna for example. Her writings are very rational, and make a lot of sense. I've spent a good part of this thread giving good examples for the Church's teachings on contraception. All of the teachings of the Catholic church are rational and reasonable. By reasonable I mean that the teachings are logical and follow reason.

I'm guessing that by woo-woo magic you mean the mysteries of the faith? Such as Transubstantiation, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and/or Mary's perpetual virginity? Again these beliefs are logical. You could relate these mysteries to the three major assumptions that science must make to be useful. These are:

1. The universe is ordered

2. The universe is understandable through the scientific method

3. We will not know all there is to know about the universe

Mellestad said:

"I am very familiar with it, but this is the same problem as above.  To you, the details and rationalizations matter, to me, they don't.  Your religion *is* about immortality, and you use ritual in the service of that goal.  It isn't my fault that bluntness is not flattering."

Response 2:

Eating supernatural flesh from a human (born of a god non the less!) sacrifice to grant yourself immortality....really?

This is not the definition of the Eucharist, not even close. If you say you understand the Eucharist, than what is it? It is not supernatural human flesh. The Eucharist sustains the life of the soul, it does not grant immortality. Catholicism is not about immorality it deals with immorality.

Mellestad said:

"Same as above.  Prayer and miracles?  Angels, saints, demons, the Devil...and my shorthand is not accurate?  I don't see how."

Response 3:

"If you use your mind correctly, with enough belief, you can supernaturally influence reality in ways both subtle and profound...really?"

You as a human cannot supernaturally influence reality, God can. This is why I stated that the statement displayed your ignorance on the subject.

Miracles are not a form of woo woo magic. Magic is done on a whim where as miracles are performed for a reason, for example spiritual growth, and God has given us the ability to discern that it is a miracle by allowing us to judge the fruits of the miracle. Angles, saints, demons, and the Devil are not controlling forces over your life. They play a secondary role in our lives.

Mellestad said:

I did not bring up those things, I'm not sure what I said to prompt that.  I'm not of the opinion that religion makes people monsters, I think religion is just another viral meme that can be good or bad...but it isn't rational and it is very infectious.  I think the main danger of religion is the idea of faith, magical forgiveness and the concept that this world is not the 'real' reality we should be focused on (afterlife).

Christianity is not the basis of rational thought, that is simply incorrect.  The history of western philosophy started in ancient Greece, long before Christ.  Who told you Christians were responsible for rationality?

Besides, in general, how is Christianity more rational than other religions?

Response 4:

I misspoke before. Christianity does not form the basis for rational thought, but allowed for the flourishing of rational thought throughout the world.

I apologize for jumping to the conclusion about the Inquisition and Crusades. In my previous conversations this is the first thing people bring up against this argument.

Christianity is more rational than other religions because it's teachings are inextricably linked to natural law.

Excuse me, I intended to say God tolerated divorce, because it was a pre-existing custom. God attempted to ween the the Jews off of divorce, as seen in Deuteronomy 24. These marriage laws were given to the Jews so that the custom of divorce, a sin, would be lessened and eliminated, but because divorce was not eliminated by the time of Jesus in Matthew chapter 19 Jesus fulfilled the explanation of the spirit of the law. The NT testament quote is directly from Jesus (God); therefore, God disagrees with the actions of the Jews in regards to divorce.

PJTS said:

So what I'm supposed to think is that Jesus had AB blood type is that it? Since a relic of cloth from an unnamed source likely from the middle ages based on the 1988 radiocarbon tests had AB blood and this heart chunk has AB blood, everything must be true is that it?

Barnum was right.

Response 1:

I don't know what you're suppose to think. I'm trying to show that there is consistency with each of the Eucharisitc miracles. If all the official Eucharisitc miracles are fake then the hoaxers got really really really lucky that all the blood types were AB and all were incorruptible. Also they were lucky that it matched the Shroud of Turin blood type.

As for the shroud being made in the middle ages that is very unlikely. The cited radio-carbon dates from the 1988 tests are fraudulent. The piece of the Shroud that was tested has been proven to be a re-woven section from the Middle Ages. This was clearly visible from the UV photos taken in 77 by the STRP. This seems to point to a conscious effort at scientific fraud.

PJTS:

If the Church had unassailble proof it would be on display in the middle of St. Peter's.

Response 2:

Why would this proof have to be visible at St. Peter's square?

PJTS said:

I didn't twist anything. I quoted the statement and said it was disturbing. Which it was. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I had no intention of doing that.

The church has never said this. It has always been due to peoples' choice to sin.

Wikipedia, not a good source for information on these matters try:

http://www.catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-191.html

More than one test has been done on the Host in Lanciano, Italy.

The flesh in Lanciano, Italy has been around since 780AD. So there were no methods of preserving the flesh as there are today. It was never kept in any kind of sealed container either. It was only recently that this was done. Again carving someone's heart out, unless the piece of heart is incorruptible, will not replicate the Lanciano, Italy case.

You are right there was more then one witness to the event. In fact a whole mass full of people saw and contempories of the time saw and recorded it.

An incorruptible piece of heart tissue, with AB blood type, is not a magic trick it is a miracle. Miracles and magic tricks are quite different as I explained a little earlier. Please check out the Church's definition of a miracle.

Again they are needed to distribute the Sacraments among other things. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more answers on the matter.

The meaning of Luke 17:21 has nothing to do with the priesthood. This part of Luke deals with how physically visible the Kingdom of God will be.

John 4:21-24- This deals with how the Holy Spirit will guide His Church. It doesn't have anything to do with worshiping wherever.

As for the "Gospel of Thomas" it's a Gnostic gospel; therefore, it is not a Christian, or Catholic book, and plays no role in determining the need and importance of priests. 

Jesus created the sacraments though out the Old and New Testaments. The Eucharist at the Last Supper, priests in the old and new testament. Ordination of priests at the Last Supper too. Confession in the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Torah. Marriage in Genesis. They may not be listed by name, such as the Eucharist, but the spirit, description, and command to do so is there.

So how is "don't use condoms - just time your sex better (aka the rhythm method)" more effective?

I knew you'd say that.

I also knew you'd say this.

And of course you can't consider anything outside of Catholicism can you?

I typed Jesus in a search box searching an online Bible for the Old Testament and Hebrew Scriptures and it finds nothing at all.

Please cite chapter and verse for each of your claims.

This is not contradictory. You are misunderstanding what Pope Benedict XVI is saying. He is saying that pedophiles have an illness, which compromises their ability to fully and completely exercise their free will. Such as a drug addict. He or she may not truly be able to stop because he/she is addicted physically/psychologically to a drug; however, this does not mean one cannot stop with help and treatment. This is the case with pedophiles as well.

He is not absolving the problem either. In fact he is saying that pedophiles should be kept away from children and punished, but also treated if possible.

Excuse me, but no, it isn't.

I'll have to repeat it yet again, won't I ?

Pepfar didn't just concentrate their prevention campaign on abstinence and marital fidelity, they were actively discrediting the use of condoms. The result is in the numbers I've already shown you.

The C was taken out of the abc-method, and the numbers went up.

What's the problem here ? Are we waiting for a catholic organisation to put a spin on those numbers and publish an article about it ?

jcgadfly:

So how is "don't use condoms - just time your sex better (aka the rhythm method)" more effective?

Response:

Hey. Sorry for not posting. I recently moved, and I've been busy with two research papers.

It's not just about timing your sex better, it's about self-control. Abstaining from sex or just general abstinence of any kind helps a person gain self-control or strengthen their self-control. This allows teens, or whoever, to control their urges.

May I ask why you wanted to know what the first two verses meant?

I consider and read plenty of things outside the church. As for the gnostic gospel, the reason I don't consider it important here is because it is not Catholic or Christian. Gnosticism is a completely separate religion. It borrows from Christianity, but it is a Greek Mystic religion. So, if I wanted to understand why the Catholic Church had priests I would read Catholic and Christian material on the subject, not about Greek mystic religions.

As for the sacraments and the Old Testament you wouldn't find Jesus telling people about the sacraments it would be God, the Father. Since the Catholic church teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same I use Jesus and God interchangeably. Chapter and verse for the following sacraments:

Confession/Penance: Leviticus Chapters 4-5

Matthew 16:19, 2 Corinthians 5:18

Eucharist: again at the Last Supper

John 6:53-59

Priests: Last Supper when Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me."

Priests were established many places in the Old Testament. Also in Matthew 28:16-20.

Marriage:

Genesis 2:24-25

Matthew Chapter 19

Contraception sometimes fails. Intercourse doesn't always lead to conception or a viable baby/

When practiced carefully, it works more often than not. That is the point.

'Contraception fails', unqualified, is not a intelligible statement in this context - it certainly does not fail, either universally in intercourse, or as a way to significantly reduce population growth, and reduce STD transmission, especially AIDS .

There is no personal or societal harm arising from any act of contraception itself, or even from the act of extra-marital sex in many cases.

If either party is in a relationship where the partner would be deeply emotionally affected if they knew of the particular act, that is a reason to regard that particular act ethically wrong. That situation is far from being a universal. It any case, it is not the physical act that is wrong, it is the deception, doing something that one knows would deeply upset a person one has made a commitment to. Any act, not necessarily sexual, that involved such deception, concealing from a partner any act that would deeply upset them. 

Otherwise there is not an ethical issue, so to campaign against the use of condoms, which do reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the spread of AIDS, both clear social harms, based on some pre-conceived condemnation of extra-marital sex per se, is morally bankrupt.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

I wanted to see what understanding you had.

I expected your response as you claim to be a practicing Catholic. For you to see the quote in Luke 17:21 in a different light, such as I suggest, would be a heresy. If the Kingdom of God was within you then the need to go to mass is unwarranted. The comment in John 4 also supports this view, as Jesus told the woman that the time was coming when worship was to be in spirit and not in any physical place. Thomas also reinforced this and really is not any different than the Luke statement both stating the Kingdom of God is not a place. I see Jesus' activities in a far different manner than you. If he was a real person, he was a Jew involved in rebellion but in a different way than John the Baptist and the Zealots. Jesus advocated that the Jews needed to come back to the "pure law" discard Hellenism and wash away its evil, symbolically being baptized. As a Jew, his actions indicate this throughout the stories about him. Whether this was a composite of a desert prophet or a single person is not possible to determine with the sketchy history from the tumultuous times in the 1st century. This however is an entire different subject, perhaps another day.

My Response

If I were to see the quote in Luke 17:21 differently it would be untrue and contradictory to other statements Jesus made and His actions. It has nothing to do with the actual kingdom God being within you it is about how physically visible the kingdom of God will be. The best translation for 17:21 is “For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.” This is referring to the ministry of Jesus Christ, and His coming Church.

Again Jon 4:21-24 deals with Jesus, His ministry, and the Holy Spirit coming upon His Church. It does not condone worshipping anywhere.

The Gospel of Thomas is again a Gnostic gospel, and not Christian so it cannot be an authoritative Christian Catholic text. It’s like reading an astrology text to understand astronomy.

How you may see Jesus and who Jesus actually was are two different things. Luke, an impeccable historian, along with at least 100 other historians of the time, agreed that Jesus was one person and the canonical Gospel accounts are historically accurate. As for Him being the Son of God and human that is a matter of faith. Again though with over 500 witnesses to His resurrected Self this seems very likely.

I would like to ask these questions. If Jesus said the kingdom of God is truly within everyone, why did he attend synagogue? Why did he establish the Eucharist? Why did he command we do these things in memory of Him?

It’s quite clear from Jesus and His Disciples that one must attend Church and celebrate the liturgy and the Eucharist at least once a week on Sunday, the Sabbath. This seen Biblically again in the Last Supper, and in Acts 2:42,46 and Acts 20:7. It can also be seen in the early Church documents. The Didache for example says, “On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread, and give thanks after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Obviously as a good Catholic you'd read what the Church claims, though the Church has had its own ends as a higher priority many times versus the individual. You however probably trust what they have to say, though that is unwarranted based on past performance. There are enough issues for me that I researched far beyond what the RCC claims through its various methods.

There is much to learn in even pagan Greek mystic religions that relate to the RCC. No stone should be left unturned  in examining the "Church" and Christians.

My Response:

What past performances of the Church make believing the tenants of the faith questionable? I’m asking this question, because I’m assuming when you say, “…though the Church has had its own ends as a higher priority many times versus the individual” you are referring to something bad the Church supposedly did, and not it’s mission to bring souls to Christ and bring them to heaven.

My own extra-canonical research leads me to trust the Church. What have you found that contradicts my findings?

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Judaism is about making amends and correcting the sin you have done. Catholic confession is no way at all similar. If you rob a small convenience store and don't get caught, you can confess the crime to the priest. He will forgive you and give you penance. Even if he tells you that you should take the money back and turn yourself in, you are forgiven. Let's say you turn yourself in though but don't have the money. So you don't correct the damage you have done. The Catholic view is you have been forgiven and have changed your way. The Jewish view is you still have not made amends for your sin against the store owner.

Leviticus 4-5 - I won't ask if the RCC sacrifices bullocks, goats and rams as I know that isn't the current method. You are of course using this as a basis for the idea of penance established by the Torah. There is still the issue of making whole the one who has been wronged. If it is the god, that is wronged, you swear, blaspheme, or whatever the priest dispenses the forgiveness for the god. If it is another who has been wronged, the priest still forgives the person, but the person must make amends for his sin as in Judaism. However, this is rarely done, and how do you make whole an individual you have wronged by rape, murder, theft, deceit, or adultery. Once you have slept with your neighbors wife you can't undo what you did. I certainly wouldn't forgive you for that. If you raped or killed  my daughter, I'd forgive you as you were torn asunder. No, I wouldn't I'd spit on you as you died.

My Response:

There are two major errors in this statement. The first is that the priest forgives you, untrue. God through the priest forgives you.

Second, is your assertion that, “Judaism is about making amends and correcting the sin you have done. Catholic confession is no way at all similar.” This is false. Catholic Confession is just as much about correcting your actions, and making amends with who you have wronged. In order to receive absolution from God for your sins you must be contrite and penitent of heart, you must freely and truly admit that what you have done was wrong and sinful. You must also make amends with God and the person(s) you have sinned against. From the Catechism, “Penance requires… the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction” Fruitful satisfaction involves making amends. If you are not truly penitent or contrite, and you do not take satisfactory action as defined by the Catechism and God through the priest you are not absolved.  Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church pgs 364-367 particularly sections 1450-1460.

According to your example of robbery this person is not absolved unless his does satisfactory penance. Satisfactory penance would mostly like entail jail time to repay your debt to society, and return the money if possible.

My point with Leviticus 4-5 was that Confession was designed to be a physical action of Confession and penance, as opposed to what Protestants believe. Again, God through the priests absolves you of your sins only if you meet the previously stated criteria. You need to do some more reading on the sacrament of Reconciliation. Sadly, this is an area in which RCIA classes have been lacking for the past 30 years. I will pray that you will be able to forgive those who wrong you.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Peter's temp job status in the Matt quote should have ended soon thereafter, however God had a plan B to which Jesus had no clue. I refer of course to the statement "Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." in Matt 16:28 - DRO Here it indicates that some of these people standing right in front of him, would still be alive when the KOG came. I realize the Church spins this to mean when he is resurrected but that's a hard core spin. If it meant the Resurrection, that was very near to the time this statement was made, like less than one year. I'm pretty sure they expected to still be around in a year. If this means on his return some far off day in the future, they are all dead, so this was a false statement taken that way. So, it's either unrealistic or its false.

Then of course even though Pete has the keys, so do 2 or 3 Jesus believers, as indicated in Matt 18:18-20-DRO - " Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. [19] Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. [20] For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.

So, if Pete is the Church, he can be replaced by 2 or more believers per this statement by Jesus. No priest needed.

2 Cor 5:18 - is Paul, who never met Jesus and says all sorts of things that should be questioned. Here, he claims "But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." Which supports the Matt 18:18-20 quote not the Pete has the keys quote. Again, priest not req'd.

My Response:

Again there is an error in your interpretation of Luke 9:27. This is referring to the coming of His Church, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not talking about the 2nd coming. This prophecy was fulfilled on Pentecost. It is very realistic. This means that Peter did not have a “temp job” he was to be the first Pope, and the other disciples were to be priests and bishops.

It is true that the Jesus gave all of His disciples the ability to bind and loose(making all the disciples priests), but he exclusively singled out Peter by giving him, “the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven…” or the Church; therefore, Peter is the first Pope. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church pgs. 141-142 specifically parts 552-553.

Again an error in your statement that Peter is the Church, this is incorrect. The Pope is the visible of head the Church on Earth. The Holy Spirit, Jesus is the creator of the Church, the head of the Church. This is why the Church is seen as the mystical body of Christ. See COCC pgs. 203-205.

Your interpretation of Matthew 18:18-20 is incorrect. These verses deal with the presence of efficacy of prayer. This does not eliminate the need for priests. 

The 2 Cor 5:18 deals with Paul’s attempt to explain God’s action through Jesus, specifically the reconciliation of sins through Jesus to be distributed by the ambassadors of Christ, priests. This is why it is part of the disciples ministry.

You might want to do some more research in this area. (no sarcasm intended)

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

This somehow then requires a priest to perform. It is like a healing circle exercise, see Constantine's Sword by Carroll.  It's like, let's all drink to our fallen comrades who have died in battle. Again, see Matt 18:18-

My Response:

Yes, the Eucharist requires a priest to perform it, because God commanded His disciples, the first priests, bishops, and Pope to do that in memory of Him. The need to celebrate the Eucharist is seen from the beginning of the Church at the Last Supper and Pentecost. Again see the Didache. You are grossly misinterpreting the Last Supper if you are likening it to drinking to fallen comrades. 

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

I won't go into how this sounds sick and cannibalistic, it does. I realize the symbolism you claim. However, this can totally be metaphorical too. The flesh and blood can mean his words and examples not a ritualistic eating of the god from pagans

My Response:

It does not sound sick and cannibalistic. Again please read the Catechism for more information on why the Eucharist is not cannibalistic. It cannot be metaphorical, because Jesus always explained the metaphors, parables, He told. In this case, he did not correct the crowds, because they correctly understood what He was saying. Michael Voris did a good show about this particular topic. It’s free to listen to here http://www.theonetruefaith.tv/index.php?nav=04&content=20 All of season 4.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

As the beer mugs clank together. Same deal, different method.

My Response:

Again gross misinterpretation. 

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Catholic priests are not of the tribe of Levi.

Matt 28-16-20 - does give them whatever power Jesus is supposed to have, though previous statements don't make it exclusive or a sacrament.

My Response:

No Catholic priests are not of the tribe of Levi, but this was to show you that God established the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Old Testament. This was then continued in the Church.

Matthew 28:16-20 does not give the Disciples all the powers Jesus had. It gave 10 of them the general powers(for lack of a better word) that priests have, and 1, Peter, the keys to the Kingdom, the Church, making Peter Pope. Previous statements do make this exclusive to those who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Disciples of Christ were the only ones given the powers of binding and loosening, and the only ones to receive the Great Commission. They were the only ones given the power to ordain other people into the Catholic Church. 

Again, you might need to do more research on these areas. (no sarcasm intended)

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

In Genesis 2 - no priest is present, the god does not perform a ceremony. No sacrament is developed here.

Matt 19 - This is where Jesus changes the Law of Moses, or the writer did. It still does not require a priest.

Other sacraments you didn't discuss-

Baptism - which I would argue was putting off the Hellenistic influences or making yourself pure to accept the pure law.

Confirmation

Anointing the sick

Holy orders is what you claim more or less in Matt 28.

Glad you are back.

My Response:

In Genesis 2 God is present, the creator of the sacraments. You are correct that no modern ceremony is preformed, but the spirit of the ceremony is there. The marriage ceremony officially binds the two together, in the eyes’ of God, the Church, and the community. This is what God did in Genesis 2. This constitutes the development on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

In Matthew 19 Jesus does not change the Law of Moses He fulfills it. Again you need to do more research on this.

As for the other sacraments I’ll give an example of each being established in the Bible.

Baptism-many prefigurations of baptism are seen in the Old Testament. For example Noah’s Flood or the crossing of the Jordan River by the Jews into the Promised Land. Of course there is also Christ’s baptism.

Confirmation or Chrismation- First a definition of Confirmation, “Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.” This is seen in at Pentecost, in Luke 12:12, Easter Sunday, and John 7:37-39

Anoiting of the Sick- James 5:14-15 or prefigured in the fulfillment of Isiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17.

Now may I say this:

It seems to me that what you are looking for, when asking me to show you where the sacraments are in the Bible, is an actual list spoken by Christ. This, I will concede, is not in the Bible, but the spirit of the sacraments, a definition or description of them, and the command to do them is there. Many of the Sacraments received their names after the Ascension of Christ so they would not be spoken by name by Christ. Again though the spirit, definition, and command to practice them is seen in the Bible.