The Upper Room

1:37 AM

I feel like this question is a lot simpler than I'm making it out to be:

0

Q: What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?

This answer confused me. I tried wading through the sources, but then I decided I'd just ask here. According to Catholic dogma: Was Peter ever in Rome? I'm sure the answer is yes, but I'd like to see sources. Was Peter a "bishop"? If so, what does that mean in Peter's case? Was there a shift du...

Bruce Alderman

3:38 AM

@El'endiaStarman Well, you didn't get four people criticizing it in the first day, so I guess you're right.

(Blog popularity is measured by the number of people who it upsets, no?)

El'endia Starman

@BruceAlderman Actually, I had...hmm...I think three separate debates/discussions that included like six people on Facebook.

They were all very respectful though!

Bruce Alderman

Oddly, no one commented on mine on Facebook. I think they've all unfollowed me.

El'endia Starman

@El'endiaStarman Three debates/discussions, five people. Two of whom are gay.

@BruceAlderman Ha, opposite responses. No one commented on my blog.

Also, almost everyone that commented on Facebook said they were glad that I could separate church and state.

Bruce Alderman

Anyway, you struck a balanced, respectful tone in your post. If the church is to move forward without destroying itself over this issue, I think you're taking the right path.

El'endia Starman

Thanks. :)

Incidentally, I kinda brought up this question on Facebook during the course of one of said debates: when a kleptomaniac steals something compulsively, are they sinning? Kleptomania is a mental disorder characterized by very strong urges to take something that belongs to someone else and there is often a sense of relief after doing so.

curiousdannii

8:44 AM

@El'endiaStarman Yep, still sin.

All of us are influenced to sin by forces we cannot control.

Lee Woofenden

1:00 PM

@El'endiaStarman For one thing, it uses some sloppy and biased translations. Neither Hebrew nor Greek has a word for "homosexual."

The two passages in Leviticus prohibit men from having sex with men. Or more literally, from lying with a man the way one lies with a woman. The word "homosexual" does not appear there, and the passage talks only about men having sex with men. It says nothing about women having sex with women.

And about Paul’s statements, Paul did lay down rules that are no longer considered binding, such as commanding slaves to obey their masters, and women to cover their heads, and not to speak in church. The argument that the OT law against men having sex with men is still in effect because Paul repeated it is a weak one that does not hold water.

Lee Woofenden

3:06 PM

4

A: Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

The question is: Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis. I can answer this from the perspective of a minister in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, ...

See point 5 in the above answer.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden I'm more interested in point 4. ... "Jesus Christ himself never said a word about homosexuality" ... Since when does the absence of Christ directly addressing a specific action mean that action is OK?

Christ also never directly spoke about punching babies in the face. ... You want to start a baby face punching movement based on the absence of a direct prohibition?

@LeeWoofenden Your point 5 just doesn't make any sense. There's simply no basis to conclude that, even though Paul is acknowledging homosexual acts as the epitome of sexual impurity, that he's only taking the time to point this fact out to multiple Christian communities stems from a need, somehow limited to the sexual arena, to fit in with the culture.

Lee Woofenden

3:28 PM

@svidgen If the conservative Christian position against homosexuality were presented as if it were a secondary issue, your argument might hold water. But homosexuality is considered to be a major sin, and is a major focus of those Christians who believe it is a sin. So as I say in point 4, the fact that Jesus himself gave no teaching or commandment about it should give pause to those Christians who have elevated it to the status of a major sin that will damn to hell anyone who commits it.

svidgen

You'll notice that in the other cases dealing with cultural norms, there's no threat of spiritual death or hell. The bit about women with head coverings is clearly demanding, without the threat of hell, mind you, that both men and women leverage the prevailing cultural symbols to communicate their proper gender role.

Lee Woofenden

Do you believe that anyone who punches a baby in the face will go to hell?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Do you believe everyone who calls his brother raqa will go to hell?

Or whatever the deuce it was ... I'd suggest you're not reading the scripture openly. You're reading into it what makes you comfortable. And that's ... very very dangerous -- if it's filled with actual truth.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Do you believe that slaves should obey their masters? Do you believe that it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair, or to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered? Do you believe that every single one of Paul's statements is eternally true and binding for all time?

svidgen

I just find it pretty absurd that you can read Paul's strict caution about sexual sin, which culminates in homosexual activity, as a ... cultural caution. You think he's saying, "follow the cultural norms or go to hell?" ... That's just silly.

@LeeWoofenden Well, when read in proper context, yes. Of course. You believe that only some of your scripture is true?

Bear in mind, there's a huge difference between a caution of "shame" and a caution of "not inheriting the kingdom" ... huge.

Lee Woofenden

3:36 PM

@svidgen I would say that that's because you are coming from cultural attitudes similar to those of Paul. So to you, of course a view from outside that cultural attitude looks "just silly."

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Really? ... I'm a 1st century Jew?

Living under Roman rule, no less!?

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen No but your attitude toward, and understanding of homosexuality seems to be compatible with those of first century Jews.

svidgen

Let's clear one thing up -- I don't care if a woman prays with her head uncovered. That's clearly a cultural symbol. The point is, a woman should pray as a woman, using the cultural symbols at her disposal to communicate her female nature.

@LeeWoofenden Not at all. I don't want to stone homosexuals. I just want them to inherit the kingdom of heaven. And I think homosexual behavior is incompatible with that.

And that's based on much more than a handful of verses from Paul. It's based on thousdands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition and moral dictates on sexuality and marriage.

It's based on tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pages of theology that deal directly with the nature of human sexuality. The purpose of sexuality.

And it's a position that I've only solidified in recent years. Probably for most of my life I actually read scripture as loosely as you do!

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Then why not apply similar culturally relative logic to homosexuality? Read my original article, linked from my above answer here. Homosexual acts, and sexual acts in general, were seen and practiced very differently two PR three thousand years ago than they are now. It is dangerous and deceiving not to take that into account in our interpretation of Scripture.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Because nowhere in scripture are people condemned to hell for failing to adhere to cultural norms.

Well ... nowhere in the NT that I'm aware of, anyway.

The OT, for Christians, must be read through a Christian lens, since the Jews themselves couldn't even agree on whether there was a hell ... or heaven.

And I find it strange that you feel homosexuality was not a cultural norm under Roman rule. ... I think it's pretty well established that ancient Rome was both accepting and encouraging of homosexual behavior. Not to mention the orgies and pedophilia ...

Lee Woofenden

3:48 PM

@svidgen I think you are reading Scripture very loosely and inaccuratly. You are not paying attention to what its words and statements meant in their religious and cultural context. Or rather, you are selectively doing so when the cultures of the Bible conflict with your own culture and beliefs, but not when your culture and beliefs happen to agree with Middle Eastern culture and belief as it existed two or three millennia ago.

That is not a sound way to read the Bible

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden I'm argue that you're not reading it properly!

Bam!

Trouble is, you have no ... uhh ... "rock" .. to test your interpretation against :)

Well, that's not the only trouble, I guess. You're also reading what you want into the scripture and projecting cultural contexts into it that just weren't there ...

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Read my article. I believe that is precisely what Paul is doing in his condemnation of homosexual acts. He is viewing them through the lens of his culture and times. If you don't understand that, you will completely misunderstand what he is talking about.

svidgen

But, you're a man of God. And you know your soul is on the line. So, I'm sure you'll spend a long time meditating on it with a totally open mind ... right?

@LeeWoofenden No.

I will not read your articles.

You are an authority of nothing but your own beliefs.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen If you're afraid of learning something that might call your beliefs into question, that's really not my problem.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden I believe that you believe that. But, it's a baseless claim.

Homosexuality was common and accepted. Furthermore, I'll remind you again, there's a huge different between a caution that something is shameful, as he does with other cultural dictates, versus something that robs a person of heaven -- which he only does for God's "norms" ...

It's a huge mistake to even begin by equating something that is called "shameful" with something that will cause someone to "not inherit the kingdom of heaven" ... especially since, that's the whole point of all those letters.

You'll notice though, that he calls the lusts themselves "shameful" ... It's the fulfillment of those lusts that robs folks of the kingdom.

In any case ... I need to get back to work. Good luck with your open-minded prayer and meditation on the matter!

Lee Woofenden

3:58 PM

@svidgen I've spent many hours reading and studying articles and sermons about homosexuality written by Christian leaders who agree with you on the issue, and examining the Bible passages and Biblical interpretations they offer. If you read only those who agree with you, then you will have a weak and poor grasp of the subject.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden You keep assuming I have one-side experience here, dude. Trust me ... I don't.

Lee Woofenden

That, in fact, is a major feature of most conservative Christian writings about homosexuality: the sheer ignorance about the realities of homosexuality as it actually exists in the real world, together with tremendous ignorance about the history and cultures of the Bible.

@svidgen If you refuse to read my article, and instead merely make flimsy excuses, what other conclusion can I reasonably draw than that your view of the subject is narrow and one-sided?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden You are not an authority. You're a guy on the internet.

And to be honest, one of the less rational ones -- I've read some of your stuff.

You make huge logical leaps and incorporate assumptions that seem to come from nowhere. It's maddening.

I can't remember which article I started reading -- one of yours -- I literally couldn't keep reading, because the whole article depended on "debunking" a belief that you utterly misrepresented. It was a grand straw-man.

It was horrific.

You didn't even take the time to accurately represent what you were positing your opinion up and against.

And I don't mean precisely -- it's not your job to represent an opposing position with precision. But, it would at least be vaguely recognizable as the opinion you're standing against. ... And it wasn't.

Please take this not as a ... hateful ... thing. But, you should know, your articles are not good!

And your reasoning is not linear.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen I'm not appealing to my own authority. But for the record, I am an ordained minister and a lifelong scholar of the Bible. I'm not a programmer geek who moonlights in the Bible and Christian beliefs. This is my profession. I spend almost all of my professional and personal time studying these issues.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden So what? ... I could get ordained in 10 minutes online and call myself a minister. I also spend nearly all my free time reading scripture, and dogma, and the Church fathers, and the saints ... and reading opposing views from all over the net.

My one and only true passion is Truth itself. ... but that's not at all why you should believe anything I say.

It's you versus the fleet of bishops, priests, pastors and other Christians I've known who have spent as much or more time studying than you, who are more coherent in writing than you, and have largely more coherent and compatible interpretations of scripture than you, based on and in agreement with thousands of years of prominent Christian works!

Lee Woofenden

4:11 PM

@svidgen Those are grand, general accusations. Let's have some specifics. I'm sorry that you happen to disagree fundamentally with my views. But there is years of study and scholarship behind them. What I write on the blog is framed for a popular audience.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden It's not worth either of our time. The positions in your articles are clearly pretty fundamental to your well-ingrained beliefs. It's pretty senseless for me to give a rigorous critique. ... The one I was referring to, I think, dealt with the Trinity.

Your summary of the ... "common understanding" ... or ... "prevailing dogma" ... or whatever you called it ... it was just flat-out wrong.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen All of that is really just an appeal to historical church authority. But when the foundations of a church's doctrine are based on human creeds and interpretations, and not on the clear teachings of the Bible itself, then the

svidgen

Your were tearing something down that was basically already identified as a heresy in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It was a belief that basically no one really holds.

Lee Woofenden

That whole vast edifice of human doctrine falls to the ground.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden No ... no it isn't. The bishops and priests are Catholic. But, on most issues, they're in harmony with the well-educated non-Catholics I know.

Lee Woofenden

4:16 PM

@svidgen Specifics, please!

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden See ... there we go again. Your objection seems to depends on a gross misunderstanding.

Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy nor Lutheranism are based on any "human creed" or "human interpretation." ... At least not to any greater extent that any other thing that humans believe.

On the contrary, the creeds come out of the succession of Apostles, who acquired their beliefs from Christ. The creeds are agreed upon snapshots of the beliefs to serve as a communication and "grounding" tool.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen The whole of Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine is based on a creedal, human-derived doctrine that is not taught in the Bible: that God is a trinity of persons. If that human-invented, non-Biblical doctrine is the foundation stone of the rest of their edifice of doctrine, why should I give credence to their "scholarship"?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Where did the Bible come from?

Who assembled its cannon?

And therefore, who has authority to declare why which books were included and how to interpret them? ... Why were each of the books included?

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Neither Christ nor any of his Apostles ever said that God is a trinity of persons. It simply isn't in the Bible. It came from human councils and human debates and arguments.

svidgen

When were the creeds written? By who? For what reason?

Answer those questions. Cite sources please.

(Not your blog.)

Lee Woofenden

4:25 PM

We can trace the history of that doctrine. It is not apostolic. It originated two or three centuries after Christ, from human theologians and human councils.

15

Q: When in the development of trinitarian doctrine was the word "persons" first applied to God?

In the Bible, the word "persons" is not used in reference to God, nor are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called "persons." When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "persons" (plural) first used in reference to God as part of the developing doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in ...

trinity church-history church-fathers origin persons-of-the-trinity

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden So ... why trust the Bible, assembled by people who you're sort of saying didn't even authority or a mandate from Christ to do??

Lee Woofenden

7

Q: When was the word "trinity" first applied to God in Christianity?

The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible. When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "trinity" first used in reference to God? After that first (known) occurrence, what are some of the other key earliest uses of the word "trinity" in reference to God in Christian writings ...

trinity church-history church-fathers origin

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden I missed the word "that" ... scratch my comment.

@LeeWoofenden When I read that properly, the question is largely the same though. Even if you're truly convinced that an understanding of the Trinity doesn't arise until the 2nd or 3rd century, what distinguishes that doctrine from the agreement of the cannon in your opinion?

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen That's a red herring. We're not debating the position of the Bible.

svidgen

You're just cherry-picking the things you want to believe. Most of the doctrines you're vividly opposed to are the result of the same process that produced scripture.

i really do need to put my focus back on work though. ... From where I stand, you seem to be cherry picking your beliefs. Your writing is generally non-linear (which I could be accused of too), and I think that alleviates any moral imperative on me to read more of your articles -- your answers here and your articles they've proven to be largely irrational and/or misrepresentative of existing beliefs, etc..

Which basically means, you need to appeal to someone other than yourself as an authority. Or you need to start writing things with tighter logical flow.

Matt Gutting

4:36 PM

"non-linear" - parabolic? sinusoidal?

:-P

svidgen

... if you're at all interested in saving my soul, that is.

And if saving my soul isn't your interest, I'd question what business you have being a preacher ...

Lee Woofenden

It's not my job to save your soul. That's God's job. And boy, am I glad of that! ;-)

svidgen

In the interest of saving your soul, I think the best an layman like myself can do is pray and offer the repeated suggestion that ... boy, you ain't being true to the Truth!

And I fear for you. And your flock.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen My job as a preacher is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. Preachers don't save souls. Christ does. All preachers can do is lead people to Christ, and preach and teach the Gospel to all who have ears to hear.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden anyway... Sorry for being abrasive and blunt. I let my fingers get away from me.

I do ask that you pray for me. I will for you!

Lee Woofenden

4:45 PM

@MattGutting I'm actually quite happy to be able to think and write in nonlinear ways. Linear, one-dimensional thinking is one of the major limitations of conservative Christian thinking.

At minimum, three-dimensional thinking has some great advantages over one-dimensional thinking.

@svidgen It doesn't bother me that you're being blunt. Only that you're wrong. :-P

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Understood and agreed, at least to an extent; the problem is defining exactly what that means :-)

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting When it comes to the Bible, seeing both the human and the divine dimensions in it at least expands one's thinking from one-dimensional to two-dimensional.

But a little more abstractly, the three dimensions of the Bible are God's love, God's truth, and God's power to change our lives.

Matt Gutting

Hmmmm.....sort of... (I think my problem is that I have a theoretical math background and I have a pretty mathematical understanding of what a dimension is)

Lee Woofenden

5:00 PM

Traditional Catholic and especially Protestant doctrine, in my view, focus far too much on the truth dimension, as in believing the right thing, and far too little on the love and action dimensions of the Bible. This focus on form over function reaches its nadir in the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

Stupid tablet! :-(

@MattGutting Spiritual reality does not operate by material mathematical laws.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden OK ... let's not swing it so far in the other direction though that we lose sight of what "love" (which is Truth) actually is ...

Lee Woofenden

However, the mathematical laws that you are immersed in are expressions in the material universe of higher, spiritual realities.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden No; but on the other hand, if I am to say "I think two-dimensionally", or "one-dimensionally", or what have you, I must mean something by that - and in my view "dimension" doesn't seem to apply to how I think about God and his relationship with us.

svidgen

They're inseparable realities, because they're the same reality. You can't rightfully claim to be living in Love without also living in Truth.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen On that point, I entirely agree with you.

@MattGutting Swedenborg, who could also do a bit of math, did write fairly extensively about the spiritual analogs of the material mathematics found in the Bible. For example, he found great spiritual meaning in the three dimensions of the New Jerusalem.

svidgen

5:09 PM

@LeeWoofenden So then, the questions become, How do you recognize Truth? And therefore Love?

Lee Woofenden

And he did relate them to love, truth, and power.

svidgen

What prevented Pilot from recognizing Truth incarnate, while looking at Truth incarnate, asking, "What is Truth?"

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Why do you put truth first? Paul put love first.

svidgen

And what allowed an uneducated, hot-headed fisherman to see Truth so clearly?

@LeeWoofenden Against faith and hope, yes.

Lee Woofenden

And Jesus also put love first, in the Great Commandments.

Without love, no one can see the truth.

svidgen

5:12 PM

@LeeWoofenden But without Truth you cannot Love! You know not what Love is!

It's a paradox. But, it's essential to put neither Truth nor Love "first" ... they're the same "thing."

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Why do you still put truth first?

svidgen

In the pursuit of Truth, you Love. In the pursuit of Love, you serve Truth.

@LeeWoofenden Because you deemphasize it and disrespect it.

Not that I'm on par with any prophet; but, it's in the nature of prophesy to stress the deficiencies of your ... umm ... audience?

Lee Woofenden

Jesus came because God so loved the world. And from that love he came as the light of the world, which is God's truth shining into the world. Love comes first.

svidgen

You can key off the word "love" and take it to mean a whole lot of things that aren't really related to Love.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen No. I think you are wrong about the truth. There's a big difference.

svidgen

5:17 PM

@LeeWoofenden That's fine. But, I'm not even concerned with your being wrong -- people are necessarily wrong about lots of things all the time. We're finite beings! The problem is in how you reason about Truth and discern it. If that's wrong, you're trajectory isn't even necessarily in the right direction. You're not necessarily trending towards Truth "or" Love.

Even the Apostles fell short on a lot of things. Christ rebuked them pretty regularly. They had something though that allowed them to remain in his company and grow in their relationship with Him. They had a manner of acting and thinking that allowed them to "capitalize" on their grace.

Lee Woofenden

The biggest problem with traditional Christian doctrine is that instead of being based on God's love, it focuses on wrath, anger, and judgment. It is false because it misses the most fundamental fact about God, which is that God is love, just as the apostle John says.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Hmm ... I think you're reading the wrong history books!

My Church has had some shoddy leaders in its day; bit it's formal doctrines and it's formal mode of operation have always been ones of Good news.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden I've very rarely experienced Catholic doctrine as focusing on "wrath, anger, and judgment". I can't reconcile that with, for example, this statement from St. Francis de Sales.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen That's why I feel perfectly comfortable saying that you are wrong and mistaken about the Gospel and its message. :-D

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Yeah. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with you thinking I'm wrong as long as you're thinking it for the right reason. But, the evidence I have at my disposal suggests that you're not judging my beliefs through the right lens.

Lee Woofenden

5:27 PM

@MattGutting Catholic doctrine is not so bad as Protestant doctrine in that regard. But for many centuries the Catholic church claimed that there was no salvation outside the Church, which it defined as the Roman Catholic Church. That is a very harsh and condemnatory doctrine.

svidgen

But unfortunately, I don't see the benefit in going into much detail about it right now. You're well-established in your beliefs, I need to get work done yet today, and even if I can get to the point of articulating even one thing I think you're skipping logical steps in, it's not only nearly impossible to communicate a logical leap to the person who's making it, but you've explicitly stated that "linear reasoning" isn't essential in identifying the Truth.

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Yeah. YOUR lens. That's the right lens, right? :-P

svidgen

Which leads me to ask, again ... what do you think it is that allows one to recognize Truth and know what Love is?

And don't say some nonsense about putting Love first ... yeah. Got it. How do you know what that even means? How do you know what Love is? How do you discern whether you're really putting Love first, as opposed to a contorted, secularized version of it?

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Yep. No way I can convey the real truth to you given how stuck you are in linear, one-dimensional thinking.

:-P

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden That's a cop-out. Answer the question.

How do you recognize love?

Matt Gutting

5:31 PM

@LeeWoofenden The Church still believes that. And I don't necessarily see that as condemnatory, so much as indicative of a simple truth. We're not saying "All other religions are bad"; we're saying "No other religion has all the truth needed to be saved."

Bruce Alderman

@svidgen @MattGutting @peterturner Am I on the right track with this answer, or am I way off base?

0

A: What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?

Peter's leadership in Rome and his martyrdom are recorded in Sacred Tradition. The earliest reference is found in 1 Peter 5:13 Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. Babylon, as Dick Harfield notes in his answer, represents Ro...

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen You haven't answered my questions. Why should I answer yours. Are you the Inquisition?

Matt Gutting

@BruceAlderman I was looking at this a while ago; I think looking for backup in the Catechism, or the like, is a good idea. I'm not sure yet where to go though.

@LeeWoofenden Obviously not. He's not Spanish, and you're expecting him. :-P

Bruce Alderman

@MattGutting I found a couple passages in the Catechism indicating the Pope's authority comes from his being the successor of Peter, and the Church's authority comes from Peter's authority. I've added those, but I haven't found Peter's authority defined in the Catechism. That may be because it is already such a foundational part of Catholic teaching that it isn't defined seprately.

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting Exactly. The Catholic Church still thinks one-dimensionally--that salvation is a matter of having the correct truth. That is not a Bible-based understanding of salvation.

Matt Gutting

5:36 PM

@LeeWoofenden The truth is what enables one to discern what love is, and how to apply it in action. (Just as love allows one to discern what the truth is.)

Lee Woofenden

Read Romans 2. That's where Paul explains how non-Christians, who don't have the truth of Christianity, are saved. Catholic thinking on this matter is one-dimensional and false.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden I haven't answered your questions? ... ... Anyway, my question is not primarily for my sake. I'd be pretty insistent that you have an answer before I really engage in further debate with you. But, it's mostly rhetorical, because I get the sense you're not demanding an answer of it for yourself.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Hm. usccb.org/bible/romans/2 I'm not seeing it.

Bruce Alderman

@MattGutting He's probably referring to verses 14-16

Matt Gutting

Understood; but that's just saying that the Gentiles are at least potentially able to understand the basic demands of the (apparently Jewish) law. I don't see that that's necessarily saying that they'll be saved by observing that.

Lee Woofenden

5:45 PM

Read Matthew 25:31-46. That's where Jesus himself teaches how the Pele of all the nations will be judged either for eternal life or eternal punishment. And he says not a word about believing Catholic doctrine, or any doctrine at all. Instead he says in effect that those who follow the Great Commandments by actually living according to them will go to eternal life, while those who do not will go to eternal punishment. The Catholic Church is very wrong in that belief.

Brain-dead tablet makes it impossible to edit. Obviously that should be people, not Pele.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Indeed. On the other hand, Jesus also says (John 3:5) that baptism is necessary - "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." So, is baptism necessary or not, given that (as you say) Jesus himself teaches it?

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting He doesn't say "baptism" in that passage. He says "without being born of water and the spirit." It's a Catholic interpretation that he means you have to be baptized to be save. And I think it's a mistaken interpretation. Baptism points to being born of water and the spirit, not the reverse.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Given that we're also commanded to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), I think it's hard to argue that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Lee Woofenden

Being born of water and the spirit is a spiritual reality and experience. Babtism is a material ritual that points us to that reality of our need for spiritual rebirth.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Water is pretty material; it seems that being "born of water" must be equally material.

Lee Woofenden

6:00 PM

@MattGutting once again Matthew 28:19 doesn't say anyone who isn't baptized will go to hell. And once again, baptism by itself is just a physical ritual of putting water on someone's head. It is pure superstition to think that we are saved by some ritual rather than by the spiritual reality of being reborn, which is what the ritual symbolizes and points to.

Believing that the ritual itself saves people is very one-dimensional and materialistic thinking on the part of the Catholic Church.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden Catholicism doesn't believe that we're saved by the ritual. It believes that we're saved by the direct action of God.

Or rather, that we're justified before God by His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Being saved is another thing entirely; and we must play a part in this by our direct actions.

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting Though that may be great theory, in practical reality it is a distinction without a difference. If all unbaptized people go to hell, functionally that means the ritual of babtism saves us.

@MattGutting Water in the Bible is a symbol and metaphor for truth. Do you really think Jesus was speaking literally when he talked about the living water he would give to those who believe I'm him? He was talking about the life-giving spiritual water of divine truth that flows from the mouth of the Lord God Jesus Christ.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden I thought you were interested in spiritual rather than material realities? You're talking about "practical" and "functional" effects of a material ritual; I'm talking about the spiritual reality that lies behind t.

@LeeWoofenden Of course he was! But it doesn't necessarily follow that he's always speaking metaphorically.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Uhh ... Firstly, Catholicism agrees with you: it's about how you live. The caveat is that you cannot live "correctly" without knowing how. To your first point, Catholic doctrine is just the formalization and application of what Christ taught us. Likewise, Christ never said a word about St. Paul's Letter to Romans (or any other NT letter) ... Why accept those formalizations and applications of Christ's life and teaching and not the others?

How are you making that distinction!?

@LeeWoofenden Baptism isn't a function that saves people.

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting So am I. And the spiritual reality that lies behind baptism is the spiritual baptism of rebirth in the living, spiritual waters of divine truth. Without the spirit and life within it, the physical ritual means nothing.

And those who have been spiritually baptized are saved even if they did not receive the physical ritual. It is the spirit that gives life. The flesh counts for nothing.

Matt Gutting

6:15 PM

@LeeWoofenden I think you interpret that phrase differently than I do.

And what exactly do you mean by "spiritually baptized" - how is one to know that one has been spiritually baptized, and by whom?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden The God of the Bible is the God of Truth incarnate. He became flesh because our actions are necessarily bound to spiritual realities.

He communicates spiritual salvation through action. He always has. Always will.

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting What was Jesus talking about when he told Nicodemus that he must be born again. Was he talking about physical birth?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden He clarifies His meaning in that case. Does He offer clarification in the case of baptism?

Or in the case of the Eucharist?

Or in the case of taking your disagreements to the Church?

Or in the case of respecting earthly authority?

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden He was talking, of course, about being "born from above" - and that (as my translation has it) is what he tells Nicodemus. We see as well, a few verses later, that he spends some time baptizing; he appears to have thought the ritual very important.

svidgen

On a personal level again, I find it stunning how much cherry picking is necessary to read scripture apart from good Catholic traditional teachings. I can't even measure how confusing scripture became for me under the influence of un-Orthodox Christians -- and how clear and obvious it became when I returned to Orthodoxy.

Lee Woofenden

6:22 PM

How does anyone know that they have been touched and changed by the hand and the spirit of God? I would say we know when we have love for God and the neighbor in our hearts and express it through our hands, just as Jesus taught, instead of our old selfishness, greed, anger, jealousy, and hatred of others. That is what happens to us when we are baptized with the spirit and with fire.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Are we talking about metaphorical love? Or actual fire?

:)

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden So why then call it baptism? Why would the early Christians, who more than others should be close to understanding what Christ intended, use the same name as (for example) the baptism of John, and the same ritual; and why would they appear to believe that it was necessary for salvation?

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting I'm not saying the ritual is unimportant. I'm saying it is important not because of some supposed magical power to save souls, but because it is a physical symbol and reminder of the spiritual process of rebirth that we must go through in order to be saved. We physical-minded humans need those physical symbols and reminders. But their purpose is to point us to the spiritual reality behind them.

Matt Gutting

@LeeWoofenden As a Catholic, I agree - more or less. But I don't see what's wrong with saying that God has pointed out this particular ritual as one that is necessary for salvation, or with saying that God is so close to this ritual that he pours out his Spirit on the baptizand, simply by virtue of someone wishing to have it poured out.

Lee Woofenden

Same with the Holy Supper, which Jesus said to do in remembrance of him. He instituted it as a symbol and reminder to us of the power of his love, symbolized by the bread, and his truth, symbolized by the wine, when we accept them from his hand, eat and drink them into our soul, and make them the substance and spirit of our life. That's what the Holy Supper is really all about, not physically ingesting the supposed physical body and blood of Christ.

Once again, it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh counts for nothing.

Matt Gutting

6:36 PM

@LeeWoofenden I don't see, then, why he said "This is my body" rather than, say "This shall be in remembrance of my body".

Lee Woofenden

@MattGutting It is the baldest literalism and materialism to think that he meant that the bread and wine were literally his flesh and blood. If he had wanted to be literal, he would have given them his actual flesh and blood. What he did was clearly meant to be understood metaphorically and spiritually. That is what he was trying to get across to his physical-minded followers in John 6.

The ones who could think only literally and physically went away, and followed him no more. But those who saw the spirit and life in his words continued to follow him because he had the words of eternal life.

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden clearly?? Then why not correct our understanding when prompted? As he did with Nicodemus? Why intensify the literalism instead?

He said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man.." And they balked, like Nicodemus did. In one case, he clarifies his use of metaphor. In the other, he repeats it, "amen amen I say to you, unless you gnaw at the flesh of the Son of man.."

Lee Woofenden

@svidgen Read John 6. That's where the Lord corrects the literalism, and separates those who can think only literally and materialistically from those who are able to think spiritually, and understand something of his true meaning.

svidgen

?

Matt Gutting

6:52 PM

@LeeWoofenden That's certainly not how I interpret John 6. And given the philosophical "mechanics" behind transubstantiation and similar ideas, I have a hard time accepting them as "materialistic".

@LeeWoofenden However, I must go. There's a bunch of stuff remaining to be done here. Thanks for a very civilized and instructive debate!

Lee Woofenden

More tablet technical difficulties. Will be good to get back home where I can type on a real computer!

@MattGutting Transubstantiation is an excellent example of material-minded humans utterly missing the spiritual point of Jesus' words. It's not about physically eating and drinking the Lord's physical flesh and blood. The whole doctrine of transubstantiation is a fancy philosophical artifact that is totally unnecessary and useless if you understand what Jesus was really talking about.

He wasn't talking about physical food at all. He was talking about accepting into ourspirit the spiritual food and drink of his love and truth, which are his divine body and blood.

"The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

svidgen

7:11 PM

@LeeWoofenden Define spirit.

Define spiritual.

Lee Woofenden

How much clearer does he have to be to get the message through our thick, materialistic skulls?

@svidgen Why? Do you not know or understand the difference between the flesh and the spirit?

svidgen

@LeeWoofenden Articulate it, please.

If something is "of spirit" ... what does that mean to you?

Or if it's "spiritual" ...

Lee Woofenden

7:35 PM

@svidgen Our physical body, and the entire material universe around it, are physical. Our heart and mind, meaning our loves, emotions, motives, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and so on, are spiritual, and are our spirit, as is the entire spiritual world, or universe, that surrounds our spirit, and in which our spirit exists. Our relationships with each other are also spiritual, though they are expressed physically as well as long as we are living in the physical world.

El'endia Starman

@MattGutting At least it's not non-Euclidean... ;)

svidgen

8:06 PM

@LeeWoofenden If those are example of spiritual things, what does it mean for something to be spiritual? How do spiritual things interact with each other? And how do they relate to the real world?

And in what capacity are spiritual things real and existent?

fredsbend

10:17 PM

This all means something, right?

El'endia Starman

10:27 PM

[gasp] You have a power of 2!

Lee Woofenden

10:56 PM

@fredsbend Your rep figure means you are holy of the devil. ;-)

@svidgen You want me to solve and explain the mind/body problem here in chat? Better just to read Swedenborg's book Divine Love and Wisdom. That's where you'll get your answer.

If you want to understand these things, you're going to have to do your homework. That's what I've been doing for the last four decades. I can't explain these major issues and realities to you in a few short sound bites here.

But just to give you one taste, the human mind and brain form just one of many bridges between spiritual and physical reality. The humans spirit has a motive or desire, forms a thought and a plan pursuant to that motive, and then commands the body to carry it out in the physical world using the brain as its medium of communication with the body. This is one very direct way that spiritual things interact with and shape material things.

Chatsey seriously needs to fix its edit subroutine. It's practically impossible to fix typos once the message has been sent. That should have been "human spirit," not "humans spirit."

@svidgen Oh Swedenborg also wrote a more compact piece on the mind/body problem called (in more contemporary translations) Soul-Body Interaction.

@svidgen Which do you think is more real, your physical body or your thoughts and motives? Think about it for a while before you answer.

El'endia Starman

11:27 PM

@LeeWoofenden My thoughts and motives don't bleed!

;)

fredsbend

11:52 PM

@El'endiaStarman But really, that's kind of a big issue with @LeeWoofenden's statements. I've submitted that my thoughts and motives come from having a body in the first place. That's what makes sense to me, and I think a lot of other people too.

Transcript for