The list of Popes

[Walden]

"I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime" (John Calvin; Commentary on Genesis, vol. 2, part 16).

"As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument."
(C.S. Lewis; The Abolition of Man, 68-69)

"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed" (Martin Luther; Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544)

"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displeased the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (John Wesley; Notes on the Bible; http://ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.ii.ii.xxxix.ii.html )

[emmline]

I'm sorry Walden, but much as I like you, I find the opinions expressed above to defy reason.

furthermore...the thing is, if you're debating a liberal, it doesn't work to say, "I believe [insert conservative opinion here] and here's why..." and then quote a Bible passage, or a conservative scholar, because we already don't turn to those sources as final authorities.

[Walden]

I'm sorry Walden, but much as I like you, I find the opinions expressed above to defy reason.

furthermore...the thing is, if you're debating a liberal, it doesn't work to say, "I believe [insert conservative opinion here] and here's why..." and then quote a Bible passage, or a conservative scholar, because we already don't turn to those sources as final authorities.

My point is that it is not, or rather was not in the past, a Protestant vs. Roman Catholic issue... they were on the same page on this matter.

[emmline]

Oh, ok. I see. But I don't think all the protestants were on that page.

[Walden]

Oh, ok. I see. But I don't think all the protestants were on that page.

Well, I'd have to agree that of all who are called Protestant (a term that has been used so broadly as even to include Unitarianism), there will be some who are out of agreement on almost any issue. One wonders whether Luther, Calvin, and Wesley should be considered outside of the mainstream of Protestant thought.

[emmline]

One wonders whether Luther, Calvin, and Wesley should be considered outside of the mainstream of Protestant thought.

To be fair (as if anyone didn't pick up on this,) when I'm looking for like-minded Protestants I have to look to the left of the mainstream of Protestant thought.

[Jerry Freeman]

If you look a little further back in time, you'll find that a child who speaks disrespectfully to his father must be stoned to death. Times change, and the perception of what is sinful changes as well. I don't think this is due to a loss of piety or a descent into sinfulness. It's something else.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Lorenzo]

There's a remarkable passage in the Temple Scroll (Dead Sea Scrolls) which says that a man who has recently had sexual intercourse is forbidden to enter sacred precincts, and for a time is to be classed with lepers and the blind (who are never to be allowed into the temple precincts for the whole of their life). The Damascus Document also speaks of sexual intercourse as a source of defilement.

Just guessing here, but there's no across the board rules for every man. Unfortunately, those who do well at celibacy are probably the ones that made up the rules for all priests--including those who don't do well at it, and never will.

[Flyingcursor]

I wouldn't call it a slam...more of a gradual, insidious twist. Where power issues began to supplant the ideology which originated the church, to the point of twisting the ideology into a new dogma.

...and apologies if I seem to always want to put an ugly spin on religion. I still believe a positive spirit has survived--and was present throughout-- all the nonsense, which is why I'm still trying to hang in there.

No. I think you hit the nail perfectly on the head.

The basic, most fundamental precept of Christian faith is that Christ came, died on the cross and rose again to pay the price for sin. Until everything else is swept away and that one thing is grasped, believed, understood like the back of your hand there will never be any respite from the mental anguish of fluff and 2000 years of tradition. All the debates are purely mental exercises.

Some people can live their entire lives never going beyond that fundamental point. Too many Christians have allowed themselves to be wrapped in so much clutter that they forget that basic point. They lose site of it in the muck. I know I sure did, for a long time.

"You can't do this, you can't do that. You have to do this or that, you must believe this or that. If you're really a Christian you'll.....[fill in the blank].
Origen said this, Polycarp said that, Augustine did this or that, so on so on and endlessly soforth." It's all pointless unless the basic concept is adhered to, cherished, clung to like a babe at the breast.

[Dale]

The basic, most fundamental precept of Christian faith is that Christ came, died on the cross and rose again to pay the price for sin. Until everything else is swept away and that one thing is grasped, believed, understood like the back of your hand there will never be any respite from the mental anguish of fluff and 2000 years of tradition. All the debates are purely mental exercises.

Thanks. You know that's an interesting thing for me to read. I realize that precept would understandably be asserted by virtually all Christian denominations, including my own church. I think one of my chief struggles is that I'm not sure I accept that as the fundamental precept. I wonder at times if that is the precept that developed over time in the church , and not necessarily what God would have us understand about it if we would or could. I accept that Christ came, died on the cross, and rose again. I accept as a matter of faith and teaching that it was about atonement. But, I admit that I have doubts about that atonement thing, central as it is to Christian thinking. I also think that Jesus, in the Gospels, speaks SO much about the poor (broadly defined) that I think that needs to be firmly imbedded in anything we agree on as a central Christian idea.

[jim stone]

Right. It's very hard to stop on a dime with 'Christ came,
died on the Cross, and rose again.' One needs to know
how to live as a Christian in this world, it would be a poor
religion that didn't equip you to deal with major
moral problems in a way that is
informed by the central vision, even though the 'essential
doctrine' doesn't immediately speak to them.
Not ALL of the debates are mere mental exercises,
quite a number of them arose because they
had to (can Christians fight in war, kill in self-defense?), and I don't see dismissing them in advance. When you do engage them
quite a few are pretty plainly not mere mental exercises, but
the religion made practical. Also the effort to make
philosophical and theological sense of the central
message can be of real value, IMO, unless one is willing
to utterly disconnect that message from human reason.
It's unlikely that Augustine and Aquinas simply missed
the point, failing to appreciate that all that matters is
that Jesus came, died for our sins, and rose again.

This is the same for all major religions. There
is the Torah but also the Talmud. The latter without
the former is empty, the former without the latter
may not apply to enough of life to do its job.
There is the part God does, and the part we do with our
God given powers to understand and apply to our lives in this world, in its
complexity, what God
did and said. That the first is more important doesn't
make the second unnecessary, IMO.

[TomB]

Back to the lists of Popes.

Does this list include the Popes at Avingon, and if so, can someone remind me when that was? Thanks.

All the Best, Tom

[emmline]

The basic, most fundamental precept of Christian faith is that Christ came, died on the cross and rose again to pay the price for sin..

I think one of my chief struggles is that I'm not sure I accept that as the fundamental precept. I wonder at times if that is the precept that developed over time in the church , and not necessarily what God would have us understand about it if we would or could.... But, I admit that I have doubts about that atonement thing, central as it is to Christian thinking.

Yes Dale, me too. I don't think the concept of God requiring a blood-price is correct at all. Which is why I'm in the heretic group at church.

[Lorenzo]

The basic, most fundamental precept of Christian faith is that Christ came, died on the cross and rose again to pay the price for sin. Until everything else is swept away and that one thing is grasped, believed, understood like the back of your hand there will never be any respite from the mental anguish of fluff and 2000 years of tradition.

It's hard to imagine Christianity would ever reach the point where it needed to reform, or return to it's original purpose. Look at the various churches: it's hard to imagine Christ saying to not seek the kingdom of God first, but to institutionalize the spirit of the law so that it nearly resembles what was done away with before. Or, to create tremendous pomp and ritual, and to think of Jesus armed with the 'money bags of Carnegie. Or, to turn Christianity into a governing body and to make sure your name, or your church name, becomes as well known as that of Christ.

[Flyingcursor]

Just sayin. Whether you choose to believe it is a personal thing.

I wonder at times if that is the precept that developed over time in the church , and not necessarily what God would have us understand about it if we would or could

It so permeates the New Testament thatn I find it impossible to miss.

But, I admit that I have doubts about that atonement thing, central as it is to Christian thinking

Yes Dale, me too. I don't think the concept of God requiring a blood-price is correct at all.

I never could see what's so difficult to about that concept. I'd be interested to hear why.

Right. It's very hard to stop on a dime with 'Christ came,
died on the Cross, and rose again.' One needs to know
how to live as a Christian in this world, it would be a poor
religion that didn't equip you to deal with major
moral problems in a way that is
informed by the central vision, even though the 'essential
doctrine' doesn't immediately speak to them.

Absolutely Jim. I agree 100 percent. Just like a house consists of more then foundation. It wouldn't be much of a house without windows and doors and rooms etc. But without that foundation being firmly planted, it'll fall apart. If a person is not secure, rock solid secure in their faith then they will be like that house without a foundation. It's too easy, especially for a person with an the gift of intellect to be hammered in every direction when they are not yet strong enough in faith. It tears them up. So it's merely an excercise to talk about the Trinity or how Divine inspiration works or transubstantiaon or free will vs predestination when you don't believe the basic belief of the whole system. It's dragging the cart before the horse. I don't need to know any of those things to be saved and have eternal life.

I also think that Jesus, in the Gospels, speaks SO much about the poor (broadly defined) that I think that needs to be firmly imbedded in anything we agree on as a central Christian idea.

Yes He does and I do think it's important but still secondary. Instead of "basic precept" I should have said "atomic".

Gotta go.