I am aware that many Christians believe that the use of the term "fornication" in the Bible is misappropriated. It is also believed that the Bible's original references to premarital sex stems from the Greek word "Porneia", which refers to having sex with prostitutes who worship idols. I can see, particularly with guidance from the Ten Commandments, that having sex with a prostitute who worships idols is sinful. But does the Bible, in it's original context, say that premarital sex is sinful? Has there been a severe loss of translation of the Bible's teachings on premarital sex? What does Bible, according to your best understanding, say about premarital sex? In addition, how do you conclude that your understanding is the most appropriate since the scripture in the Bible is written by man (only "God-inspired", not God-written) and has been further translated by man to our language?

In Him, Luke

-- Luke Livingstone (luke9663@hotmail.com), August 12, 2003

Answers

But does the Bible, in it's original context, say that premarital sex is sinful?

Yes.

Has there been a severe loss of translation of the Bible's teachings on premarital sex?

No.

What does Bible, according to your best understanding, say about premarital sex?

I'll answer more fully later, but just want to comment on your use of the words "your best understanding." The "best understanding" any person can have on anything related to divine revelation is whatever the Catholic Church teaches. If you read what the Church writes about "premarital sex" in the Catechism, you will know what God says about it through the Bible and Apostolic teaching.

In addition, how do you conclude that your understanding is the most appropriate, since the scripture in the Bible is written by man (only "God-inspired", not God-written) and has been further translated by man to our language?

My "understanding" is not merely "the most appropriate." Rather, it is the only correct "understanding," because it doesn't come from my head or from private research. It comes to me through the wholly reliable teaching of the Catholic Church. That is, it is the actual teaching of Jesus (who founded the Catholic Church), passed down through the generations, so it simply cannot be wrong. (By the way, the Bible is inerrant, even though its words were written down by men.)

Sir, I must say that you lack any authority to limit the meaning of "porneia" to "having sex with prostitutes who worship idols". Here is what the on-line version of a major Bible lexicon has to say about the meanings of "porneia":

1) illicit sexual intercourse
.a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc.
.b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
.c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaphorically, the worship of idols
.a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
(From http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1060690391-8997.html)

Really, sir, the meaning and condemnation of fornication is as plain as day to any honest person reading the Bible. No serious Christian on Earth, prior to the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, ever tried to argue that fornication (pre-marital intercourse) was anything other than a deadly sin, a grave offense against God and man, and something that is detrimental to society. Here are the key New Testament verses =====>

Colossians 3:5 -- Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Ephesians 5:3 -- But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.

Galatians 5:19-21 -- Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Mark 7:20-23 -- And Jesus said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

Revelation 21:8 -- But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:15 -- Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 12, 2003.

Art,

The best part of your post was the following:

No serious Christian on Earth, prior to the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, ever tried to argue that fornication (pre-marital intercourse) was anything other than a deadly sin, a grave offense against God and man, and something that is detrimental to society.

This is answer enough for any Christian. No Christian ever believed sex was to be had outside of marriage until recently, thanks to secularism.

However, Luke raises a question which might still have an edifying answer: What was the anthropology of fornication in the Biblical era?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 12, 2003.

Art,

You may have done research on these issues yourself and feel confident in answering them, but I feel lacking with only a one-word response to each of the first two questions you answered. Do you honestly know what the Bible's original context says about premarital sex? I don't, therefore I'm seeking answers from those who have done serious research on such issues....not just those who blindly believe whatever their pastor tells them is truth. I'm not saying that you blindly believe what you are taught, but I get the feeling as though you have never seriously questioned the basis of Biblical interpretation. Does it make sense to you that God would prohibit us from making love to someone that we love with all our heart, but are not yet married to? You are aware that there are many Christian interpretations of the Bible, I hope. What do you say to those versions that do not use the word "fornication" and only refer to sinful sex as "adultery"? How do you argue that the Catholic interpretation is the only one we ought to use? Have you explored other Christian churches and ruled out the possibility of them teaching the truth? I will also ask again, "Has there been a severe loss of translation of the Bible's teachings on premarital sex?" You claim that there has been no loss of translation, but you give no reasoning, no proof. What makes you so certain that there has been no loss of translation when some versions of the Bible say specifically that premarital sex (fornication) is sinful and others make no mention of it? Thanks for all of the scriptural references to fornication. I've read them all several times in the past. But if the Bible did not originally refer to premarital sex (just the ambiguous reference to "sexual immorality", as in many Bibles), then how can one conclusively say that the Bible teaches that premarital sex is sinful?

-- Luke (luke9663@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

Sidenote: How do you make sure that the response will be posted in the same form it is written? For example, I wrote several indented paragraphs, but all of the text was clustered into one huge paragraph in the forum. How do I avoid this? Thanks.

-- Luke (luke9663@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

Hi Luke

Both Catholics and Protestants read the bible. Catholics also understand the Bible. That's why Catholics don't have thousands of conflicting denominations. God gave the Bible to the Catholic Church. It was written and compiled by Catholics, for Catholics. And the Holy Spirit interprets it to the Church which received the Bible from God.

There is the important bit, scripture is only infallible when interpreted infallibly and only the Catholic Church can do this.

Paul continues "If I were in a system where every group claims to be getting its beliefs directly from the bible, but no two groups believe the same thing, I'd get a bit suspicious about the method being used to find these conflicting beliefs. If you read the Bible, you know that Jesus intended His Church to be ONE in belief. That alone should cause you to run from Protestantism, into the original Christian Church which still has unity of belief after 2,000 years."

--

Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

I dont know if that helps, I havent time to read your post very carefully,but to space your paragraphs just leave

double space

between each line

God Bless!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

Excuse me, Skoobuoy and Luke. I'm no dummy, but I am also not a professional theologian, so I have difficulty comprehending some of your terminology. I need to ask you to rewrite one question each, using laymen's terms, so that I can make an effort to reply.

Skoobuoy, please translate this =====> What was the anthropology of fornication in the Biblical era? (I don't know what you mean by "the anthropology of fornication.")

Luke, please translate this =====> Do you honestly know what the Bible's original context says about premarital sex? (I don't know what you mean by "the Bible's original context.")

More stuff =====>

I'm not saying that you blindly believe what you are taught, but I get the feeling as though you have never seriously questioned the basis of Biblical interpretation.

Luke, if one's Church was founded by God himself and has the correct "Biblical interpretation" from the mouth of God (Jesus) himself, why would one "seriously question" it? My Church is the Catholic Church, founded by God himself. The Church is incapable of giving us any wrong "Biblical interpretation" about fornication or any other subject, because she is our holy Mother and Teacher ("Mater et Magistra"). I don't "blindly believe" things. I believe with my eyes open wide and full of thanksgiving for the privilege I enjoy (being Catholic).

Does it make sense to you that God would prohibit us from making love to someone that we love with all our heart, but are not yet married to?

Yes, of course it "makes sense" to me! But it wouldn't matter if it DIDN'T "make sense" to me. I would believe it anyway! I don't believe religious doctrine because I first understand it and agree with it. I believe FIRST, and that helps me to understand and agree. And whom do I believe first? I believe those teachers whom I am convinced are chosen by God himself to relay what God has revealed. Maybe a key stumbling block for you, Luke, is a lack of realization that God has revealed a whole lot more than just what is written down in the Bible.

How do you argue that the Catholic interpretation is the only one we ought to use? Have you explored other Christian churches and ruled out the possibility of them teaching the truth?

But of course I have "ruled out the possibility"! You must not be aware of the fact that Jesus founded only the Catholic Church. You must not be aware of the fact that prior to the year 1000, there was no Christian body other than the Catholic Church. You must not be aware of the fact that the Church has taught the same thing about and against fornication since Jesus gave his Church that teaching by word of mouth. (When you refer to "the Catholic interpretation," I get the impression that you wrongly think that Catholic leaders are inventing interpretations all the time, rather than handing them down from the 1st Century!) Once you have in mind the simple historical facts, you realize that "the Catholic interpretation is the only one we ought to use" -- on any spiritual subject, not just fornication.

I will also ask again, "Has there been a severe loss of translation of the Bible's teachings on premarital sex?" ... What makes you so certain that there has been no loss of translation when some versions of the Bible say specifically that premarital sex (fornication) is sinful and others make no mention of it? ... if the Bible did not originally refer to premarital sex ..., then how can one conclusively say that the Bible teaches that premarital sex is sinful?

By now, you probably know my answer. I have the 100% reliability of Catholic teaching assuring me "that there has been no loss of translation." You see, Catholic teaching is based on the TWIN fonts of divine revelation -- what is written in the Bible and what was handed down by spoken word, from Jesus to his Apostles, then to their successors, then to us. The perennial oral handing down of the "deposit of faith" assures me "that there has been no loss of translation." What "some versions of the Bible" (i.e., non-Catholic translations) say or avoid saying is of no interest or concern to me. I don't learn the truth through a comparative analysis of Bible versions, nor by private interpretation, but by assenting to the Church's teachings.

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 13, 2003.

Luke, when entering your text in the "Answer" box, hit your "Enter" key twice (not just once) to start a new paragraph. If you forget to do this, then, while proofreading, insert some "new paragraph commands." Each of these commands consists of three characters -- first, a "<" ... second, a "p" ... third, a ">".

-- @ (@@@.@), August 13, 2003.

"But does the Bible, in it's original context, say that premarital sex is sinful?"

Luke,

You are lost in your own mind --

Your assumption that premarital sex & fornication are different is your major error.

Consider all sin as a collection of sins with fornication being one 'type' that includes such sin as premarital sex...

P.S. Premarital sex is a sin.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 13, 2003.

Art,

You are probably correct in that Luke does not understand many things about the Catholic church (and therefore, Protestant churches). I am assuming that Luke is from some Protestant background. Until last week I was Baptist and can understand his confusion. Those of us who weren't raised Catholic (or haven't yet become Catholic) come from a completely different mindset than Catholics. Because sola scriptura (the Bible only) is so prevalent in our education and thinking, interpretations of the Bible (and thus translations) are very, very important to us. Many Protestants are also very mislead about the Catholic church -- I know I was. So, while your response is extremely helpful I would ask that you have a little more patience with our Protestant friends (brothers?). I think you'll find that they are also seeking the truth (they're just starting from a different place).

Luke, my advice to you is that you should read "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic". It was very eye-opening to me and answered many, many questions. It is probably the number two reason I decided to become Catholic. It was written by a former minister who later converted to Catholicism. He gives very detailed reasons as to why he converted. He also answers many questions Protestants typically have about Catholicism.

By the way if you had told me one year ago that I would be studying to become a Catholic in a year, I would have thought you were crazy. There was a time in my life when I was anti-Catholic. My quest for the truth (and the holy spirit within me) has guided me to the true Church of Christ. I know sincerely hope to be an instrument in revealing the true nature of the Catholic church to other Protestants. I will pray for you Luke.

With Love,

Brian Jones

-- Brian Jones (brijones@yahoo.com), August 18, 2003.

welcome, brian, to the catholic church and to our humble and sometimes war torn catholic forum...

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 18, 2003.

After research and prayer I am still undecided as to the validity of many of the teachings of the Catholic church. I'd like to put forth the following two passages from the Bible and ask that any Catholic out there please provide an answer to the following questions:

1) In light of Ephesians 2:8-10 (and the relevant surrounding material), how can you justify the idea that Sacraments are required for salvation? (Please note that I am considering a Sacrament a "work" or "deed").

2) In light of 1 Timothy 4:1-10 (and the relevant surrounding material), how can the Catholic teachings of celibacy of the priesthood and the Catholic teachings of not being able to eat meat be justified?

By the way, I'm much more interested in an answer to the second question than the first.

This is not an attempt on my part to attack the Catholic church -- I am merely seeking the truth.

-- Brian Jones (brijones@yahoo.com), September 02, 2003.

The Bible repeatedly makes it clear that those who ignore works of Christian charity will not be saved ...

"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You? Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:44-46)

"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14)

"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17)

"But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" (James 2:20)

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26)

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their works." (Revelation 20:13)

However, the sacraments go far beyond mere works, for salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:5, 2:8), and the sacraments are the principle channels of grace God has provided to His Church. Therefore, to be separated from the sacraments is to be cut off from the most powerful sources of saving grace that exist. This is not to say that God cannot save those who are separated from the sacraments, through His great mercy, and through the lesser sources of grace that are available to them. But salvation apart from sacramental grace is not God's plan.

As for the sacraments being "works", prayer is also a "work", as is going to church. Worshipping is a work. Can we be saved without prayer, without worshipping God? Believing is a work - something we DO. Can we be saved without faith? Yet it is not our faith, our worship, or our works that save us. It is grace that saves us, the grace our Savior made available to us through His death on the Cross. But His grace is not forced upon us. It is freely offered, and must be freely accepted. Can one reasonably claim to be accepting the grace of salvation, while ignoring prayer, worship, faith, and works? Of course not! For these are the REQUIRED means of accepting the graces of salvation.

Celibacy is a Church discipline, a regulation governing its own priests. It is not a doctrine, and does not have to be supported by scripture. Christ gave the Church AUTHORITY. This regulation was imposed by that divinely ordained authority. Nothing more is required. Nevertheless, celibacy is clearly supported by the teachings of Paul ...

"But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

Fasting is likewise fully supported by scripture, even though the Church requires no such support for its authoritive decisions ... "Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting." (Matt 6:16)

"But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." (Matthew 17:21)

"And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day." (Mark 2:19-20)

"Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts 13:3)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 02, 2003.

Jmj

Paul, I hope that Brian will join me in saying that you have answered his questions wonderfully well.

You rightly stated, "[C]elibacy is clearly supported by the teachings of Paul ..."
May I add that a certain form of celibacy is also approved of by Jesus, who said (in Matthew 19):
"12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Brian, you have been a bit troubled, I think, by the part of 1 Timothy 4 that says, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

On the subject of marriage ...
Please notice that what St. Paul was condemning was those heretics [and they did exist!] who would one day completely forbid marriage to everyone. Not only has the Catholic Church never done that, but she fought (into non-existence) the heretical sects that did. Celibacy in Catholicism has always been something that follows upon a voluntary choice.

On the subject of food ...
Please notice that what St. Paul was condemning was a practice of the "judaizers" -- Christian converts from Judaism who insisted on continuing to follow dietary laws that completely forbade the eating of certain foods. The Catholic Church has never done this, but instead has welcomed "everything created by God [as] good." No food given by God "is ... rejected" by us. St. Paul was not condemning our brief, temporary abstinences from foods that we Catholics usually eat.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

Paul and John,

Thank you both for your answers. It is nice to be able to ask questions and not be attacked for it.

Paul -- the passages you cited from the Bible, while related to the question I posed based on Ephesians, do not (in my opinion) contradict the statement of Ephesians 2:8. They do clarify/expand that someone who has faith will do good works, but I fail to see how they say any work is required to be saved. In fact, neither the word 'saved' nor the work 'condemned' is even used in any of the passages you quoted. I do agree with your statement that God can save people apart from the Sacraments, but I don't see how those passages refute my point -- clarify/expand; yes -- refute; no. To the same point -- if the Sacraments are required, then what about those members of the church who died before the Sacraments were instituted?

I'd also like to address your statement on the authority of the church. If it is true that Christ gave the Catholic church the authority to create new doctrine outside of what is contained in the Bible and if it is also true that the Bible is the source referenced as proof of that authority, then doesn't it hold true that the church cannot contradict the Bible with its doctrines? If it did contradict the Bible then it would be contradicting the source of proof of its authority. Now based on that reasoning, I don't see how your point of the church having authority is relevant in this particular discussion -- we are discussing a case where the church may or may not have contradicted the Bible. If it did contradict the Bible then my opinion is that its own authority is also contradicted. If my reasoning is incorrect here, please correct me.

* The part about fasting I do not refute. Fasting is a voluntary act. I may be mistaken, but my understanding of Catholic doctrine regarding not eating meat on Fridays was a requirement until relatively recent times. It is my opinion that this constitutes being forbidden to eat meat. I may also be mistaken, but wasn't eating meat on Fridays deemed a heretical act by Church doctrine? Please clarify this for me.

John, your replies on the subject of marriage and food seem to make sense at first glance. However, I don't see how Paul's writings in 1 Timothy can be taken to only apply to a certain group of heretics. Also, if it is true that Paul had only certain specific people in mind (e.g. the judaizers) why did he write in general terms? Isn't it a more reasonable conclusion that he was talking about those teachings in general and not condemning a certain group? Also, I agree that Paul probably wasn't condeming the type of abstinences that modern day Catholics observe -- but haven't the Catholic doctrines regarding abstinence from meat changed relatively recently from being something heretical and punishable by death to something recommended?

Since you are both being so kind as to answer me, I'd like to let you know why I ask these questions -- I am considering converting to Catholicism. I want to do that which pleases God and if the Catholic church is the true Church of Christ, then so be it. I just have a lot of questions that make me very leery about converting.

Thanks again,

Brian

-- Brian Jones (brijones@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Paul and John,

After a few more readings your answers are beginning to make more sense to me. Please do go ahead and reply to my last post -- I just wanted to let the two of you know that your replies have got me thinking. I am now wonderind if my understanding of the passages I asked about are incorrect. Eph 2:8 does say we are saved by grace through faith -- so grace is what saved us, but what does it mean to be saved through faith? I will pray for clarity and also meditate and study this point. Please provide me with any help you can.

Brian

-- Brian Jones (brijones@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Dear Brian,

You say: "They do clarify/expand that someone who has faith will do good works, but I fail to see how they say any work is required to be saved. In fact, neither the word 'saved' nor the work 'condemned' is even used in any of the passages you quoted."

A: Matt 25 says straight out that people who neglect to do works of Christian charity will go to Hell ("eternal punishment"). Surely that means they are not saved? And that they are therefore condemned? James 2:14 does specifically say that faith without works cannot SAVE a person. Therefore, both passages clearly indicate that works are NECESSARY for salvation, though such works are of course not the SOURCE of salvation, or even the direct MEANS of salvation, since salvation is a free gift from God which cannot be earned or merited.

"If the Sacraments are required, then what about those members of the church who died before the Sacraments were instituted?"

If the Sacraments had not been instituted, obviously there would have been no requirement to receive them at that time. However, the sacraments were in fact instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, at the very inception of the Church, and have been continuously operative in the Church ever since. Indeed, the Church could not exist without the sacraments, for they are the life blood of the Church, the principle channels of its grace and its strength.

"If it is true that Christ gave the Catholic church the authority to create new doctrine outside of what is contained in the Bible and if it is also true that the Bible is the source referenced as proof of that authority, then doesn't it hold true that the church cannot contradict the Bible with its doctrines?"

A: Christ did not give the Church authority to "create doctrine outside of what is contained in the Bible". In fact, He did not give the Church authority to "create" any doctrine at all! What He gave the Church authority to do is to teach, preach, and when necessary interpret the body of doctrinal truth which He Himself had given to the Church through the Apostles. He did this centuries before the Bible was compiled, and many years before a single word of the New Testament was written. The doctrine of the Church and the Bible cannot be in conflict precisely because they are one and the same! The doctrine existed in the Church first. The Apostles mentioned much, though not all of this doctrine in their correspondence and other writings. The Church, at the end of the 4th century, gathered some of these writings into a book, and called that book the "Bible" (Greek for the "Book"). The Bible was an outgrowth of Church doctrine, not the other way around. There cannot be any conflict between the two because the Church, when it finally compiled the Bible, did not include any writings that would be in conflict with the true doctrine Christ had entrusted to the Church, and which the Church had already held and preached for over 350 years!

"Fasting is a voluntary act. I may be mistaken, but my understanding of Catholic doctrine regarding not eating meat on Fridays was a requirement until relatively recent times".

A: What do you mean by a "voluntary act"? Attending Mass is a voluntary act. Worshipping or doing works of charity are voluntary acts. Still, they are required for salvation. "Required" is not actually the opposite of "voluntary". "Forced" or "coerced" would be the opposite of "voluntary". Obedience to lawful authority, or disobedience to it, is always a voluntary act. There may be penalties attached to disobedience, but the decision to obey or disobey is still a voluntary act of free will.

"I may also be mistaken, but wasn't eating meat on Fridays deemed a heretical act by Church doctrine? Please clarify this for me."

A: You are mistaken. Jesus told the leaders of the Church "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me". He told the leaders of His Church, and no-one else, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Therefore, when abstinence from meat on fridays was a requirement binding on all the faithful on earth, and therefore bound in heaven, choosing not to do so was a sin of disobedience to lawful, divinely ordained authority. However, it had nothing to do with heresy. Heresy is rejection of a doctrine of the faith. Church regulations regarding fasting (and many other issues) are not doctrines. They are simply disciplines, or "rules"; therefore, rejection of them is not heresy. But it is still sin.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello again, Brian.

You wrote to me: "I don't see how Paul's writings in 1 Timothy can be taken to only apply to a certain group of heretics. Also, if it is true that Paul had only certain specific people in mind (e.g. the judaizers) why did he write in general terms? Isn't it a more reasonable conclusion that he was talking about those teachings in general and not condemning a certain group?"

I agree with you that St. Paul was condemning any current or future unjust religious restriction on eating foods. I mentioned the "judaizers" because they were the notorious ones of the era in which he was writing. Notice that he says that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected ...". I want to emphasize that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Catholic doctrine has never "rejected" any foods at all, as did the doctrine of judaizers (and perhaps some radical vegetarian sects). There is a big difference between total "rejection" of a kind of food (e.g., pork or all meats) and a Catholic's temporary self-denial of the enjoyment afforded by a certain kind of food.

Brian, you stated: "I'd like to let you know why I ask these questions -- I am considering converting to Catholicism. I want to do that which pleases God and if the Catholic church is the true Church of Christ, then so be it. I just have a lot of questions that make me very leery about converting."

I see that you are just struggling a bit to get past a little "chuckhole" that has unexpectedly appeared on the road of your journey. I had previously noticed that you wrote the following confident words on August 18:
"[I]f you had told me one year ago that I would be studying to become a Catholic in a year, I would have thought you were crazy. There was a time in my life when I was anti-Catholic. My quest for the truth (and the holy spirit within me) has guided me to the true Church of Christ. I now sincerely hope to be an instrument in revealing the true nature of the Catholic church to other Protestants."

Hang in there, Brian. We will try to help you continue down the right path.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

Paul and John,

Again, thank you both for your responses. I have no other questions I'd like to post here at this time. I find all of the answers you have given both sensible and in line with Biblical teachings. You have deepened my understanding of the Catholic Church, the Bible, and the relationship between the Church, Bible, and doctrine. Thank you again for your help.

-- Brian Jones (brijones@yahoo.com), September 06, 2003.

I've skipped reading a lot of the posts coz you guys where getting too technical for me!

Basically most of the premarital sex being wrong Bible quotes have been mentioned but I'm not sure if they mentioned one of the first relevant ones in the Bible:

Don't have a Bible on me now (nor can I quote exactly) but Genesis does mention that ONE woman and ONE man where created so later they can become ONE body.

So if you're gonna have someone having sex with more than one person doesn't that contradict the Bible and one of the fundamental(but optional as in you can be single for the rest of your life) purposes God created us for? Even if you do plan to marry that person eventually, won't it be better to wait? What's the big deal waiting if you both think you'll always be together anyway?

hope that helps,

-- Joj uu Buaesh (openbook@castle.net), August 19, 2004.