Question for Christians

Page 5 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

gbollard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,009
Location: Sydney, Australia

09 Apr 2009, 12:42 am

Dussel wrote:

So the Vatican, High Lord and Master of The "Sophisticated" Word, thinks it is Ok to be gay, so fare you not having sex ...

I think you need more one twist in the brain to see this as logic, but how need logic if you have the Pope. :lol:

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Homosexuality is a sin under the same laws as using contraceptives.

So, it's all or nothing. If you want to believe that gay sex will send you to hell, you have to believe that you'll share your place in hell with the sweet little married man who used a condom because he couldn't afford to feed any more than the eight children he already had.

Maybe it's the church law itself that we should be contesting here rather than one's preferences?

_________________
Gavin.
http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

09 Apr 2009, 1:11 am

Bataar wrote:

I think you need more one twist in the brain to see this as logic, but how need logic if you have the Pope. :lol:

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

What do you find unclear about it?[/quote]

I did not say that I find it unclear, just not logic. I like to quote Shakespeare: " Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't" (Hamlet II/2).

What Rome did here is a typical Roman play with words and meanings to maintain double standard: "Be gay, but have no sex and if you have sex than we can absolve the sin."

Raising artificial moral standards to an high for the most unreachable, but keeping the relieve bottom for feeling guilty under own control. So the church can serve both: Closed gays and the haters of gays. Not bad for a few lines.

---

But sexuality is part of human nature - to deny anyone this nature means to deny there nature of humans; for the sake of control.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

09 Apr 2009, 1:18 am

gbollard wrote:

Maybe it's the church law itself that we should be contesting here rather than one's preferences?

Yes - but this example, the Catholic stand to homosexuality, is one of the finest examples of double standard. Therefore it is not a bad starting point for contesting the whole concept behind.

---

To avoid any misunderstandings: I am gay and hardcore sceptic and atheist.

Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

09 Apr 2009, 1:33 am

Christian fundamentalists will ALWAYS deny the reality that homosexuality is involuntary and will continue to condemn homosexuals cuz dats what tha bible sayz.... The Catholic Church however, because they must compete with secularists, may eventually accomodate homosexuality as part of Gods creations because obviously it EXISTS and PERSISTS despite efforts to get rid of it so while people may disapprove, its highly questionable whether God does.

Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: Post Falls, ID

09 Apr 2009, 4:10 am

Dussel wrote:

gbollard wrote:

Maybe it's the church law itself that we should be contesting here rather than one's preferences?

I must be not understanding you correctly because I don't see a double standard. The church basically says that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and woman. Homosexual sex is no more sinful than heterosexual sex that occurs outside of the bounds of marriage.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

09 Apr 2009, 4:59 am

Bataar wrote:

TheUnnamedOne wrote:

Well I was just wondering (I might be wrong, and if so I'm sorry)....God makes people in his own image, right? So...wouldn't that include their sexuality? But yet, homosexuality, etc is a sin...but didn't God make them like that....?

Being homosexual is not a sin, in and of itself. The homsexual act, however is. Homosexuals choose whether or not to sin, just as much as heterosexuals choose whether or not to sin, by having sex out of marriage.

You might really like shellfish, which is not a sin in and of itself, but may the Lord have mercy upon you if you decide to take a bite...

Leviticus 11
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

09 Apr 2009, 6:36 am

Henriksson wrote:

Bataar wrote:

TheUnnamedOne wrote:

You might really like shellfish, which is not a sin in and of itself, but may the Lord have mercy upon you if you decide to take a bite...

Leviticus 11
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Too bad for watercress and seaweed.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

gbollard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,009
Location: Sydney, Australia

09 Apr 2009, 5:43 pm

To paraphrase Life of Brian.... (or is it Holy Grail).

"Wot I wanna know, is what do you have against shellfish?"

---

Don't forget all the bits in the bible about being peacemakers and about not being judgemental. Somehow many of the other rules being quoted seem to go against this idea.

_________________
Gavin.
http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

09 Apr 2009, 7:12 pm

Haliphron wrote:

Actually, one "accomodation" would be to accept that some are born that way, and that there are biological and genetic factors to make an individual gay or bisexual, and there are few conservative christians that believe homosexuality is like that, but still condemn the act.

And yes, it all comes down to this, "because the Bible says so", wether other arguments are used which could even sound scientific and convincing to some, as it is the case with Creationism and the blood thing with Jehova's Witnesses. As for the question for why God would create homosexuals if he condemns the act, I would think the answer given would start from...... The original sin.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Apr 2009, 7:45 pm

Henriksson wrote:

Leviticus 11
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Mark 7:18-19 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, (19) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

(The parentheses isn't even something I added, but often found in bibles)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rk+7:18-19

So, really, charges of inconsistency are often too quickly made.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

09 Apr 2009, 9:11 pm

Bataar wrote:

Dussel wrote:

gbollard wrote:

Maybe it's the church law itself that we should be contesting here rather than one's preferences?

The church says also that a marriage can be only between man and woman, therefore any form of gay sex is a sin - to tell someone that his nature is not sin, but one of the most natural expression of this nature is one is double standard.

gbollard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,009
Location: Sydney, Australia

09 Apr 2009, 9:15 pm

Revelations (20:7-8) wrote:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.

2 Peter 3:8 wrote:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Aw, the whole thing is a cop out... pretty much every passage in the bible can be used to belittle or cop-out of another passage.

My favorite quote however is...

Sir Ian McKellan wrote:

Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction.

_________________
Gavin.
http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/

Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: Post Falls, ID

09 Apr 2009, 9:17 pm

Dussel wrote:

Bataar wrote:

Dussel wrote:

gbollard wrote:

Maybe it's the church law itself that we should be contesting here rather than one's preferences?

It's not a double standard. One is nature, the other is action. They're two different things. By your logic, it should not be sinful for a psychopath to murder someone because that's part of his nature. Just because it's natural for someone to to behave a certain way, that doesn't mean the actions that go along it are not sinful.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

09 Apr 2009, 10:22 pm

Bataar wrote:

Dussel wrote:

The action of a person follows his own nature: This is the case with a person how is helpful and nice and with a murderous psychopath. This nature is neither "sinful", "bad" or "good" or something else in this kind: It is just the think it is.

The question is, is it harmful: When I would start to kill people it would be harmful for society, therefore society has the right to stop me doing so. If men are f*****g with men there no harm for society, therefore society has no right to stop this.

So the Catholic Church declares a harmless action based on the nature of person to "sin" without reason - How can something be "wrong" for itself, if it follows just it own nature? "Is it not a cruel thing to forbid men to affect those things, which they conceive to agree best with their own natures, and to tend most
to their own proper good and behold?"

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

09 Apr 2009, 11:33 pm

Dussel wrote:

Bataar wrote:

Dussel wrote:

The action of a person follows his own nature: This is the case with a person how is helpful and nice and with a murderous psychopath. This nature is neither "sinful", "bad" or "good" or something else in this kind: It is just the think it is.

The question is, is it harmful: When I would start to kill people it would be harmful for society, therefore society has the right to stop me doing so. If men are f***ing with men there no harm for society, therefore society has no right to stop this.

So the Catholic Church declares a harmless action based on the nature of person to "sin" without reason - How can something be "wrong" for itself, if it follows just it own nature? "Is it not a cruel thing to forbid men to affect those things, which they conceive to agree best with their own natures, and to tend most
to their own proper good and behold?"

You cannot argue from logic and good sense to someone who uncritically accepts an ancient text written out of ancient prejudices and traditions as absolute truth. It's not worth the effort.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Apr 2009, 11:45 pm

Sand wrote:

Any consideration of free will at all will reveal it is a useless capability. Decisions, to be effective, must always respond to circumstance and assumed consequences.

Imagine that, a philosophical point on which Sand and I agree.

Satan would be shoveling the snow from his driveway right about now.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 5 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Question for Christians Post Reply New Topic

Question for Christians