[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Mongoose

The Church does not persecute homosexuals; it teaches tolerance for them.  The Church condemns homosexual activities, not homosexuals themselves.  That's a difference that many people seem to ignore.

I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."

An analogy: Let's say you love to fly helicoptors. You love flying them so much, you want to do it every day. In fact, you bought your own. So you like to fly your helicoptor every day, but then one day, a big wig from the FAA comes down and says you can't fly your helicopter anymore, because he says that planes are better than helicopters. Now, he's a nice guy, so he won't punish you or anything, but you can no longer fly your helicoptor anymore. You can own it, you can look at it, you can wash it, you can tell it you love it, but no matter what you do, thanks to him, it's wrong to actually use it.

Make any sense?

As for other religions, do you know nothing of John Paul II?  He did more to foster better relations with other religions groups than perhaps any of his predecessors.

So? That doesn't mean much when the basic precedents have remained unchanged.

I've always been taught that as long as you live an ethical life Jesus will accept you (granted, that's still kinda hiding behind "our way is right..."). But I'd like to think that if I'm wrong about being Catholic, God/whoever judges me (if there is such a thing) will recognize that I've tried my best.

Exactly. Why don't you apply that same rule to others? My religion generally believes that here is one destination, but many different paths to it. So that means we're all trying to get to heaven, but you might choose Christianity to get there. I personally choose Wicca, but in the end, we're all going to meet up and kick back and eat some pretzels while watching the game.

[kode]

Originally posted by IPAndrews


I'm surprised the press haven't gone to town on that.  

they have, kind of.

noteworthy is that he was forced to and deserted from it later. in fact, most were - it was about the only way to make friends.

[Flipside]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Pope Toast

The only message I see in that is that they have their toaster turned up waaay too high

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."

An analogy: Let's say you love to fly helicoptors. You love flying them so much, you want to do it every day. In fact, you bought your own. So you like to fly your helicoptor every day, but then one day, a big wig from the FAA comes down and says you can't fly your helicopter anymore, because he says that planes are better than helicopters. Now, he's a nice guy, so he won't punish you or anything, but you can no longer fly your helicoptor anymore. You can own it, you can look at it, you can wash it, you can tell it you love it, but no matter what you do, thanks to him, it's wrong to actually use it.

Make any sense?

But the Church isn't actually physically preventing anyone from flying their helicopter. They're just giving you dirty looks when you do, which is fine.

The Church is a private entity. They can refuse to perfrom marriage ceremonies (which is what I assume you're reffering to) for any reason, it doesn't have to be a good one. They're not obliged to do it. Similarly, I can ban all black people from entering my house. It's intolerant, but it is within my rights.

With that said however, there are priests who are willing to perform gay marriages. It also stands to reason that if someone practices homosexuality (which Christianity is clearly against, even in the Bible) they're not too big abiding by the faith, so marriage (in the relgious ritual sense) isn't really that big a deal.

Sure, there's really no good reason for the Church to dislike gays, but that's tradtion, it doesn't have to make sense. And aside from a few individuals acting indepedently (who are usually charged with a criminal offence) I haven't seen too much actual persecuation against gays, not including simple rhetoric, which isn't a real attack as such.

Like I said, I can appreciate that a 2000 year old religion should not be changed to "keep up with the times". Its not like reform can save Christianity, or any other religion. They're all on their way out.

[Scuddie]

What was it that John Paul II said?  Something about his successor being the anti-christ?  Coincidence, I think not...

[Solatar]

Originally posted by Raa
So... What's unethical? And who decides?

For a large portion of "what's ethical", it's just common sense. Going out on the street and killing somebody isn't ethical. The Church also teaches that humans cannot judge who will go to heaven or not, so go figure...

The reason the Church doesn't support gay sex (basically...that's it. Other stuff that leads to it is only discouraged for that reason) is because in the Church's eyes God created it for two reasons: for procreation, and to strengthen a relationship with two people. In their opinion one cannot exist without the other, so if it does it is (in their eyes) a misuse of a "gift" from God. They do this to try and make a distinction between a Person and an Action. They don't know what causes homosexuality, so they might as well tolerate it to the extent that they can under their beliefs. The person can help the action, however, so the Church believes it is wrong to succumb to it.

The Church is their to help people, and it does help some "faithful" people. If it doesn't help you...then oh well, don't listen to what it has to say (the Church teaches that even the pope cannot decide who goes to heaven or hell, so who are they to tell you you're going to hell for having an homosexual affair?)

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Solatar

The reason the Church doesn't support gay sex (basically...that's it. Other stuff that leads to it is only discouraged for that reason) is because in the Church's eyes God created it for two reasons: for procreation, and to strengthen a relationship with two people. In their opinion one cannot exist without the other, so if it does it is (in their eyes) a misuse of a "gift" from God. They do this to try and make a distinction between a Person and an Action. They don't know what causes homosexuality, so they might as well tolerate it to the extent that they can under their beliefs. The person can help the action, however, so the Church believes it is wrong to succumb to it.

God created 'sex'? And it's a 'gift'? Interesting... Seems more like a curse to me, at times...

I still think that the church is wrong on this point. For as pious as they may be, they are still humans, who have never been spoken to by God. Any judgement they make is purely concensus of the ruling elders. They are judging other humans, despite preaching that man is not in a position to judge. Et cetera.... you know the spiel, I'm too tired to continue this, so I'll wait for someone else to.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, well, the Church was wrong about the Earth being the cener of the universe. By extension, maybe they could be wrong about not tolerating anyone else, and maybe, just maybe, accepting that their basic beliefs might different, but they just might possibly still be human beings, worthy of being treated as such.
Or is that just crazy talk?

the Church said the Earth was the center of the universe.  The Bible never said it... yet the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.  The Bible didn't copy the church.

I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."

The church is taking those statements from the Bible, yes.

noteworthy is that he was forced to and deserted from it later. in fact, most were - it was about the only way to make friends.

yet "everyone was required to join" is no excuse.  There are many cases of people who refused to join, and sat in prison for their refusal, many even being killed.

[Taristin]

The bible also says:
DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together


And yet, the church does.

[Bobboau]

damnit you speedy fuker!

[Taristin]

I even had to go find your last post to copy it from your sig.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Raa
The bible also says:
DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together


And yet, the church does.

but see, then we get into the old testament vs. new testament.  the old testament's laws don't apply today.  hence the name: OLD testament

[Bobboau]

I was sooo just about to type
"the Bible says many things /*looks at sig*/"
when I thought, 'hmm, maybe I should refresh, just to make sure someone hasn't posted something to make that seem out of place' and...
and gotamit!!!

[Bobboau]

and yay for picking and chooseing wich rules we like to follow!!!

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Bobboau
and yay for picking and chooseing wich rules we like to follow!!!

that, i agree with you on.

you know they call American Catholics "Cafeteria catholics", because they pick and choose what rules they want to follow, and what ones they don't

[Bobboau]

so, is there a passage somewere that Jesus overturns Deuteronomy 22:11?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so, is there a passage somewere that Jesus overturns Deuteronomy 22:11?

if you were familiar with the Bible, then yes... with Jesus' death, the old testament vanished, and the 'new covenant', talked about in Hebrews 8:8-9 and Hebrews 8:13, came into play.

EDIT:  should mention that obviously there are still universal laws and examples that we can learn from in the old testament, so it's not completely obsolete

[Taristin]

Fairy tales!

[Stealth]

fairy tales or not, i'm just explaining to Bobbau

[Bobboau]

with all the depth people go into LotR mythology you'd think trying to get some clarification on the bible wouldn't raise the BS-o-meter that much, I mean it's not like beleive any of it or anything, but anyway, what exactly is the passage? is the entier OT abolished, and if so then why is it kept around as part of the cannon.
... or perhapse a better question, why did god change his mind, why was it a mortal sin to eat pork or wear cotton-polyester undies in the first place?