Pissed off Roman Catholics

[Lex]

...
You utterly missed the point of everything I wrote. Was it by intent or mere stupidity??

Play nicely, Stronzo.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Play nicely, Stronzo.

Lex my love... the dude's baiting my rather delicious arse. Basta cosi, already.

He needs to comprehend before his knee jerks and he punches "Post reply"

 

[Lex]

Religious discussions bring out the passion in people. When people place a majority of their being into ANY particular belief system, attacking it can cause dissonance and a subsequent fight or flight rush. Just don't pour gas on the fire needlessly, okay? You can certainly get your points across without all those FUCKS and what not. I've seen you do that. Be the bigger man.

Hugs and Gropes.

 

[faceking]

Play nicely, Stronzo.

Impossible... me thinks there's this deep past that makes the boi so bitter, and angry.

 

[faceking]

I've seen you do that. Be the bigger man.

Hugs and Gropes.

Think we need Lex as a chaperone for Stronzo.

 

[faceking]

well trust me in this facequeen. I watched it once and stopped it after about 15 seconds. That was plenty for this homosexual.

**nausea emoticon.

Just cuz it's male don't make it attractive....

Liar. Bitter jealous angry liar.

 

[Lex]

Impossible... me thinks there's this deep past that makes the boi so bitter, and angry.

Actually, you have both slung mud.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Liar. Bitter jealous angry liar.

If it, somehow, makes you feel attractive to think so. Be my guest.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Religious discussions bring out the passion in people. When people place a majority of their being into ANY particular belief system, attacking it can cause dissonance and a subsequent fight or flight rush. Just don't pour gas on the fire needlessly, okay? You can certainly get your points across without all those FUCKS and what not. I've seen you do that. Be the bigger man.

Hugs and Gropes.

I've seen his video... I am the 'bigger man' :biggrin1: ..

Hugs and Gropes backatcha my love.

 

[dreamer20]

Peter went to Rome. One poster said that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. It is my understanidng that most historians say that he was. It was not the state church that Constantine set up in the 300 AD though. There is not a consensus of the history of Christianity in Rome prior to 399 AD.

Peter, an apostle of Christ who preached in many places, Yes. That he ruled in Rome as Bishop of Rome ~42 AD to 67 AD? No. That was a time when the majority of Romans and their emporer were worshipping the Seven Great Roman Gods. The idea of all popes being descendents of Peter can be put in the same box as purgatory, and the statement that Rome was the center of the universe around which the seven (known)planets and the other heavenly bodies revolved. The R.C.Church was furious when Galileo disproved this belief.

More on Peter here:

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/peter.html

lol dreamer20

 

[JustAsking]

1) The 'Bible' (and other religious core documements condemn Homesexuals, unconditionally and without ambiguity so choosing a church on the basis of strictly obeying 'Gods word' would surely be to choose one that would condemn Homesexuals to eternal damnation or worse...surely that's not a good thing?

dong20,
I don't think I can agree with you on that one. There is only one Bible passage about homosexuals that survives careful scrutiny and analysis. The rest can easily be shown to be about other things, such as pedophelia or prostitution. After all the spurious ones are explained away, the one that still stands is Romans 1:26-27.

Here Paul is listing how nasty the human race is when compared against the standards of the Old Testament. In his long list of evidence he happens to list same sex relations first. But this whole list is just the beginning of Paul's argument that since the human race is unredeemable in terms of behavior, God has declared us incompetent to stand trial. He goes on to explains God's "sentence" on the human race as one where, although we deserve death, instead we get Jesus and unconditional forgiveness. Romans is Paul's great treatise on the doctrine of Grace.

The upshot of it is that there is nothing anyone can do to lose God's love and forgiveness and so there is no sense ranking sins by putting anything at the top, including homosexuality.

On this basis, church's that belong to denominations that center their doctrine on Grace are compelled by this notion to be "accepting". If they are true to their doctrine, they must accept anyone into their congregation with the open arms of unconditional love, as God does.

 

[B_Stronzo]

dong20,

On this basis, church's that belong to denominations that center their doctrine on Grace are compelled by this notion to be "accepting". If they are true to their doctrine, they must accept anyone into their congregation with the open arms of unconditional love, as God does.

Even heterosexuals JustAsking? :wink: :biggrin1:

Interesting reply. But I think the what dong (if I may speak for my English friend) was reacting to was solong's post directed at me. And in that light dong was reinforcing the nature of the C. of E. Church's attitude toward those "iffy" passages (esp. the one in Leviticus) that so often gets hurled as the "proof" positive that God condemns homosexuals. That's the one I get shot at me when I say "hooey" to the fundies. Frankly I just like the Episcopalians and the Unitarians more since they think rather than bleat.

Of course were anyone to literally rip out of context any number of thousands of preposterous Bible assertions and individually apply (let alone assign the word homosexual to them as the many do to the events at Sodom) then not one of us would dare leave the house for fear of committing some "abomination". But when arguing with certain "Christian" zealots I've heard said that there exists a new version of the Bible which actually uses the word "homosexual" in order to bolster their reasoning. We must remember that when it comes to things sexual (generally) most fundamental Christians just can't handle it.

As for Paul- I've always had trouble with him. I think he was one very frightened and angry individual if what's come down historically is truly his wording (undoubtedly much has been tweaked).

But I will say I take exception to the whole 'ranking' of sins and the inclusion of any reference to homosexuality. It's the reason that we attend services (yes even at the Episcopal church) really for the fellowship and the spiritual atmosphere rather than any real respect for what's been done to the Word of God at the hand of man.

That's why I feel those churches you and I speak of which are 'accepting' (though infinitely preferable to other vile ones) still ring of a condescension of resigned tolerance in that "forgive them they know not what they do" sort of way.

Either way you slice it, it's fucked.

That's really why I find spiritual renewal so much more easily in random earthly places. It's so much less cluttered with human rhetoric.

 

[Freddie53]

In some of those passages, the practice of using sex as part of worship is what is being condemned. In those days there were fertility religions. Women priests amd men priests in these religions performed sex with the members in honor of the fertility God.

The Bible condmens that. The strongest passages especially in the Old Testament are about that practice. That is what is an obmination to God is the worship of another God in any shape form or fashion according ot the ancient Jewish people who wrote those passages.

And the poster who mentioned grace is absolutely correct. We by nature sin. That is our condition. Everyone sins everyday at some point. Sin is separation from God. Humans aren't capable of being in total communion with God and nothing else, even for a brief moment. We can come close, very close. Grace is about being able to be worthy to be totally in God's presence. While none are worthy. God makes all worhty. That is the foundation of Christianity as I understand it.

Is homosexuality normal in the sense of performing acts to reproduce? NO. But then neither are many of the straight sex acts that people engage in either. And who other than the Cahotlic Church believes sex for any other reason than reproduction is a sin?

Using little boys are sex objects was I'm sure a part of the ancient fertility religions. That was not differentiated between gay behavior in those days. Today it is pedophillia and not only do we believe that is wrong, but it is agaisnt the law with severe penalties for adiults found guilty of egaging in sex with minors. But back then no.

I've said it once and I've said it many times. Jesus is about redemption not punishment. acceptance not rejection. love not hate. and the list goes on and on.

 

[Lordpendragon]

wrong

Correct Gone A.

Fundamentalists are intrinsically ignorant.

 

[dong20]

dong20,
I don't think I can agree with you on that one. There is only one Bible passage about homosexuals that survives careful scrutiny and analysis. The rest can easily be shown to be about other things, such as pedophelia or prostitution. After all the spurious ones are explained away, the one that still stands is Romans 1:26-27.

I understand and I was overstating the point a tad to make a point about the irony of a document at the root of a faith that professes tolerance and forgiveness all too often doing pretty much the exact opposite.

Even the Romans quote you mention contains..in reference to Homosexual acts : "Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion"

I have highlighted the words I think are relevant (in other translations for perversion read error). Either way the spirit of what's written doesn't really spread a sense of tolerance. Again I am labouring the point but there are several other references but to name just two:

Leviticus 18 :
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"
Leviticus 20 :
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."


The second is especially forgiving. I have learned to take these with a 'pinch of salt' but they are there.

Niotwithstanding the bible, the crux of what I was trying to say was that traditionally, Christianity, and especially Roman Catholicism has been almost entirely intolerent of Homosexuality and a major source of this intolerance stems from the bible, the rest is human bigotry. Things may be changing but it's a tortuous and slow process. Having discussions like this one is a key part of that process.

 

[dong20]

....But I think the what dong (if I may speak for my English friend) was reacting to was solong's post directed at me. And in that light dong was reinforcing the nature of the C. of E. Church's attitude toward those "iffy" passages (esp. the one in Leviticus) that so often gets hurled as the "proof" positive that God condemns homosexuals. That's the one I get shot at me when I say "hooey" to the fundies. Frankly I just like the Episcopalians and the Unitarians more since they think rather than bleat.

Sure....one good turn...I don't think I got across what I was trying to say to Justasking very well though, which was that essentially that whatever may or may not be written in the Bible it has to accept a degree of culpability for the intolerism in the world today and I'm casting the net far wider than Homosexuality. To be fair much the same can be said to varying degrees to other religious texts.

It's the use of these as some form of shield to excuse one's own prejuduce and weakness as in : "I have nothing against...<insert relavent deviant here> personally but it's in the <insert narrowly interprerated religious dogma here> so who am I to go against it?"

They would be saying that right up to the point they burned their children at the stake because some zealot had decided that eating Big Macs was a mortal sin. It smacks of "I was only following orders..."

 

[B_Stronzo]

. Sin is separation from God. Humans aren't capable of being in total communion with God and nothing else, even for a brief moment. We can come close, very close. Grace is about being able to be worthy to be totally in God's presence. While none are worthy. God makes all worhty. That is the foundation of Christianity as I understand it.

Forgive me for truncating your good post Freddie. But I particularly found this part profound. The entire notion of Grace is key (for me) to understanding the universe and, in truth, why we actually get up in the morning.

Is homosexuality normal in the sense of performing acts to reproduce? NO. But then neither are many of the straight sex acts that people engage in either. And who other than the Cahotlic Church believes sex for any other reason than reproduction is a sin?

Short answer? Vast numbers of fundies!

I've said it once and I've said it many times. Jesus is about redemption not punishment. acceptance not rejection. love not hate. and the list goes on and on.

I know what you mean but I take Jesus in a less Christian sense than you and like all ancient prophets I think Jesus is about peace. I think you and I only differ in that you see the world as a pretty clear battle of good versus evil.

I still have difficulty believing every nuance of everything I see in such cut and dry terms.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Leviticus 18 :
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"
Leviticus 20 :
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."


The second is especially forgiving. I have learned to take these with a 'pinch of salt' but they are there.

Notwithstanding the bible, the crux of what I was trying to say was that traditionally, Christianity, and especially Roman Catholicism has been almost entirely intolerent of Homosexuality and a major source of this intolerance stems from the bible, the rest is human bigotry.

Which, may I add, 'human bigotry' stems directly from that same tome.

Things may be changing but it's a tortuous and slow process. Having discussions like this one is a key part of that process.

Agreed.

dong,

An aside: I've had perfectly intelligent-seeming heterosexual men say those precise passages make it "cool with God" for women to "lie" with women. They fail to realize the term 'men' is the old-school use of the collective and say: "hey God says nothing about women laying with women. So God's okay with it".

Indeed Leviticus actually doesn't mention women (if one takes it literally) in that same way. So more fuel to the "lesbian chic" phenomenon. How well the Bible works for heterosexual men. I wonder if it's a coincidence?

It's so exhausting there are times I'd simply rather just kick them in the balls... it would communicate far more easily my disgust at their stupidity.

 

[Lex]

In the end, it is a book that men wrote.

Act accordingly.

 

[B_Stronzo]

In the end, it is a book that men wrote.

Act accordingly.

Boy Lex. There are those that'll argue that point to their graves.

I happen to agree with you. But in their eyes I'm a sinning heretic anyway so I have nothing to lose.