What matters reason? It is a characteristic of the sober as much as of the insane. What matters is the mystery of God, the creator. He needs no reasons to act. We can only postulate his presence as The Mystery and pray that His Grace will be on our side. In God we trust.
it is astonishing how you could be so sure what Jesus thought about anything. you do not even know what he looks like. what is more concerning is the blind belief that you seem to display as if you met any of the people mentioned in the bible. you have never met Jesus and yet you seem to think that you know about what he thought then anyone else.Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
I find this blind belief rather scary. never be sure of anything.
nobody here in this forum has ever interacted of met any of these figures mentioned in the bible. no one knosw including you. your words are pure speculation bound to book called a bible.
the fact that you have swang from not bothering about gay to bothering is quite telling of your blind belief.
you ought to weigh your thoughts a bit more and think about what you are saying. remember it is a book and anything written could be as fictional as Alice in Wonderland.
Last edited by cacian; 10-26-2013 at 01:11 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I believe in a lot of absolutes. When I used to think it was okay to not be sure of anything and not believe in any absolutes, that was when I didn't think at all, and that's dangerous. You seem to think that someone just put a Bible in front of me one day and commanded me to believe in what it said without questioning it. That is entirely wrong. It's not just wrong, but that kind of mentality is pretty stupid and I've never been taught to blindly believe in anything. I've always been taught to question religion. I rejected a lot of Catholic teachings for most of my life, or were ignorant of them, and I supported things that I thought little about. Now that I've been thinking about what I believe more and more, researching, asking questions, and receiving answers, I've started to form different opinions. If I were to go back and believe the things I used to believe, I feel I would just be lying to myself.
I don't know why you think that liberal religious and atheists somehow think more about what they believe than conservative Christians. That is absolute nonsense. You can be an atheist and think very little and still be celebrated as some smart individual because you have all the "right" ideas. You can be a liberal Christian who thinks about his faith very little and the same thing will happen. Once a Christian thinks long and hard about his faith and goes against the grain, then he's an idiot and a bigot. For all these people who think they like Jesus that are either religious or non-religious, they would call him an idiot in no time if he came back now and did the things he did and said the things he said 2000 years ago. People would hate him and tell him to "get with the times."
And yes, I've never met any of the people in the Bible, but I'm just looking at what's there in scripture. Homosexuality is never once condoned. Even if Christ never mentioned homosexuality, does that really matter? He never mentioned polygamy or pedophilia, but do you think he would be for that? As corny as this much overused phrase is, "What would Jesus do?", it's still a great idea to think about when trying to decide what's good and what's evil. If Christ told us what marriage is and what it is not, then why would he condone gay "marriage" if it's not even a marriage? Why would he condone two men or two women having sex if Christ told us that sex outside of marriage is a sin? I'm not just making stuff up. I'm just saying what is much more likely based in reading scripture. To say that he would be okay with it is a much bigger stretch than the former.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
The commands in Titus and Timothy were both ordained through, "God whose word is truth," and "through His Son, the Saviour," and both Epistles state clearly that polygamy is banned for Deacons of the Church and for Elders only. Rabbinic Law prohibited the taking of more than one wife for a number of sects, but not for all, and throughout the Babylonian captivity, Jews of (nearly) all sects were encouraged in the practise of polygamy because of the attrition attached to Cyrus the Great's proclamations, if for no other reason than to keep Judaism alive, and once we reach fully back into the Old Testament, we begin with Lamech (Adah and Zillah), Abraham (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and - depending upon how one translates the word "פילגש" under the Levite usage, innumerable other "wives" or "consorts") and an host of others who will bear out the long practise of polygamy both within and without the confines of the Church.
Polygamy is not a comparitor to be used with homosexuality under Canon Law at any point. "Is," as Boris would say, "bad logics, Natasha."
I know it's not. I'm just saying, Christ didn't mention a lot of things, so that doesn't mean that whatever he didn't mention is all up for grabs. As for the other books in the NT, I can't argue with Cacian using those books, unfortunately. I have to stop at the gospels.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Without using the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church as citation sources - speaking just from your own knowledge or from your own Heart - can you explain the inherent "wrongness" of homosexuality?
How unusual in a christian.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
^I know you're being sarcastic, but it is starting to become unusual.
It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased. Not to mention that, generally speaking, a man and woman through normal vaginal sex can produce children and repopulate the world. Two men and two men cannot do this, no matter how much they try. The parts just don't fit and produce nothing.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Being a nurse or a physician exposes those people to far more virulent diseases on a daily basis, and medical researchers are even more at risk than medical practitioners. By this token, then, should we not outlaw Medicine and medical research because of the hazards thereunto attendant?
No, of course not. Medicine and medical research are good things. It aims to alleviate the suffering of individuals all across the world.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
You told us not three breaths ago that the "aim" didn't matter - only the possibility of catching some dread disease was important. Which is it?
I don't quite understand what you're asking.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Of course you understand - that's what makes the whole of it so unsavoury. There's not a single moral nor ethical argument which can be made against same-gender relationships - only responses like "the ick factor" and "they'll catch some dread disease." There are 200 million overweight Americans who'll end up costing taxpayers trillions of dollars in unnecessary health care, and somehow a debate still rages over same-gender Marriage.
Man, I must be dumber than ol' Persephone's Mother.
Last edited by Eman Resu; 10-26-2013 at 06:17 PM.
No, I genuinely didn't understand your question.
I am against active homosexuality for religious and non-religious reasons. If someone gets a sexual disease, I believe they should be cared for, gay or straight.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Since the world's number one problem is overpopulation, and since Catholics don't believe in contraception, do you think that all Catholics should be 1.) sterilised or 2,) euthanised?
This logic is precisely the same as you used in failing to answer the question I asked earlier, in Post 306.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote