Evangelical hypocrisy...now with even more gay sex

[chcr]

Gone are the good ol' days of witch-burning

*note: sarcasm

Come on over to the house. We'll fry up a couple of babies. You'll feel better.

Note: more sarcasm.

 

[MrBishop]

Come on over to the house. We'll fry up a couple of babies. You'll feel better.

Note: more sarcasm.

Ya got one of them fancy turkey/baby deep-frier combos? It's Yuletide and I want to cook up something special for the holydays.

 

[freako104]

See Gonz, like most people, you think that every significant thing has happened in your lifetime. This turns out not to be the case. The role of religion in most of the world population's lives has been declining since the renaissance. Accelerated by the industrial revolution of course. The increase in crime over the last 100 years or so can be directly attributed to the decrease in real punishment for said crimes and the increase in population. I really doubt that there's an such a huge increase in single parenthood (more people of course, that's a given), I think that people just don't try to hide it as much (which I suspect would be just as good for you). Re the increase in "general malevolence," Jeebus H. Christmas read a fucking history book, will you?

.

 

[Gotholic]

If any particular is wrong then the whole thing must be wrong?

No, but if one particular is wrong then others may be susceptible to error.

Right, it's not fine to be practice or teach bigotry against people for there race, religion, sexual orientation, flat noses, damaged testicles, or handicaps in general though.

That includes teaching children that they are sinners, may not approach the altar of god, denying them employment that they are qualified for, etc.

I think you can see the difference between that and telling a blind man he can't fly a military jet.

All of which the Catholic Church does not do. Except for the fact that there is bigotry towards homosexuals to a degree - where appropriate , e.g. matrimony. And they teach children that they are sinners as is everyone else.

The "flat nose" and "damaged testicles" you applied here is dealt with later in this post.

Thanks for yours, but quoting misguided catholic interpretation is not really very insightful.

This thread is about the Christian viewpoint of homosexuality. You believe the Christians were wrong for roughly 2,000 years. The Christians use Scripture to back up their beliefs. What do you use to back up yours that the Christians are wrong? Wikipedia?

If in fact the the bible defines it as a disorder then it can't be helped and therefore should not be a sin. I suppose it's consistent though if the bible also encourages bigotry against flat noses and handicapped people.

Since when can a disorder not be helped?

Zoophiles and pedophiles all have a disorder. Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does.

Nice excuse to pick and choose but it doesn't make them any less ridiculous does it? So God had irrational laws until Jesus came along and then he decided he was wrong except they still apply to Jews?

The Mosaic Law was to prepare them for the New Law in Christ. It was a form of discipline. The Old Law does not apply to Jews who have converted to Christianity. It also does not (I think) apply to Jews today - they think it still does because they have rejected Christ.

Excellent passage to use!

1. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

Sounds like God made them do it. Wow.

Actually, Paul attributed that some homosexual desires were due to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God.

2. God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them

So do you believe homosexuals or people that approve of it should be put to death as the bible says?

As far as I can understand...

Christ died and took away the penalty of physical death under the Old Law. Homosexuals do not get physical death but anathema. If it is God's Will that they deserve this then who am I to contend Him?

3. That passage was actually a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship.

That passage was condemning homosexual behavior no matter where it was practiced.

4. Paul wrote that who was an immoral idiot who also supported the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16).

In regards to Paul's letters, Peter wrote: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Now lets take a look at those passages that you have, not surprisingly, taken out of context...

For 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35, this is usually considered to be a disciplinary measure. The understanding of this is based on 1 Cor. 11:5-13, which Paul assumes there are circumstances in which women speak in church. Paul is dealing with problems with the churches in Corinth. Women must have been praying and prophesying during the liturgy. Paul does not expect for women never to speak in church, only to follow a disciplinary injunction he has given. Keep in mind that disciplinary injunctions are changeable.

Before you ask, as for Paul saying that women wear veils in church, that teaching still stands. But the Catholic Church does not force women to wear them in church. But it is considered pious for women who do wear them in church.

For Philemon 1:15-16, well, lets see what it says, "Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord". You honestly think this condones slavery? A bit of a stretch. Paul is saying here that people are more than chattel slaves and that Christians are united in Christ. He goes on to say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

5. The passage depends on another decree and in itself is not a decree. "Though they know God’s decree"...where is this New Testament decree he speaks of?

He is referring to the Old Testament where God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. There was no need for God to reiterate that he condemns homosexuality in the New Testament.

Oh please explain to me why Jews should can't shave and should be prejudiced against flat nosed people, handicapped, and people with damaged testicles. I'd love to hear it.

That passage only referred those who should go near the altar of God. Not generally speaking.

Priests with blemish were not allowed because the priests were a symbol of the unblemished victim (the animals) needed for the sacrifice. This did not mean those with blemishes had a moral defect. It is just like when the military rejects those who are flat-footed.

Oh no it doesn't. if Natural Law is "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" that means that two lesbians that love each other are doing nothing wrong, hurting nobody, and therefore are fine.

1. No one needs to be told that the penis is suppose to go in the vagina - they both complement each other.

2. It is not a sin to love someone. It is homosexual activity that is a sin and contrary to Natural Law. Sexual relations and love are not synonymous.

Prejudice, bigotry, or teaching that they are immoral would be irrational and against Natural Law.

Natural Law is rooted in God.

I have already explained why bigotry is not intrinsically immoral. The same can be said of being prejudice.

This is the kicker for me....I have faith and I believe...but I KNOW that so much of the bible was concocted by men.
If I can't pick the good apples from the bad than I would have no choice but to pass on the bushel.
With the 10 commandments and the words spoken by Jesus there is more of a ring of truth and Godliness than with the laws passed down to a 2000 year old society by 2000+ year old men just trying to bring order to that society.

There were many gospels, tonks. The Catholic Church discerned (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which gospels and other books were to be included in the Bible. They decided on four. If they were wrong to pick one book (e.g., say Genesis) then perhaps they could of been wrong in picking the four Gospels.

But really, you have no basis to decide which books were concocted by men and which were guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[spike]

All of which the Catholic Church does not do. Except for the fact that there is bigotry towards homosexuals to a degree - where appropriate , e.g. matrimony. And they teach children that they are sinners as is everyone else.

It's never appropriate and teaching that these people should be treated differently is wrong.

This thread is about the Christian viewpoint of homosexuality. You believe the Christians were wrong for roughly 2,000 years. The Christians use Scripture to back up their beliefs. What do you use to back up yours that the Christians are wrong? Wikipedia?

I'm using the bible too if you haven't noticed. Yeah, many christians have been wrong for way too long. Not all, I have been to churches that don't share your viewpoint and even allow homosexuals as part of the clergy.

Since when can a disorder not be helped?

Zoophiles and pedophiles all have a disorder. Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does.

So a person who has a fear of heights and stays away from high places is sinning?

The Mosaic Law was to prepare them for the New Law in Christ. It was a form of discipline. The Old Law does not apply to Jews who have converted to Christianity. It also does not (I think) apply to Jews today - they think it still does because they have rejected Christ.

The idea that God would have a bunch of ridiculous laws to "discipline" people and then have them not apply to later generations makes no sense. Seems an obvious rationalization to avoid admitting much of the Old Testament is straight up wrong.

Actually, Paul attributed that some homosexual desires were due to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God.

What a nutcase.

As far as I can understand...

Christ died and took away the penalty of physical death under the Old Law. Homosexuals do not get physical death but anathema. If it is God's Will that they deserve this then who am I to contend Him?

You have some New Testament passage saying homosexuals get anathema?

That passage was condemning homosexual behavior no matter where it was practiced.

In your interpretation. If you look at the context he is clearly referring to acts committed during idol worship.

In regards to Paul's letters, Peter wrote: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Now lets take a look at those passages that you have, not surprisingly, taken out of context...

For 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35, this is usually considered to be a disciplinary measure. The understanding of this is based on 1 Cor. 11:5-13, which Paul assumes there are circumstances in which women speak in church. Paul is dealing with problems with the churches in Corinth. Women must have been praying and prophesying during the liturgy. Paul does not expect for women never to speak in church, only to follow a disciplinary injunction he has given. Keep in mind that disciplinary injunctions are changeable.

Before you ask, as for Paul saying that women wear veils in church, that teaching still stands. But the Catholic Church does not force women to wear them in church. But it is considered pious for women who do wear them in church.

Considering it a disciplinary measure for some women acting up in church is rationalization and not based on scripture. The passages before and after would be difficult to interpret as disciplinary also.

It says "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Then there's Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.


Seems pretty clear Paul is a misogynist.

For Philemon 1:15-16, well, lets see what it says, "Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord". You honestly think this condones slavery? A bit of a stretch. Paul is saying here that people are more than chattel slaves and that Christians are united in Christ. He goes on to say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

The slave ran away from his master and Paul sends him back to the guy. Not that there's any shortage of examples of the Bible condoning slavery. See Peter, Timothy, Luke, etc.

He is referring to the Old Testament where God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. There was no need for God to reiterate that he condemns homosexuality in the New Testament.

Since the Old Testament does not apply anymore and there's no decree in the New Testament it's safe to assume it's fine now.

That passage only referred those who should go near the altar of God. Not generally speaking.

Priests with blemish were not allowed because the priests were a symbol of the unblemished victim (the animals) needed for the sacrifice. This did not mean those with blemishes had a moral defect. It is just like when the military rejects those who are flat-footed.

So does the catholic church still not allow handicapped, flat nodes, or blemished priests?

1. No one needs to be told that the penis is suppose to go in the vagina - they both complement each other.

So men and women who engage in oral and anal sex or hand manipulation are sinning now too? Want to keep them from getting married?

It is not a sin to love someone. It is homosexual activity that is a sin and contrary to Natural Law. Sexual relations and love are not synonymous.

Since homosexual activity hurts no one Natural Law states that it is not a sin. Catholics are free to make misguided interpretations and refuse to conduct homosexual marriages in the church but mind their own business when it comes to marraige in other churches or at the courthouse.

 

[Gotholic]

It's never appropriate and teaching that these people should be treated differently is wrong.

You are one of those people who could care less what the Bible says what is a sin and what is not, yet, you must reinterpret Scripture to conform to your beliefs.

I'm using the bible too if you haven't noticed. Yeah, many christians have been wrong for way too long. Not all, I have been to churches that don't share your viewpoint and even allow homosexuals as part of the clergy.

1. Scripture is not a matter of one's private interpretation. "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21). It can only be correctly interpreted, without a doubt, by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which is the only Church established by Christ). spike, you have no authority to declare that Christians have been wrong the whole time.

2. There are over 30,000 Christian denominations. All these denominations claim they have correctly interpreted Scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit, yet, they all contradict each other. Some of these denominations claim all form of dancing is a sin and praising God with musical instruments is a sin. But I digress, all this is another matter. Showing me that some Christian denominations accept homosexuality in no way refutes the Catholic Church.

So a person who has a fear of heights and stays away from high places is sinning?

Did I say that all disorders that people act upon are sinful? Your argument is based on a false dichotomy.

The idea that God would have a bunch of ridiculous laws to "discipline" people and then have them not apply to later generations makes no sense. Seems an obvious rationalization to avoid admitting much of the Old Testament is straight up wrong.

It makes no sense to you, but does that mean it makes no sense to God? We cannot fully grasp how God works through our feeble minds.

Despite what you think of the Old Law, Jesus fulfilled it and so it is no longer binding.

What a nutcase.

Many sins are due to a rebellion against God or to a refusal to acknowledge and worship Him. It is just like when kids rebel and refuse to listen to their parents - all kinds of trouble starts.

You have some New Testament passage saying homosexuals get anathema?

Actually, the Catholic Church has stopped issuing anathemas, which was a major excommunication. However, homosexuals can still be excommunicated.

Despite being excommunicated, homosexuals are still in danger of damnation (a spiritual death and obviously worse than excommunication), which is proven biblically...

"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town" (Matthew 10:14-15).

"And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Matthew 11:23).

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:9–10).

"just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7-8).

In your interpretation. If you look at the context he is clearly referring to acts committed during idol worship.

In context, does Paul say that homosexuality is immoral because it is done during idol worship or because it is unnatural? By your logic, if Paul was rebuking someone who committed adultery during idol worship then what Paul really means is that you cannot commit adultery only if you are practicing idol worship. Other than that, you are free to commit adultery.

You cannot see the forest through the trees.

Considering it a disciplinary measure for some women acting up in church is rationalization and not based on scripture. The passages before and after would be difficult to interpret as disciplinary also.

It says "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Then there's Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.


Seems pretty clear Paul is a misogynist.

1. I have already pointed out that Paul did show that women can speak in church. You are taking out that verse that says "it is a shame for women to speak in church" and applying it generally. Since it is not generally, then women must have been speaking during in inappropriate time - most likely during the liturgy. You need to keep in mind why Paul is writing to the churches in Corinth. As for the verse saying that women must cover their head, that is true. Women should cover their heads while in church - many mistakenly believe that this went out with Vatican II.

2. Paul is not a misogynist. I suggest you read this article: Wives Be Subject to Your Husbands - a great explanation.

The slave ran away from his master and Paul sends him back to the guy. Not that there's any shortage of examples of the Bible condoning slavery. See Peter, Timothy, Luke, etc.

Paul sends him back not as a slave, but more than a slave.

You have a misunderstanding of slavery in the Bible. I suggest you take a look at this article: Slavery and Christianity

Here is something that may help too:

Slavery and the first Christians

But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.

First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).

Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).

Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.

Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.

Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.

Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, slaves and free men had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.

Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Source

Since the Old Testament does not apply anymore and there's no decree in the New Testament it's safe to assume it's fine now.

The Old Testament still applies. It is the Old Law from the Old Testament that does not apply. But we are still bound by the natural law and the moral requirements that homosexuality is a sin just like incest and bestiality still is. Also, Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed before the Old Law was given. This shows that homosexuality was condemned even then.

So does the catholic church still not allow handicapped, flat nodes, or blemished priests?

If you cannot perform your duty as a priest then you are not allowed to be ordained one - just like when the military does not admit people with certain conditions.

But you are talking about the Old Law, in that case, the Catholic Church does not perform animal sacrifices, so not allowing blemished priests was never followed in that regard.

So men and women who engage in oral and anal sex or hand manipulation are sinning now too? Want to keep them from getting married?

The Church cannot force you to have the proper way to have sex. Oral sex is not a sin under the condition that you do not reach climax outside the woman. But anal sex has always been a sin to do. Also, you are not suppose to touch each other intimately outside of marriage.

I assume you think all that is ridiculous? Well, you are not a Catholic, so what is it to you?

Since homosexual activity hurts no one Natural Law states that it is not a sin. Catholics are free to make misguided interpretations and refuse to conduct homosexual marriages in the church but mind their own business when it comes tomarraige in other churches or at the courthouse.

A sin does not depend on whether or not you hurt yourself or others, neither does Natural Law.

Men and women are physically complementary in design. We can infer that this complementarity has a purpose. This purpose is so we can be fruitful and multiply - that is the nature of sex.

 

[Winky]

You have indulged in unnatural posting
and will serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(Winky 1:7-8).

 

[BB]

is that old Winky or the New?

 

[MrBishop]

It's from the NSRW (New Standard Revised Winky)

 

[BB]

I prefered the original -

- i dunno, just seemed to have more WINK and less Y, you know?

 

[MrBishop]

Better than more WIN and less KY, I guess

 

[spike]

You are one of those people who could care less what the Bible says what is a sin and what is not, yet, you must reinterpret Scripture to conform to your beliefs.

I am not reinterpreting scripture, you are. To defend your arguement you have repeatedly had to use sources other than scripture to conform to your beliefs.

You are one of those people who don't see right and wrong just what others have told you to do.

It can only be correctly interpreted, without a doubt, by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

That's not a quote from scripture now is it?

2. There are over 30,000 Christian denominations. All these denominations claim they have correctly interpreted Scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit, yet, they all contradict each other. Some of these denominations claim all form of dancing is a sin and praising God with musical instruments is a sin. But I digress, all this is another matter. Showing me that some Christian denominations accept homosexuality in no way refutes the Catholic Church.

Showing me that the catholic church is wrong about many things in no way refutes other christian denominations.

Did I say that all disorders that people act upon are sinful? Your argument is based on a false dichotomy.

Oh, just acting on the disorders you choose. That makes sense.

It makes no sense to you, but does that mean it makes no sense to God? We cannot fully grasp how God works through our feeble minds.

Despite what you think of the Old Law, Jesus fulfilled it and so it is no longer binding.

Right, and since there's nothing against homosexuality in the new law except your questionable quote referencing old law it should be obvious that it is fine.

Actually, the Catholic Church has stopped issuing anathemas

Going against scripture?

Despite being excommunicated, homosexuals are still in danger of damnation (a spiritual death and obviously worse than excommunication), which is proven biblically...

"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town" (Matthew 10:14-15).

"And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Matthew 11:23).

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:9–10).

"just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7-8).

I thought you were going to show some biblical proof of homosexuals being in danger of damnation? These quotes do show danger to those who would act with prejudice against someone because of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation since it mentions the "immoral".

In context, does Paul say that homosexuality is immoral because it is done during idol worship or because it is unnatural? By your logic, if Paul was rebuking someone who committed adultery during idol worship then what Paul really means is that you cannot commit adultery only if you are practicing idol worship. Other than that, you are free to commit adultery.

Seems Paul was against sex during idol worship. Weird that he was for idol worship at all but as we've seen he didn't make much sense a lot of times.

1. I have already pointed out that Paul did show that women can speak in church. You are taking out that verse that says "it is a shame for women to speak in church" and applying it generally. Since it is not generally, then women must have been speaking during in inappropriate time - most likely during the liturgy. You need to keep in mind why Paul is writing to the churches in Corinth. As for the verse saying that women must cover their head, that is true.

The other quotes are general, why you chose not to take this one as general is odd. Assuming "Women must have..." is a rationalization not supported by scripture and would not indicate that he should take action against all the women anyway, just the ones acting up.

You do seem to agree that he suggested different rules for women which supports the idea that he was a misogynist.

2. Paul is not a misogynist. I suggest you read this article: Wives Be Subject to Your Husbands - a great explanation.

Nothing but rationalization of the wives subordination.

You have a misunderstanding of slavery in the Bible. I suggest you take a look at this article:

You want to rationalize slavery too. I like the quote in your first article "Christianity accepts society as it is" which is a complete lie and just a justification for not speaking out against it.

The Old Testament still applies. It is the Old Law from the Old Testament that does not apply. But we are still bound by the natural law and the moral requirements that homosexuality is a sin just like incest and bestiality still is.

Nope, I've already established Natural Law states there is nothing wrong with relations between consenting adults.

Also, Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed before the Old Law was given. This shows that homosexuality was condemned even then.

Nice that you bring in the genocide committed against Sodom and Gomorrah.


Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.

For this men, women, and children slaughtered supposedly. Although most archaeologists say the towns never existed.

If you cannot perform your duty as a priest then you are not allowed to be ordained one - just like when the military does not admit people with certain conditions.

Flat noses? Sounds like racial discrimination. How are blemishes going to prevent you from doing your duty.

The Church cannot force you to have the proper way to have sex. Oral sex is not a sin under the condition that you do not reach climax outside the woman. But anal sex has always been a sin to do. Also, you are not suppose to touch each other intimately outside of marriage.

I assume you think all that is ridiculous? Well, you are not a Catholic, so what is it to you?

Seems obvious rules against climaxing during oral sex, anal sex, and masterbating, and catholic rules against contraception were all designed to make more children in a society where people lived very short lives and ensure the survival of the species.

However with the earth being currently headed towards overpopulation you should recognize these as outdated. Same as biblical rules about eating pork.

A sin does not depend on whether or not you hurt yourself or others, neither does Natural Law.

Natural Law does and so should sin.

Men and women are physically complementary in design. We can infer that this complementarity has a purpose. This purpose is so we can be fruitful and multiply - that is the nature of sex.

Sex is obviously not only to multiply, especially when multiplying is not desired. If everybody multiplied everytime they had sex it would cause no end of problems at this point.

 

[freako104]

Better than more WIN and less KY, I guess

 

[Gotholic]

spike, all dismissal comments will not be addressed.

I am not reinterpreting scripture, you are.

I am not the one trying to say that the original Catholic interpretation has been wrong for roughly 2,000 years.

To defend your arguement you have repeatedly had to use sources other than scripture to conform to your beliefs.

Scripture is not the sole source of truth.

I have used Scripture and what the Catholic Church says on the matter. Scripture is not subjected to my own interpretation.

You are one of those people who don't see right and wrong just what others have told you to do.

I am Catholic, not a cafeteria Catholic.

That's not a quote from scripture now is it?

There are plenty of quotes that shows that the Catholic Church has such authority...

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).

"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Showing me that the catholic church is wrong about many things in no way refutes other christian denominations.

I did not show you that Catholic Church is wrong on any matter. It is you who thinks the Church is wrong. Showing me some Christian denominations accept homosexuality proves nothing.

Oh, just acting on the disorders you choose. That makes sense.

I never chose any disorders that people act upon to be sins.

Right, and since there's nothing against homosexuality in the new law except your questionable quote referencing old law it should be obvious that it is fine.

I have already shown you that homosexuality was condemned in the New Testament. Even if the New Testament never mentions it, the Old Testament still applies, but not the Old Law.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (121-123):

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

Indeed, the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men. Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional, the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.

Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

You continue to ignore Old Testament passages that says homosexuality is a sin, while ignoring New Testament passages that reaffirm the Old Testament.

Actually, the Catholic Church has stopped issuing anathemas

Going against scripture?

No.

Despite being excommunicated, homosexuals are still in danger of damnation (a spiritual death and obviously worse than excommunication), which is proven biblically...

"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town" (Matthew 10:14-15).

"And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Matthew 11:23).

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:9–10).

"just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7-8).

I thought you were going to show some biblical proof of homosexuals being in danger of damnation? These quotes do show danger to those who would act with prejudice against someone because of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation since it mentions the "immoral".

It looks like Sodom, Gomorrah, sodomites, sexual perverts, unnatural lust, and eternal fire went way over your head.

The other quotes are general, why you chose not to take this one as general is odd. Assuming "Women must have..." is a rationalization not supported by scripture and would not indicate that he should take action against all the women anyway, just the ones acting up.

"But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven" (1 Corinthians 11:5).

As you can see, this passage, which you selectively ignore, shows that Paul sees a circumstances where women can speak in church. But you keep ignoring whatever I present to you. So, even if Paul meant that all women must be silent in church it was only a disciplinary measure. Disciplinary measures can be changed since they are not doctrines of the faith.

You do seem to agree that he suggested different rules for women which supports the idea that he was a misogynist.

That does not inherently make one a misogynist.

The Old Testament still applies. It is the Old Law from the Old Testament that does not apply. But we are still bound by the natural law and the moral requirements that homosexuality is a sin just like incest and bestiality still is.

Nope, I've already established Natural Law states there is nothing wrong with relations between consenting adults.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Nice that you bring in the genocide committed against Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.

For this men, women, and children slaughtered supposedly. Although most archaeologists say the towns never existed.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it".

It was not inhospitality that caused Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed as you imply here. Although being inhospitable was a sin, it was not punishable by death.

There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.

While it's true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it's clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God's wrath, was homosexuality.

If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you'll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won't find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.

Source

Oh please explain to me why Jews should can't shave and should be prejudiced against flat nosed people, handicapped, and people with damaged testicles. I'd love to hear it.

That passage only referred those who should go near the altar of God. Not generally speaking.

Priests with blemish were not allowed because the priests were a symbol of the unblemished victim (the animals) needed for the sacrifice. This did not mean those with blemishes had a moral defect. It is just like when the military rejects those who are flat-footed.

So does the catholic church still not allow handicapped, flat nodes, or blemished priests?

If you cannot perform your duty as a priest then you are not allowed to be ordained one - just like when the military does not admit people with certain conditions.

But you are talking about the Old Law, in that case, the Catholic Church does not perform animal sacrifices, so not allowing blemished priests was never followed in that regard.

Flat noses? Sounds like racial discrimination. How are blemishes going to prevent you from doing your duty.

Nice try, but your straw man tactics will not work with me.

Seems obvious rules against climaxing during oral sex, anal sex, and masterbating, and catholic rules against contraception were all designed to make more children in a society where people lived very short lives and ensure the survival of the species.

Or maybe it could be that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and such acts would defile it.

However with the earth being currently headed towards overpopulation you should recognize these as outdated. Same as biblical rules about eating pork.

The concept that the earth is being overpopulated is a myth.

Natural Law does and so should sin.

How did you come to that conclusion about Natural Law? And who are you to decide what should be a sin (an offense against God), but God Himself?

Sex is obviously not only to multiply, especially when multiplying is not desired. If everybody multiplied everytime they had sex it would cause no end of problems at this point.

The Catholic Church considers sex to be holy, unitive, and procreative. Deliberately preventing conception is a sin and is supported by Scripture...

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10).

Having sex without contraceptives does not cause conception every time.

 

[2minkey]

someday the training wheels will come off.... maybe....

 

[MrBishop]

The Catholic Church considers sex to be holy, unitive, and procreative. Deliberately preventing conception is a sin and is supported by Scripture...

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10).

Having sex without contraceptives does not cause conception every time.

Here's the line before: But Er, Judah's first-born, greatly offended the LORD; so the LORD took his life.

No reasons given...just took the baby's life. Nice example.

 

[Gotholic]

Here's the line before: But Er, Judah's first-born, greatly offended the LORD; so the LORD took his life.

No reasons given...just took the baby's life. Nice example.

"And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him" (Genesis 35:6-7).

The reason Judah was killed was because he was wicked (that is the reason though it does not specify). Taken in context, Judah was obviously not a baby.

 

[spike]

I am not the one trying to say that the original Catholic interpretation has been wrong for roughly 2,000 years.

No your the one trying to use an catholic interpretation and unsupported theories instead of what's written.

But since you mention it the catholic church doesn't exactly have a good track record. With their history of intolerance, inquisitions, torture, violence, crusades, clergy spreading hate speech and encouraging boycotts of Jewish businesses during the Nazi era, treating women as second class citizens, pedophilia,etc. They're not exactly a good moral compass.

Scripture is not the sole source of truth.

Exactly, you can easily see how wrong intolerance towards people who have done nothing wrong is.

I have used Scripture and what the Catholic Church says on the matter. Scripture is not subjected to my own interpretation.

You have used websites with people's person interpretations that are not church spokesmen.

I am Catholic, not a cafeteria Catholic.

So that means you can not think for yourself but must do as your told?

There are plenty of quotes that shows that the Catholic Church has such authority...

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).

"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Interestingly no mention at all of the catholic church's sole authority to interpret scripture.

I did not show you that Catholic Church is wrong on any matter. It is you who thinks the Church is wrong. Showing me some Christian denominations accept homosexuality proves nothing.

It proves that some denominations have got it right. Showing me the Catholic church doesn't proves nothing.

I never chose any disorders that people act upon to be sins.

You said "Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does". Now you have changed your tune to say only certain disorders.

I have already shown you that homosexuality was condemned in the New Testament. Even if the New Testament never mentions it, the Old Testament still applies, but not the Old Law.

You continue to ignore Old Testament passages that says homosexuality is a sin, while ignoring New Testament passages that reaffirm the Old Testament.

You want to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to consider Old Law. If it's not part of the New Law then your arguement is pretty thin.

It looks like Sodom, Gomorrah, sodomites, sexual perverts, unnatural lust, and eternal fire went way over your head.

Yeah, we were talking about homosexuality.

"But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven" (1 Corinthians 11:5).

As you can see, this passage, which you selectively ignore, shows that Paul sees a circumstances where women can speak in church. But you keep ignoring whatever I present to you.

I missed where your quote said "in church". Which my quote expressly mentioned.

So, even if Paul meant that all women must be silent in church it was only a disciplinary measure. Disciplinary measures can be changed since they are not doctrines of the faith.

You have zero proof that it was a disciplinary measure. Pure assumption.

That does not inherently make one a misogynist.

Ok, maybe he disn't hate women. Just didn't consider them equal.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Rational thought.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it".

It was not inhospitality that caused Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed as you imply here. Although being inhospitable was a sin, it was not punishable by death.

Ezekial disagrees with you in that quote. Also this one...

"'The sin of your sister Sodom was this: She lived with her daughters in the lap of luxury—proud, gluttonous, and lazy. They ignored the oppressed and the poor. They put on airs and lived obscene lives. And you know what happened: I did away with them."

Why contradict scripture?

Nice try, but your straw man tactics will not work with me.

Are you saying discriminating against flat noses does not sound like racism and blemishes do prevent you from doing your duty?

Or maybe it could be that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and such acts would defile it.

Obviously that doesn't make near as much sense.

The concept that the earth is being overpopulated is a myth.

Sure, and pork is still dangerous.

How did you come to that conclusion about Natural Law? And who are you to decide what should be a sin (an offense against God), but God Himself?

God can decide, not catholics.

The Catholic Church considers sex to be holy, unitive, and procreative. Deliberately preventing conception is a sin and is supported by Scripture...

Having more kids than you wanted or can support is irresponsible. Using your head and preventing unwanted conception is responsible and righteous. I suppose next your going to tell me couples should quit having sex for good when they have as many kids as they can support.

 

[Gotholic]

No your the one trying to use an catholic interpretation and unsupported theories instead of what's written.

The Catholic interpretation is THE interpretation. It was the Catholic Church that had the authority to compile the Bible and it has the same authority to interpret it.

But since you mention it the catholic church doesn't exactly have a good track record. With their history of intolerance, inquisitions, torture, violence, crusades, clergy spreading hate speech and encouraging boycotts of Jewish businesses during the Nazi era, treating women as second class citizens, pedophilia,etc. They're not exactly a good moral compass.

More tangents.

Scripture is not the sole source of truth.

Exactly, you can easily see how wrong intolerance towards people who have done nothing wrong is.

I said Scripture is not the sole source of truth, not that Scripture contains some errors it proposes as truth.

You have used websites with people's person interpretations that are not church spokesmen.

Everything I have presented to you on homosexuality does not contradict the faith of the Catholic Church. If you really want, I could back up everything with Church documents and such. But I really think you do not care either way.

So that means you can not think for yourself but must do as your told?

No, it means I do not cherry pick what to believe in. If I did not agree with the Catholic Church or trust its authority then I would not be Catholic. Any doubt I held or any confusion I had, I investigated and I always ended up satisfied.

There are plenty of quotes that shows that the Catholic Church has such authority...

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).

"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Interestingly no mention at all of the catholic church's sole authority to interpret scripture.

From those passages I showed you it states that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit when it professes the truth. Coupled with this passage: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21), it is obvious that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Also, I have forgotten to mention this passage: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20). Now this does not mention Scripture interpretation directly but, none the less, it grants the Catholic Church teaching authority of the Christian faith, which includes Scripture interpretation. Christians who ignore that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture go off an interpret it themselves. It is this reason why there are over 30,000 Protestant churches, in which all of them interpret the Bible differently. The problem with those churches is that Christ did not establish them. Thus, they do not have the Holy Spirit guiding them in their interpretations. But none of this matters to you, spike. You do not even believe in the Christian God, not to mention the authority of the Bible, so trying to argue with me that your interpretation of any given verse is the right one is futile.

It proves that some denominations have got it right. Showing me the Catholic church doesn't proves nothing.

I do not just say that the Catholic Church believes homosexuality is a sin, but I back it up as to why. You, on the other hand, say other Christian denominations accept homosexuality and give that as back up for your interpretation of the Bible.

You said "Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does". Now you have changed your tune to say only certain disorders.

Did I really change my tune? Let's see...

If it's a disorder how could it be a sin?

There is difference between having a same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual acts. The latter is a sin.

If in fact the the bible defines it as a disorder then it can't be helped and therefore should not be a sin. I suppose it's consistent though if the bible also encourages bigotry against flat noses and handicapped people.

Since when can a disorder not be helped?

Zoophiles and pedophiles all have a disorder. Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does.

So a person who has a fear of heights and stays away from high places is sinning?

Did I say that all disorders that people act upon are sinful? Your argument is based on a false dichotomy.

Oh, just acting on the disorders you choose. That makes sense.

I never chose any disorders that people act upon to be sins.

You said "Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does". Now you have changed your tune to say only certain disorders.

No tune changed.

You want to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to consider Old Law. If it's not part of the New Law then your arguement is pretty thin.

I never picked or choose anything.

The Old Law is also known as the Mosaic Law. The Old Law was given in the Old Testament in the book of Leviticus. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed before the Old Law was given. Thus, Homosexuality was condemned outside the Old Law.

It looks like Sodom, Gomorrah, sodomites, sexual perverts, unnatural lust, and eternal fire went way over your head.

Yeah, we were talking about homosexuality.

Those are.

"But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven" (1 Corinthians 11:5).

As you can see, this passage, which you selectively ignore, shows that Paul sees a circumstances where women can speak in church. But you keep ignoring whatever I present to you.I missed where your quote said "in church". Which my quote expressly mentioned.

I missed where your quote said "in church". Which my quote expressly mentioned.

Paul is writing to the churches in Corinth because of problems there within the churches. The Catholic Church has always understood that women must veil their heads while in church. Not all the time in public, like the Muslims.

You have zero proof that it was a disciplinary measure. Pure assumption.

It is not a pure assumption. My comment above this one shows that Paul sees circumstances where women can speak in church. Also, Paul saying that women can not speak in church is understood as women can not publicly address themselves to the church because they can not have authority over the Church.

Regardless, spike, the Catholic Church does not share your interpretation that women must never speak at all in church, ever. So let us drop this tangent.

Ok, maybe he disn't hate women. Just didn't consider them equal.

Well, I'm just glad that the Church does not share your interpretation.

Rational thought.

But without theological understanding in the Christian sense.

Ezekial disagrees with you in that quote. Also this one...

"'The sin of your sister Sodom was this: She lived with her daughters in the lap of luxury—proud, gluttonous, and lazy. They ignored the oppressed and the poor. They put on airs and lived obscene lives. And you know what happened: I did away with them."

Why contradict scripture?

You omitted a portion...

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it" (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Homosexuality is considered an abomination to mankind in Leviticus - coupled with the book of Jude that says Sodom had unnatural lust, shows no contradiction. And do not forget that inhospitality is never punishable by death.

Are you saying discriminating against flat noses does not sound like racism and blemishes do prevent you from doing your duty?

I'm saying the Catholic Church never discriminated against "flat nosed" people.

Obviously that doesn't make near as much sense.

I could explain it to you, but that would be in vain. You do not even believe in the Holy Spirit. I do not feel like casting pearls before swine.

God can decide, not catholics.

And when there are discrepancies among what is a sin and what is not. To settle such matters we have the Church and the Vicar of Christ, the pope.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

Having more kids than you wanted or can support is irresponsible. Using your head and preventing unwanted conception is responsible and righteous. I suppose next your going to tell me couples should quit having sex for good when they have as many kids as they can support.

First you must understand a woman's fertility. A woman can conceive only three to five days each month. The Catholic Church endorses Natural Family Planning (NFP), in which couples practice abstinence during the time a woman has a greater chance of conceiving. This method is more effective and safer than contraceptives.

spike, I do not go and try to convince non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so - it would be futile. The same goes for a non-Christian trying to tell a Christian that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality being a sin.

And as you can see, you are not getting anywhere with me.

 

[spike]

The Catholic interpretation is THE interpretation. It was the Catholic Church that had the authority to compile the Bible and it has the same authority to interpret it.

Nope, seeing how wrong they get things they can't be trusted with that.

More tangents.

Point stands, catholics have hardly been the moral compass throughout history.

I said Scripture is not the sole source of truth, not that Scripture contains some errors it proposes as truth.

Right, with a little use of our head the errors become obvious. So truth exists outside of scripture.

Everything I have presented to you on homosexuality does not contradict the faith of the Catholic Church. If you really want, I could back up everything with Church documents and such. But I really think you do not care either way.

I would prefer official church spokesmen over personal interpretations on the websites. Really sticking to scripture would be best.

No, it means I do not cherry pick what to believe in. If I did not agree with the Catholic Church or trust its authority then I would not be Catholic. Any doubt I held or any confusion I had, I investigated and I always ended up satisfied.

I see it as needing to be told what to do You believe they had the authority to torture and kill during the inquisition?

From those passages I showed you it states that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit when it professes the truth. Coupled with this passage: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21), it is obvious that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Also, I have forgotten to mention this passage: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20). Now this does not mention Scripture interpretation directly but, none the less, it grants the Catholic Church teaching authority of the Christian faith, which includes Scripture interpretation. Christians who ignore that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture go off an interpret it themselves. It is this reason why there are over 30,000 Protestant churches, in which all of them interpret the Bible differently. The problem with those churches is that Christ did not establish them. Thus, they do not have the Holy Spirit guiding them in their interpretations.

None of that mentions the catholic church, popes, cardninals, deacons, etc. The catholic church is a man made organization which chooses to interpret the bible in a way that gives themselves authority. Saying "we're the only real religion" just like most other religions. It's trick that might gain some followers but has caused much intolerance, hatred, and violence throughout history.

But none of this matters to you, spike. You do not even believe in the Christian God, not to mention the authority of the Bible.

More unfounded assumptions on your part.

I do not just say that the Catholic Church believes homosexuality is a sin, but I back it up as to why.

Not yet you haven't.

You, on the other hand, say other Christian denominations accept homosexuality and give that as back up for your interpretation of the Bible.

I'm using the bible as back up for the most part here.

Did I really change my tune? Let's see...

1. Having disorders does not make anyone sinners. Acting upon them does.

2. Did I say that all disorders that people act upon are sinful?

Tune changed.

I never picked or choose anything.

The Old Law is also known as the Mosaic Law. The Old Law was given in the Old Testament in the book of Leviticus. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed before the Old Law was given. Thus, Homosexuality was condemned outside the Old Law.

Since Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of homosexuality according to Ezekial and probably didn't even exist you have no point.

I do find it weird that you would think entire cities were full of nothing but homosexual men, women, and children and support killing even the little homosexual babies but I guess you just believe what you're told.

Those are.

Certainly not.

Paul is writing to the churches in Corinth because of problems there within the churches. The Catholic Church has always understood that women must veil their heads while in church. Not all the time in public, like the Muslims.

What purpose would there be in veiling women's heads and why does the catholic church change it's tune and not require it now?

It is not a pure assumption. My comment above this one shows that Paul sees circumstances where women can speak in church. Also, Paul saying that women can not speak in church is understood as women can not publicly address themselves to the church because they can not have authority over the Church.

More evidence of Paul treating women as less than men also.

Regardless, spike, the Catholic Church does not share your interpretation that women must never speak at all in church, ever. So let us drop this tangent.

Maybe they have noticed that Paul was a nut too since they have decided not to abide by his teachings.

In order for your assumption to work that this was a disciplinary measure it would be necessary for all the women to be acting up in church and none of the men.

You would also have to assume that Paul went from speaking in general terms just before, to a disciplinary action, and back to general terms.

Since none of this seems likely at all the obvious answer is that this is further evidence of Paul acting as if women were of lesser status.

Well, I'm just glad that the Church does not share your interpretation.

Yes, the church is rationalizing Paul's bias against women.

But without theological understanding in the Christian sense.

No, theological understanding with rational thought applied.

You omitted a portion...

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it" (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Homosexuality is considered an abomination to mankind in Leviticus - coupled with the book of Jude that says Sodom had unnatural lust shows no contradiction. And do not forget that inhospitality is never punishable by death.

There is no end of weird things in Leviticus that are considered abominations so there's no reason to make more unfounded assumptions. Even Leviticus writings that you say refer to homosexuality can easily be interpreted as against sex between two males during a Pagan temple ritual.

Obviously there is no evidence that Ezekial considered homosexuality the main problem if he even considered it at all.

I'm saying the Catholic Church never discriminated against "flat nosed" people.

God did, but the catholics didn't? Maybe the races that originally made up catholics were more flat nosed?

I could explain it to you, but that would be in vain. You do not even believe in the Holy Spirit. I do not feel like casting pearls before swine.

You could quit with the assumptions and insults and admit that there's some possibility that with shorter life span, rampant disease, etc. it might have just made sense at the time to encourage more offspring.

Really? Don't even want to think about that?

And when there are discrepancies among what is a sin and what is not. To settle such matters we have the Church and the Vicar of Christ, the pope.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

Your quote doesn't even mention "Pope" and since I have pointed out that Popes have been extremely wrong many times they can't be used as a moral compass.

Other christian religions have a much better track record.

First you must understand a woman's fertility. A woman can conceive only three to five days each month. The Catholic Church endorses Natural Family Planning (NFP), in which couples practice abstinence during the time a woman has a greater chance of conceiving. This method is more effective and safer than contraceptives.

Oh that's extremely wrong.

Even when used perfectly, the Rhythm Method results in a high pregnancy rate among couples intending to avoid pregnancy. Of commonly known methods of birth control, only the cervical cap and contraceptive sponge have comparably high failure rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_Method

spike, I do not go and try to convince non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so - it would be futile. The same goes for a non-Christian trying to tell a Christian that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality being a sin.

And as you can see, you are not getting anywhere with me.

I don't expect to change your mind. The debate is entertaining.