Essay~~

[obfuscator]

I'm not catholic though. Believe it or not Christians do differ from the catholic church. And yes you need to repent, but not because you are forced too. In my church we are not forced to follow the views of the "higher authority". We are not puppets.

And what would be the use of hiding my shorcomings? In the end i just end up lying to myself. I just think the whole catholic system was set up by conservatives worried about what the world is going to think. Yet they are the ones (the priests, that molest children). Funny how the world works.

 

Ahh, my mistake. I assumed you were catholic. No comment then.

 

Funny how the corner cases always tend to be brought up in an attempt to discredit the church, though. I wasn't aware a small percentage of clergy were the only ones who molest children.

[Noxx]

I'm not catholic though. Believe it or not Christians do differ from the catholic church. And yes you need to repent, but not because you are forced too. In my church we are not forced to follow the views of the "higher authority". We are not puppets.

And what would be the use of hiding my shorcomings? In the end i just end up lying to myself. I just think the whole catholic system was set up by conservatives worried about what the world is going to think. Yet they are the ones (the priests, that molest children). Funny how the world works.

 

Ahh, my mistake. I assumed you were catholic. No comment then.

 

Funny how the corner cases always tend to be brought up in an attempt to discredit the church, though. I wasn't aware a small percentage of clergy were the only ones who molest children.

Not what i'm saying. I am saying it is sick how we follow the rules of people who don't bother following their own rules. It's sick how the leaders are the biggest hypocrites. But that is neither here nor there. what they choose to do behind closed doors is totally up to them and we have no right to judge.

[obfuscator]

I'm not catholic though. Believe it or not Christians do differ from the catholic church. And yes you need to repent, but not because you are forced too. In my church we are not forced to follow the views of the "higher authority". We are not puppets.

And what would be the use of hiding my shorcomings? In the end i just end up lying to myself. I just think the whole catholic system was set up by conservatives worried about what the world is going to think. Yet they are the ones (the priests, that molest children). Funny how the world works.

 

Ahh, my mistake. I assumed you were catholic. No comment then.

 

Funny how the corner cases always tend to be brought up in an attempt to discredit the church, though. I wasn't aware a small percentage of clergy were the only ones who molest children.

Not what i'm saying. I am saying it is sick how we follow the rules of people who don't bother following their own rules. It's sick how the leaders are the biggest hypocrites. But that is neither here nor there. what they choose to do behind closed doors is totally up to them and we have no right to judge.

Uhh if you're referring to pedophilia I think we have every right to judge people who do that as it's disgusting behaviour that should never happen.

 

My point is that an incredibly small number of priests are actually pedophiles - the secular media blows it up to such a proportion that people are brainwashed into thinking every priest is a pedophile. I highly doubt the policy makers at the Vatican are child molesters.

[Noxx]

I'm not catholic though. Believe it or not Christians do differ from the catholic church. And yes you need to repent, but not because you are forced too. In my church we are not forced to follow the views of the "higher authority". We are not puppets.

And what would be the use of hiding my shorcomings? In the end i just end up lying to myself. I just think the whole catholic system was set up by conservatives worried about what the world is going to think. Yet they are the ones (the priests, that molest children). Funny how the world works.

 

Ahh, my mistake. I assumed you were catholic. No comment then.

 

Funny how the corner cases always tend to be brought up in an attempt to discredit the church, though. I wasn't aware a small percentage of clergy were the only ones who molest children.

Not what i'm saying. I am saying it is sick how we follow the rules of people who don't bother following their own rules. It's sick how the leaders are the biggest hypocrites. But that is neither here nor there. what they choose to do behind closed doors is totally up to them and we have no right to judge.

Uhh if you're referring to pedophilia I think we have every right to judge people who do that as it's disgusting behaviour that should never happen.

 

My point is that an incredibly small number of priests are actually pedophiles - the secular media blows it up to such a proportion that people are brainwashed into thinking every priest is a pedophile. I highly doubt the policy makers at the Vatican are child molesters.

Sure i don't disagree it is sick, but we do not know why they do it. That is why i say we can't judge. Not saying it's right at all but we can't judge them. Also i don't know the figures connected to the pedophila under priests but i am sure it's not as high, as you say. And as for the Vatican, that is something we will never know.

[Zierro]

My point is that an incredibly small number of priests are actually pedophiles - the secular media blows it up to such a proportion that people are brainwashed into thinking every priest is a pedophile. I highly doubt the policy makers at the Vatican are child molesters.

 

It might be proportionately smaller in comparison to other occupations, but the reason it gets so much attention is because the priest's duty is to uphold moral righteousness (and even live a chaste life in some instances). Religious figures are commonly extolled as the greatest role models around who can transcend human sin, and by having the media point these hypocritical atrocities out, it breaks the mantra that quite a few religious followers held dear. Priests aren't any more "godlike" than an average person. But yes, I'm sure there are many priests that are wrongly labeled a sex offender even though they're completely against it.

[Skeptical]

if only people didn't need a piece of paper as proof that they love each other... maybe one day

 

If only people didn't need the right to sit at the front of the bus to prove their equality.

[Zierro]

Ever notice how it's generally the black people who like sitting in the back of the bus? Any time I tried, I was oppressed and sent right back up to the front.

[Noxx]

Wat, is that what i made it sound like? No i'm not just a Christian when i find it convenient. I alway try and do the right thing regardless. I am just a more openminded Christian. What i am saying is that i have been there. I don't live that life anymore. Sure, i will still drink now and then but not nearly enough to get me drunk. But tat has got nothing to do with my views on homosexuality anyway. See that's the thing. Most people who don't lead a Christian life got this idea from somewhere that all us Christians are hypocrites when it's nothing like that. We are allowed to have out own opinions about things. We are allowed to make our own conclusions. I do not need to be some mindless zombie following rules. A lot of people from my church do not agree with the way i see many things. Maybe i am wrong? at least this way i know i can treat any one with the same fairness and that to me is what's important. I really hate the feeling that so many people do not know God the way i do. I hate the feeling that they choose not to know God because they feel they will have to give money or do good deeds. That's not what it's about. Its about being the best you that you can be. Anyway i'm straying away from your question.

I am always a Christian, just a weird one. One that is not affraid to admit that i have smoked pot or been drunk or had sex. What will i gain by hiding it anyway? The thing that makes the diffirence in hear and now. Will i do it again? I chose not too, and that is what makes me a better christian than i was before. This does not mean i live the perfect life, i am human after all.

 

What was it that i said that made you think i was only Christian when it suited me?

 

Well, actually, if you knew anything about church doctrine, it does say that moral decisions are made by the higher authority of the church and in order to be considered a practicing catholic these rules should be followed.

 

I'm glad to hear you're willing to admit your shortcomings (according to church rule). Yet if you claim to be a practicing catholic, the church clearly teaches the way to be the "best you can be" is to repent of those sins and stop doing them.

 

Found the verse

 

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

 

Y guy - since the origin of this verse is deep in the old testament is it still valid, I mean a few verses later it says mixing fabric also is a ticket to hell, lol? I thought the whole point of the New testament is to say that things are different cause of Jesus and the old rules no longer apply? For the catholic faith - which focuses heavily on the New Testament I would like you to point out where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong.

Okay i probably don't know my Bible as well as i should, but that verse you qouted, by whom was it said? I just feel that if not said by God Himself then it means jack to me. I believe some things in the Bible were written in accordance with the opinions and feeling of the author. And also there are many books that were not put in the Bible because the Catholic church felt it would make the people stray. So who knows what they have to say.

[ValidLogic]

Wat, is that what i made it sound like? No i'm not just a Christian when i find it convenient. I alway try and do the right thing regardless. I am just a more openminded Christian. What i am saying is that i have been there. I don't live that life anymore. Sure, i will still drink now and then but not nearly enough to get me drunk. But tat has got nothing to do with my views on homosexuality anyway. See that's the thing. Most people who don't lead a Christian life got this idea from somewhere that all us Christians are hypocrites when it's nothing like that. We are allowed to have out own opinions about things. We are allowed to make our own conclusions. I do not need to be some mindless zombie following rules. A lot of people from my church do not agree with the way i see many things. Maybe i am wrong? at least this way i know i can treat any one with the same fairness and that to me is what's important. I really hate the feeling that so many people do not know God the way i do. I hate the feeling that they choose not to know God because they feel they will have to give money or do good deeds. That's not what it's about. Its about being the best you that you can be. Anyway i'm straying away from your question.

I am always a Christian, just a weird one. One that is not affraid to admit that i have smoked pot or been drunk or had sex. What will i gain by hiding it anyway? The thing that makes the diffirence in hear and now. Will i do it again? I chose not too, and that is what makes me a better christian than i was before. This does not mean i live the perfect life, i am human after all.

 

What was it that i said that made you think i was only Christian when it suited me?

 

Well, actually, if you knew anything about church doctrine, it does say that moral decisions are made by the higher authority of the church and in order to be considered a practicing catholic these rules should be followed.

 

I'm glad to hear you're willing to admit your shortcomings (according to church rule). Yet if you claim to be a practicing catholic, the church clearly teaches the way to be the "best you can be" is to repent of those sins and stop doing them.

 

Found the verse

 

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

22 "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

 

Y guy - since the origin of this verse is deep in the old testament is it still valid, I mean a few verses later it says mixing fabric also is a ticket to hell, lol? I thought the whole point of the New testament is to say that things are different cause of Jesus and the old rules no longer apply? For the catholic faith - which focuses heavily on the New Testament I would like you to point out where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong.

Okay i probably don't know my Bible as well as i should, but that verse you quoted [fix'd], by whom was it said? I just feel that if not said by God Himself then it means jack to me. I believe some things in the Bible were written in accordance with the opinions and feeling of the author. And also there are many books that were not put in the Bible because the Catholic church felt it would make the people stray. So who knows what they have to say.

 

Well, the bible is supposed to be written by mortals quoting "god's" word. But the Book of Leviticus is written by Moses.

[obfuscator]

 

Found the verse

 

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

 

Y guy - since the origin of this verse is deep in the old testament is it still valid, I mean a few verses later it says mixing fabric also is a ticket to hell, lol? I thought the whole point of the New testament is to say that things are different cause of Jesus and the old rules no longer apply? For the catholic faith - which focuses heavily on the New Testament I would like you to point out where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong.

 

I'm not a practicing catholic. Catholics in general refer to the new testament as it is what they believe Jesus instituted as a betterment of the old testament. The whole point of catholic belief is that the new testament is a guideline - I doubt there is a mention of homosexuality in there, and there certainly aren't mentions of birth control, euthanasia, abortion, and other things that affect our modern society.

 

The whole point is interpretation - adapting the word of God to current situations. The catechism states that logically due to what Jesus said in the bible, homosexual activity is a sin.

 

What I was trying to say to halo is that I believe it's hypocritical to call yourself a member of the church and not follow their beliefs. The reason I'm no longer a practicing catholic is because I don't wish to follow all of the church's laws (though I do agree with many). He told me he was not catholic, so my argument was unapplicable.

[obfuscator]

Jesus had no stance on homosexuality, he did have a lot to say about tolerance and love though. But if homosexuality is a sin then so is wearing mixed fabrics. Yes this is an ultimatum I am presenting either you agree homosexuality is evil and decide to throw out all your nice shirts or you dont and your homosexuality stance is void. Logically people dont give a crap about mixed fabrics today because the church has no official stance on it, however they do have a stance on homosexuality which is why people do care.

 

If the church made a stance that said eating meat is wrong christians would be up at arms against it too. Just the stupidity of it all #-o

 

As I've already said, I'm disregarding the old testament. Show me where in the new testament it says mixing fabrics is a sin, and I'll concede the point.

 

Perhaps I'll quote the catechism for you - it's a far more accurate and descriptive location of learning about the teachings of the catholic church.

 

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

On, and by the way...."yes this is an ultimatum I'm presenting you". Talk about forcing your beliefs...I thought atheists don't do that? :rolleyes:

[Noxx]

 

Found the verse

 

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version, ©2010)

 

22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

 

Y guy - since the origin of this verse is deep in the old testament is it still valid, I mean a few verses later it says mixing fabric also is a ticket to hell, lol? I thought the whole point of the New testament is to say that things are different cause of Jesus and the old rules no longer apply? For the catholic faith - which focuses heavily on the New Testament I would like you to point out where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong.

 

I'm not a practicing catholic. Catholics in general refer to the new testament as it is what they believe Jesus instituted as a betterment of the old testament. The whole point of catholic belief is that the new testament is a guideline - I doubt there is a mention of homosexuality in there, and there certainly aren't mentions of birth control, euthanasia, abortion, and other things that affect our modern society.

 

The whole point is interpretation - adapting the word of God to current situations. The catechism states that logically due to what Jesus said in the bible, homosexual activity is a sin.

 

What I was trying to say to halo is that I believe it's hypocritical to call yourself a member of the church and not follow their beliefs. The reason I'm no longer a practicing catholic is because I don't wish to follow all of the church's laws (though I do agree with many). He told me he was not catholic, so my argument was unapplicable.

Then i guess i'd much rather be a hypocrit that does not judge my fellow people on their sexuall orientation than be what the church wants me to be and hate a man for making his own choices.

[obfuscator]

 

Is the quote you gave me a new testament verse that says homosexuality is wrong? if so what is the book its in and the chapter/verse. If not can you present me with one?

 

And the ultimatum isnt a binding one, its a I am going to disregard your argument if you feel one verse is more important then another one. But no I wasnt telling you what you should or shouldn't believe, I am just addressing the hypocrisy of ignoring parts of your belief system that you jumped on the other guy for by saying "he is only a christian when its convenient" and you were saying a true christian should strive to follow all the rules of the bible as best he or she can - since I pointed out mixed fabrics being wrong as a rule in the bible I wanted you to do the same.

 

Of course your response was it doesnt matter since it was in the old testament so I want you to point out where Jesus (the focus of the new testament) said homosexuality is wrong? via verse.

 

Are you reading my posts at all? I've said its an interpretation. I've already told you it doesn't directly say that anywhere in the new testament.

 

I've also told you repeatedly, multiple times, that I DISREGARD THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A RELIABLE GUIDELINE FOR MORAL BELIEF.

 

And where, exactly, did I say a true Christan follows all rules of the bible as best he/she can? I believe I said they should follow the rules of the church, which are not the same as the bible for reasons I've already mentioned. If you continue to ask me the same questions repeatedly despite me answering them then I'm no longer going to respond.

 

EDIT: @halo: if you consider yourself a citizen of a country, do you make your own laws? If you want to post on this forum, do you make your own rules? When you call yourself a member of an organization that should imply you follow the rules of that organization. No one's forcing you to - but don't call yourself a member of it then.

 

I don't know why you're still arguing this as I've already said my point is moot since you're not Catholic.

[meol]

Is the quote you gave me a new testament verse that says homosexuality is wrong? if so what is the book its in and the chapter/verse. If not can you present me with one?

 

And the ultimatum isnt a binding one, its a I am going to disregard your argument if you feel one verse is more important then another one. But no it wasnt telling you what you should or shouldn't believe, I am just addressing the hypocrisy of ignoring parts of your belief system that you jumped on the other guy for by saying "he is only a christian when its convenient" and you were saying a true christian should strive to follow all the rules of the bible as best he or she can - since I pointed out mixed fabrics being wrong as a rule in the bible I wanted you to do the same.

 

Of course your response was it doesnt matter since it was in the old testament so I want you to point out where Jesus (the focus of the new testament) said homosexuality is wrong? via verse.

It does atheism no favour if you misrepresent Christian or Catholic beliefs like that. Catholics are different from some Protestant sects since they don't think the Bible or the new testament is the only source of knowledge necessary for salvation. That's how they reconcile outdated laws they don't follow with some other laws, be it out of tradition or enlightenment. That's how the Pope can issue moral commands, and why holy tradition is important for them.

 

Not that I agree with that at all, by all means point out the flaws in their logic. Just don't oversimplify their position, and maybe they'll be so kind and reciprocate in the future.

[obfuscator]

Here:

 

Well, actually, if you knew anything about church doctrine, it does say that moral decisions are made by the higher authority of the church and in order to be considered a practicing catholic these rules should be followed.

 

I'm glad to hear you're willing to admit your shortcomings (according to church rule). Yet if you claim to be a practicing catholic, the church clearly teaches the way to be the "best you can be" is to repent of those sins and stop doing them.

 

And where, exactly, do I say the word "bible", in that quote?

 

But if you disregard the old testament as a reliable guideline for moral belief but the interpretation by the church comes from the old testament (since jesus had no stance on it) then why is it any different?

 

The interpretations of the catholic church comes from the new testament. This is literally the fourth time I've said this.

[Noxx]

Here:

 

Well, actually, if you knew anything about church doctrine, it does say that moral decisions are made by the higher authority of the church and in order to be considered a practicing catholic these rules should be followed.

 

I'm glad to hear you're willing to admit your shortcomings (according to church rule). Yet if you claim to be a practicing catholic, the church clearly teaches the way to be the "best you can be" is to repent of those sins and stop doing them.

 

And where, exactly, do I say the word "bible", in that quote?

 

But if you disregard the old testament as a reliable guideline for moral belief but the interpretation by the church comes from the old testament (since jesus had no stance on it) then why is it any different?

 

The interpretations of the catholic church comes from the new testament. This is literally the fourth time I've said this.

 

Disregard that then, and what verses in the new testament do they come from? (literally the fourth time I asked for specific verses that prove the interpretation comes from the new testament)

This is a very unfair question.

Can you tell me where the answer to Question 2 of your latest English test was? No, probably not.

You know it's in the book somewhere but you do not know which page or which sentence.

Just think about it this way. What are you gaining by proving him wrong or what is he gaining by proving you right? Nothing. Neither of you are going to gain anything but the sence of victory which is only going to last a few minutes anyway.

Let's not be so mean now.

[Noxx]

Here:

 

Well, actually, if you knew anything about church doctrine, it does say that moral decisions are made by the higher authority of the church and in order to be considered a practicing catholic these rules should be followed.

 

I'm glad to hear you're willing to admit your shortcomings (according to church rule). Yet if you claim to be a practicing catholic, the church clearly teaches the way to be the "best you can be" is to repent of those sins and stop doing them.

 

And where, exactly, do I say the word "bible", in that quote?

 

But if you disregard the old testament as a reliable guideline for moral belief but the interpretation by the church comes from the old testament (since jesus had no stance on it) then why is it any different?

 

The interpretations of the catholic church comes from the new testament. This is literally the fourth time I've said this.

 

Disregard that then, and what verses in the new testament do they come from? (literally the fourth time I asked for specific verses that prove the interpretation comes from the new testament)

This is a very unfair question.

Can you tell me where the answer to Question 2 of your latest English test was? No, probably not.

You know it's in the book somewhere but you do not know which page or which sentence.

Just think about it this way. What are you gaining by proving him wrong or what is he gaining by proving you right? Nothing. Neither of you are going to gain anything but the sence of victory which is only going to last a few minutes anyway.

Let's not be so mean now.

 

If I was writing an essay about my intretation of a book you better believe I would know that.

He's not the OP though :/

He was just trying to be informative. So go ahead and kill him for not knowing the exact page but know that you gain nothing by doing so. You might actually just show us how petty you are....

[obfuscator]

Its not petty, If someone beliefs on an issue are based on evidence they dont even know its pretty sad. How do you expect to convince anyone to change their beliefs if you yourself dont know the verses that confirm what the Catholic Church releases as its doctrine?

And I've already said, multiple times, that to my knowledge there is no specific verse in the new testament dealing with homosexuality. That's why it's an interpretation - based off of Jesus' larger teachings they have inferred that homosexuality is wrong.

 

If it said it directly, there would be no interpretation needed, it would be quite clear.

[Noxx]

Its not petty, If someone beliefs on an issue are based on evidence they dont even know its pretty sad. How do you expect to convince anyone to change their beliefs if you yourself dont know the verses that confirm what the Catholic Church releases as its doctrine?

I don't know but trying to make someone you don't know, someone that probably a thousand miles away from you, look like a fool.... that borders on petty. And the guy is not a Priest. He is not required to know the Bible off hand. He is suposed to know what fruit it bares. My friend gave me this CD of a guy speaking about Jesus. He said that "I might not know the book as well as you, but i know the author. His name is Jesus. Spelled L O V E."

You don't need to convince people with verses but rather by your way of life. Sure, knowing the verser would avoid situations like these, but it is still not a requirement.

Aslo, if you are so interrested in finding out, why not Google it? Would that not makes things a bit easier? For you both?

[obfuscator]

 

 

My interpretation is that it isnt wrong, prove me wrong. See how pointless this becomes?

 

There is a lot of morality saying homosexuals are sinners off a interpretation? Thats the most ridiculous basis for moral thought imaginable. If I was OP I would write my essay on this.

 

Right, which is why I'm not trying to prove you wrong.

 

And yeah, there is a lot of morality in an interpretation. The sole job of judges is to decide morality (or lawfulness) based on interpretation of law, yet I don't see you taking issue with that. You have to interpret in order to be relevant as the bible was written so long ago it doesn't cover the necessary bases.

[obfuscator]

The nature of morality is such that it is never a fact. To play devils advocate...why is murder immoral?

[obfuscator]

The nature of morality is such that it is never a fact. To play devils advocate...why is murder immoral?

 

To agree with you "murder is wrong" Is that a true or false statement?

 

Its neither.

 

You can say Sally thinks murder is wrong is a true statement. Or John thinks murder is wrong to be a false statement though.

Exactly - and I've never claimed the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is an absolute. It's my opinion, and many others.

[obfuscator]

The nature of morality is such that it is never a fact. To play devils advocate...why is murder immoral?

 

To agree with you "murder is wrong" Is that a true or false statement?

 

Its neither.

 

You can say Sally thinks murder is wrong is a true statement. Or John thinks murder is wrong to be a false statement though.

Exactly - and I've never claimed the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is an absolute. It's my opinion, and many others.

 

Does that become a problem when national policy outlaws homosexuality (or in this case gay marriage)? Given that it is an opinion what right do individuals have to take rights from a minority?

 

Same as it becomes a problem when national policy outlaws murder. Given that it is an opinion what right do individuals have to take rights from a minority?

[obfuscator]

 

 

Yeah I was thinking about this as I wrote it, I guess it comes down to how large a majority. A 99.999% majority on murder being wrong may be justifiable for it to be near univerally outlawed in every culture. However is it right that 60% of a population can vote to fleece 40% on any issue? or would it make sense to have no law on something unless 90% agrees with it?

 

Just asking for your opinion at this point at what percent of an opinion you feel is sufficient to outlaw a minority.

Exactly! There comes a point where government decides that the a morality must be instituted for the good of society and thus the collective rights of society supersede those of the individual. The issue here is that opponents of homosexual marriage feel that the morality must be instituted for the good of society. The pro- gay marriage do not. That's as simple as it is.

[obfuscator]

Fair enough.