Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

What are you even gibbering about?.

Do you deny that religious is a root of a large amount of the sexism (Catholicism, Islam), racism (all), homophobia (almost all) & paedophilia in the world? (Catholicism has the top prize for this)

A++++++ STAR COMEDIAN WOULD LOL AGAIN
 
I see, I wasn't intending to 'have a go', but I think it is silly of the church to openly label something so common as a disorder.

Well if your are saying you can't catogrize anything common as a disorder, we better go and recatogrize huge swaths of disorders then.
 
Pretty much - and if you are talking about schismatics then I am naturally not going to agree with them.

Surely you can see though that the prohibition on women priests is pretty much open to interpretation? It isn't specifically stated in that passage of the bible after all.

Well, according to Catholic teaching that is guided and bound by God.

I am not arguing on the origins of the prohibition, just on it's impact. If you prefer to say that the Catholic Church's interpretation of God is the origin of the Catholic Church's sexism I am fine with that.

You see this is where I guessed you were going to go and where we must agree to differ. Personally I find your view on this to be sexist. The last time I checked you needed a man and a woman to procreate - not just a woman. This idea that a woman needs to be in control of her own body does women no good. I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and as such I believe conception and childbirth should affect both a man AND a woman.

When men can bear the child and suffer the sometimes significant medical impact of pregnancy I will possibly agree with you, until that point it is pretty much the woman that does the lion's share of "making a baby". The idea that some dusty old men interpreting a 2000 year old book having control over a woman's body does considerably less good than the idea that a woman should have control over her own body.


First off there are lots of sexual activities that are non harmful and can occur between consenting adults. Coprophillia is one of them. By your logic that is also normal.

You are going to have to define what you mean by normal to be honest. Is having red hair normal? Is having blue eyes normal? Is being left handed normal? I have no problem with whatever consenting adults choose to do as long as it harms no one.

I also didn't equate homosexuality as only anal sex. I even made a point of clarifying that in my post. Did you read it properly?

I read it, but was somewhat confused as you made anal sex as the focus of why homosexuality is "not normal" and yet are still happy to label all of homosexuality as "not normal".

Well the views on this I have proffered are pretty much the official Catholic Church position. They are not discriminatory and neither is the Church.

So despite the fact that homosexuality is considered a disorder and homosexuals and women are both forbidden from entering the higher echelons of the church you still stand by the fact that the Church is not discriminatory? What about when they were lobbying against homosexual marriage? What about when they are interfering with another Church when it is looking at the possibility of women bishops? What exactly would it take for you to consider the Catholic Chruch discriminatory?
 
Well if your are saying you can't catogrize anything common as a disorder, we better go and recatogrize huge swaths of disorders then.

I think this highlights my point on why the word was chosen. Nitefly was using it in the context of what was given in this thread however you (I think correctly) assumed that he was meaning something else.
 
I think this highlights my point on why the word was chosen. Nitefly was using it in the context of what was given in this thread however you (I think correctly) assumed that he was meaning something else.

I'm not assuming anything, just pointing out that because something is common doesn't mean it isn't a disorder.
 
2) Homosexuality

Here is the official teaching on homosexuality from the Catechism of the Catholic Church



So yes the Catholic Church is very clearly against homosexual activities but not against homosexuals. The entire Catholic Church is very clear on the distinction between sin and the sinner him or herself. The Church is also very clear in its teaching that the only person able to cast judgement on a person is God himself.


Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI) whist Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote this Letter to the Bishops in 1986:

PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church issued on October 1, 1986.

1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.

However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.

3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, Para. 4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression ("Dei Verbum" 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

The Vatican Council II in "Dei Verbum" 10, put it this way: "It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching

6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, by his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

In "Genesis" 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in "Genesis" 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In "Leviticus" 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in 1 "Cor." 6: 9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In "Romans" 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 "Tim." 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

8. Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today's world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith".

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for "all" who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires".

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self- giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church's teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.

14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops' attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.

In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their National Bishops' Conference may be envisioned.

In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.

The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense. Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.

We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.

This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.

18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn 8: 32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.

During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect

which illustrates what you are trying to say. Basically that while being Homosexual is not a sin, it does have a tendency toward immoral behaviour and as such the inclination toward homosexuality should be considered an objective disorder......However, and this is important, the letter also says that "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." In short the Cardinal is echoing Augustine of Hippo who said, albeit more succinctly "Love the sinner and hate the sin."

I am not a Catholic, but I know a significant amount of Catholics do not agree with the Catechism on this subject and feel it is contrary to the New Covenant as given by Christ.....I tend to agree and have on this forum in the past explained at great length why I feel Scripture doesn't support the Holy See's stance against Homosexuality (if I have time I will try to find the thread, if it still exists, maybe someone else remembers where it was).

We have to be objective and careful in attributing moral codes that were first interpreted during era's where the pervading feeling was in line with what the Culture and subsequently the theologians ascribed to the meaning of certain Gospel Scripture.

Augustine said:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

He was talking about literalism and allegory with regard to Genesis et al, however I think that the general point of what Augustine was saying applies here also, it is time that the Catholic Church reassesses it's interpretation of Scripture with regard the knowledge we now accept as true, that Homosexuality is not a choice, but a biological and environmental imperative in those who are so inclined. Like many within and without the Catholic Faith, homosexual and otherwise, I (an agnostic) believe it is time to address the outdated culturally defunct interpretations of scripture that the Magisterium seem reluctant to acknowledge.
 
Last edited:
But in this case with the definitions given and the justifications for them Nitefly was correct in what he said.

:confused:

People are just trying to use a word with several meanings to further their cause. The surround context more than clears up the Catholics stance on it.
That it's a sin, a sin no different to any other sin that everyone commits every day and should be resisted, if you believe in catholism.

People are far to set in their ways, don't know religion, don't know the history of religion, don't debate it and don't try to learn. That goes for both the religiuse and the ones in here shouting out how bad religion is. Both sides are as bad as each other and neither are right.
As usual it's the ones in the middle with the right ideas and again that's both non religiuse and religiuse.

But so many people sprout off aphaving never studied scripture, ont have the first clue what it's all about and think the media portrayal of vocal minorities is what it's all about.

Such deluded and intolerant views are disgusting.
 
Last edited:
I think what he meant by that was the equally laughable (or ignorant, take your pick) idea that all religions are racist not that all racism is religion based.

That makes more sense....(not that the idea is sensible, just your explanation of his intent)
 
People are just trying to use a word with several meanings to further their cause.

Which was what I said. As for disgusting I think Nitefly found the use of the word disorder incorrect for that very reason as it alludes to not just an aberration from the norm but something else entirely. There are plenty of better words to use than disorder to get across the point the Catholic Church is trying to make. You can't have a post at the top of the forums saying careful what you say in religious threads and then wonder why people object to calling homosexuality a disorder when it was classified as such until recently and is such a sensitive subject.
 
Last edited:
Xordium, have you changed your user-name, and if so, from what?

Also, does anyone know who RomanNose used to be....

so many name changes recently?????
 
While we're at it, I'm always confused why people think being religious means belonging to an organised religion; you can just, you know, believe in God.
 
Xordium, have you changed your user-name, and if so, from what?

Also, does anyone know who RomanNose used to be....

so many name changes recently?????

Just as a general point, presumably some users request a name change because they don't want to be identified by their old moniker so they might not be all that keen on having it revealed. I have no idea whether that's the case here or not though.
 
Just as a general point, presumably some users request a name change because they don't want to be identified by their old moniker so they might not be all that keen on having it revealed. I have no idea whether that's the case here or not though.

It's maustin.

It's easy to find these things out - use the "Find more posts" thing to get a list of all their posts, go back a fair old while, ideally all the way back, then look for someone quoting them. When you change your username, your old posts show the new username, but people's posts aren't updated where they quote you, so your old name shows up.
 
Just as a general point, presumably some users request a name change because they don't want to be identified by their old moniker so they might not be all that keen on having it revealed. I have no idea whether that's the case here or not though.

And that is fair enough, if that is their reply I will obviously respect that. I am just trying to maintain a modicum of continuity with regard peoples viewpoints....it helps to understand the motivations and thinking behind their points and ideas.....
 
While we're at it, I'm always confused why people think being religious means belonging to an organised religion; you can just, you know, believe in God.

You can, religion is more a man-made thing rather than spiritual, a set of rules some right some wrong, does some good and some not so good (imo only). Nothing wrong with believing in god and not following organised religion at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom