The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,712
- Location
- North
What’s un-natural about flying in an aeroplane? it’s not like we sprouted wings and took to the skies.
All these things you've listed are perfectly natural, since we have used what nature has given us: intelligence.
Homosexuality is not normal, you need a male and female in all aspects. Two male molex connectors dont work, male to male plug sockets dont fit lol
An anus is where poo comes out from, its just disgusting to insert things into it. Did i just say that.
What’s un-natural about flying in an aeroplane? it’s not like we sprouted wings and took to the skies.
All these things you've listed are perfectly natural, since we have used what nature has given us: intelligence.
Homosexuality is not normal, you need a male and female in all aspects. Two male molex connectors dont work, male to male plug sockets dont fit lol
An anus is where poo comes out from, its just disgusting to insert things into it. Did i just say that.
Got it, unnatural things you like are OK, unnatural things you dont like are not OK...
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Thanks dodgem. Was wondering where the same-sex parenting thread was... 
Really? St Paul mentions homosexuality at least three times. And its implied by Jesus. And Jesus didn't overturn the Old Testament law at all, and neither has Catholic Christianity. The simplest way of putting what Christians have understood from the earliest of days is that love (cf commandment to love of Jesus) is the fulfilment of the law (10 Commandments, etc).
Really? St Paul mentions homosexuality at least three times. And its implied by Jesus. And Jesus didn't overturn the Old Testament law at all, and neither has Catholic Christianity. The simplest way of putting what Christians have understood from the earliest of days is that love (cf commandment to love of Jesus) is the fulfilment of the law (10 Commandments, etc).
What’s un-natural about flying in an aeroplane? it’s not like we sprouted wings and took to the skies.
All these things you've listed are perfectly natural, since we have used what nature has given us: intelligence.
Homosexuality is not normal, you need a male and female in all aspects. Two male molex connectors dont work, male to male plug sockets dont fit lol
An anus is where poo comes out from, its just disgusting to insert things into it. Did i just say that.
Well, it doesn't require anything other than what nature gave us for a man to put his penis in another man's anus. Therefore it must be natural
Additionally, using our intelligence, we have not only created ways to fly through the sky, but ways to produce children for couples not having all the bits they need to do it themselves...
The second Covenant did indeed largely supplant the First. You would also be open to some serious debate on whether the epistles are actually anti-homosexual.
Don't see what there is to debate when homosexual acts are one of a list of "do-nots" or "you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven if you do"... The translation is pretty straightforward, as is the interpretation. Yes, I have studied it.
Yes, it's correct to say that in terms of "Covenant" the second supplants the first. I would never contradict that, as the second covenant is once and for all sealed in Jesus' blood. I repeat though, the Christians from the start, as testified by the New Testament documents, by all the earliest of Christian teaching documents (Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, etc) and the Magisterial Tradition of the Church, have always understood the law to be fulfilled, not abolished, in the example of Christ.
Yes, it's correct to say that in terms of "Covenant" the second supplants the first. I would never contradict that, as the second covenant is once and for all sealed in Jesus' blood. I repeat though, the Christians from the start, as testified by the New Testament documents, by all the earliest of Christian teaching documents (Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, etc) and the Magisterial Tradition of the Church, have always understood the law to be fulfilled, not abolished, in the example of Christ.
studied what exactly, and be precise? And to what level and what qualifications do you have in classical and biblical linguistics?
To be fair that is a debate for another day, and one that requires an awful lot of qualification and specificity. The overarching component I put forward however was related to St Augustine and his Arguments relating to the presumption of Authority and the concepts relating to intepretation of scripture.
To have sex? Nope.
Two male molex connectors dont work, male to male plug sockets dont fit lol
Obviously not familiar with '****-docking'. Also there's a couple more sockets that you could fit in.
You haven't lived.
What’s un-natural about flying in an aeroplane? it’s not like we sprouted wings and took to the skies.
All these things you've listed are perfectly natural, since we have used what nature has given us: intelligence.
Homosexuality is not normal, you need a male and female in all aspects. Two male molex connectors dont work, male to male plug sockets dont fit lol
An anus is where poo comes out from, its just disgusting to insert things into it. Did i just say that.
So you've like never ever ever ever ever ever heard of oral?
It must suck to be you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,712
- Location
- North
Last edited:
It's not, defending a controversial position is one of my favourite pastimes, in fact. But for something to be controversial, many if not most people would be in disagreement with it, no? So if you're being an apologist, and defending a controversial position, surely the term would be mainly used negatively?
I do realise how extraneous this mini debate is.
You know the churches initially kept the Bible in Latin to stop "unqualified" people reading it and learning the truth.
You merely need to read the Bible (with an open mind) - and you cannot fail to come to the conclusion that it is anti-homosexuality.
Moreoever, although many of the traditions and practices were done away with when Jesus came (and died for us), there is no impression that God changed his mind in any way about fundamental things that were and were not acceptable to Him.
It didn't suddenly become OK to steal, lie, cheat, have orgies, use idols, or any of the other things mentioned in the Old Testament.
What was done away with was the complex system of priests, sacrifices, traditions, etc.
Studied theology, and as part of that New Testament Greek and Biblical exegesis. But I'm not going on my own qualifications, I'm going on universally-accepted translations, all of which - regardless of version - convey the same meanings, eg Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.
Yes it certainly is
But St Augustine, while a great Father of the Church, does not equate to the totality of the Church's Magisterium or Tradition. However, since you bring him up, I refer you to "De Spiritu et Littera" in which he reflects on the words of St Paul which he takes as the title for his letter. Far from abolishing the Old Law, the New Law is what gives it life. Again, St Paul speaks of the Old Law as a "tutor" showing what must be done; grace comes with the New Law. It's a recurring theme. I won't prolong this mini-debate any further 
It's not, defending a controversial position is one of my favourite pastimes, in fact. But for something to be controversial, many if not most people would be in disagreement with it, no? So if you're being an apologist, and defending a controversial position, surely the term would be mainly used negatively?
I do realise how extraneous this mini debate is.
That is assuming the position being defended is the controversial one and as I said I think there should be a distinction between Apologetics and Polemics.....I also think that the internet Oxford definition is somewhat lacking.
It simply doesn't follow that calling someone an Apologist is derogatory...it like calling someone a polemicist...it isn't inherently derogatory.
I do understand the current misconception is to use the term as a pejorative.....for a better definition than the Oxford quote you gave in this regard, I would say it [the pejorative] is defined as Someone who defends the indefensible....
however, this I disagree with as it is simply hijacking the term to imply something that is not necessarily true and that there are good apologists and bad ones...just as there are good polemicists and there are bad ones.
The term is not one thing or the other, it is the application of the debater in adhering to the basic premise of defending the position using an evidenced rationale and to point out misrepresentation and error in the opposing argument.....I think calling someone simply "Apologist" is meaningless.....and relies on a common misconception of what an apologist actually is.