The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
OK - this sort of incorrect and grossly offensive stuff just adds you to "the list"
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I just can't get over some of the bigotry displayed on this thread. It really is out of order.
Some of the stuff being posted is just offensive. The Catholic church has a history of being persecuted in this country so I think we are used to it.
I have no problem with opinion or debate but militant and irrational hatred just isn't worth engaging with.
Some of the stuff being posted is just offensive. The Catholic church has a history of being persecuted in this country so I think we are used to it.
I have no problem with opinion or debate but militant and irrational hatred just isn't worth engaging with.
Its absolutely true actually, and the truth is painful for the aplologists to hear.
** comment removed - That goes too far ***
Last edited:
You make it sound like a punishment.
Ok,
Are you saying that the catholic church as an organisation did not cover up paedophilia at multiple levels? - are you seriously saying this is not a fact?.
Yes, we are evil for persecuting the catholic church for covering up child rape, whatever next.
Neither is it worth engaging with somebody who denies reality in to enable a flawed perfect view of the catholic church.
On a final note, as you also suggesting that the Catholic church does not preach against the use of condoms?.
"Fighting AIDS by handing out condoms is like fighting gun crime by handing out bullet-proof vests." just to dissect the utter idiocy of your signature (to highlight how irrational you are).
Condoms do reduce the spread of aids - Bullet proof vests do not reduce the frequency of gun crime.
That has to be one of the most flawed analogies I've ever seen.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I don't have any issue with you using this reasoning to set your own moral compass. In fact I applaud anyone willing to put thought into these matters.
What you have done though is oversimplify things somewhat. What about when you have a scenario with two possible outcomes - each of which will cause suffering to someone?
I am more than happy to explain my reasoning for my point about society in this context.
I believe that the natural law is for children to be raised by a mother and father. It is impossible for a same sex couple to have a child. They can adopt but that is someone else's child. They can use a surrogate but again that involves a member of the opposite sex in actually creating the child.
Our society is based on the natural family unit. To allow homosexuals to marry subverts that fundamental societal building block. Marriage has been about two people coming together to raise a family throughout our history.
I know that homosexuality has been observed in animals however I like to think that we are somewhat better than animals.
People may disagree with my views and they are entitled to.
I'll look it up, thanks
edit: I didn't realise that logical positivism is the same as logical empiricism.... Yes, this does support your argument that it is impossible to prove something is morally wrong or not, but it also chucks your God and your religion, and all other religions out the window as baseless constructs that also cannot be proved....
I'm not a logical positivist. I was simply pointing you in the direction of the school of thought most relevant to your enquiry.
I don't look to empirically prove or disprove points of philosophy. I was simply responding to a question about whether you could prove that something was morally wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Just to clarify - are you in favour of the law being changed to allow gay couples to enter into marriage rather than civil partnerships?
read the second line of my post above.
Oh noes, who do I believe now ?
I was thinking last night having read the clever posts being made by Castiel and Stefk005, that nobody would dare post anything further because they would sound awkwardly dim by comparison. I guess I was mistaken and silliness will out
I somewhat agree, but not fully. In most countries including the UK, marriage is not official or recognised by the state unless carried out under a religious ceremony. Even straight couples cannot have 'atheist weddings' in this country. The main difference between marriage and civil partnership is that the former requires a priest / bishop to bless the marriage in Gods name, the latter is entirely free from religion and god, but not recognised as a real marriage, nor available to straight couples. Two of my atheist friends have been together with two children for over 15 years, but they both refuse to have a marriage because they see it as being too religious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
To what level, it is important as to what level I would discuss this at....especially with regard to the translations, (particularly with regard to the linguistics and interpretation of the context) you spoke of (but did not expand on) my email is in trust.....if you wish to discuss it further.
For The thread as an example and I will keep it brief as to not derail the thread too much and I have discussed this in SC at length before, if we take Romans 1...it is simply not as straight forward as stating that the consensus is that Paul was Condemning Homosexuality......The passage discusses how a group of Christians converted to Paganism (presumably Roman) and engaged in heterosexual Orgies and Idolatry and so on as was common in Roman Fertility Religions at the time...this hedonism then led to Homosexual behaviour, there is a valid theological justification that Paul is not stating that Homosexuals are a perversion or the homosexual behaviour is shameful or unnatural, (remember that homosexuality or to be more precise bisexuality was common in Roman Culture) ...he is however stating that as the Christians were Heterosexuals they were acting against their own nature and that this in itself was inherently sinful.
So there is a solid theological argument that the passage Roman 1 is actually unrelated to homosexuality and is actually about hedonistic lifestyles that are contrary to the natural basic nature of the individual.....in short you can legitimately interpret Romans 1 as making the judgement that for Heterosexual individuals it is sinful or indecent to engage in homosexual activity, and for homosexual individuals it would be indecent to engage in heterosexual activities as they are both contrary to the respective individuals true god-given nature. I could give you the linguistic basis for the interpretations, but as you have studied Koine Greek and how it relates to the context I am refering to and as a result I am sure you are aware of the original texts and don't need me to make this post any longer than it need be to make the point
Obviously Romans refers to Homo-genital acts, but from a historical-critical perspective Romans doesn't make an ethical or moral judgements, merely a social disapproval based on the nature of the Individual rather than the acts themselves.
This is quite a standard theological perspective.
I think you are missing the point I was making, and that is not what the words are literally stating or that those words are authoritative in themselves...even Augustinian...but that the principles are followed when attributing interpretation to scripture and the evidence both natural and spiritual is followed......much of which is outlined in various works such as De Genesi ad litteram and specifically De doctrina Christiana.......not to mention that with using anything by Augustine as authoritative it is always pertinent to peruse his Retractationes for any clarification or revisitations on a subject he discussed earlier in his life.
This was my original premise with regard current doctrine, and is not only pursuant to homosexuality, but to other issues, such as Contraception and Aids, whereby the social, cultural and scientific evidence is such that it shows the Church to be anachronistic and out of touch with current morality and thinking.....The basic idea is that Scripture is both broad and specific enough and that the authors were divinely inspired to create a text that can interpreted to account for changes in Human knowledge and it should not be limited by dogmatic approaches that ignore or seek to subvert what is actually known, in fact he went so far as to say that the nature of Scripture is that it is able to support more than a single interpretation....such is the divine nature of it.
I should make it clear, as I don't recognise your name, that I am not a Catholic or Religious....I am simply have an academic and professional interest in religions, specifically Christianity and Islam so I am not trying to argue you out of a position, but explaining that there are many other equally valid positions with regard to theology and interpretation with Christianity, including Catholicism despite it's adherence to a dogmatic infallibility (another topic of contention....but for another time) as you say we have probably derailed this thread a little too far.....
Not to agree or disagree with any of your points but I think that if we are talking about the Catholic Church we remember that it doesn't draw its teachings sola scriptura.
Oh noes, who do I believe now ?
I was thinking last night having read the clever posts being made by Castiel and Stefk005, that nobody would dare post anything further because they would sound awkwardly dim by comparison. I guess I was mistaken and silliness will out
The bible does say in its current printed form that homosexuality is an abomination / detestable, and the majority of Christians who read and follow the bible believe this and spout it everywhere.
This issue has nothing to do with mistranslations, or what was originally meant by the bible, which is also a very valid and debateable point. Christians who actually follow Castiels idea of Christianity likely make up far fewer than 1% of christians in the world.
And since when is calling a blatant homophobe a homophobe a personal attack?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Funnily enough I completely understand atheists wanting a wedding in a church. With an absence of belief to them it becomes just a pretty building. I do find odd those who want a church wedding, as in a wedding conducted according to the relevant faith.
The sad thing is that you just do it seem to be able to see that this also applies to those arguing against equal rights for homosexuality. Abnormal, wrong, unnatural, undermines the fabric of society. That is all fine and yet pointing out that the Church covered up child abuse is out of order.
You would think that with such a history it would make it slightly more sympathetic against other groups that have also been persecuted but sadly this does not seem to be the case. Of course the Catholic church also has a history of persecuting so possibly unsurprising.
This is just plain wrong. You do not need any religious involvement to have a marriage in the UK. Registrars and the Church of England are the only organisations that can issue marriage certificates. All religious weddings other than Chruch of England weddings need a registrar to be official. You do not need to involve religion if you do not want to and in fact the majority of marriages in the UK are civil and have no religious component.