Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

Come on now...... he thought it was Petros.... Bless him.

I doubt it - but either way, I don't think that's where you want to hang your hat in this argument. It doesn't seem to bolster your stance on the alleged non-sinfulness of homosexuality at all.

 

[patrick jane]

I have a BA, but an MS. It's not necessarily always BS+MS or BA+MA.

Why does it matter, anyway?

As far as religion goes - all I've got is a minor in religious studies. Yikes. I guess I am unqualified to speak.

I have a lot of BS :chuckle:

 

[eider]

I doubt it -

I don't....... :chuckle:

...but either way, I don't think that's where you want to hang your hat in this argument.

Absolutely! But you know how conversations can get diverted, and that is how that happened. The poster wanted to tell me about several degrees. :rotfl:

It doesn't seem to bolster your stance on the alleged non-sinfulness of homosexuality at all.

You will come round, imo. Or should I say, the Catholic Church will, imo.
You tell me that there have been two doctrinal changes already, and the Pope does have the power to adjust Canon Law.
The list of Churches which support or bless either gay unions or gay marriages is growing, and I was amazed to see just how large this list is already.
Further to that you never did show that Homosexuality is evil. Your ideas about 'sin' seem quite absurd to me because you seem to be stuck back in time with the 613 and those laws were about the building of a unified people and nothing to do with 'Satan's wicked schemes' or whatever.

It's all very well for extyremist Christians to point at moderate Churches and shout 'They're not Christians!' but it may be they themselves who are the lost ones.

Look at the lost ones in Catholicism, for instance. The list of wicked Popes and their atrocities through history is a chamber of horrors, mostly of hypocrisy. It's almost like 'back ion the day' when John the Immerser brought his message about priesthood corruption to Jordan river, offering an alternative to the corrupt Temple procedures.

Catholicism has taken another set back only this morning. The Australian authorities seek to Charge the Vatican Treasurer Cardinal George Pell over alleged 'historical sex crimes'. Let's hope that no other senior dignitaries can be accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (if he is convicted) like the last Archbishop of Canterbury has just been....

 

[eider]

I have a lot of BS :chuckle:

That's nuthin'..... I'm an embicile......... :chuckle:

 

[glassjester]

You will come round, imo. Or should I say, the Catholic Church will, imo.
You tell me that there have been two doctrinal changes already, and the Pope does have the power to adjust Canon Law.

Wait a sec. No - there have been zero doctrinal changes. Doctrine does not change.

Further to that you never did show that Homosexuality is evil. Your ideas about 'sin' seem quite absurd to me because you seem to be stuck back in time with the 613 and those laws were about the building of a unified people and nothing to do with 'Satan's wicked schemes' or whatever.

Was Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles, mind you) stuck with the 613 mitzvot, too?

It's all very well for extyremist Christians to point at moderate Churches and shout 'They're not Christians!' but it may be they themselves who are the lost ones.

Look at the lost ones in Catholicism, for instance. The list of wicked Popes and their atrocities through history is a chamber of horrors, mostly of hypocrisy.

Yes, what does this prove? That those popes were sinners. But all have sinned.
Isn't it miraculous that even under those wicked popes, the Church and her teachings have prevailed? That is the promise Christ made of His Church.

Catholicism has taken another set back only this morning. The Australian authorities seek to Charge the Vatican Treasurer Cardinal George Pell over alleged 'historical sex crimes'. Let's hope that no other senior dignitaries can be accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (if he is convicted) like the last Archbishop of Canterbury has just been....

And I sincerely hope the wicked are brought to justice and are purged from the hierarchy of the Church. What bearing does this have on doctrine?

 

[eider]

Yes, what does this prove? That those popes were sinners. But all have sinned.
Isn't it miraculous that even under those wicked popes, the Church and her teachings have prevailed? That is the promise Christ made of His Church.

And I sincerely hope the wicked are brought to justice and are purged from the hierarchy of the Church. What bearing does this have on doctrine?

Not too much really.
But we aren't really debating Catholic doctrine, are we? We're debating 'Why Gay Marriage?'
It's just that so many Churches are now either blessing or supporting gay unions and gay marriage that it is getting harder for other Churches to point fingers and declare 'That lot aren't real Churches!'

The reason for mention of the above reputations is that each and every time that news flashes round the world about yet another serious criminal offence being alleged or convicted against religious dignitaries, the 'Rest of the World' shrugs its shoulder and says to itself, 'Oh that lot..... again' and slowly slowly the secular world gains new converts, and the votes for love, understanding and happiness increase against those of extremist control.

Western extreme religions are losing their hold.....

 

[glassjester]

Not too much really.
But we aren't really debating Catholic doctrine, are we? We're debating 'Why Gay Marriage?'
It's just that so many Churches are now either blessing or supporting gay unions and gay marriage that it is getting harder for other Churches to point fingers and declare 'That lot aren't real Churches!'

It's nothing new for Catholics. There have been heretics from the start.

The reason for mention of the above reputations is that each and every time that news flashes round the world about yet another serious criminal offence being alleged or convicted against religious dignitaries, the 'Rest of the World' shrugs its shoulder and says to itself, 'Oh that lot..... again' and slowly slowly the secular world gains new converts,

You're right about that.

and the votes for love, understanding and happiness increase against those of extremist control.

Of the earthly variety, perhaps.

Western extreme religions are losing their hold.....

No more of a challenge than that faced by the first century Church. Christ's Church transformed the world before, it can happen again.

 

[eider]

Wait a sec. No - there have been zero doctrinal changes. Doctrine does not change.

Never say never.....

Was Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles, mind you) stuck with the 613 mitzvot, too?

I couldn't say........

Yes, what does this prove? That those popes were sinners. But all have sinned.
Isn't it miraculous that even under those wicked popes, the Church and her teachings have prevailed? That is the promise Christ made of His Church.

Excellent news!
And so it's time for all those sinners out there to stop pointing self-righteous fingers at people who are in love and wish to be in happy union or marriage! Wnhat a bunch of control freaks..... really!

Remember how Jesus felt about the rock chuckers? What do the academics call it, now...... Pericope Adulterae, that's it.

And I sincerely hope the wicked are brought to justice and are purged from the hierarchy of the Church. What bearing does this have on doctrine?

Well, many of us in the big wide world don't actually give much care for the Catholic Church's doctrine. There are some aspects of it which might, just might, give cause for concern about all of it.............

For a start, Jesus never spoke out about such unions as ssm and He did have every opportunity to do so. He was much more interested in gathering support for his main mission, which imo was to end the wicked, evil, hypocritical control of a few thousands of fat, greedy, over wealthy control freaks who were stripping the peasant classes of their every drachma (they didn't like denarii!). Which, amazingly, is just about the same situation as today, where a tiny weeny minority have a mega maximised % of the wealth..... Jesus didn't like that, and he wanted a return of all the old laws, especially the poor laws...... this made abundantly clear by his repeating the call of Hosea......... not mucvh different to the Immerser's opinions. I'm sure you do know what I mean.

 

[Lon]

Loving others is the Second command. ANY time it interferes with the first command, do the first: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. It is an 'all-in' proposition. The 'true' Christian message is 'all in.'

Summation point, pertinent to the thread, lest one lose the forest for his/her proverbial tree-preference. It is either about loving God, or not loving God. The rest cannot happen lest the first is done in complete devotion. Compromising God and His directives is NEVER a good option.

 

[ok doser]

yeah - it would have been interesting to have a conversation with him about his views of social stratification (and whether physicians, innkeepers, owners of fishing boats, etc were "peasants") but why waste time with a jerk? :idunno:

... you finally thought of an answer...?

Yep, and since it flew over your head, I'll repeat it


My answer is this: while the subject matter is interesting, i see no point in discussing it with you, jerk :wave2:

 

[eider]

Yep, and since it flew over your head, I'll repeat it


My answer is this: while the subject matter is interesting, i see no point in discussing it with you, jerk :wave2:

...which is your way of admitting that you haven't got the faintest ideas about life in early 1st century Galilee. You really should step out of the darkness of ignorance and educate yourself, dosey.

...and you thought that Jesus was a middle class conservative...... republican? :chuckle: Your stupidity makes me laugh out loud.... cheers me up each day, dosey.

 

[ok doser]

...which is your way of ....

Which is my way of telling you that I'm not interested in discussing it with you, because you're a jerk

...and you thought that Jesus was a middle class conservative...... republican...

You're a retard as well :nono:

 

[ok doser]

He was much more interested in gathering support for his main mission, which imo was to end the wicked, evil, hypocritical control of a few thousands of fat, greedy, over wealthy control freaks who were stripping the peasant classes of their every drachma...

That was Jesus' "main mission", eh?

The redistribution of wealth? :freak:

Ok, it's official - you really are a retard :darwinsm:

 

[eider]

That was Jesus' "main mission", eh?

The redistribution of wealth? :freak:

Ok, it's official - you really are a retard :darwinsm:

Wow! I certainly pressed your buttons!
Read G-Mark.


You are everything that you accuse everybody else of....... every single thing.

 

[Lon]

The reason for mention of the above reputations is that each and every time that news flashes round the world about yet another serious criminal offence being alleged or convicted against religious dignitaries, the 'Rest of the World' shrugs its shoulder and says to itself, 'Oh that lot..... again' and slowly slowly the secular world gains new converts, and the votes for love, understanding and happiness increase against those of extremist control.

Western extreme religions are losing their hold.....

Which is "anti-Christianity." The world will go its own direction and you along with it, you can't dictate to God or the church what they believe. That is just you being pompous, arrogant, and/or ridiculous in your wishful thinking. And no, you can't ask 'two questions' and determine you are better than a pastor. That's ridiculous and pompous and the mark of a wind-bag. You've NO idea what he learned in seminary, if he went, None. You are deluding yourself. "Oh he doesn't [seem to me to] know what I know, he can't be brilliant!" :dizzy:

Wow! I certainly pressed your buttons!
Read G-Mark.


You are everything that you accuse everybody else of....... every single thing.

Some men read the Bible and think about their own flesh and excuses for it. Others read it to understand and follow God. You? Stuck in fleshly concerns and doctrines of men. It ISN'T glorifying God. You are holding love and adverse lifestyle against His intention up against Him. Who wants that kind of Christianity? Why call it Christian?
It is repackaged hedonism and god-of-my-own-world egotism. "Christian" means following God. You can call it whatever you like, it isn't Christianity. And no, you don't know the Bible well if you think this is Christian by any means. :nono:

 

[ok doser]

Worth noting who he gets props from - rusha, artie, anna, town....


'Nuff said

 

[glassjester]

Worth noting who he gets props from

Sort of a small scale model of this:

But even so, churches, or many of them, are softening their stance upon gay clergy, gay unions, gay civil partnership, and even ssm.

Changing doctrine in order to gain the approval of the secular world.

Not a good idea. :nono:

 

[eider]

Sort of a small scale model of this:

Changing doctrine in order to gain the approval of the secular world.

Not a good idea. :nono:

Goodness! So you've come back to silly ol' Eider. Have you run out of members to bore with your prejudiced notions? :chuckle:

But you never did get to show how anything that Jesus said or did could produce such 'doctrine', did you?
The religious side of the debate had waned, and you tried to reintroduce the legal side of the debate, several pages back,which you had already lost... which only left you with philosophy to trawl, and philosophy supports gay unions, ssm, etc.

 

[glassjester]

Goodness! So you've come back to silly ol' Eider. Have you run out of members to bore with your prejudiced notions? :chuckle:

What are you talking about?

But you never did get to show how anything that Jesus said or did could produce such 'doctrine', did you?

The NT forbids homosexuality. Case closed.

The religious side of the debate had waned,

The NT forbids homosexuality. Case closed.

and you tried to reintroduce the legal side of the debate, several pages back,which you had already lost... which only left you with philosophy to trawl, and philosophy supports gay unions, ssm, etc.

Philosophy supports homosexuality? Bringing out the broad brush, I see.


You can sing the high praises of homosexuality all day long, but don't go on pretending it's the "Christian" thing to do.

 

[Nihilo]

What are you talking about?



The NT forbids homosexuality. Case closed.



The NT forbids homosexuality. Case closed.



Philosophy supports homosexuality? Bringing out the broad brush, I see.


You can sing the high praises of homosexuality all day long, but don't go on pretending it's the "Christian" thing to do.

Why do you argue like a Protestant? You stink at it. You're Catholic, born into a Catholic family, would you please show some pride? You don't have to sully yourself in these stupid arguments. You're a member of the family that Jesus started, born into it.

You are Catholic, right?

Quote the Catechism. The "Protestant" case for the Catholic Church is far easier to make than any of these ancillary matters!