Quote:
Originally Posted by ZIM
My interest in asking the question was based on my observation that most of you are either atheists or philosophically Buddhist, Taoist, etc. The Pope has no authority over you, and since he was talking about *gay marriage* in this case, all he really said was "we catholics won't be marrying gays".
Incoreect, he is interpreting the judgement of God on ****sexuals. Major difference.
Quote:
There are other denominations, you know.
I know, I mentioned one such branch becausde I felt some posters were unfairly caustic to catholics on this issue when the worst tendency I've ever seen is among southern baptists.
Quote:
Different churches, some with apostolic successions and everything, will do so. The Episcopalians are almost on the verge of schism because they do it & the Presbyterians, Lutherans have their own very liberal views. One branch of Judaism will perform same-sex marriages.
With the exception of the Judaic branch, all of these denominations are suffering losses in membership while they cater to an admitted minority's whims.
Cater to a whim? Really, please reiterate your source for sodomy being related to ****sexuality in any chirch pre-10th century, because this is actually an issue of interpretation, not whim.
Quote:
If the Episcopalians do schism [and they'll likely take the Anglicans of Canada with them] that will end a historical era, since it will break up a worldwide communion that has existed since the 1600's.
How is that relevant to this topic?
Quote:
There are repercussions from bowing to the public's whims that are very different from those a government might suffer. I'm not going to fault the Pope for adhering to his church's teachings & reining in those elements within it who would do it damage by changing things around thoughtlessly.
Speaking of thoughtless change, care to pin down a date at which the church began it's stand against ****sexuality? Cause it wasn't anywhere near the beginning, was it?
Quote:
Your second point: I said, clearly, that being gay was not a sin.
I never said you did. You said that having gay sex was, which directly brings into question the use of the term sodomy, since you are clearly referring to biblical referrence to the sodomites. As such, I asked you to support your supposition that it was a sin in the eyes of the early church, something you will not be able to do because they did not approach it from that view.
It was common throughout the ancient world to see mistreating a guest as horrible, to actually rape one was the sin of the sodomites, and so the sin was that. By your interpretation, had the angel been raped vaginally or orally, the sin would be that. Had it been a hand job, the sin would be that. Do you see why that interpretation is spiritually meaningless?
Quote:
Its a fine point, I'll admit, but it should've been an easy one to grasp. Your 'challenge' is not one I'll raise to, thank you very much. If you want to revise the Bible, go right ahead. There's entire cottage industries devoted to it.
I didn't revise it, I suggested you find a case pre tenth century where the word sodomy is read by the church as "the sin of anal sex". You won't, whether you rise to the challenge or not, because that was not how the text was interpreted then.
Quote:
For your second post:
Puh-lease. Are you playing the 'persecuted gay' card?
No, I was summing up the past as briefly as possible. If you are saying that is an inaccurate statement, then please share what sources you use for the history of the church and gays.
Quote:
I've already stated: They can get married elsewhere. Meantime expend your energies where they really are persecuted: The Middle East, where they are killed by law.
No. Your whole premise that the pope's decrees are simply a recommendation for catholics is incorrect.