Christian Discussion Thread V

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Excommunication is all about the ramification of such, if a group of children excommunicate me, an adult, it doesn't really mean much. However if a group of adults whose ties stretch out over my entire social/financial/personal life excommunicate me, that might be an issue.

But the laws of the Vatican are not recognized by the United States government. So my property is fine. My excommunication doesn't seem to affect my social life. And on a personal level, I am drawing i United States government. So my property is fine. My excommunication doesn't seem to affect my social life. And on a personal level, I am enjoying it.

Look, I just want to make a clear statement to all Christians here. You could tell me now I'm going to hell. It doesn't offend me. It is like me telling you to grow wings and fly to the moon.

I don't believe you will go to hell. You don't reject God, you reject what you think he is.

[Cannabis Islands]

As it happens, I agree with all parts of this. (As a general principle in theology, not with respect to the person you're talking to, I don't know anything about them.)

I'm also somewhat doubtful that barring homosexuals from marriage before God is an actual religious dogma.

The primary purpose of The Sacrament of Matrimony is the the generation and bringing-up of offspring, but gay couples can be perfectly capable of raising children. Not only that, but married couple do not always foster children - should their marriage before God be revoked because they did not succeed in that primary purpose.

No. They should not. Homosexual couples should not be, either.

This having been said, I've never bothered to delve deeply into religious dogmas.

I'm going to go out and actually defend my opponent here. The reason is because the Church says that homosexual sex is a misuse of God's "gift". The church primary purpose of marriage is the creation of new life through natural means. Since homosexual couples cannot conceive children "naturally", it is something that to be condemned for the "common good".

[Cannabis Islands]

But the laws of the Vatican are not recognized by the United States government. So my property is fine. My excommunication doesn't seem to affect my social life. And on a personal level, I am drawing i United States government. So my property is fine. My excommunication doesn't seem to affect my social life. And on a personal level, I am enjoying it.

Look, I just want to make a clear statement to all Christians here. You could tell me now I'm going to hell. It doesn't offend me. It is like me telling you to grow wings and fly to the moon.

I don't believe you will go to hell. You don't reject God, you reject what you think he is.

I have stated before but I personally have a Marxist view on religion but an objectivist approach to it.

[Esternial]

I'm also somewhat doubtful that barring homosexuals from marriage before God is an actual religious dogma.

The primary purpose of The Sacrament of Matrimony is the the generation and bringing-up of offspring, but gay couples can be perfectly capable of raising children. Not only that, but married couple do not always foster children - should their marriage before God be revoked because they did not succeed in that primary purpose.

No. They should not. Homosexual couples should not be, either.

This having been said, I've never bothered to delve deeply into religious dogmas.

I'm going to go out and actually defend my opponent here. The reason is because the Church says that homosexual sex is a misuse of God's "gift". The church primary purpose of marriage is the creation of new life through natural means. Since homosexual couples cannot conceive children "naturally", it is something that to be condemned for the "common good".

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Faith is supposed to give meaning to people's lives, God is supposed to help people feel warm and secure, give them peace of mind. Distorting this to exclude people that believe in God themselves seems, to me, the complete opposite of what Catholicism and God are about. Catholics should join together in their faith, not exclude others based on how they live their lives. Faith should be more important. The fact that it doesn't seem to be for so many people makes me feel that there is a lot of degeneracy and corrosion within the Catholic Church.

Religion and faith should be so simple, but is so often abused for the wrong means.

[Cannabis Islands]

I'm going to go out and actually defend my opponent here. The reason is because the Church says that homosexual sex is a misuse of God's "gift". The church primary purpose of marriage is the creation of new life through natural means. Since homosexual couples cannot conceive children "naturally", it is something that to be condemned for the "common good".

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Faith is supposed to give meaning to people's lives, God is supposed to help people feel warm and secure, give them peace of mind. Distorting this to exclude people that believe in God themselves seems, to me, the complete opposite of what Catholicism and God are about. Catholics should join together in their faith, not exclude others based on how they live their lives. Faith should be more important. The fact that it doesn't seem to be for so many people makes me feel that there is a lot of degeneracy and corrosion within the Catholic Church.

Religion and faith should be so simple, but is so often abused for the wrong means.

Again, Catholics and conservative parsons believe that any public endorsement of sin will lead to downfall of society. Back to the Catholic churches teachings, if a heterosexual couple is using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, they also view that as a misuse of sex.

[Living Stones]

Well that's one thing we can hopefully agree on. I think a lot of people would rather die than live in a Catholic theocracy (or any theocracy), including many Catholics. But if anyone would try to make a Christian theocracy today, it would be American Evangelical Protestants.

What kind of Catholic would choose death over living in a Catholic nation?

I admit, I should have been more specific. I was the referring to a Catholic theocracy such as that existed in much of Europe through the middle ages and into the modern era, wherein religious minorities and dissenters where burned at the stake. (Not that protestants didn't do the same thing!) Self identified "Liberal Catholics" obviously would not appreciate their beliefs being illegal, though I'd like to think that most people nowadays, including Catholics, believe in toleration of people they disagree with.

[Living Stones]

The problem is that they are very evangelical, which I am guessing isn't appealing. Otherwise why not join any number of other churches?

The whole issue of the the continuum and REC is that the Americans basically made no provision for people who dissented from their perspective. Of course it was made worse by the fact that the people they were nominally subject under weren't obeying their superiors, in the case of gay marriage effectively going against church doctrine.

When I say doctrine, I usually mean theology, not their. political stance. Personally, I don't think any church should officially support any political views since it is divisive and Christ wants us to be united. I also think it keeps people away from otherwise theologically sound churches.

Amen to that! `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Judeans; but now my kingdom is not from here.'

[Esternial]

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Faith is supposed to give meaning to people's lives, God is supposed to help people feel warm and secure, give them peace of mind. Distorting this to exclude people that believe in God themselves seems, to me, the complete opposite of what Catholicism and God are about. Catholics should join together in their faith, not exclude others based on how they live their lives. Faith should be more important. The fact that it doesn't seem to be for so many people makes me feel that there is a lot of degeneracy and corrosion within the Catholic Church.

Religion and faith should be so simple, but is so often abused for the wrong means.

Again, Catholics and conservative parsons believe that any public endorsement of sin will lead to downfall of society. Back to the Catholic churches teachings, if a heterosexual couple is using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, they also view that as a misuse of sex.

You're implying they all do. They do not. Unless you want to label a huge chunk of members of the Catholic church - that believe in God, attend mass and so on - as non-Catholic solely because they do not follow every supposed dogma.

[Cannabis Islands]

Again, Catholics and conservative parsons believe that any public endorsement of sin will lead to downfall of society. Back to the Catholic churches teachings, if a heterosexual couple is using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, they also view that as a misuse of sex.

You're implying they all do. They do not. Unless you want to label a huge chunk of members of the Catholic church - that believe in God, attend mass and so on - as non-Catholic solely because they do not follow every supposed dogma.

My understanding of Catholic theology is believing in all of the Dogmas of the Church. It is my understanding, that Catholics must submit himself or herself to the Holy See because according to Catholic theology, the Holy See speaks for God. This is why I left the church, because I did not feel comfortable calling myself "Catholic" and disagree with so many of The church's dogmas

Dissident Catholics will do as they wish. It is not my fight to stop them or support them. For me, even if the Vatican did change of it's policy on homosexuality, I would still have no interest in coming back.

[Angleter]

Catholic dogma is very clear that marriage can only occur between one man and one women, neither of whom is already married, and that a marriage is indissoluble.
Disbelieving that does make you less of a Catholic, because it is a part of Catholic dogma.

Dogma's imposed by mortal men mean nothing. It's your faith that should trump above all else, not vice-versa.

Think you've got your priorities messed up.

A man who adheres to Catholic dogma's but hold no true faith can pass as a Catholic for you, but you'd have no qualms excluding those that don't adhere to one of these dogma's, even though their faith is much stronger.

A very narrow-minded approach to religion and faith as a whole, but do what you will. Your word doesn't really mean more than another devout believer in God, even if they don't believe in all the dogma's mankind has concocted around Him. Might not fit the traditionalist view on religion, but frankly most proper Catholics I know aren't of the traditionalist kind, so it begs the question if these kind of beliefs are still needed/wanted. You need only God and the Holy Bible.

Dogma is precisely the opposite of what you say it is - it is what Catholicism holds to be divinely-revealed truth. We can't separate that out from 'true faith'. I don't doubt for a moment that many Muslims, for example, have a sincere and strong faith in God and have come to believe what they believe by their faith and by the Holy Bible. That doesn't make them Catholics (good or otherwise). Likewise people who, however strong their faith in God, believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, or that the Old Testament can be jettisoned, or that the Mosaic Law must be kept in its entirety, or that the Real Presence is false, or that the Resurrection didn't literally happen, and so on.

[Cannabis Islands]

Dogma's imposed by mortal men mean nothing. It's your faith that should trump above all else, not vice-versa.

Think you've got your priorities messed up.

A man who adheres to Catholic dogma's but hold no true faith can pass as a Catholic for you, but you'd have no qualms excluding those that don't adhere to one of these dogma's, even though their faith is much stronger.

A very narrow-minded approach to religion and faith as a whole, but do what you will. Your word doesn't really mean more than another devout believer in God, even if they don't believe in all the dogma's mankind has concocted around Him. Might not fit the traditionalist view on religion, but frankly most proper Catholics I know aren't of the traditionalist kind, so it begs the question if these kind of beliefs are still needed/wanted. You need only God and the Holy Bible.

Dogma is precisely the opposite of what you say it is - it is what Catholicism holds to be divinely-revealed truth. We can't separate that out from 'true faith'. I don't doubt for a moment that many Muslims, for example, have a sincere and strong faith in God and have come to believe what they believe by their faith and by the Holy Bible. That doesn't make them Catholics (good or otherwise). Likewise people who, however strong their faith in God, believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, or that the Old Testament can be jettisoned, or that the Mosaic Law must be kept in its entirety, or that the Real Presence is false, or that the Resurrection didn't literally happen, and so on.

Precisely my point. This is why told The why I said "we're done" to the Catholic Church about our relationship. Calling oneself "Catholic" while they fundamentally disagree with any of the church's dogmas it's purely out of culture. Look at the Irish vote on gay marriage.

[Risottia]

You're implying they all do. They do not. Unless you want to label a huge chunk of members of the Catholic church - that believe in God, attend mass and so on - as non-Catholic solely because they do not follow every supposed dogma.

My understanding of Catholic theology is believing in all of the Dogmas of the Church. It is my understanding, that Catholics must submit himself or herself to the Holy See because according to Catholic theology, the Holy See speaks for God.

Not quite accurate. Catechism isn't dogma. Catechism CONTAINS dogmata, but not every part of Catechism is dogma.
The bits about homosexuality and contraception aren't dogma. Those views do descent partially from dogmata, but denying them does not constitute haeresy, although it may lead to excommunication. Denying, let's say, the Trinity would be violating a dogma and a haeresy - that is separation from the Church.

[Coulee Croche]

And just so everyones on the same page, excommunication just means you cant participate in the sacraments. Someone whos excommunicated can still go to Church, participate in events, but are barred from Communion, until you go to confession.

[Cannabis Islands]

My understanding of Catholic theology is believing in all of the Dogmas of the Church. It is my understanding, that Catholics must submit himself or herself to the Holy See because according to Catholic theology, the Holy See speaks for God.

Not quite accurate. Catechism isn't dogma. Catechism CONTAINS dogmata, but not every part of Catechism is dogma.
The bits about homosexuality and contraception aren't dogma. Those views do descent partially from dogmata, but denying them does not constitute haeresy, although it may lead to excommunication. Denying, let's say, the Trinity would be violating a dogma and a haeresy - that is separation from the Church.

For me, I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. So, I'm separated. Scripture also states homosexuality is a sin. I for one cannot logically come to the conclusion that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible. Christianity calls for restraint and conformity in line with what God has said.

[Angleter]

Dogma is precisely the opposite of what you say it is - it is what Catholicism holds to be divinely-revealed truth. We can't separate that out from 'true faith'. I don't doubt for a moment that many Muslims, for example, have a sincere and strong faith in God and have come to believe what they believe by their faith and by the Holy Bible. That doesn't make them Catholics (good or otherwise). Likewise people who, however strong their faith in God, believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, or that the Old Testament can be jettisoned, or that the Mosaic Law must be kept in its entirety, or that the Real Presence is false, or that the Resurrection didn't literally happen, and so on.

Precisely my point. This is why told The why I said "we're done" to the Catholic Church about our relationship. Calling oneself "Catholic" while they fundamentally disagree with any of the church's dogmas it's purely out of culture. Look at the Irish vote on gay marriage.

I wouldn't point to that - I don't think one could call opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage as a civil institution a dogma, not least because of how the hierarchy approached that very referendum (and the divorce referendum twenty years prior). They opposed it and campaigned against it, but they didn't order their flock to vote 'No' like, for example, the Pope ordered Catholics to abstain in late 19th century Italian elections.

The polling data about belief in the dogma of transubstantiation, however...

[Cannabis Islands]

Precisely my point. This is why told The why I said "we're done" to the Catholic Church about our relationship. Calling oneself "Catholic" while they fundamentally disagree with any of the church's dogmas it's purely out of culture. Look at the Irish vote on gay marriage.

I wouldn't point to that - I don't think one could call opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage as a civil institution a dogma, not least because of how the hierarchy approached that very referendum (and the divorce referendum twenty years prior). They opposed it and campaigned against it, but they didn't order their flock to vote 'No' like, for example, the Pope ordered Catholics to abstain in late 19th century Italian elections.

The polling data about belief in the dogma of transubstantiation, however...

Again, I'm going to pull out a page of Ayn Rand's book and say " That is your guy's problem." I have no qualms about my status with the church. If the church wants to take more hardline position and start issuing excommunications, that is their prerogative. If the church wants to adopt friendly policies towards homosexuality or whatever issue, that is also their preorgative. Either way it will have no effect on my life.

It is up to faithful and orthodox Catholics to defend The Church from the heterodox and dissident Catholics, and self- declared apostates like me.

[Esternial]

Not quite accurate. Catechism isn't dogma. Catechism CONTAINS dogmata, but not every part of Catechism is dogma.
The bits about homosexuality and contraception aren't dogma. Those views do descent partially from dogmata, but denying them does not constitute haeresy, although it may lead to excommunication. Denying, let's say, the Trinity would be violating a dogma and a haeresy - that is separation from the Church.

For me, I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. So, I'm separated. Scripture also states homosexuality is a sin. I for one cannot logically come to the conclusion that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible. Christianity calls for restraint and conformity in line with what God has said.

Scripture states many things. Why should homosexuality be the one that crosses the line when so much else is acceptable?

[Cannabis Islands]

For me, I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. So, I'm separated. Scripture also states homosexuality is a sin. I for one cannot logically come to the conclusion that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible. Christianity calls for restraint and conformity in line with what God has said.

Scripture states many things. Why should homosexuality be the one that crosses the line when so much else is acceptable?

Because scripture clearly condemns it. Both in the old and new testaments. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that we sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

[Reverend Norv]

Scripture states many things. Why should homosexuality be the one that crosses the line when so much else is acceptable?

Because scripture clearly condemns it. Both in the old and new testaments. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that we sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

The Greek word that is taken to refer to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and 1 Timothy 1:10) is ἀρσενοκοῖται, which is transliterated to arsenokoitai. Until Paul, this word appears nowhere else - not only in the Bible, but indeed in all Greek manuscripts. The Greeks, unsurprisingly, had plenty of words for homosexuals. Paul could have used any of them. Instead, he made up a new word specifically for this context.

So what does it mean? It's a portmanteau of two words that mean "man" and "bed," so it clearly has something to do with same-sex relations. But it could refer to same-sex prostitution (especially, given the context within 1 Corinthians, temple prostitution), or to same-sex relations between men of radically different ages, or simply to male self-bedding - which is to say, masturbation (this was the most common interpretation until about 1550).

We don't know - because this is the only time the word ever appears. What we can know is that it surely does not refer simply to homosexuality, because if it did, Paul would hardly have to invent a new word in order to get his point across. What it does refer to is thoroughly unclear.

If you, or the Catholic Church, are looking for a Biblical justification for homophobia, you had better look harder.

[Cannabis Islands]

Because scripture clearly condemns it. Both in the old and new testaments. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that we sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

The Greek word that is taken to refer to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and 1 Timothy 1:10) is ἀρσενοκοῖται, which is transliterated to arsenokoitai. Until Paul, this word appears nowhere else - not only in the Bible, but indeed in all Greek manuscripts. The Greeks, unsurprisingly, had plenty of words for homosexuals. Paul could have used any of them. Instead, he made up a new word specifically for this context.

So what does it mean? It's a portmanteau of two words that mean "man" and "bed," so it clearly has something to do with same-sex relations. But it could refer to same-sex prostitution (especially, given the context within 1 Corinthians, temple prostitution), or with same-sex relations between men of radically different ages, or simply to male self-bedding - which is to say, masturbation (this was the most common interpretation until about 1550).

We don't know - because this is the only time the word ever appears. What we can know is that it surely does not refer simply to homosexuality, because if it did, Paul would hardly have to invent a new word in order to get his point across. What it does refer to is thoroughly unclear.

If you, or the Catholic Church, are looking for a Biblical justification for homophobia, you had better look harder.

I'm neither a Christian nor a homophobe but from what I read in the Bible, it clearly condemns homosexuality. It appears that the Christian God intended sex have a procreative purpos purpose. Anything else that deviates from that is a sin.

[Othelos]

does god care that much?

Yes.

so you speak for god, eh

[Reverend Norv]

The Greek word that is taken to refer to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and 1 Timothy 1:10) is ἀρσενοκοῖται, which is transliterated to arsenokoitai. Until Paul, this word appears nowhere else - not only in the Bible, but indeed in all Greek manuscripts. The Greeks, unsurprisingly, had plenty of words for homosexuals. Paul could have used any of them. Instead, he made up a new word specifically for this context.

So what does it mean? It's a portmanteau of two words that mean "man" and "bed," so it clearly has something to do with same-sex relations. But it could refer to same-sex prostitution (especially, given the context within 1 Corinthians, temple prostitution), or with same-sex relations between men of radically different ages, or simply to male self-bedding - which is to say, masturbation (this was the most common interpretation until about 1550).

We don't know - because this is the only time the word ever appears. What we can know is that it surely does not refer simply to homosexuality, because if it did, Paul would hardly have to invent a new word in order to get his point across. What it does refer to is thoroughly unclear.

If you, or the Catholic Church, are looking for a Biblical justification for homophobia, you had better look harder.

I'm neither a Christian nor a homophobe but from what I read in the Bible, it clearly condemns homosexuality. It appears that the Christian God intended sex have a procreative purpos purpose. Anything else that deviates from that is a sin.

Without chapter and verse, that's no kind of valid theology. I've shown how the Bible, in two instances, is anything but clear in its treatment of homosexuality. If you want to make the claim that the Scriptures are unambiguous in asserting the primacy of procreation in Christian sexuality, I advise you to find some more citations.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Greek word that is taken to refer to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and 1 Timothy 1:10) is ἀρσενοκοῖται, which is transliterated to arsenokoitai. Until Paul, this word appears nowhere else - not only in the Bible, but indeed in all Greek manuscripts. The Greeks, unsurprisingly, had plenty of words for homosexuals. Paul could have used any of them. Instead, he made up a new word specifically for this context.

So what does it mean? It's a portmanteau of two words that mean "man" and "bed," so it clearly has something to do with same-sex relations. But it could refer to same-sex prostitution (especially, given the context within 1 Corinthians, temple prostitution), or with same-sex relations between men of radically different ages, or simply to male self-bedding - which is to say, masturbation (this was the most common interpretation until about 1550).

We don't know - because this is the only time the word ever appears. What we can know is that it surely does not refer simply to homosexuality, because if it did, Paul would hardly have to invent a new word in order to get his point across. What it does refer to is thoroughly unclear.

If you, or the Catholic Church, are looking for a Biblical justification for homophobia, you had better look harder.

I'm neither a Christian nor a homophobe but from what I read in the Bible, it clearly condemns homosexuality. It appears that the Christian God intended sex have a procreative purpos purpose. Anything else that deviates from that is a sin.

Small correction - it appears that the people who wrote the scripture intended sex to have a procreative purpose.

But then, they were a tiny cult, and all their policies were geared towards that - it's all about increasing the number of people in your cult.

[Diopolis]

Catholic dogma is very clear that marriage can only occur between one man and one women, neither of whom is already married, and that a marriage is indissoluble.
Disbelieving that does make you less of a Catholic, because it is a part of Catholic dogma.

Dogma's imposed by mortal men mean nothing. It's your faith that should trump above all else, not vice-versa.

Think you've got your priorities messed up.

A man who adheres to Catholic dogma's but hold no true faith can pass as a Catholic for you,

No, he can't. Faith is a requirement.

but you'd have no qualms excluding those that don't adhere to one of these dogma's, even though their faith is much stronger.

Yes. I would.

A very narrow-minded approach to religion and faith as a whole, but do what you will. Your word doesn't really mean more than another devout believer in God, even if they don't believe in all the dogma's mankind has concocted around Him. Might not fit the traditionalist view on religion, but frankly most proper Catholics I know aren't of the traditionalist kind, so it begs the question if these kind of beliefs are still needed/wanted. You need only God and the Holy Bible.

My word in itself doesn't mean any more than the word of any other Catholic because there is no magisterium behind it, as I have recieved no orders from the church.

[Diopolis]

I'm going to go out and actually defend my opponent here. The reason is because the Church says that homosexual sex is a misuse of God's "gift". The church primary purpose of marriage is the creation of new life through natural means. Since homosexual couples cannot conceive children "naturally", it is something that to be condemned for the "common good".

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Yes.