Forums | MacLife

Again, show me quotes, references etc from a standard source, not just blah blah blah.

I really didn't want to have to add to this poop trap but here we go.
From the catechism (Part One: Chapter III: Article 9: Paragraph 4:I:The teaching offce)

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys tis infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithfull - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibiility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium." above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposite of divine Revelation

I hope that has cleared up that gripe. To see most the councils, look at the index of citations of your catechism.

assassin_bill said:

"...the Pope reaffirmed the fundamental dogma that homosexuality was a sin..."  Exactly right assassin_bill; this is why the "Homosexual Agenda" criticizes it so much; the Vatican's position is one of reaffirmation of basic dogma of Christianity; which the "Agenda" wishes changed. The "Agenda" wants the stigma of sin removed from the immoral act; something that will never happen, despite the inroads that the "Agenda" has made with those of little faith and weak moral basis. I am so glad that the Vatican and Pope John Paul have stood fast against this latest threat against Christianity...

Camp David

What exactly is this "Agenda" you constantly speak of? Who are they and where is it headquartered? Who is their leader? You seem to know a lot about it, are you involved in it or do you receive bulletins from them, having signed up on some mailing list? How exactly does one join this "Agenda": how do they recruit their members? Is it a secret society and if so, how do you know about it, it's goals aims, plans and desires? How does it work - do they vote on things, are there levels to it, is there a chain of command, how do they get so organized? Is that the official proper form of address: "Agenda" in quotes as opposed to just Agenda? Do they have a website?

There are so many questions and you seem to be such an expert, I hope you can clarify these things.

Don't worry, it seems as if we're very unorganized.

[Insert cheap joke about gays always being neat and organized here]

Hmmm. Is CD ignoring this thread now?

An awful lot of 'thread ignoring' goes on around these parts...



Blah...pet peeve of mine.

now, here's something Jesus said in the NT...

'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman

Offline

 

#161 2003-08-21 1:39 am

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

OH NO HERE IT COMES!!!!!!
part one of a long ass series of annotations...

Pope John Paul II has felt it necessary to go beyond his critical statements of preceding months against legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriages. He has now issued a document titled ?Consideration Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons? that will ?outline a course of action for politicians and other lay people to oppose extending the rights accorded traditional couples.? The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the ultra-conservative watchdog of Roman Catholic dogma, prepared this document. It is a clear declaration of war on the gay population of the world.

Ok just to squavel about this remark. The pope considers homosexuality a sin. Isn't it his job to write encyclicals warning about the modern evils of sin. Second of all, the pope couldn't care about the political stance he is taking. He is completely void of any political slant and only cares about where an issue is in regards to morality. Those why try and classify the pope and true catholics    into one of the modern parties will be extremely disappointed on the evidence.

The church in the Middle Ages,as a way to exercise further control over people's lives, constructed the institution of marriage. In doing so, it was named a Holy Sacrament, and it has been treated as such ever since. The church does not "marry" people; it "witnesses" the exchange of vows and blesses the union.

Right of the bat he tries to make a fallible argument by trying to attack the validity of marriage as a sacrament. He is mistaken on the beginnings of marriage in the church just as the founders of the reformation were. It sounds that if he doesn't think it is a sacrament, perhaps he should be in another church who disagrees with the validity of sacraments, eh? If we look at the institution of the sacrament, we find that it appears right in the second chapter of genesis.

18: The Lord God said: "It is not good for the man to be  alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. (after God made animals which weren't suitable, an argument against bestiality, he set forth to creating women)   
21: So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

Now, this established the sacrament of marriage in THE CHURCH. Now, the time old counter to this argument is that just because the pieces fit doesn't mean diddley. So shall we go to the mission of man in that he was to "Be fruitful and multiply."(Gen. 1:28) Ok, now if God wanted man to go out and be sexually fulfilled, he would have said be have fun. The doctrine that stems from being fruitful and multiplying is that true happiness is a state in which one fulfills his creative purpose of being fruitful. To be fruitful, man must live a life of moral values (hard work, determination). This creative purpose also applies to man's sexuality where to truly be happy he must strive to bear the fruits of sexual activities. This of course is creating life, which is also why we were created in God's image and likeness, so it means that the only activities which will be true to our mission is a sexual activity with a partner who is capable of bearing a child (a.k.a. not a homosexual relation). This also applies to the efforts to stop the beautiful fruits of procreation by contraceptives, but that is a different post...

Now, it's time for those of other faiths to bring up a 500 year old debate which equates to nothing in the eyes of Catholics who look to the traditional interpretation of scripture by the magisterium as a source of truth, and not the relativistic slaughters of the protestant faith.

(perhaps this inflammatory writing will pad this forum out to 15 pages, eh)

P.S. I have a funny feeling our B.A. will make me start upon the aformentioned 500yr debate

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#162 2003-08-21 1:47 am

bratboy

laden with emotion

Royal Wombat

From: Austin, Texas

Registered: 2003-01-19

Posts: 34106

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Second of all, the pope couldn't care about the political stance he is taking. He is completely void of any political slant and only cares about where an issue is in regards to morality. Those why try and classify the pope and true catholics    into one of the modern parties will be extremely disappointed on the evidence.

"Modern parties" of what?

I also see the claim of "completely void of any political slant" to be impossible for you to prove.

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman

Offline

 

#163 2003-08-21 1:55 am

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

If you look at the Bishops stance, it is obvious to see that he is an ultra liberal using the word conservative, with the full conotation of a right wing wacko. Of course both parties equally hate the Pope in this country: the republicans because of the war and death penalty; the democrats because of birth control and homosexuality. I could list thousands more, but that would be too time consuming and detraction from the debate. Sorry for putting this inflamatory remark. Let's stick to the debate on true sexuality please...

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#164 2003-08-21 2:10 am

bratboy

laden with emotion

Royal Wombat

From: Austin, Texas

Registered: 2003-01-19

Posts: 34106

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

If you look at the Bishops stance, it is obvious to see that he is an ultra liberal using the word conservative, with the full conotation of a right wing wacko. Of course both parties equally hate the Pope in this country: the republicans because of the war and death penalty; the democrats because of birth control and homosexuality. I could list thousands more, but that would be too time consuming and detraction from the debate. Sorry for putting this inflamatory remark. Let's stick to the debate on true sexuality please...

Well that's fine...if you're assuming that all things 'political' involve either democrats or republicans.

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman

Offline

 

#165 2003-08-21 7:23 am

Camp David

Banned

Registered: 2003-04-11

Posts: 6065

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

KingFred:

The last time I wrote in detail on specific references to the Agenda's mission and my own feelings, I was thrown off this board for two weeks... I did not think it fair but such is life... see the title of this thread; i.e., "Vatican propaganda"; it was obviously begun and started by a member of the "Agenda" in order to cast dispersion and hurl insult upon a religious practice and its laws: Roman Catholic Church. My Church!

I will use the "Agenda" as a synonym for Satan's handiwork; you can take this mean homosexuality, and the lobby thereto and therefore and its proponents; both statewide and national, but bear in mind that according to the Catholic Church (my religion); the practice of this Agenda is a sin, and it is the duty of every Catholic to speak out against it... clear enough?

Camp David

---

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard." Habemus Papem!

Offline

 

#166 2003-08-21 9:49 am

kb5zhh

Large Outsider (native)

From: Baator

Registered: 2002-08-13

Posts: 14066

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

OH NO HERE IT COMES!!!!!!
part one of a long ass series of annotations...

Pope John Paul II has felt it necessary to go beyond his critical statements of preceding months against legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriages. He has now issued a document titled ?Consideration Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons? that will ?outline a course of action for politicians and other lay people to oppose extending the rights accorded traditional couples.? The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the ultra-conservative watchdog of Roman Catholic dogma, prepared this document. It is a clear declaration of war on the gay population of the world.

Ok just to squavel about this remark. The pope considers homosexuality a sin. Isn't it his job to write encyclicals warning about the modern evils of sin. Second of all, the pope couldn't care about the political stance he is taking. He is completely void of any political slant and only cares about where an issue is in regards to morality. Those why try and classify the pope and true catholics    into one of the modern parties will be extremely disappointed on the evidence.

Just as bad, Catholics don't quite match the modern theological categories (Modernist/Fundamentalist).  Currently, the Pope does mostly stay out of "politics". But historically, that's not true.  Also, I disagree with the Catholic Church staying out of "politics" completely.  For example, the pope occasionally makes statements against capitalism, because it can leave some of the poor behind.  I would like to see instead of the occasional comment, a practical proposal presented.

Next, its an old comment, but still illustrates the point.  The Church's condemnation of the heliocentric worldview shows the Pope making a statement that is just plain wrong.  It was tied in with "politics" in that the Church was trying to hold itself together after loosing the north to Luther, and Galileo was a jerk, but still, the pope in making these statements historically is a fallible person.

The church in the Middle Ages,as a way to exercise further control over people's lives, constructed the institution of marriage. In doing so, it was named a Holy Sacrament, and it has been treated as such ever since. The church does not "marry" people; it "witnesses" the exchange of vows and blesses the union.

Right of the bat he tries to make a fallible argument by trying to attack the validity of marriage as a sacrament. He is mistaken on the beginnings of marriage in the church just as the founders of the reformation were. It sounds that if he doesn't think it is a sacrament, perhaps he should be in another church who disagrees with the validity of sacraments, eh? If we look at the institution of the sacrament, we find that it appears right in the second chapter of genesis.

In most of the protestant world, marriage is a blessed event, but not a sacrament.  If marriage is a sacrament, then it can only exist within the church, and yet it has existed for a long time before the church.  It seems to be a common human event.  What the guy is getting at is that the church decided to take marriage into the church and legislate how it could occur. 

18: The Lord God said: "It is not good for the man to be  alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. (after God made animals which weren't suitable, an argument against bestiality, he set forth to creating women)   
21: So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

Now, this established the sacrament of marriage in THE CHURCH. Now, the time old counter to this argument is that just because the pieces fit doesn't mean diddley. So shall we go to the mission of man in that he was to "Be fruitful and multiply."(Gen. 1:28) Ok, now if God wanted man to go out and be sexually fulfilled, he would have said be have fun. The doctrine that stems from being fruitful and multiplying is that true happiness is a state in which one fulfills his creative purpose of being fruitful. To be fruitful, man must live a life of moral values (hard work, determination). This creative purpose also applies to man's sexuality where to truly be happy he must strive to bear the fruits of sexual activities. This of course is creating life, which is also why we were created in God's image and likeness, so it means that the only activities which will be true to our mission is a sexual activity with a partner who is capable of bearing a child (a.k.a. not a homosexual relation). This also applies to the efforts to stop the beautiful fruits of procreation by contraceptives, but that is a different post...

Now, it's time for those of other faiths to bring up a 500 year old debate which equates to nothing in the eyes of Catholics who look to the traditional interpretation of scripture by the magisterium as a source of truth, and not the relativistic slaughters of the protestant faith.

(perhaps this inflammatory writing will pad this forum out to 15 pages, eh)

P.S. I have a funny feeling our B.A. will make me start upon the aformentioned 500yr debate

Well, in the sense that I have a strong personal opinion that is somewhat researched regarding matters religious, and like to sound off, and feel that I have something to offer to others because of my unique take on religion, sure lets go into the debate.  I presume the debate to which you are referring is the 95 theses and not something like should the queen of Spain fund the trip of that crazy Columbus guy right?

Ok, regarding the Genesis scripture, I offer two comments.  First, science is really really confident that the story of creation as in the opening of Genesis did not happen.  Humans came about through evolution and not divine action.  There was no Adam and Eve in history.  I have not read the exact wording, but I do recall that the Pope has issued a statement that there is no problem with evolution.  I think he's wrong, because of the stuff I'm going into.  Ok, if humans were not created by God as male and female for the purpose of union, then that undercuts the logic of your argument.  If that story is only a metaphor, how seriously can we take it? 

Second, people who believe in the be fruitful and multiply, in my opinion, are evil people who should be shot to preserve the world.  That logic makes sense in either an infinite world, or one in which you are struggling to survive.  If we keep our multiplying up at the current rate, in about 300 years, the world will have to be as densely packed as Manhattan to fit everyone in.  Think about that.  Is that really what God wants for our world?  Is that the City on the Hill to be a beacon for the world?  Can we really feed everyone in that sort of situation, as the only available space will be on top of the buildings?  And then where will the people who continue to multiply be put?  The Earth is finite.  If we are to follow "God's Teaching" on this, we will fill this globe with a mass of people that cannot be housed, fed, no real method to process sewage other than as fertilizer to grow the plants for our ever widening mouths.  If that is God's will, then booboo God.

Anyway, the above undercut the assumptions upon which your argument is based.  Now with the actual content.

How does God creating man and woman make for marriage being a sacrament in the Church?  (I'll admit that this is probably mostly about my ignorance of Church teaching, but as I'm not a Catholic, I'm not bothered by my ignorance of detailed dogma)  Does this mean that the children of adam and eve were never married?  It sounds to me like that Catholic Church just decided that marriage was a sacrament, and then it was.  Why does God ripping someone's rib out make marriage a sacrament?

Even assuming that God wants procreation, that has other implications.  The traditional response is well then, can people who cannot have children marry?  The Church allows this, but that is a clear violation of "God's Will"  I honestly have no ideal what the response to this is, so please do answer this.

---

It's a paradox of how sharply dull I am.

Offline

 

#167 2003-08-21 12:47 pm

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Ok, first, I don't know wether creation happened or not, nor do I really think it is relevant to the point of the Genesis story. The story was a divine revelation about the nature of humanity. For those who say it says seven days(168 hours exactly), I remind them of the story in which God made the sun stay out for 2 days. What is a day to God? Evolution could of happened or could of not. I have heard of studies sugesting that light is slowing down (this could explain creationism, but this is a different post). So as stated before, the story is over the nature of humanity describing true purpose and fall, not an exact account.

Secondly, you're point on the increase of world population is moot when it comes to a moral debate because the ends don't justify the means. So, if the ends of population control are good, it doesn't mean it justifies the means of ignoring the creative purpose. If we held to this line of reasoning, the nuking of Hiroshima wouldn't be the great evil that it was. Also, I think God will eventually provide for his people. I note this because although it looks like a bleak future, advances in science and technology could help us in our future population problems. These advances are just another way we can bear more fruitfullness out of our work.

Thirdly, on your question of barren couples.
The question here is not one of wether the exact act is wrong by nature of creation. It is foreseen that God has a natural way of providing us with specialized means to do good. Sometimes our physical nature dictates what can and can't be in a procreative act, so there is no wrong being occured in couples who are barren as long as they leave themselves open to the possibility of creation. Also, the act of procreation in the church is a question of being true to the nature of humanity. We are naturally able to produce, so steps such as invitro, abortion, and contraception are abominations to the nature of human beings. Humanae Vitae (a great encyclical read) details this argument's whole structure.

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#168 2003-08-21 1:25 pm

kb5zhh

Large Outsider (native)

From: Baator

Registered: 2002-08-13

Posts: 14066

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Ok, first, I don't know wether creation happened or not, nor do I really think it is relevant to the point of the Genesis story. The story was a divine revelation about the nature of humanity. For those who say it says seven days(168 hours exactly), I remind them of the story in which God made the sun stay out for 2 days. What is a day to God? Evolution could of happened or could of not. I have heard of studies sugesting that light is slowing down (this could explain creationism, but this is a different post). So as stated before, the story is over the nature of humanity describing true purpose and fall, not an exact account.

If it is a story about our nature that is true then great.  I have a problem with the genesis story because it does not seem to be a good example of humanities past mythologized.  If the garden of eden story never happened, how is the concept of original sin a good metaphor for the human condition?

Secondly, you're point on the increase of world population is moot when it comes to a moral debate because the ends don't justify the means. So, if the ends of population control are good, it doesn't mean it justifies the means of ignoring the creative purpose. If we held to this line of reasoning, the nuking of Hiroshima wouldn't be the great evil that it was. Also, I think God will eventually provide for his people. I note this because although it looks like a bleak future, advances in science and technology could help us in our future population problems. These advances are just another way we can bear more fruitfullness out of our work.

I grant that the ends do not justify the means.  Raping women because the bible says be fruitful and multiply is still bad.  But to anyone who's head is so far up their ass as to not get this, in ~ 2000 year, if we keep "being fruitful and multiplying" we will have to convert the entire mass of the earth in to humans.  Even assuming that we can do that, what do we do after that?  Saying God will provide sounds good, but I think the evidence is against it.  When has God ever provided?  Sure didn't provide for his people in any of the holocausts that have happened.  Why would he come down and save us then either?  From a technological level, yes I think we could barely keep up our rate of population increase for many years.  But it cannot happen indefinitely.  In about 500 years, we hit a point at which we would have to convert the total energy of the sun on earth to feeding everyone.  Technology cannot create more energy than exists.  At that point we will have to start picking who can live and reproduce and who cannot.  Yes God could suddenly decide to take care of us in our foolishness and provide more sunlight or some other miraculous event.  But if He were to be so caring then, why does he not move to help the starving people of the world today? A God that does not follow an ethical standard is no God to be worshiped.

Thirdly, on your question of barren couples.
The question here is not one of wether the exact act is wrong by nature of creation. It is foreseen that God has a natural way of providing us with specialized means to do good. Sometimes our physical nature dictates what can and can't be in a procreative act, so there is no wrong being occured in couples who are barren as long as they leave themselves open to the possibility of creation. Also, the act of procreation in the church is a question of being true to the nature of humanity. We are naturally able to produce, so steps such as invitro, abortion, and contraception are abominations to the nature of human beings. Humanae Vitae (a great encyclical read) details this argument's whole structure.

I never like questions about "naturally" occurring human events because they seem to be based on "what I think the world should be like."  Because I dismiss the genesis event as untrue historically, it can shed no light as to what happens "naturally".  Naturally, as in what happens in nature, we have a whole different range of sexual patterns from extreme monogamy(some birds), extreme orgy (pretty much all plants), self reproduction and genetic engineering of self(bacteria and protozoa), polygamy, and homosexuality(humans aren't the only ones who like it, dolphins seem to prefer "oral" (really blowhole) sex with same sex partners to regular sex).  Nature pretty much does anything and everything.  The "nature" of humanity seems to be a mixture of rough monogamy with a preference towards heterosexuality.  That is most guys like girls and mostly pick a single girl to be with and most girls like guys and tend to pick a single guy to be with.  To say that our nature is something other than what happens naturally seems rather strange.  Now, I'm not saying that adultery is ok because it happens naturally, just pointing out that if you want to base your arguments on nature, you'd better figure out what human nature really is.

I find it interesting that barren couples can find a what for creation, but homosexual couples cannot.  Heck, with all the parentless kids in the world, letting gay couples adopt would be an excellent method of "sharing in creation" and making the world a better place at the same time.  I find that having lost of babies is not a good, I see it as a selfish sin (see the above on world population)

---

It's a paradox of how sharply dull I am.

Offline

 

#169 2003-08-21 1:33 pm

bratboy

laden with emotion

Royal Wombat

From: Austin, Texas

Registered: 2003-01-19

Posts: 34106

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Thirdly, on your question of barren couples.
The question here is not one of wether the exact act is wrong by nature of creation. It is foreseen that God has a natural way of providing us with specialized means to do good. Sometimes our physical nature dictates what can and can't be in a procreative act, so there is no wrong being occured in couples who are barren as long as they leave themselves open to the possibility of creation. Also, the act of procreation in the church is a question of being true to the nature of humanity. We are naturally able to produce, so steps such as invitro, abortion, and contraception are abominations to the nature of human beings. Humanae Vitae (a great encyclical read) details this argument's whole structure.

What is the place for homosexuals in the world then, in your opinion?

How should they conduct their lives?

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman

Offline

 

#170 2003-08-21 2:16 pm

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

If it is a story about our nature that is true then great.  I have a problem with the genesis story because it does not seem to be a good example of humanities past mythologized.  If the garden of eden story never happened, how is the concept of original sin a good metaphor for the human condition?

Note Bene: Ok, now just to make a point. This is exactly why Catholics accept the traditional teachings of the magisterium. When you have no definitive source to vindicate or repudiate a claim, you get so broad a base of interpretations that it turns into a relativistic reading of just a book. However, since I'm not a blind Catholic who believes just because he's told it's the teaching, I will banter with you (please not this is not ad hominem argumentation, but more just merely a point of observation).

First, I should of emphasized divine a little more. This is from God to the people to describe the truth of their creation. Just because you disagree with it's "historical" merits doesn't mean that the theological merits of the description are void. For this reason I stand by my claims of the earlier arguments and ask for a debate on morality, not ethics.

I grant that the ends do not justify the means.  Raping women because the bible says be fruitful and multiply is still bad.  But to anyone who's head is so far up their ass as to not get this, in ~ 2000 year, if we keep "being fruitful and multiplying" we will have to convert the entire mass of the earth in to humans.  Even assuming that we can do that, what do we do after that?  Saying God will provide sounds good, but I think the evidence is against it.  When has God ever provided?  Sure didn't provide for his people in any of the holocausts that have happened.  Why would he come down and save us then either?  From a technological level, yes I think we could barely keep up our rate of population increase for many years.  But it cannot happen indefinitely.  In about 500 years, we hit a point at which we would have to convert the total energy of the sun on earth to feeding everyone.  Technology cannot create more energy than exists.  At that point we will have to start picking who can live and reproduce and who cannot.  Yes God could suddenly decide to take care of us in our foolishness and provide more sunlight or some other miraculous event.  But if He were to be so caring then, why does he not move to help the starving people of the world today? A God that does not follow an ethical standard is no God to be worshiped.

I note the But in red because it seems that you're defying Aristotles rules of argument with something cannot be and be at the same time. But as you progress you seem to try and make some valid points against my previous argument, so I shall continue with these. Saying God will provide was a little of a catch phrase, sorry for the use (also as a catholic, Holicost didn't include "God's people", that's Old Israel in the Christian tradition (if you read your NT) unless you were referring to humanity). What I probably should have said was that if we work towards doing the right to our human nature that this will prevail against the entropy of the world. This means that even with sin, humans are meant to prevail in the end against death and sin. This is why we say we are building the Kingdom of God on earth (look at the NT teachings of Christ). This means that when we bear the fruits and keep to our creative purpose that Christ predicted the good will prevail. Now I know this is a little moot to your materialistic line of logic so I will state this. Bearing the fruits of science we could overcome these problems. There are questions arising in Physics of cold fusion and plenty of other new oportunities for growth, so being pessimistic to the outlook is simply making this a matter of opinion on the future (which we have no definitive clue of, so this entire line of logic about the future is fallible).

I never like questions about "naturally" occurring human events because they seem to be based on "what I think the world should be like."  Because I dismiss the genesis event as untrue historically, it can shed no light as to what happens "naturally".  Naturally, as in what happens in nature, we have a whole different range of sexual patterns from extreme monogamy(some birds), extreme orgy (pretty much all plants), self reproduction and genetic engineering of self(bacteria and protozoa), polygamy, and homosexuality(humans aren't the only ones who like it, dolphins seem to prefer "oral" (really blowhole) sex with same sex partners to regular sex).  Nature pretty much does anything and everything.  The "nature" of humanity seems to be a mixture of rough monogamy with a preference towards heterosexuality.  That is most guys like girls and mostly pick a single girl to be with and most girls like guys and tend to pick a single guy to be with.  To say that our nature is something other than what happens naturally seems rather strange.  Now, I'm not saying that adultery is ok because it happens naturally, just pointing out that if you want to base your arguments on nature, you'd better figure out what human nature really is.

I find it interesting that barren couples can find a what for creation, but homosexual couples cannot.  Heck, with all the parentless kids in the world, letting gay couples adopt would be an excellent method of "sharing in creation" and making the world a better place at the same time.  I find that having lost of babies is not a good, I see it as a selfish sin (see the above on world population)

If you have noticed, I haven't answered your question on original sin fully yet because it applies now. The writer of Genesis had the revelation that something wasn't right with nature. The way nature should be and the way it is are two different things (just ask any socialist). This sin extended into all of creation (you'll noticed there wasn't a lion killing humans in Genesis). We are given a perfect vision of what the world should of been, and why it isn't. Does this mean that because it isn't we should stop striving for perfection and just forget morality (seems like you're argument)? By nature, I mean exactly the true pure nature of Genesis was presented. This means that we are to be take a woman as a spouse because we were both created for eachother. I'm sorry if the Bible isn't your view, but it is The Bible and this is a Christian debate.

P.S. Good reply. Let's keep the scholastic type of debate going...

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#171 2003-08-21 2:26 pm

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

What is the place for homosexuals in the world then, in your opinion?

How should they conduct their lives?

This is a good question. I'm not denying that there is a tendancy to homosexuality within our natures--just like there is to sin--just like I have towards premarital sex. Despite all the weight I have put on marriage, THIS IS NOT THE END OF LIFE. The true end of life is to serve, know, and seek God, wether you be gay or not. With God, one can overcome the problems of sin, and maybey even reverse their evil nature (born agains believe this one). I know that some can not do this, so they should focus on the true end and find ways to serve in other good works. Some who are not even homosexual decide to forgo marriage for a celibant life of dedication to God in other works (i.e. heterosexually incined monks and priest).

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#172 2003-08-21 3:48 pm

kb5zhh

Large Outsider (native)

From: Baator

Registered: 2002-08-13

Posts: 14066

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

A few notes before I begin.  I am a follower of the teachings and examples of Jesus.  I believe that modern christianity is guilt of "bibliolatry", to borrow a word from Peter Gomes.  That is, the bible is presented as being on par with God, and treated with the same level of worship that God alone deserves.  So, when you say something like the bible says X, I don't really care because I only really care about what God has to say.  Related to that, I don't see the bible as a being divinely written.  I believe that the bible has errors, omissions, personal political agenda, and a whole host of things that are not of God.  I do believe that the bible is divinely inspired, in that the writers has contact with a transcendent truth, but every person sees and interprets these experiences with their own views.  When the leaders of various early churches conflicted, each believed that his view was correct.  But some "won" and others "lost" and the winners got to say what stuff made it into the bible and the gnostics and other views were removed.

Because of this, to get at "truth" in the bible, a critical eye is needed to determine what from the bible comes from Jesus and what is from various opinions of the church leaders.  So when I reject things like the genesis story, it is because I see those things as versions of personal opinions and not solely of the divine.  This is the "heresy" of modernism, but then that's where I am.  In the modernist tradition, there is a methodology of establishing truth and fact.  I would argue that every tradition has this, it is just within modernism that we continuously acknowledge this interpretation.

Anyway, back to the main debate.

What is the theological meaning of the garden of eden story if it has no equivalent to human history?  How can we talk about the fall from grace if we were never in a state of grace?  I say that the theological statements should relate to what actually happened.  Certainly you would not argue that the story of Jesus should not be understood as a theological revelation.  One of the major points is that Jesus really did live as a human, suffer as a human, and died a human death in reality.  So when I reject the theological story of creation, it is because it seems to be foreign to our true history.

So if it does not make sense to say that God created us male and female for the purpose of companionship, we cannot base any arguments on how we should relate to each other on it.   I don't like the idea of separating theology from history, as though the two are unrelated.  Certainly no one would take the truth of 3rd corinthians seriously as we know someone forged it.  I don't see the truth of anyone's interpretation of a revelation as absolute truth.  I think we need to consider all revealed truth and see if it is meaningful to us.

btw, what's the difference between morality and ethics?  is morality related to what God wants, where as ethics are about what we as people decide?

On population expansion.  I don't see what you mean by defying Aristotle's rules of debate.  I don't know what you mean.

Lets see, I tend to see God's people as everyone, ie, inclusive.  Even if you want to see it as only catholics, There are lots of cases of only Catholics getting wiped out.  The boxer rebellion had a nasty slaughter of Catholics, HIV and hunger are devastating the Catholic church in Africa.  There have been multiple holocausts in history, we just hear about the one in Germany.

Anyway, sorry you can't beat entropy.  Not without a miracle.  Assuming no miracles, just basic rules of physics, we cannot keep up our rate of reproduction for more than about 500-600 years.  We will run out of space to house everyone, energy to grow food, and free space to deal with our waste.  Advances in science can make sure that we can get as close as possible, but this is the theoretical maximum.  This is not based on what our current technology can do, this is assuming that we can do everything perfectly.  Think about it this way.  Our population is doubling say once every 30 years.  Think about your house, or where ever you live.  Imagine that every 30 years, you divide it in half.  How long will it take for the space to be uninhabitable.  Yes there is a lot more space out there and we can build houses up, etc.  But there is a limit to what we can do and we are working on hitting it relatively soon.  Exponential growth is never sustainable ever.  Now all bets are off if we do have a miracle, as by definition, those break all the rules.  But I tend to see God as wanting us to learn how to take care of ourselves on our own.

Following on that, yes I believe in the Kingdom of the here and now.  I think the evidence shows that Jesus really only taught about an Earthly Kingdom.  I am trying to create/see this kingdom present in our work.  Indeed, this is one of the big things about the modernist camp, the emphasis on the social gospel.  We want to create a world of justice and love.  Its a very optimistic view of the world and also requires a lot of personal responsibility.  Along with that is a de-emphasis on heaven.  I personally do not believe that Jesus ever said anything about an eschatological end to history, just an apocalyptic understanding.

In relation to that, we see the ideal world as an earthly event that we want to work towards.  Some of the anti-globalism protests relate to this.  Certainly the liberation theology movements in the third world relates to this idea.  That's why I worked in africa for a while, and why I am going into teaching.  Its why I vote democratic, as I think they are the party that somewhat cares about justice.  Now modernists have a different morality.  Most of us see anti-homosexuality as an unjust, unloving system that needs to be reformed.  I think that the SF bathhouses were sinful.  But a monogamous, loving, committed pair of people should be supported by both society and the church, regardless of the gender of the two people.

Speaking for all modernists christians, its not that we want to throw away morality, its just that we have a different ideal that we live for.

---

It's a paradox of how sharply dull I am.

Offline

 

#173 2003-08-21 5:01 pm

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Because of this, to get at "truth" in the bible, a critical eye is needed to determine what from the bible comes from Jesus and what is from various opinions of the church leaders. So when I reject things like the genesis story, it is because I see those things as versions of personal opinions and not solely of the divine. This is the "heresy" of modernism, but then that's where I am. In the modernist tradition, there is a methodology of establishing truth and fact. I would argue that every tradition has this, it is just within modernism that we continuously acknowledge this interpretation.

Hey, I was right at my first stab as to your view. Hmmm, I guess it's all those years of good Catholic schooling, or that my Junior year high school Christian Scripture teacher was a modernist (but he would never admit to it). I am genuinely intrigued by your methodology. Is it J.E.P.D. traditions reading? If so then this debate should be over the the source of truth in scripture. Modernism is one of the reasons I switched out of the aforementioned high school. I don't think of the bible in the "Bibleology" sense. I can see the logic in the traditions understanding, but I think that it's like reading into a book too much with the light of A.D. heresies. Also, I think that this understanding ruins the truth of a concise message in the bible by making it's authors adversaries instead of presenting a complete thought of what God is trying to say. I love Catholicism because it's teachings present the bible in a thematic way, where the same points from Genesis appear throughout the bible and the validity of the authors is intact. Anyway, I would like to hear more about how the modernist interpret scripture, so I can present a counter debate.

As for the world population argument. Physics is an ever-changing field. We are discovering new and unthought of things in quantum physics. Also, the universe is infinite, and ideas that seem like science fiction can be implemented. I remember that before the 50's the thought of space travel was absurd. Perhaps, mars colonization is not that far fetched. With ideas like this, we see that the universe is infinite and so is our potential. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and conserve now, but I think crimes against human nature are all to often diminished. With the advent of invetro, we are seeing cloning opening up an even more unnatural evil than ever before. We should also not leave out the possibility for miracles. I know I sound all to much like a Catholic poster child, but if Christ can be raised, I'm not all to skeptical to entropy not being destroyed sometime.

I commend you for your efforts in Africa. All to often, I see christians who could care less about any sort of good works and just pay lip service to Jesus. I also agree exactly with your holocosts point. I see to often that this applies only to Jews. Judaism toughts the slogan to never forget forget the Holocost so it doesn't happen again, and meanwhile, africans are dying in the thousands--not to mention paul pots ordeal.

Well, anyway, here's to your honesty, the Kingdom of God, and leading a good life.

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

#174 2003-08-21 5:16 pm

bratboy

laden with emotion

Royal Wombat

From: Austin, Texas

Registered: 2003-01-19

Posts: 34106

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

What is the place for homosexuals in the world then, in your opinion?

How should they conduct their lives?

This is a good question. I'm not denying that there is a tendancy to homosexuality within our natures--just like there is to sin--just like I have towards premarital sex. Despite all the weight I have put on marriage, THIS IS NOT THE END OF LIFE. The true end of life is to serve, know, and seek God, wether you be gay or not. With God, one can overcome the problems of sin, and maybey even reverse their evil nature (born agains believe this one). I know that some can not do this, so they should focus on the true end and find ways to serve in other good works. Some who are not even homosexual decide to forgo marriage for a celibant life of dedication to God in other works (i.e. heterosexually incined monks and priest).

I'm not a Christian, however, so I think I'll pass on the life of 'celibacy.'



It just gets old hearing about the horrible sins I've committed when I have neither hurt nor infringed upon the rights of anyone...and I'm certainly not about to force 'change' (read:  bullsmurf) upon myself to make others happy.

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman

Offline

 

#175 2003-08-21 5:31 pm

assassin_bill

International Bitch Maker

From: (__

Registered: 2003-08-06

Posts: 1293

Website

Re: Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

What is the place for homosexuals in the world then, in your opinion?

How should they conduct their lives?

This is a good question. I'm not denying that there is a tendancy to homosexuality within our natures--just like there is to sin--just like I have towards premarital sex. Despite all the weight I have put on marriage, THIS IS NOT THE END OF LIFE. The true end of life is to serve, know, and seek God, wether you be gay or not. With God, one can overcome the problems of sin, and maybey even reverse their evil nature (born agains believe this one). I know that some can not do this, so they should focus on the true end and find ways to serve in other good works. Some who are not even homosexual decide to forgo marriage for a celibant life of dedication to God in other works (i.e. heterosexually incined monks and priest).

I'm not a Christian, however, so I think I'll pass on the life of 'celibacy.'



It just gets old hearing about the horrible sins I've committed when I have neither hurt nor infringed upon the rights of anyone...and I'm certainly not about to force 'change' (read:  bullsmurf) upon myself to make others happy.

I think one shouldn't change on account of just what others think. Religion has never been about that. It's always been about avoiding sin so you can stop infringing/hurtin yourself. Those who change for others to see are nothing better than the pharasee is to the humble sinner.  Their acts are not fully good because their intention is filled with the motives of the vanity of glory. I always say time is the wisest teacher, and maybey you'll see what I'm saying someday (or perhaps this post will always remain bullsmurf).

---

Innovation will not be included in the intel switch

Offline

 

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

• Index
•  » Ministry of Free Thought
•  » Archbishop condemns Vatican propaganda

Board footer

Jump to
Mac|Life Readers Forum Feedback Apple Laptop Answer Center with MacService In Tech News Everyday Tech On-the-Go The Pro Shop Programming & Web Dev Networking & Servers Gaming Unplugged Ministry of Free Thought Boot Camp Vintage Apple Hardware Hacking Folding@Home SETI@Home [MA] General [MA] Warcraft [MA] Halo [MA] UT2Kn [MA] Return to Castle Wolfenstein [MA] Jedi Knight [MA] Ghost Recon [MA] Unreal Tournament 1999 [MA] Medal of Honor

Powered by PunBB 1.2.6
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson