The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Zelgadis 638]

Date: 1/16/2006 7:09:01 PM
Author: SkiGeek

Date: 1/16/2006 2:36:39 PM Author: zelgadis

@Ski and Joe: Not easy to have this debate with young-uns, is it?

quote>

Actually, I find it fascinating to have this discussion with people from a variety of ages, backgrounds, and locations.

quote>

Ah, that came out wrong. I was just making a little comment on how, on two occasions already, I've had to use the you'll understand when you're older line. I do also find it interesting to have this discussion with people from a variety of ages, backgrounds, and locations. I just wish there was a higher contingent from the non-Christian point of view.

In other words, for all the talk about the Bible being the word of god, I'd be interested in hearing a rebuttal from the other religions and their holy books.

So far, I've read the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Analects, the Diamond Sutra, and the Tao De Ching. All very good books and all of which say many similar things. And some very different things to say as well. But it seems to me that all the holy books I've read are very culture-specific. In other words, if there is a supreme being, or as I believe, are higher beings, then they were clever enough to deliver their teachings in more than one manner so that all cultures may understand in their own context.

That's just a guess anyway. Right now, it's just a theory of mine and I haven't worked through it completely yet.

Funny though, that my own religion has no holy book at all. The teachings are pretty straightforward though, so perhaps such a thing wasn't necessary.

ISF

(BTW, the Tao Te Ching is my favorite. Very fascinating read)

[deadwoods 542]

zelgadis, be careful with your assumptions of age WRT to posters. I know there are a lot of Christian youth on the forum, Dev is a teenager. However many of the folks responding pro-Christianity are adults.

I agree that it would be interesting to hear the views from other forms of religion (I'm fascinated by Buddhism myself but could never be a vegetarian). I'd say that's because most folks on ST are either Christian in one form or another or Atheists/Agnostics. Perhaps it's that Christians are by nature more vocal about their beleifs.

[Joesocwork 4]

Date: 1/15/2006 8:18:59 PM Author: zelgadis
@N_O_Body: Yes, I am aware that Hell is supposedly the 'absence of God.' However, I was using sarcasm to make a point. Evidentally, nobody noticed. ISF

Actually I noticed it and I am almost surprised that you didn't pull out the idea of fellow members believing in the hoary cliches of God being an old man dressed in with with a long flowing beard and the Satan as a guy who is red, sports a goatee, carries a pitchfork, and has hooves for feet.  But I'm glad that it was otherwise ignored or not noticed,  because politeness and mutual respect between members, despite differences of beliefs, should continue to be encouraged.

[Zelgadis 638]

@deadwoods: Well, I do know the two people that I specifically used that phrase on were teenagers and in direct response to a statement that demonstrated inexperience with adulthood. I suppose I could have explained further instead of using that particular cop-out, but I don't have that kind of time.

Anyway, like I said, that didn't come out right. No offense intended.

It does seem that the Christians here are more vocal about their beliefs. You almost never hear of a vocal Shintoist. Well, there was that whole State Shintoism thing that we prefer not to dwell on.

Anyway, where is it written that you have to be a vegetarian to be Buddhist? I haven't heard that. There are many different sects of Buddhism and I'm sure you can eat meat in many of them.

I know Zen Buddhism is meat-friendly, however, despite the name, it's actually a branch of Taoism. Oh well...

@Joesocwork: I toyed with the idea of taking it further, but I've usually noticed that, with sarcasm, the simpler the better. But it didn't work at all.

BTW, Satan doesn't sport a goatee. Only Evil Spock has that.

ISF

[The_Family_Guy 2]

I just wanted to say that this is one of the most interesting and mature debates I've ever had about religion, especially on the internet. Some people are so full of it, that they can't respond maturely, and resort to sophomoric spam-related wording. I'm just a youngin' myself, but I'm glad that thus far people are giving me a whole-hearted debate.

[Joesocwork 4]

Date: 1/17/2006 2:57:04 PM Author: zelgadis 

@Joesocwork: I toyed with the idea of taking it further, but I've usually noticed that, with sarcasm, the simpler the better. But it didn't work at all. BTW, Satan doesn't sport a goatee. Only Evil Spock has that. ISF

 

Evil Ryker did also.  I've see a few picture of Satan with a goatee and looking quite dapper.  But that's what we get for using stereotypes to talk down to people b/c of their beliefs.

[timotheus4 39]

But it seems to me that all the holy books I've read are very culture-specific.

quote>

I could see that about the Koran, Hindu writings, Tao, Confucius, Buddha, Mormon, et. al. The Bible, however, has made a number of culture transplants; Palestina to Greece to Rome to Ireland to Europe (fascinating story, incidentally, about those last two steps) to America to Africa, China, and other Asian countries. It's a very tenacious writing and it seems every time that one land rejects it it is just become entrenched in a new land. The last step I mentioned hasn't completely taken place yet, but I see it coming.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

About the concept of sin:

It is very difficult to commit a mortal sin. It requires deliberate premeditation and planning before the commission of the act or act of omission. This is pretty much agreed by most Catholic scholars I know.

What is sin? Is it a transgression of some arbitrary rules dictated by an authoratative body? If that is the case, an offense under a criminal code is a sin.

Is it a transgression against the precepts of a system of philosophy? Only if the philosophy makes it so.

Christians believe that sin is a transgression against the Ten Commandments or against the Great Commandment of Jesus. This is defined by the Catholic Church. Of course, the Church defines a lot of other things as sin too. Breaking the rules, for example. Of late, they've been softening up the rules, but they cling firmly to rules that our soceity has now denied.

Since I am not very religious any more, I find the whole concept of sin to be a thing for the immature. However, doing something that I consider immoral is surely a transgression that some persons would call sin. Maybe its just semantics.

[Joesocwork 4]

Date: 1/17/2006 11:30:14 PM Author: timotheus4

The Bible... has made a number of culture transplants; Palestina to Greece to Rome to Ireland to Europe (fascinating story, incidentally, about those last two steps) to America to Africa, China, and other Asian countries. It's a very tenacious writing and it seems every time that one land rejects it it is just become entrenched in a new land. The last step I mentioned hasn't completely taken place yet, but I see it coming.

A couple of my personal favorite passages in the New Testament are:
 
Galatians 3:28 (King James Version)   There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

and

Colossians 3:11 (King James Version) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

 

The idea of Christianity and the Bible being monocultural, especially during the first century, are essentially myths.  And much of their propagation throughout the world across many nations and cultures was due to believers moving about to escape persecution.

[hdorriker 190]

[Whoops, I didn't see the other 5 pages of discussion since the topic was on revelations. I guess the numbers hadn't loaded yet (slow connection)
Oh well!]




Awesome: Philosophy of religion!

Okay, Revelation. I assume you're talking about the section of the bible devoted to the end of the world.

I personally prefer to view religious texts as literature.
Since they are, after all, an account of the values and traditions of a society.
Like many religious texts, the Bible has an explanation and depiction of the conditions and processes that lead to an inevitable unification of a higher power (God) and His people.

I'm one of those who beleives the Bible is a largely symbolic text, which must be viewed in it's historical context.

So the apocalypse is more of a symbolic situation of what happens if people do not embrace the humanistic values of love and morality and allow their world to sink into 'darkness' so to speak.

When Saint John supposedly wrote Revelations, he was in exile on the isle of Patmos. And probably in the ideal mood to write about the end of world, to him, seemed to be falling apart by the seams. There needed to be a part of the Holy book that described what happens if the Word does not take root. At that time, Christianity was taking aim at the somewhat morally obsolete Roman system. Unlike the Roman system which assigned little value to (all) human life, put wealth before richeousness and was just flat-out mean to minorities, the new Christian system presented a moral standard which generally elevated the value of human life and provided a much grander divine objective than wealth.
Saint John was writing about a world without this new moral standard, tearing itself apart, and as far as he was concerned, incurring the wrath of a heartbroken God.

So basically, I beleive Revelations is a cautionary tale that is about more than just Christianity, but about decency. It is a parable that warns against strife and destruction if society fails to be righteous, either at the hands of God or it's own people, or anything else (The cause is beside the point) Basically, it is from a force beyond humanity.
Rather than a specific date that a higher power just decides to start ending the world arbitrarily.


But that's just my opinion. I don't mean to put down anyone else's

[hello_SC4 1]

Date: 1/17/2006 11:30:14 PM Author: timotheus4

But it seems to me that all the holy books I've read are very culture-specific.

I could see that about the Koran, Hindu writings, Tao, Confucius, Buddha, Mormon, et. al. The Bible, however, has made a number of culture transplants; Palestina to Greece to Rome to Ireland to Europe (fascinating story, incidentally, about those last two steps) to America to Africa, China, and other Asian countries. It's a very tenacious writing and it seems every time that one land rejects it it is just become entrenched in a new land. The last step I mentioned hasn't completely taken place yet, but I see it coming.

I'm not really sure that I can agree with your statement. Many places in Europe were christianized by force, and a lot of states forced their people to become Christian. I agree with Rome turning Christian by choice, but Europe as a whole is a more complicated matter. And Christianity in Africa and America can be mostly attributed to the colonization by Europeans.

 

I don't really see the content of the Bible as the main reason for the widespread of Christianity around the world. With so many people being illiterate until recently, and the catastrophic (from today's point of view) lack of information exchange between commoners, I doubt many people really had a choice, or at best had to choose between two religions, their old one and Christianity. But there are much more than two religions in the world. I can agree that it's content played a major role in the popularization of the Bible until Ancient Rome, but after that, I'm not so sure. With the fall of Rome, Europe went back to the dark ages. People were extremely uneducated. And to think that a 1000-page book's content had such an effect on them when books were pure treasures doesn't make me convinced.

 

Besides, the freedom of choosing a religion became a commodity to most people only in the late 20th century, and not even today, in the 21st century, can we surely say that people are free to choose their religion. They may be here, but they aren't in many countries around the world.

 

However, to return to the terms monocultural and multicultural. I think applying these terms to religions is a very dubious process. Religion itself plays a major role in one's culture, so in effect people of the same religion are in many ways also people of the same (or at least similar) culture.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/16/2006 5:20:20 PM Author: The_Family_Guy

I'm seeing a few major problems here, as I read these great debate points.

Number one, people seem to be set on the fact that the Catholic church is THE church, when in reality, it is often the least of the churches. With corruption, criminalization, and the adulteration of the Bible, the Catholics have some serious reading to do. The Pope, however holy he is, is still nothing more than a human being, whom God loves just as equal as anyone else, including, say, a prostitute, or even a terrorist. Shocker, eh?

 

You're doing the same thing I'm doing, and that is expounding a belief. However, the Bible does show that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but if I repeated myself again, this post would go on for ages (seriously) and the staff would consider a ban for wasting people's time and ST's bandwidth.  So instead, let me point out the earlier pages of this thread to you. I think I've done a fairly comprehensive job of rebutting and defending Caholicism in the last nine or so pages.

Despite that, I thoroughly agree with what you've said about God's unconforming nature. It's nice to see at least you don't disagree with me totally.

skigeek: Well, the belief that there's is no ultimate Truth this side of the grave is widespread. Humans are indeed small compared with even nature and the world around them, so it's easy to see how we think that way.

 

HSC4: Well, I believe you think that way because you see the world becoming more liberal and 'looser' at around the early '70s or late '60s. This in turn means that that liberal spirit was what destroyed (or greatly crippled) religion in Europe. However, I see it in reverse. The religious reforms brought around religious laxity, and this in turn brought around social and moral laxity which further degenerated into moral and social wrongs. So basically, we're looking at things from totally different sides of the coin here.

 

N_O_Body: What then, do you consider stealing, or lying?? After all, it's only society that tells us not to lie, or even to steal. These are arbitrary laws dictated by society (which I'm sure can be authoritative) as a whole. Surely, you personally think that lying and stealing is a bad thing.

 

I don't think that the concept of transgressions (or sins) are for the immature. I believe that those who cannot accept rules and regulations in their lives and a certain amount of restraint are, in fact, immature themselves. A child grows into an adult physically and mentally. One of the key mental 'benchmarks', so to speak, is the ability to follow rules. If one cannot, then one is labelled 'childish' or immature. Surely, most people have had experience with this before.

[Joesocwork 4]

In its purest form in the beginning, Christianity was a grassroots movement that was misunderstood by the various nations and cultures where it was spread.  Many of the governments and peoples of that time thought it was a carry over of Judaism in establishing a physical kingdom on Earth, not realizing that its intent was spiritual.  Therefore the nations and peoples of time saw Christianity as a threat, or sometimes just simply a nuisance, to the existing order.  The original Christians, although initially Jews, came from all sorts of nationalities and backgrounds.  They were closeknit and basically stayed out of governmental affairs.  The history of mankind throughout the centuries appears to cycle between suppression and cooption of religion.  Often the cooption was worse in its own way b/c the co-opters would attempt to dilute faith toward their own ends to justify whatever they wanted to do.  Regardless, there historically has still been common people who still were able to maintain the purity of their faith despite the worst that governments could impose on them whether through persecution or corruption. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@ephorex_77: Well, in the Christian ethic, stealing breaks the 7th commandment (Thou shalt not steal) and lying breaks Thow shalt not bear false witness ....

I'm surprised you asked.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/18/2006 10:14:53 PM Author: N_O_Body @ephorex_77:  Well, in the Christian ethic, stealing breaks the 7th commandment ('Thou shalt not steal') and lying breaks 'Thow shalt not bear false witness ...'. I'm surprised you asked.

quote>

You got me there.

 

But what I meant was that society (and not any religion) tells you not to do certain things. I mean, some laws of society are strange at best, but we still have to follow them regardless. The same holds true for religion. However, these laws are much more important because they determine your future for eternity (supposing you believe that in the first place ).

 

It just seems to me that you don't like listening to something (the Church) that tells you what to do even though you do so with society and other organisations and institutions. Religion isn't a slice, dice and pick thing. You take the whole hog, and not just the parts you think you like (the parts that society tells us is fine e.g. abortion). Of course, there are some religions out there which cater to this.

[Zelgadis 638]

Actually, some religions are pick-and-choose things. Shintoism is much like this. You don't have to devote your life to it, but it's there when you need it.

The all-or-nothing approach to religion is only true for some of them.

To go further, there are many cultures (such as Japan) who see no trouble whatsoever with claiming adherence to multiple religions at the same time. Most Japanese are both Shinto and Zen Buddhist at the same time. It all just depends on the occasion. Learning this really opened my eyes to many previously unconsidered possibilities.

ISF

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/18/2006 11:02:42 PM Author: zelgadis To go further, there are many cultures (such as Japan) who see no trouble whatsoever with claiming adherence to multiple religions at the same time.  Most Japanese are both Shinto and Zen Buddhist at the same time.  It all just depends on the occasion.  Learning this really opened my eyes to many previously unconsidered possibilities. ISF

Same with the Chinese and most Asian countries actually. They have elements of many religions or practices in their beliefs. Some have all types of combinations. Most Chinese who don't subscribe to a religion are usually part Confucian (though not a religion strictly) because of the Chinese culture and Daoist (Taoist) because of their culture again. Then we have Buddhist elements and then some other native beliefs.

 

Most, if not all ethnic Chinese celebrate festivals like the Chinese New Year and Qingmingjie (the day when people remember their ancestors). These practices are not strictly related to religion, but are more a cultural thing. My family follows the 2 examples above and more, but it's a cultural thing. My family doesn't really worship our ancestors.

 

 

[vidioman 21]

ephorex_77 | moral and social wongs.

quote>

I know an Amy Wong.

[ephorex_77 0]

edited due to content. Mr. C.

[Joesocwork 4]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:58:45 AM Author: vidioman

ephorex_77 | moral and social wongs.

quote> I know an Amy Wong.

quote>

Careful, two wongs don't make a wight!

[hello_SC4 1]

Date: 1/18/2006 6:26:54 PM Author: ephorex_77

HSC4: Well, I believe you think that way because you see the world becoming more liberal and 'looser' at around the early '70s or late '60s. This in turn means that that liberal spirit was what destroyed (or greatly crippled) religion in Europe. However, I see it in reverse. The religious reforms brought around religious laxity, and this in turn brought around social and moral laxity which further degenerated into moral and social wrongs. So basically, we're looking at things from totally different sides of the coin here.

quote>

 

That would be logical, but there's a catch. Only around a third of Europe is catholic.

[The_Family_Guy 2]

[

Date: 1/18/2006 6:26:54 PM Author: ephorex_77

Date: 1/16/2006 5:20:20 PM Author: The_Family_Guy

I'm seeing a few major problems here, as I read these great debate points.

Number one, people seem to be set on the fact that the Catholic church is THE church, when in reality, it is often the least of the churches. With corruption, criminalization, and the adulteration of the Bible, the Catholics have some serious reading to do. The Pope, however holy he is, is still nothing more than a human being, whom God loves just as equal as anyone else, including, say, a prostitute, or even a terrorist. Shocker, eh?

You're doing the same thing I'm doing, and that is expounding a belief. However, the Bible does show that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but if I repeated myself again, this post would go on for ages (seriously) and the staff would consider a ban for wasting people's time and ST's bandwidth. So instead, let me point out the earlier pages of this thread to you. I think I've done a fairly comprehensive job of rebutting and defending Caholicism in the last nine or so pages.

Despite that, I thoroughly agree with what you've said about God's unconforming nature. It's nice to see at least you don't disagree with me totally.

 

quote>

When I say least of the churches, I really mean that the Catholic Church, in it's leadership, seems to be morally weak.

 

When a gay bishop is admitted when clearly homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible (think Sodom and Gomorrah), then there is something clearly wrong. The Catholic Church is very fundamental, however, in people's beliefs in Jesus. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying there are some major issues that could easily be solved by reading the Bible.

 

You have to admit, it's hard to disagree with that.

 

Now, of course there are many faults in every other denomination as well, but none quite as publicized as the Catholic church.

 

 

[deadwoods 542]

Date: 1/18/2006 11:02:42 PM
Author: zelgadis
...To go further, there are many cultures (such as Japan) who see no trouble whatsoever with claiming adherence to multiple religions at the same time. Most Japanese are both Shinto and Zen Buddhist at the same time. It all just depends on the occasion. Learning this really opened my eyes to many previously unconsidered possibilities.
...

quote>

I don't know if you've been to Japan, but about an hour north of Tokyo is a place called Nikko (station allegedly designed by Frank Lloyd Wright). It a historic sight with many amazing buildings featuring both Buddhist and Shinto shrines/temples. It makes you wonder why many of the Asian races can synthesise effectively and we have our 32,000+ denominations of Chrisitinaity many claiming to be the true faith when they are all based on the same thing. There is a lot the West can learn from the East.

[vidioman 21]

K, this song was quoted in my sig, and Dev said it;s all lies and stuff, and like, anti-religious blah-blah-blah, ya kno'? Kule. Anyway, if someone could explain how, that'd be great! No flaming people in the process, just explain then shut. The bolded part is the line that was quoted.

Pearl Jam - I Am Minecolor>

The selfish, they're all standing in line/Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time/Me, I figure, as each breath goes by/I only own my mind
The north is to south what the clock is to time/There

[ephorex_77 0]

 

Date: 1/19/2006 9:16:43 AM Author: Joesocwork

Date: 1/19/2006 6:58:45 AM Author: vidioman

ephorex_77 | moral and social wongs.

I know an Amy Wong.

Careful, two wongs don't make a wight!

 

Aye, it doesn't. I've changed that part though.

 

Mr C: Thanks for your explanation. I think it would've made this thread rather sticky as it really is very surprising and unexpected fact. Most people would probably not have believed me anyway (even though it's true) seeing as it flies right into the face of common perception. 

 

HSC4: Indeed a third. But how does an avalanche start?? Does an entire side of a mountain simultaneously and inexplicably crumble into nothing?? Nope. It starts small, and then it gets bigger. Apply the same logic.

 

thefamilyguy: My, my, my...I hope you're very much aware of Pope Benedict XVI's repeated condemnations of homosexuals. Pope Benedict has said that homosexuality is 'an intrinsically disordered condition' and that their efforts to build families and relationships are evil and must be fought by church and state.

 

'Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage -- free unions and trial marriages as well as the pseudomatrimonies between people of the same sex -- are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man,'

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also condemns homosexuality unreservedly, but also urges Catholic faithful to pray for them and not to molest (violence) them. The passing of gay laws in Spain and the like have all attracted criticism from the Church. Doesn't sound quite like someone or an institution who approves of gay people in general, much less gay bishops does it??

 

You urge us to read the Bible. Well, there are things that are found outside of the Bible as well.Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. That is the main difference between Protestants like yourself and Catholics. In case you want further clarifying, please refer to my earlier posts in this thread. I've probably addressed numerous issues before that might be of interest to you.

 

Just out of interest, which denomination, if at all, do you subscribe to??

[vidioman 21]

Pope Benedict has said that homosexuality is 'an intrinsically disordered condition' and that their efforts to build families and relationships are evil and must be fought by church and state.

quote>

And that's why we hate the pope!

Good to know I'm mentally challenged, though. i'm going to go on disability RIGHT NOW!

YAY!! I don't have to work because Im messed in the head!!! YAY!!!!

for good measure: ageGW#$NGOI#WJW)Pejg024gk2w[EGPkwsfsdILIKESEXehfowsenignasovndlvksndlgnewpg49g

[The_Family_Guy 2]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:10:28 PM Author: ephorex_77

 

thefamilyguy: My, my, my...I hope you're very much aware of Pope Benedict XVI's repeated condemnations of homosexuals. Pope Benedict has said that homosexuality is 'an intrinsically disordered condition' and that their efforts to build families and relationships are evil and must be fought by church and state.

'Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage -- free unions and trial marriages as well as the pseudomatrimonies between people of the same sex -- are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man,'

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also condemns homosexuality unreservedly, but also urges Catholic faithful to pray for them and not to molest (violence) them. The passing of gay laws in Spain and the like have all attracted criticism from the Church. Doesn't sound quite like someone or an institution who approves of gay people in general, much less gay bishops does it??

You urge us to read the Bible. Well, there are things that are found outside of the Bible as well.Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. That is the main difference between Protestants like yourself and Catholics. In case you want further clarifying, please refer to my earlier posts in this thread. I've probably addressed numerous issues before that might be of interest to you.

Just out of interest, which denomination, if at all, do you subscribe to??

quote>

 

Maybe you missed something here...homosexuality is STRICTLY forbidden in the Bible. I'm not quite sure why Catholics insist on being tolerant of the gay lifestyle, when there are clear passages condemning it. Our Protestant interpretations of the Bible are clearly different then.

 

As a Protestant, I have joined an Assemblies of God church, simply because it was the closest. I have also gone to a non-denominational church for many years before that. Basically, there is a clear, factual interpretation of the Bible: it says what it says; the symbolism is only unclear in books like Ezekiel and Daniel, and Revelation, where there are prophesies that we do not yet understand. Really, I believe that there is no open interpretation of the Bible like some are doing (or rather mauling) to the Constitution. It says what it says!

 

@hdorriker: John the Revelator didn't feel like writing Revelation. It appeared to him in a vision, as described in the beginning of Revelation. I also find it uncanny how the events of Daniel and Ezekiel seem to match very oddly with today's circumstances. The whole notion of the rapture is very tough, even for me, to comprehend. There are subtle texts in the Bible that refer to it, so there isn't much to go on except a few verses, namely in Corinthians and Thessolonians.

 

You are right, though, when you say it is a cautionary tale. Revelation is a huge warning to Christians to watch in pray as Jesus said; this is the hardest notion in all of the Bible, simply because it's so supernatural and hard to grasp. Even I find it hard to grasp, but I guess faith keeps me afloat.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/19/2006 10:15:17 PM Author: The_Family_Guy

Date: 1/19/2006 6:10:28 PM Author: ephorex_77

thefamilyguy: My, my, my...I hope you're very much aware of Pope Benedict XVI's repeated condemnations of homosexuals. Pope Benedict has said that homosexuality is 'an intrinsically disordered condition' and that their efforts to build families and relationships are evil and must be fought by church and state.

'Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage -- free unions and trial marriages as well as the pseudomatrimonies between people of the same sex -- are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man,'

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also condemns homosexuality unreservedly, but also urges Catholic faithful to pray for them and not to molest (violence) them. The passing of gay laws in Spain and the like have all attracted criticism from the Church. Doesn't sound quite like someone or an institution who approves of gay people in general, much less gay bishops does it??

You urge us to read the Bible. Well, there are things that are found outside of the Bible as well.Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. That is the main difference between Protestants like yourself and Catholics. In case you want further clarifying, please refer to my earlier posts in this thread. I've probably addressed numerous issues before that might be of interest to you.

Just out of interest, which denomination, if at all, do you subscribe to??

quote>

Maybe you missed something here...homosexuality is STRICTLY forbidden in the Bible. I'm not quite sure why Catholics insist on being tolerant of the gay lifestyle, when there are clear passages condemning it. Our Protestant interpretations of the Bible are clearly different then.

As a Protestant, I have joined an Assemblies of God church, simply because it was the closest. I have also gone to a non-denominational church for many years before that. Basically, there is a clear, factual interpretation of the Bible: it says what it says; the symbolism is only unclear in books like Ezekiel and Daniel, and Revelation, where there are prophesies that we do not yet understand. Really, I believe that there is no 'open' interpretation of the Bible like some are doing (or rather mauling) to the Constitution. It says what it says!

@hdorriker: John the Revelator didn't 'feel' like writing Revelation. It appeared to him in a vision, as described in the beginning of Revelation. I also find it uncanny how the events of Daniel and Ezekiel seem to match very oddly with today's circumstances. The whole notion of the rapture is very tough, even for me, to comprehend. There are subtle texts in the Bible that refer to it, so there isn't much to go on except a few verses, namely in Corinthians and Thessolonians.

You are right, though, when you say it is a cautionary tale. Revelation is a huge warning to Christians to 'watch in pray' as Jesus said; this is the hardest notion in all of the Bible, simply because it's so supernatural and hard to grasp. Even I find it hard to grasp, but I guess faith keeps me afloat.

quote>

 

Well, I'm rather uncomfortable discussing homosexuality in this environment for fear of censure, but I can assure you, the Church's stance is solidly against it. It is also against physical and mental violence against them for their beliefs. The Catholic faithful are asked to pray for them and for them to change.

 

Catholics are tolerant in a sense of the word, but we are against homosexuality in all forms. I thought Pope Benedict XVI's statements made that quite clear. Vid obviously undersood what the Pope was saying. Did you conveniently skip them by?? Actually, how do you treat homosexuals?? Are you saying all Christians should go out and bash homosexuals?? Is that what you think the Bible says??

 

Catholics do not condone homosexuality and we are against it. But we do not convert them forcibly. We can only pray and hope and seek to point it out. Tell me what you think Christians should do (according to your literal translation of the Bible). I'd be most interested to know.

 

[Zelgadis 638]

*Edited because we really needn't be discussing this here.*

[DuskTrooper 314]

Date: 1/19/2006 11:13:25 PM
Author: zelgadis
Besides, the Bible is hardly clear about homosexuality. First of all, the words 'homosexual' and 'gay' didn't even exist in the Bible's original languages.


ISF

quote>

Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

And that isnt explicit at all, eh?

And seriously, if this stuff does not apply to you then why do you keep arguing?