Homosexuality and The Bible

Keylem

Keylem wrote: »

I'm sorry for those who have aids, but condoms won't stop the spread as they are not 100 percent safe, and those that use it inadvertantly help spread it. Celibacy is 100 percent safe!

In the case of those with AIDS celibacy is ideal, yes. But idealised notions don't work in practice, especially not in impoverished countries. To think otherwise is to be incredibly naive.

The use of condoms will and does lower the incidence of AIDS. They're not 100% safe, but they're far, far safer than unprotected sex. That the CC actively forbids their use in countries where their use could save countless lives and horrible suffering is a huge disgrace upon the CC.

mcrdotcom

Keylem wrote: »

I'm sorry for those who have aids, but condoms won't stop the spread as they are not 100 percent safe, and those that use it inadvertantly help spread it. Celibacy is 100 percent safe!

I am sorry but this is ridiculous. Condoms will not inadvertently help spread AIDS! Just because it is not 100% safe does not mean it is useless! Celibacy is ridiculous!

You don't see cats and dogs getting married before sex, because that is the way the world works! It is the essence of life, and for humans, a source of pleasure and fun and love.

Quo Vadis

Condoms are readily available from other aid agencies in Africa

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Condoms are readily available from other aid agencies in Africa

That's beside the point. The point is not only does the CC forbid condoms, which is an atrocity in and of itself; but, they they also actively spread lies about condoms and their use.

Edit: It'd probably be best to start a new thread about this to prevent dragging this one off topic any further. I might do so later.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's beside the point. The point is not only does the CC forbid condoms, which is an atrocity in and of itself; but, they they also actively spread lies about condoms and their use.

Edit: It'd probably be best to start a new thread about this to prevent dragging this one off topic any further. I might do so later.

The Church opposes sex outside marriage and the use of artificial birth control inside marriage, for all Catholics, regardless of Race, Nationality or Colour, nothing more, nothing less.

If Roman Catholicism is responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it would be a fairly trivial matter to test the hypothesis. The percentage of Roman Catholics in various countries of Africa are quite diverse, as are the HIV infection rates. One need only plot the percent Catholics vs. the HIV infection rate. The figure to the right shows the results of such a plot.6 If the hypothesis that Catholic doctrine spreads HIV and AIDS, we would expect to see increased infection rates in countries that contain more Roman Catholics. Instead, we find decreased HIV rates in Catholic-dominated countries (although the trend is not statistically significant). The idea that Roman Catholic teaching encourages the spread of HIV is not confirmed by the demographics.



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/catholic_church_aids_africa.html

Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa — the nations with the highest levels of condom availability — continue to have the highest rates of HIV prevalence ("The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda," Joseph Loconte, Executive Summary Backgrounder).

How could this be? After all, we're told that condoms are 90% effective.

And that's precisely the problem.

This claim — so prevalent in condom-promotion literature — is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0045.html

Your figures counter the claim that the CC is responsible for the spread of AIDS. I didn't say that. I said that the CC is inadvertently aiding the spread of AIDS; by that I mean it's not helping the situation. Through forbidding the use of condoms and, on occasion, telling blatant lies about condoms and their use, the CC is making the situation worse than it need be.

Of course, a world which practiced Catholicism absolutely would have a very, very low, if none at all, incidence of AIDS. Celibacy is best when it comes to those with AIDS and those with a high chance of contracting AIDS. But, we don't live in a world which practices Catholicism, let alone a world which practices Catholicism absolutely--thankfully, I'll add. In our world condoms are better than no condoms at all when it comes to the prevention of AIDS. The CC inhibits this means of prevention, so it's doing harm.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Your figures counter the claim that the CC is responsible for the spread of AIDS. I didn't say that. I said that the CC is inadvertently aiding the spread of AIDS; by that I mean it's not helping the situation. Through forbidding the use of condoms and, on occasion, telling blatant lies about condoms and their use, the CC is making the situation worse than it need be.

Of course, a world which practiced Catholicism absolutely would have a very, very low, if none at all, incidence of AIDS. Celibacy is best when it comes to those with AIDS and those with a high chance of contracting AIDS. But, we don't live in a world which practices Catholicism, let alone a world which practices Catholicism absolutely--thankfully, I'll add. In our world condoms are better than no condoms at all when it comes to the prevention of AIDS. The CC inhibits this means of prevention, so it's doing harm.

I've posted back up figures for my claims, now post yours

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I've posted back up figures for my claims, now post yours

Your figures are against the argument that the CC " is responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa." That's not the argument I'm making. I haven't said it's responsible. If we're arguing for and against different things then it's pretty pointless, wouldn't you think?

As I said above this is off-topic and a new thread would be best. I plan on starting a new thread on this topic soon.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I said that the CC is inadvertently aiding the spread of AIDS; by that I mean it's not helping the situation.

We're still waiting for some evidence or proof of this assertion

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I plan on starting a new thread on this topic soon.

Good, and don't forget the claim you made above, or the evidence / proof for it.

Quo Vadis

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I take it you're not able to read, then?

Having to resort to Argumentum ad hominem already ? That was quick.

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Having to resort to Argumentum ad hominem already ? That was quick.

In your reply you had ignored the part of my post where I said I was starting a new thread. When I'd seen you'd edited your post to include a response, I removed my remark.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Having to resort to Argumentum ad hominem already ? That was quick.

If I start posting regularly on the Christian forum, I have a feeling we may clash a lot...

I look forward to it!:D

cakeisgood

I did my thesis on homosexuality from a Catholic point of view in college. The Pope uses references in his letter to the bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (1986-the full document is on google, if you cant find it there it should be on the vatican website www.vatican.va) The Pope says in the letter that the Scripture clearly condemns homosexuality (quote Levitcus 18:22 and mentions Pauls perspective) Mainly the doucment

Personally, I think people use the bible to back up their own feelings on a subject. I did my thesis on this because I am interested in the subject but I have nothing against homosexuality and its one part of the church teaching I definately do not agree with

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

If I start posting regularly on the Christian forum, I have a feeling we may clash a lot...

Not if you stick to the facts or avoid misrepresenting what others actually believe.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Not if you stick to the facts or avoid misrepresenting what others actually believe.

How have I misrepresented peoples beliefs?

I have spoken for myself since the beginning.

YouthNovel

[snip!]

Puerile abuse edited out.

Asry

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's beside the point. The point is not only does the CC forbid condoms, which is an atrocity in and of itself; but, they they also actively spread lies about condoms and their use.

Woah, I didn't know that they were telling people that. I'll be in mass later and won't be able to stop thinking about it!

Also, I wish I could've seen the puerile comments in the previous post. Awwh

But yeah, Quo, in fairness I don't understand what you mean by mrdotcom misrepresenting what others believe. Unless you're referring to the idea that non-Catholics dislike Catholicism based on a perception of what it is, not the reality of what it is.

But I haven't seen that from mrdotcom.

I was going to make some virtuous attempt to drag this thread back on topic, but really, I don't think I will

About birth control though. I know that they're forbidden, and I think it's because the more children that Catholics have, the more Catholics there'll be. Like the Church of the Latter-Day Saints and their early position on polygamy. That was all very well and good, but we find ourselves in a planet that's being threatened by climate change which must factor over-population into its causes. Surely, from an environmental point of view, should the RCC not change its position? I mean, they've put in new sins for the modern age based on environmental factors, so why not this,too?

It still won't stop those dirty homos from getting laid in the George every weekend though:cool::rolleyes: [/massive explosion of sarcasm! I myself will be there tonight!]

Quo Vadis

The usual spin being put on it, one cardinal is incorrect turns into the church spreads lies.

The church teaches sex is for marriage, and not artificial birth control = the church wants to breed as many Catholics as possible to pollute us all.

Asry

I didn't say pollute, did I? Just to spread the word of God through new life.

And like, the cardinal is a spokesman of the Church, a representative. Was a recant statement published, or was he censured by the Church afterwards for his comments?

Does that mean Archbishop Martin is wrong when he said that the Catholic Church in Ireland is on the brink of collapse?

Keylem

Our Lady Of Fatima said to Lucia:

"More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason."

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Message.html

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

it is a stretch in my opinion to bend the Bible to suit our own aims rather than to glorify the God who has our best interests in mind to begin with.

But why would god create homosexuals (in nature as well as in human kind) only to send them to hell for doing what he made it natural for them to want to do?

It doesn't appear to breach Christianity's simple golden rules: honour God, and don't do things that harm others. Or the Ten Commandments either for that matter.

Terrlock

You know you can talk about the rights and wrongs of sexuality all day long.

Problem is that your failing to realize that everyone sins no matter how you try and explain it away.

Everyone is made up of several parts.

One being the body, soul and mind. If you allow any one of those to take over then you do not live a free life and are not in balance with yourself.


Jesus has already died on the Cross for our sins, realize that and follow him. Ask yourself what would Jesus do and ask him to send his holy spirit into your life to guide and help you through all the difficult challenges you face.

Realize that rules about what is sinful and how to remain sinless was only created to show people how much they fail in terms of not being able to live without the Lord guiding them.


It does not matter what any man thinks, only that you love and serve the Lord and if you feel that you don't know who he is or what he is then it's time to get down to learning about him and allowing him into your life.

Only when you allow the holy Spirit into your temple and will you know how to live a good life.


There are only 2 sides too life living for the Lord or living against. and nobody will force you to to live for the Lord, however many things will tempt you away from him.


Who are we to try and justify our sinful nature....it's pointless and a waste of time.

Yoshua, bless everyone here and show them your Holy light.

Monty Burnz

Terrlock wrote: »

Realize that rules about what is sinful and how to remain sinless was only created to show people how much they fail in terms of not being able to live without the Lord guiding them.

That is odd. Surely it's entirely possible to live a more-or-less sinless life without ever even having heard of Christianity. Nice, kind, selfless, monogamous (or celibate) people undoubtedly have existed in other cultures. What sins would a Buddhist monk who enters a monastry in childhood commit, for example?

Terrlock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That is odd. Surely it's entirely possible to live a more-or-less sinless life without ever even having heard of Christianity. Nice, kind, selfless, monogamous (or celibate) people undoubtedly have existed in other cultures. What sins would a Buddhist monk who enters a monastery in childhood commit, for example?

Your missing the point and getting caught up with sin yet again.

Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again.

He won't come until everyone on the planet has heard his Gospel.

He won't come until the people who condemned him to death apologize to him on the very same mountain the killed him on.

They will pray earnestly for him to return to save them. And then he will return.

The whole point is too live your life for God the creator and when Jesus comes again to allow him to save you.

Weather your a Buddhist monk or the greatest of all sinners what counts is that you repent to the Lord and follow him.

Monty Burnz

Terrlock wrote: »

He won't come until everyone on the planet has heard his Gospel.

Heard how much of it? Just the bare bones, or in a good bit of detail? One of the Gospels, or all four of them? And what about those who already have a religion and aren't interested in reading a Gospel? (For example, I bought the Koran but never got around to reading it)

Terrlock wrote: »

He won't come until the people who condemned him to death apologize to him on the very same mountain the killed him on.

Those people are dead though.

Terrlock wrote: »

Weather your a Buddhist monk or the greatest of all sinners what counts is that you repent to the Lord and follow him.

But the hypothetical Buddhist monk has done nothing wrong, so he has nothing to repent - unless you get into original sin, which is not his fault as much as it is God's fault.

Terrlock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Heard how much of it? Just the bare bones, or in a good bit of detail? One of the Gospels, or all four of them? And what about those who already have a religion and aren't interested in reading a Gospel? (For example, I bought the Koran but never got around to reading it)

Those people are dead though.

But the hypothetical Buddhist monk has done nothing wrong, so he has nothing to repent - unless you get into original sin, which is not his fault as much as it is God's fault.

Your Buddhist monk that hasn't sinned is exactly that Hypothetical, there isn't one.

The message of the Gospel is a simple one to understand, and yes everyone in the world shall hear it, and if there are not interested that is there choice to make.

The Bible is the word of the lord and proves itself that it comes from the Lord and transcends time itself.

I know no other book that comes close to the miracles, the details, the science, the advance encryption systems and authentication systems that the Bible contains in the very way the text is written.

antiskeptic

Terrlock wrote: »

He won't come until everyone on the planet has heard his Gospel.

What about people who died before the gospel spread out far enough for them to hear it. Say to an old sheepherder up the side of a mountain in Tibet at around the time Christ died.

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why would god create homosexuals (in nature as well as in human kind) only to send them to hell for doing what he made it natural for them to want to do?

It doesn't appear to breach Christianity's simple golden rules: honour God, and don't do things that harm others. Or the Ten Commandments either for that matter.

This assumes that sexuality is biologically determined.

Honouring God as far as I would see it would be living by God's standard in every area of life not just in respect to sexuality. That's fair enough as I see it.

As for God creating homosexuals, I believe He just created people male and female.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about people who died before the gospel spread out far enough for them to hear it. Say to an old sheepherder up the side of a mountain in Tibet at around the time Christ died.

What do you think might have happened Mr Shepherdman?

Meanwhile...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

What do you think might have happened Mr Shepherdman?

Who knows.

But seeing as the gospel of Jesus Christ wasn't preached to anyone before Christ lived, died and rose again - yet many were saved before he lived, I'm supposing the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ (as commonly understood) may not be mission critical.