Homosexuality and The Bible

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

I could start going on about gay animals now but its pretty unnecessary.

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

The penguins in the zoo are not in their natural environment. Kind of like male prisoners.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

If you're being honest you would have to concede that we don't have a clue why animals exhibit homosexual behaviour. I mentioned I could as many people would resurrect that old argument at this point, I wasn't using it as one. But anyway seen as you've linked to an article about "acts" I'm going to link to one about "relationships" for balance http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html Aw, ain't they cute, there's the most adorable illustrated story for kids about them, if anyone's interested, "and tango makes three".

Donatello wrote: »

I think it is hilarious that you talk about your own 'unbiased' (pro-gay) sources and then label the alternative view as 'biased'. It's hilariously naive. Read up about Robert Spitzer, here, 'one of the most influential psychiatrists of the 20th century' and how he was treated by the ideologically driven APA.

I think its hilarious that you have no concept of bias, especially your own, we're all out to get you eh? I'd love to see the world from your perspective, just for a moment. Spitzer did not recognise bisexuality as a valid sexuality, he also selected his subjects, rather than working from a random sample. The APA disavowed the paper for two reasons, one, because it was not peer reviewed, and two, because there was no scientific evidence whatsoever for what he was saying. No evidence, not peer reviewed, a margin of error larger than the results, yeah, they were right to run like crap from that one.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

If you're being honest you would have to concede that we don't have a clue why animals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

We do know or at least have a good theory in some cases such as that exhibited in the article I linked. In others we don't, I agree entirely, but claiming homosexual behaviour in animals doesn't effectively suggest that sexuality is biologically determined.

Keylem

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

The study found gay men were also more likely to get cancer at a younger age than straight men – almost 10 years sooner – at the age of 41, on average.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

wonderfulname

lst wrote: »

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

The study found gay men were also more likely to get cancer at a younger age than straight men – almost 10 years sooner – at the age of 41, on average.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

Relevance?

wonderfulname

Keylem wrote: »

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

Are you suggesting that we humans should model our behaviour on badly behaved monkeys?

Animals do lots of strange things which, if imitated by humans, would be pathological. Take for instance the spiders whose female eats the male once they've finished mating.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

Asry

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

Ha this Christian definitely would. I'm just following the example of St Augustine!

Also, who says humans don't eat their mate after they've gotten what they wanted out of them...:cool:

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

It could be more to do with HPV rather than HIV. Being the passive partner in anal intercourse increases the risk of anal cancer sevenfold. This would, of course, make gay men more likely (and lesbians and heterosexual men least likely) to contract anal cancer.

Of course you can make of statistics what you will. You could equally argue that lesbians are statistically less likely to contract cancer than heterosexual women.

Keylem

wonderfulname wrote: »

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

The point being is, not only is it spiritually unhealthy, it's physically unhealthy.

The following link shows that it's not only HIV suffers that are at increased risk!

http://www.thehealthage.com/gay-men-have-higher-cancer-rates/0509/

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

The point being is, not only is it spiritually unhealthy, it's physically unhealthy.

The following link shows that it's not only HIV suffers that are at increased risk!

http://www.thehealthage.com/gay-men-have-higher-cancer-rates/0509/

Two key points from your link:

According to Dr Ulrike Boehmer from the Boston University School of Public Health, it was not possible to conclude that gay men have a higher risk of cancer because the fundamental causes for the higher incidence could be more complicated. Further research would be required to resolve if homosexual men were actually getting more tumours or had greater survival rates.

She further added that one frequent explanation for why lesbian and bisexual women report worse health compared to heterosexual women is minority stress that suggests lesbian and bisexual women have worse health, including psychological health due to their experiences of discrimination, prejudice, and violence. More serviced are required to improve the well-being of lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors.

Furthermore there are certain diseases that hetrosexual women are at much higher risk. I forget off the cuff but Im sure I you dont need me to prove it!

I remember reading a few years ago also that Single Men were more likely to suffer prostrate cancer - for obvious reasons (it was a reliable source).

And as stated in the above quote, there is mental health issues, secondary to discimination, which affect LGBT individuals.

wonderfulname

Donatello wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we humans should model our behaviour on badly behaved monkeys?

Animals do lots of strange things which, if imitated by humans, would be pathological. Take for instance the spiders whose female eats the male once they've finished mating.

No, and you know I'm not, you're just clutching at straws. Changing your argument every time you are challenged on something doesn't do much for your argument by the way.

PDN wrote: »

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

Just pointed it out in response to the claim its something to do with animals being in captivity.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

No, for some reason people saw fit to drag out one tiny sentence of little significance in a response of mine. We have kind of gone off topic though haven't we?

Asry

But like. Not all gay men take it up the buffer. I could have anal sex loads and loads. That would mean Christian women are more prone to cancer too. Christian smokers are more prone to cancer. Or Christian junk food eaters. More relevantly, down syndrome children are more prone to cancer, including even Christian down syndrome children. And they have the same choice to decide to not be down syndrome anymore than LGBT people have to be straight. It's something inherent, innate, from birth. I relate LGBT people to a debilitating condition as I'm sure anti-LGBT lobby would understand the issue better if I do it that way.

I really don't see the point of the 'risk of cancer' facet of this debate. All the stories that pound out every day that different groups are more prone to cancer really devalue this argument.

I agree. Gone off topic.

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

a this Christian definitely would. I'm just following the example of St Augustine!

Also, who says humans don't eat their mate after they've gotten what they wanted out of them...:cool:

St. Augustine was converted to the Christian faith and spent the rest of his life doing penance for his own sins and exhorting others to renounce sin, including all impurity, and embrace the Gospel.

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.
- St. Augustine, Confessions.

PDN wrote: »

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

PDN, whilst your posts are useful, I find your choice of language unfortunate, bearing in mind the demands of Christian modesty.

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

St. Augustine was converted to the Christian faith and spent the rest of his life doing penance for his own sins and exhorting others to renounce sin, including all impurity, and embrace the Gospel.

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.
- St. Augustine, Confessions.

Oh, I was talking about this - Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet. I have a good 6 years of debauchery left in me by his standards anyway

Asry

Delayed reaction, but -

Donatello wrote: »

I think it is hilarious that you talk about your own 'unbiased' (pro-gay) sources and then label the alternative view as 'biased'. It's hilariously naive.

....says you, who quoted Scott Lively, well known as an anti-gay activist and president of a hate group (as classified by the Southern Poor Law Centre)? They're also the guiding force between many Nazi atrocities, apparently, according to him.

And wonderfulname is naive?

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

Delayed reaction, but -




....says you, who quoted Scott Lively, well known as an anti-gay activist and president of a hate group (as classified by the Southern Poor Law Centre)? They're also the guiding force between many Nazi atrocities, apparently, according to him.

And wonderfulname is naive?

I don't know who Scott Lively is. The Nazi atrocities were a long time ago - if this man is still living, how can he be held responsible? Is he really old?

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

I don't know who Scott Lively is. The Nazi atrocities were a long time ago - if this man is still living, how can he be held responsible? Is he really old?

The article you quoted from the defend the family website pdf was by Scott Lively. You should know who you're agreeing with before you do it?

It's his argument, in his publication the Pink Swastika, that LGBT people engineered the Nazi atrocities.

My original point previous to this explanation still stands.

Quo Vadis

Asry

Have you watched this vid yet, just wondering what your take is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

Asry

Hey That video filled me up with hope, and for a while there I saw the world through only one pair of eyes.

mcrdotcom

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/homosexuality-and-the-bible-part-2-response/

This is the rather late follow up blog to this thread! Hope you like it.

wonderfulname

Thanks for posting your response mcrdotcom. For the most part I found it a very well worded and considerate one, especially with regard the well worn paedophilia argument. However I felt the following comment a bit assumptive;

Well, yes, people do read [the Bible], and quite frankly, you cannot call yourself a true Christian unless you follow it word for word. So as above, should a new religion be established as a break away group from Christianity?

People have been breaking away from the traditional model of Christianity (Roman Catholic) since the reformation, which began in 1517 if I recall correctly. Actually I may be wrong in that, Eastern Orthodoxy may be older again.
Many denominations see the bible as the word of man, inspired by god, many do not see it as something to take literally.

With regard to the topic at hand it can be seen that various denominations, or branches within, hold a modern approach when it comes to sexuality. You will find that some are conducting study into the area to see if it is time to revise their views.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America don't have an official stance, but, as above, has been conducting a study of the issue in recent years. Its current policy is to allow gay people participate fully in its congregations and to encourage conversation on the issue. They ordain gay people to church positions, although considering how Lutheran ministers remain celibate, I don't see why they wouldn't.
Anglicanism is pretty much all over the place, they have no official stance other than to say that "Homosexual practice is incompatible with the scriptures" however this is balanced with a "listening process" on the issue, and from what I've seen they really are listening. Overall it appears that they are merely maintaining the status quo until they can find a way to rectify (is that the right word?) homosexuality with their teachings. At a parish level the CoI appears to be moving forward in leaps and bounds on the issue.
Quakerism, again is without an official stance in Ireland and again there is much thought being given to the issue, however their teachings push towards acceptance and Friends in GB have come out in support of same sex marriage. With these three examples and others like them I feel it is only a matter of time, I doubt the thought processes they are going through could result in a complete lack of change.

The United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland the Church of Norway, the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (say that 5 times fast) are all LGBT affirming, and all Christian (mostly mainline protestant).

So I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but I just wanted to point out that Christianity can be forward thinking, and that the bible is not always taken as gospel (ba dum dum...). Some Christians view the general message of the New Testament, of living your life well and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself as far more important (and someway incompatible) with the idea that gay acts are sinful. In my eyes this does not make them any less Christian, Christianity has been constantly evolving (abet slowly) since its conception, and this evolution has always required different stances to be taken on scriptures, the whole word for word argument just doesn't fly.

philologos

wonderfulname: It is highly arguable to say that the RCC was "traditional Christianity". Christianity predates the RCC and if one takes the Reformation in prespective it could be argued that the Reformation was spurred out of a desire to restore Christianity to its original roots before practices such as indulgences, simony, and other forms of corruption entered.

The CofI is very much split on the issue. There are many that think that we should nonetheless maintain traditional Christian standards in respect to sexuality. There are others who think that we should modify our interpretation, but ultimately I don't really see how the Gospel is really ours to change. It is God's and He has entrusted it to us. Other denominations have no doubt done the same but Biblically there is little doubt as far as I can see it that marriage is the ultimate place for sexual expression and that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's rather derogatory to say that just because Christians hold to what they believe God revealed to them in Scripture that they are somehow regressive. I believe the Gospel is the exact same as it was 2,000 years ago. The only difference has been in terms of human structures. Treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself for me is rather simple as far as I would see it. If I were in that situation I would hope that God would give me the strength to follow Him and put people into my life who could offer me help in doing so just as God does when I deal with many of the ups and downs in life.

I don't hold to my beliefs to spite anyone, and I don't hold my beliefs to hate anyone, but 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. To claim that loving our neighbours as ourselves should mean rejecting God's standard is somewhat of a misnomer when the first of the two commandments is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind. It is by loving God that we are better equipped to love our neighbour and to show them what our God stands for.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

wonderfulname: It is highly arguable to say that the RCC was "traditional Christianity". Christianity predates the RCC...

That's not correct. Jesus founded His Church on the Apostles with Peter at the head (Mt. 16:18). Jesus Christ founded only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Pope and the Bishops today only continue the work that was passed on by the laying on of hands from the Apostles to our present time. The College of Apostles with Peter at the head gave way in time to the College of Bishops, with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, led by the successor of Peter, the Pope. This was the divine plan for the Church that it should have shepherds on the earth after the heart of the Founder, Jesus Christ.

I think you must be confused about Constantine, who some accuse of corrupting Christianity. But Constantine did not establish the Church - Jesus Christ did. He didn't corrupt the faith either, for that would conflict with the promises of Christ. This claim has been refuted elsewhere.

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

gucis

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

We will never know what Jesus Christ actually said about homosexuality.

Donatello

gucis wrote: »

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

We will never know what Jesus Christ actually said about homosexuality.

What was the point of the Incarnation then if we can't know what God meant to teach us? Seems like a waste of time if that's the case.

It's also not what was promised by the Lord in the Gospels. He promised to send the Holy Spirit, and He promised that the Church would be guided into all truth, that same Church which gave us the Bible.

Quo Vadis

gucis wrote: »

In 2000 year period Bible was overwritten several times by different people, and all of them put something from themselves in it.

Can you give us some examples ?

gucis

Donatello wrote: »

What was the point of the Incarnation then if we can't know what God meant to teach us? Seems like a waste of time if that's the case.

It's also not what was promised by the Lord in the Gospels. He promised to send the Holy Spirit, and He promised that the Church would be guided into all truth, that same Church which gave us the Bible.

Where did you get this?

Donatello

gucis wrote: »

Where did you get this?

It's the teaching of the Church.

Note also what Crist said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Jesus Christ brought God to man. It would be a bit of a disappointment if the mission of Jesus ended up in meaningless confusion. We don't believe that is the case.

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

Quo Vadis

Donatello wrote: »

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

I really like that site, and have used it before.
That's a great overall link, thanks.

gucis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Can you give us some examples ?

You can find on internet ''black bible''. People wrote out some fragments of the Bible, that are in contradiction with 10 Commandments. I am absolutely convinced that these fragments are made by people to impact minds of nations.

gucis

Donatello wrote: »

It's the teaching of the Church.

Note also what Crist said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Jesus Christ brought God to man. It would be a bit of a disappointment if the mission of Jesus ended up in meaningless confusion. We don't believe that is the case.

You could have a root round here for information on any particular topic.

Yes it's the teaching of Church based on the Bible that it has today.
Absolutely, the mission of Jesus and crucifixion was not meaningless.

Christ said of Himself - 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' Same time the God gave the permit for people to make mistakes. And modern Bible is striking example of people mistakes, cause Christ's preaching based on love, love to everybody, everything. And that is 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.'

Quo Vadis

gucis wrote: »

You can find on internet ''black bible''. People wrote out some fragments of the Bible, that are in contradiction with 10 Commandments. I am absolutely convinced that these fragments are made by people to impact minds of nations.

Can you list out some specifics that you'd like to discuss ?

mcrdotcom

wonderfulname wrote: »

Thanks for posting your response mcrdotcom. For the most part I found it a very well worded and considerate one, especially with regard the well worn paedophilia argument. However I felt the following comment a bit assumptive;

People have been breaking away from the traditional model of Christianity (Roman Catholic) since the reformation, which began in 1517 if I recall correctly. Actually I may be wrong in that, Eastern Orthodoxy may be older again.
Many denominations see the bible as the word of man, inspired by god, many do not see it as something to take literally.

With regard to the topic at hand it can be seen that various denominations, or branches within, hold a modern approach when it comes to sexuality. You will find that some are conducting study into the area to see if it is time to revise their views.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America don't have an official stance, but, as above, has been conducting a study of the issue in recent years. Its current policy is to allow gay people participate fully in its congregations and to encourage conversation on the issue. They ordain gay people to church positions, although considering how Lutheran ministers remain celibate, I don't see why they wouldn't.
Anglicanism is pretty much all over the place, they have no official stance other than to say that "Homosexual practice is incompatible with the scriptures" however this is balanced with a "listening process" on the issue, and from what I've seen they really are listening. Overall it appears that they are merely maintaining the status quo until they can find a way to rectify (is that the right word?) homosexuality with their teachings. At a parish level the CoI appears to be moving forward in leaps and bounds on the issue.
Quakerism, again is without an official stance in Ireland and again there is much thought being given to the issue, however their teachings push towards acceptance and Friends in GB have come out in support of same sex marriage. With these three examples and others like them I feel it is only a matter of time, I doubt the thought processes they are going through could result in a complete lack of change.

The United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Swiss Reformed Church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Danish National Church, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland the Church of Norway, the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (say that 5 times fast) are all LGBT affirming, and all Christian (mostly mainline protestant).

So I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but I just wanted to point out that Christianity can be forward thinking, and that the bible is not always taken as gospel (ba dum dum...). Some Christians view the general message of the New Testament, of living your life well and treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself as far more important (and someway incompatible) with the idea that gay acts are sinful. In my eyes this does not make them any less Christian, Christianity has been constantly evolving (abet slowly) since its conception, and this evolution has always required different stances to be taken on scriptures, the whole word for word argument just doesn't fly.

Christianity is pretty much always associated with Roman Catholicism, and currently, that is a portraying a terrible outlook on the Religion.

What I mean to say is that, maybe it is time for Roman Catholicism to branch out into something new, a modern version of the religion, that takes into account modern thinking. But the main point here is that the Vatican itself must follow.

I am a firm believer in religion, or a common belief in something that can unite a people. I am a atheist, but I find unity with other atheists, because, it is not that we are 'non-believers', but rather, believers in no God. But unfortunately, I don't see a future for Christianity, or more specifically, Roman Catholicism if the church continues down its current path.

I think the next Pope will be a major 'make or break' moment for the church, and if he is anything like the current Pope, then I fear for the religion.

gucis

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Can you list out some specifics that you'd like to discuss ?

I do not wish to make big discussion of this here, cause it leads nowhere, I just say very fundamental things.

Bible's central concepts are just concepts of morality and conscience - Be good to other people, believe in their creator. And that's it.


And Jesus said - ''God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life''.

gucis

Should agree with you. Just no need to connect faith with church.

mcrdotcom

Nobody seems to be viewing this anymore, but if you are interested in my blog I will post the next link HERE and I will create a thread in the appropriate category.

Hope you all subscribe if you have a wordpress.com account.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com

Also, the next post might not be for a good while, and the response will be slow because I am doing my Leaving Certificate in two weeks time.

Thanks all.

philologos

I think what is more likely to cause churches in general to decline is compromising their beliefs and becoming just like the rest of society. If Christians and churches stand up for what everyone else stands for what marks out Christianity as different to anything else. You might say its just one thing, but who are we claiming Christianity is from? Man or God?

This site is based in the UK but the statistics on church attendance are very interesting and challenge many misconceptions about the reality. The fact is that those churches which most closely hold to Biblical truth are the ones which are growing. Just look at point 5 on the link.

The Economist in November 2007 when it dealt with this subject noted much the same. Obviously this isn't solely restricted to the subject at hand but the idea that if we don't like something we should just change it doesn't seem to be the solution.

Rezident

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Christianity is pretty much always associated with Roman Catholicism,

It is but really they're two different things. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. A Roman Catholic is a follower of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which includes lots of manmade stuff like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the books the RC church wrote and priests not being allowed to get married and enforced celibacy on priests etc.

Donatello

Rezident wrote: »

It is but really they're two different things. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. A Roman Catholic is a follower of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which includes lots of manmade stuff like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the books the RC church wrote and priests not being allowed to get married and enforced celibacy on priests etc.

It's funny, but those who say the CC should just change everything to suit the modern world do not seem to realise that the Church would then have no claim whatsoever to the truth.

The other thing is, nobody is forced to be a priest. It is celibacy taken up voluntarily for the sake of the Kingdom. Every man who chooses priesthood knows that there is the celibacy requirement.

mcrdotcom

Donatello wrote: »

The other thing is, nobody is forced to be a priest. It is celibacy taken up voluntarily for the sake of the Kingdom. Every man who chooses priesthood knows that there is the celibacy requirement.

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

Donatello

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

I think it was Satan himself who said to St. John Marie Vianney that if there were three like him in the world, his reign over this world would collapse. What we need is not a load of mediocre priests, but a few good men.

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Good luck having enough priests to service half the parishes in Ireland in the next 50 years if you keep that up.

Its a choice that not many men would be willing to take in this day and age.

We have a 1-2 new priests ordained in our diocese every year and that is a noticeable improvement on a few years back. Things are slowly on the way back up. It's quality not quantity these days. A smaller Church with more authentic Catholics will be no harm.

Ash.J.Williams

Donatello wrote: »

I think it was Satan himself who said to St. John Marie Vianney that if there were three like him in the world, his reign over this world would collapse. What we need is not a load of mediocre priests, but a few good men.

Satan reigns?

Donatello

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Satan reigns?

Well, he is the prince of this world.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

We have a 1-2 new priests ordained in our diocese every year and that is a noticeable improvement on a few years back. Things are slowly on the way back up. It's quality not quantity these days. A smaller Church with more authentic Catholics will be no harm.

This isn't an English essay... If there are not enough priests then the parish can't be serviced properly...