Homosexuality and The Bible

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

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

The point was with a steady 1 or 2 now being ordained every year for the last 5-6 years (an increase, there was none ordained for the 5 years before that), then there will be enough priests to serve this diocese. Apologies if this bursts your bubble.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The point was with a steady 1 or 2 now being ordained every year for the last 5-6 years (an increase, there was none ordained for the 5 years before that), then there will be enough priests to serve this diocese. Apologies if this bursts your bubble.

Wow... one diocese? I can see how 1-2 per year will serve the parishes country wide

Also, with the disgraceful actions of some of the churches priests coming to light over the recent years, I can see these figures dropping in the next few years.

Roman Catholicism is a religion riddled with secrecy and fraud. Personally, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't go near it.

Asry

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Roman Catholicism is a religion riddled with secrecy and fraud. Personally, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't go near it.

Hmmm. I have a similar suspicious attitude regarding the RCC, but I'm still a member of its congregation of millions (for now). It *does* enact a tug of war between my faith and the reality of this world and the culpability of the RCC through the mistakes/cowardice/pride of men.

But at what point do you turn your back on the ability for man to redeem himself? On your own ability to forgive? But in fairness, I wasn't abused by clergy. Perhaps this is not my argument to make? It's a little like people arguing the pros and cons of abortion without facing the choice in front of them for real.

philologos

mrcdotcom: Perhaps it might be best to open a new thread if you want to discuss the direction you see Christianity (in general) going in? That could be an interesting discussion for us all.

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Wow... one diocese? I can see how 1-2 per year will serve the parishes country wide

Also, with the disgraceful actions of some of the churches priests coming to light over the recent years, I can see these figures dropping in the next few years.

Roman Catholicism is a religion riddled with secrecy and fraud. Personally, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't go near it.

Ah yes the real agenda pops out. Well with that mentality by remaining Irish then surely your condoning every act of child abuse and fraud in Ireland ?

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Ah yes the real agenda pops out. Well with that mentality by remaining Irish then surely your condoning every act of child abuse and fraud in Ireland ?

Did you not see the bit about secrecy?

The secrets of the Vatican are immense... Maybe if they were transparent, and didn't keep their 'treasures' a secret, people might not frown upon the church so much. Also, the progress that could be made within science, history AND religion would be amazing. But no, papa just keeps them locked up for himself.

So it is not just a few... Your own leaders are contributing.

Also, the money within the Vatican... The many lives that could be saved with that, instead of keeping the Pope's feet warm!

philologos: possibly.

lmaopml

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Did you not see the bit about secrecy?

The secrets of the Vatican are immense... Maybe if they were transparent, and didn't keep their 'treasures' a secret, people might not frown upon the church so much.

So it is not just a few... Your own leaders are contributing.

Also, the money within the Vatican... The many lives that could be saved with that, instead of keeping the Pope's feet warm!

philologos: possibly.

Please expand on the secrecy of the vatican?

and the treasures therein? It would be good to 'clarify' exactly what you are talking about...

The 'money' within the vatican is as a consequence of it's faithful and it's spent and redistributed in every diocese on a local level, despite the Popes feet being warm or not whatever the case may be..the church is very 'local' self funded by it's faithful locally...Those who 'do' and are motivated....to fund same.

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Did you not see the bit about secrecy?

The secrets of the Vatican are immense... Maybe if they were transparent, and didn't keep their 'treasures' a secret, people might not frown upon the church so much.

So it is not just a few... Your own leaders are contributing.

Also, the money within the Vatican... The many lives that could be saved with that, instead of keeping the Pope's feet warm!

philologos: possibly.

So what are these secrets they are keeping from us all ?

As for the rest, The Pope owns nothing, not a thing. Food and board is all he gets from Catholics.
The Vatican is owned by the worlds Catholics.
The Vatican is not "rich". It has an annual operating budget of $260 million, Not much for 1 billion Catholics worldwide. It's budget would not place it on any Top 500 list of major social institutions. It often runs at a deficit each year.
The Catholic church runs hundreds of aid agencies all over the world helping the poor every day.

mcrdotcom

lmaopml wrote: »

Please expand on the secrecy of the vatican?

and the treasures therein? It would be good to 'clarify' exactly what you are talking about...

The 'money' within the vatican is as a consequence of it's faithful and it's spent and redistributed in every diocese on a local level, despite the Popes feet being warm or not whatever the case may be..the church is very 'local' self funded by it's faithful locally...Those who 'do' and are motivated....to fund same.

It is common knowledge that the church has confiscated many things throughout the years, and their vaults are filled with them.

Also, there are 82 linear kilometers of shelves within the Vatican Secret Archive. Yes, the Vatican calls its archive the 'Secret Archive'.

YouthNovel

This is the Pope here, hello!

We do have archives fyi dude.

God bless!

Quo Vadis

mcrdotcom wrote: »

It is common knowledge that the church has confiscated many things throughout the years, and their vaults are filled with them.

Also, there are 82 linear kilometers of shelves within the Vatican Secret Archive. Yes, the Vatican calls its archive the 'Secret Archive'.

2000 years of historical documents.

So secret, the secret achives are open for research ;

The Secret Archives are open to Researchers from September 16th to July 15th (8:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from Monday to Saturday.

The Admissions Secretary issues Entry Cards from Monday to Friday from 8:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

The word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not have the modern meaning: it indicates instead that the archives are the Pope's own, not those of a department of the Roman Curia. The word "secret" was used in this sense also in phrases such as "secret servants", "secret cupbearer", "secret carver" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Secret_Archives

YouthNovel

Dude they have private documents that not everyone can just have a look at. Fragile documents that are kept away from the public.

Take a chill pill dude.

YouthNovel

Man, you cant use wikipedia as a reference, have you ever written a college essay?!

I could go on and change that right now.

mcrdotcom

Quo Vadis wrote: »

2000 years of historical documents.

So secret, the secret achives are open for research ;

The Secret Archives are open to Researchers from September 16th to July 15th (8:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from Monday to Saturday.

The Admissions Secretary issues Entry Cards from Monday to Friday from 8:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

The word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not have the modern meaning: it indicates instead that the archives are the Pope's own, not those of a department of the Roman Curia. The word "secret" was used in this sense also in phrases such as "secret servants", "secret cupbearer", "secret carver" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Secret_Archives

Entry is STRICTLY controlled and is only granted for SPECIFIC purposes and is supervised. Nobody knows what documents are being kept away from public view?

"The Italian anticlerical party was disappointed in its hope of finding the Secret Archives a repository for records of usurpations, crimes, and sexual perversions. But the question still remains as to whether the Secret Archives exercises internal censorship over its materials. What action is taken by a scriptor, custodian, or prefect when, in the course of his work, he comes across material that is morally or theologically controversial? Has a closed (chiuso) fondo [individual archive] gradually accumulated, the much-talked-of fondo about which nothing is actually known, a closed fondo which is categorically denied by the Archives authorities? This is a question which puzzled me during the long time I spent working in the Secret Archives, and to which I still have not found any answer. My own personal impression is that no such material is destroyed. The men of the Archives have too much sense of the past, too much reverence for scholarship, too much obligation to learning, for that. But such documents may be omitted from the inventories, bound in volumes containing documents of a very different kind, and relegated to some fondo that is closed because of chronological limitation or very seldom consulted.

This happened with the personal letters of Pope Borgia to the little clan of his devoted women, and with the original summary of the process of [the trial of] Giordano Bruno, and may have happened many other times that we do not know about. Such documents may eventually reappear in the future..."

Quo Vadis

YouthNovel wrote: »

Man, you cant use wikipedia as a reference, have you ever written a college essay?!

I could go on and change that right now.

yeh cause we all know how pro catholic wiki is, yo lil dude check the footnotes and refs, skools out, 2 kool 4 skool. :rolleyes:

YouthNovel

Hey man, I hope you feel better after your little go at me there. Big balls.

Just thought you might have had the sense not to reference wikipedia, regardless of any references or footnotes at the end. If we all started referencing wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that can be edited by members of the general global public, then facts could be misconstrued by a link to a random page containing (the majority of the time) poorly backed up work.

In future, I'd recommend you rely on better sources, especially trying to back up such a ridiculous arguments as yours.

The catholic church in Ireland, is now renowned for their inability to communicate vital information to relevant establishments in an order to save their behind, and that of their own priests.

I understand your need to defend your church. I'm a roman catholic, and I go to mass every week, but recent revelations have had a serious affect on my faith in the church, not in God. If the church is unable to instill a faith and trust in its followers, how would they expect us to fend for them like you do.

mcrdotcom

YouthNovel wrote: »

Hey man, I hope you feel better after your little go at me there. Big balls.

Just thought you might have had the sense not to reference wikipedia, regardless of any references or footnotes at the end. If we all started referencing wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that can be edited by members of the general global public, then facts could be misconstrued by a link to a random page containing (the majority of the time) poorly backed up work.

In future, I'd recommend you rely on better sources, especially trying to back up such a ridiculous arguments as yours.

The catholic church in Ireland, is now renowned for their inability to communicate vital information to relevant establishments in an order to save their behind, and that of their own priests.

Amen to that!

Quo Vadis

The sources for the wiki article are quoted at the link
Are you finished with the strawman argument yet ?

Asry

YouthNovel wrote: »

The catholic church in Ireland, is now renowned for their inability to communicate vital information to relevant establishments in an order to save their behind, and that of their own priests.

I understand your need to defend your church. I'm a roman catholic, and I go to mass every week, but recent revelations have had a serious affect on my faith in the church, not in God. If the church is unable to instill a faith and trust in its followers, how would they expect us to fend for them like you do.

hear hear.

Keylem

YouthNovel wrote: »

The catholic church in Ireland, is now renowned for their inability to communicate vital information to relevant establishments in an order to save their behind, and that of their own priests.

I understand your need to defend your church. I'm a roman catholic, and I go to mass every week, but recent revelations have had a serious affect on my faith in the church, not in God. If the church is unable to instill a faith and trust in its followers, how would they expect us to fend for them like you do.

Don't you mean some of the Catholic Hierarchy didn't communicate vital information. The Catholic Church's members consists of clergy and laity.

Jesus certainly knew the future and what would happen with His Church, yet that didn't stop him from establishing it. He also said that there would be some who wouldn't tow the line, just like the Pharisees of His day.

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Matt 23:1-12

In other words, the teaching will be sound but some of the preachers wouldn't!

My faith in the Church isn't based on what it's members do!

Asry

Keylem wrote: »

My faith in the Church isn't based on what it's members do!

...but the clergy also count as members of the church, do they not? How did this get on to the sexual abuse scandals anyway? Shouldn't this be in the 'evidence' that the paedophiles were homosexuals thread?

YouthNovel

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The sources for the wiki article are quoted at the link
Are you finished with the strawman argument yet ?

Wow, it was hardly a strawman argument if I was replying to your argument and not refuting it with irrelevant information. Looks like you just didn't want to address what I had to say.

Everyone knows that wikipeida is not a sound resource. Ask any college lecturer. Unless it's to do with Chemistry.

You didn't even try to defend your argument. Just not bothered?

Quo Vadis

Asry wrote: »

...but the clergy also count as members of the church, do they not? How did this get on to the sexual abuse scandals anyway? Shouldn't this be in the 'evidence' that the paedophiles were homosexuals thread?

Personally, I like to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, and the golden principle or justice is that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I could just as easily write off Ireland and Irish people as lazy corrupt greedy cowardly terrorist drunkards, but I don't. I could do the same with anyone of another nationality or persecution, but I don't.

Yes I'm very angry about what some of the peusedo Catholic priests and bishops have done, but I will never let them spoil my Church or my faith. Jesus himself showed us that for every 12 disciples one can turn out to be a Judas.

Quo Vadis

YouthNovel wrote: »

Wow, it was hardly a strawman argument if I was replying to your argument and not refuting it with irrelevant information. Looks like you just didn't want to address what I had to say.

Everyone knows that wikipeida is not a sound resource. Ask any college lecturer. Unless it's to do with Chemistry.

You didn't even try to defend your argument. Just not bothered?

Because your trying to argue about wikipedia not being suitable for your school essays, not the actual points, if you have better data refuting it, post it. But interestingly you've posted nothing proving your claims about the church.

YouthNovel

Ha you think I need to give you proof about my claims about the church. I'm sure there's a few well known reports you can have a look at.

Keylem

YouthNovel wrote: »

Ha you think I need to give you proof about my claims about the church. I'm sure there's a few well known reports you can have a look at.

Like this one perhaps!

Keylem

Keylem wrote: »

Like this one perhaps!

Yet the CC still forbids the use of condoms. Prevention is better than treatment.

Keylem

Promiscuity spreads aids, and condoms aids promiscuity!

Keylem

Keylem wrote: »

Promiscuity spreads aids, and condoms aids promiscuity!

It still doesn't take away from the fact that the CC is inadvertently aiding in the pain, misery and death of countless numbers of people through their disallowing of the use of condoms, especially on the African continent.

Keylem

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!

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