just wondering if anyone out there can justify the predigious of cathlolic church

r@t

Excelsior wrote:

2. According to the charter of this board, you should not be coming in here saying "You are stupid (explain yourself)", which is what you do when you say "Prejudices... mythology... sexual assaults... (I really want to know the truth".

i did not call anyone stupid- nor did i inply it, my referrences were to an institution, which is not perfect ( or is it)- i did nor refer to any individual?
im sorry if i offended anyone, i admit the question was badly phrased.

it is your choice to believe. i am not questioning your belief just some areas in your institution that affect alll people within catholic contries. people should be allowed freedom of chooice or there should be a fairer more defined system.

if all sin is forgiven then forgive me and act more christian in light of the questions i asked- callling people muppets solves nothing.

"prej·u·dice:an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
if everyone sins and sins are forgiven why can't gays marry or be priest. im sure priests commit other sins- so why not homosexuality. murders, rapists,thieves can marry- murder is a mortal sin (dunno if being gay is)
isn't that one rule for you and another for someone else.
in doesn't make sense can you please explain it to me.

Excelsior

While you have not called anyone stupid, phrasing things like this:

people should be allowed freedom of chooice or there should be a fairer more defined system

is needlessly antagonistic and not at all based in reality.

Ireland may still be a Catholic country, r@t, but it certainly also offers freedom of choice when it comes to matters religious.

i am not questioning your belief just some areas in your institution

You are actually questioning people's beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that. That is why there is a Christianity board in the first place. Just do it more reasonably in the future.

You are not questioning my institution though. I conciously stated I was a Presbyterian to emphasise to you the fact that Roman Catholicism is not the whole of Christianity. Your failure to recognise this group theory problem casts a shadow over all your points.

if all sin is forgiven then forgive me and act more christian in light of the questions i asked- callling people muppets solves nothing

We'll start at the back here: no one called you a muppet. If you are a muppet, however, it is my job as moderator, to keep you in line so that you don't clog up the board and waste people's time.

Leave out the "act more Christian" comments r@t. No one here has treated you unfairly. This is a place for robust debate so pull yourself up to the standard of the likes of Talliesin if you want to be taken seriously. Demanding clarity of expression is not an unChristian action. There is no need to forgive you since you have not sinned against me.

While I realise you are dyslexic, it would help your case if you were to send your posts through a grammar and spell checker. Not simply because you lay yourself open to petty complaints about your spelling (which are not appreciated by me or by Pooka) but because your posts are incomprehensible in parts. Express yourself better and we might be able to explain things to you better.

Now as far as all sin being forgiven therefore let us sin is concerned, that is a very old heresy within Christianity which is called antinomianianism. It is dealt with in the letter by St. Paul to the church at Rome.

While we have all sinned and continue to sin, sin is still bad. Christians are called in the Bible, (look at 1 John if you need a reference) to hate sin and strive for the highest standard possible. Now we won't reach that highest standard but as a testament to the sincerity of our faith we must try always to reach it, as best we can.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, there are descriptions of what leaders in churches should be. These descriptions rule out actively gay people being leaders.

Other bits and pieces:
Mortal sins are exclusively the domain of RC Church by the way and are not held to by any other of the Christian churches. Being gay, as I already pointed out, is not a sin. Homosexual behaviour is sinful. Being homosexual is not.

Whatever else Christian theology is on the topic of suitability for leadership, it is definitely not "one rule for me (?) and another for someone else". If a gay person wants to be a leader in a Christian church, then that is fine but just like a priest or just like a minister in a Protestant denomination, they will have to live according to the standards set out for them in the Bible. In the specific case of homosexual leaders, that means celibacy.

Now if one wants to disregard the Bible, then that is fine. But I would ask why you'd want to ever become a leader in a Christian church if you don't regard the authority upon which the church is based to have any validity?

Edit: Thanks for editing your claims about celibacy being a cause of sexual crime.

r@t

thanks for the reply but you didn't answer part of the question. in christianity are gays allowed to marry? if not and murders and thieves are, isn't this misleading and confusing? is it saying (if it is the case) that it is worse to be gay than to murder?

Excelsior

Christianity is not something that is to be fabricated anew every ten years depending on the cultural mood. It makes claims to have truth that applies to all people in all times in all cultures. These claims are laid out in the Bible. Ultimately, all the objections you have are to practices or philosophies based on the Bible. I'm not a Roman Catholic and so disagree with some of their conclusions but the answers to all your questions are to be found in the Bible.

Now to get to the specifics of your question, homosexual men are free to marry women in the Christian churches. Homosexual women are free to marry men in the Christian churches. Christian marriage is for one man and for one woman. Murderers and thieves are free to marry one member of the opposite sex, regardless of whether their prospective spouse is guilty of murdering or theivery. The lack of gay marriage in the Christian churches isn't some kind of punishment for gay sex, but a simple lack of any concept of gay marriage in the Bible.

Its not misleading. Its not confusing. You may choose to disagree because you have freedom of conscience in this predominantly Catholic society.

You really should be putting your posts through a grammar and spell checker.

r@t

Excelsior wrote:

The lack of gay marriage in the Christian churches isn't some kind of punishment for gay sex, but a simple lack of any concept of gay marriage in the Bible.

ok i think i get it now. so it hasn't been considered because it wasn't written in the bible?

Excelsior

Broadly and in a total simplification, yes. It hasn't been considered since it is ruled out in the Bible.

r@t

i have a bible but i don't remember that from when i read it last (its been a while) could you please quote a reference to this. thanks.

i believe you of course. i just wanna see how it is phrased.

Excelsior

Genesis 2:24 describes marriage: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This is just one of many passages that define marriage in terms of man and woman. Googling this, or even better, cracking open your Bible will bear this out.

Off the top of my head, the stick-out New Testament passage condemning homosexuality is Romans 1:24, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." I use NT, not to disregard the testament of the Hebrew scriptures but because people in general disregard them and seem to think like Marcion, that we should keep the "nice" NT and discard the "outmoded" OT.

I don't intend to convince you of my position r@t. You have asked questions, I have tried to respond to them. Feel free to disagree, but doctrine for churches comes from the Bible and you have to bend numerous explicit passages into contortions to draw a conclusion that has the Bible not expressing Christian marriage as a union between man and woman.

r@t

do you know when the bible was written? was it written only by the 12 apostles?
and how long did it take to complete?

oh one other question i really don't understand- why do all pictures of jesus and the apostles show them as white people when they lived in dark skinned countries?

Excelsior

The Bible was written by dozens of people over the course of about 1200 years. The final book, Revelation, was written by the apostle John in 90-95AD.

The New Testament was mostly written by apostles (if you consider Paul an apostle) between 40 and 95AD.

The Hebrew Scriptures were written and compiled over the milennium before Christ. They often recount stories that are older than their written date (in the case of Genesis 1 & 2, that is a story that seems to be from around 4000BC).

Paintings of Jesus are composed by the artists. The artists envision the Christ in a particular way and then paint what their conceive. You will have to consult the artists as to how their creative process works out. Art is not meant to be a literal expression of the world in materialistic terms. As such, in recent years, some of the most notable Christ depictions have been of Oriental and African Christs.

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus' apperance dealt with. Jesus was definitely a Palestinian Jew.

r@t

1200 years! how is this possible
what would people who lived 1200 -1300 years after jesus know anything about what happened during the time he lived?

neuro-praxis

Ok. Excelsior did not say that the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus were written over 1200 years. He said that the *whole bible* was.

The bible is not just one book. It is composed of 66 books, 39 of which were written *before* Christ was born. They prophesy the coming of Christ, and lay out the mythological history of the Jews.

The remaining 27 books (New Testament books) were written later, after His death and ressurrection. The New Testament books span between 40 and 95 years, and were all written by those who knew Jesus personally as a man.

I hope things are becoming clearer for you, r@t. By the way, is your name pronounced "ratty"? I wondered because spelled out properly you get r-at-t.

Hardstuff

I will refer you to this, my post in the other topic:
About contraception: Do you think the Pope just spurts out random words against anything that he feels like? "Oh today I do not like the combustion engine, I think it should be banned!!" The answer is obvious and serious no.

He gets medical researchers, doctors etc... Trained people, capeable of researching the topic. In the 1960's, with the Second Vatican Council, at the time there was a serious problem with the Pill. Sorry, but I do forget what was added to it, which made it "faulty", so I cannot search it. It caused serious birth defects, about 1 in 4 American children born, were born deformed etc... Now, if the Pope had allowed contraceptives at that time, it would have been a lot worse. The Pope doesn't say something is wrong for no reason.

Also, life should in no way be prevented, or should someone try to prevent it. Life is God's gift to us all. And people are preventing others from enjoying that! And that IS a sin! This ties in with abortion too, even in cases of rape. (I will start off with this, and use this as an example, because this is the most serious case.) Why should the child die, for the crime of the man? If the mother does not want the child, put it up for adoption. How many families out there are childless? Who would love the gift of a child? A single mother, cannot raise a child very well, or even stay above the poverty line, why not add to her gift of life the gift of a family?


Ok, using contraception, let's say a condom, ok? You sit down, with your girlfriend, and she tells you she has AIDs. Now, would you slip on a condom, even a latex one, and have sex with her? Be honest, you wouldn't want to. Even if she has a cut in her mouth, and you "French" kiss her, you will have a high chance of getting the STD. Certainly, contraception can help prevent disease, but not in all cases. And in cases where you know the person has the disease, contraception wont help you have sex with that person.

In today's "modern" relationships, people see sex as something that "must" be done. They say "Oh but I love the person! It must be ok!". The relationship will then become centred around sex. Lets say, a couple, they have been together for 2 years, got married, 5 years in the sex has stopped, or rarely occurs. 10 years in, even less. By year 5, they already have regrets, by year 10, they cannot stand the other person. A lot of marriages (In the Western World) are now based upon sex, and they break down easily. Those who are celibate, would love the person for who they are, not for the sex. Then when they get married, the sex is a gift, for the one they know and love - whehay the sex is a bonus to their already thriving relationship.

That, above (Just above this, and also the one about life and abortion), also ties in with homosexuality. It prevents life from occuring.
Catholicism, actually Christianity in general, is based around the family. Father, mother, son and daughter. Not father, father and no child (I will not ever accept homosexuals as parents), or mother and mother. Their relationship is based upon sex, it is recreational. Yes, you've all most likely heard this before: It is procration not recreation. And that is true. The pleasure from sex, is another gift from God, to make procreation enjoyable.
Now society is nothing but sex.


Discrimintation against women. Where? By not allowing them to be Priests? I do not see that as "discrimination". I'd say either the next, or the one after, Pope will allow that, and would probably also allow Priests to marry.
But that is not discrimination. I would find it wierd to have a female Priest (Though by this statement I am not being discriminatory, because if you ask any single Catholic, they will agree. When the Church of Ireland (First Protestant religion to allow it) allowed it, many Vicars converted to Catholicism, they were allowed to keep their families. They found it wierd, it is only natural, change causes fear) but I do say, that in the future it will happen, and I do not mind it.



And to this I will add:
Allowing Priests to marry, will not really effect child molestation. That came about from pedophiles seeing a profession where they can get close to children, and to be alone with them. I do not see them as Priests at all.

r@t

thanks for that indepth replyi found it very interesting.
you make it sould like people break up because of sex- people also change mentally- grow to like different things.
but contraception should be allowed for married couples. i realise you can love someone with out sex- but it can stop unwanted pregnancies, and you might say that stops cration of life. well scientifically every 1 of the billoins of sperms in an ejeculation is a different life so even when pregnancy occurs billions do not have a chance of life. are you married- be honest every time you have sex with a person has it been with the sole intention of creating a life? have you ever masterbated?this also prevents life from occuring. you know what happens when people don't use contraception? they don't stop having sex- they have large famlies- as a direct result. you want me to back this up, ok how many aunts and uncles do you have? im 25 my mothers generation was one of large families(few people in this time used contraception). she had 3 brothers and 4 sisters. this was not uncommon. infact most of the people i know have about the same amount. do you think this family had enough money to support that many children- no life was a struggle. and the division of inheritance due to large families was a contributing factor to this contries bad economy. look at third world countries- no contraception means babies that cannot be fed- who suffers- the baby. you say you don't like the combustion engine. there would n't be so many around if there weren't so many people, the world is crowded enough without guilting people into not using contraception when having sex. how many children do families today have 1-2 maybe 3 or 4. do you honestly know of any that still have 7( and ther were much larger families). i don't. this is thanks to contraception.

but about the homosexual comment, some gay couples may also be celibate- homosexuality is not a chioce- if it was who would choose it?( i say this becase of the hard time gays have, not because i think it is a bad choice)
and they can have a family by adopting childern, maybe the raped children could give their unwanted babies to the gays. don't say that it's not fair on the child to have two mothers/fathers, they would love it just as much as a normal family. you might said the child would be picked on or traumatized because in hasn't got a normal upbringing. well this would go back to the fact that gays aren't accepted- if they were it wouldn't be an issue.

what about hermaphrodites? what is the christian stance on them.
do they just deserve isolation for ther existence. or people who cannot concieve should the be allowed to marry? or have sex?

being a priest does not bring you any closer to children than any other profession. that is an unfounded statement. as a priest you do not deal solely with children. there are not many oportunities to be alone with children. an it would be as difficult task to trick the child so you could have you way as any other profession- it would probablybe harder. you must be thinking of a child minder, a school teacher or a swet shop owner when you say get close to children. you say that a if they weren't really priests at all. they were pedophiles from the start. well question number 1 is:

if they were pedophiles how did they get into the priesthood in the first place?

number 2:

why did certain bishops ( and higher ranks) cover it up when it was discovered- and then simply relocate the priest and let them continue harming children? were they pedophiles too? thats like saying "oh my God you're a pedophile not a priest" when they found out and then saying "well i guess you can contine pretenting to be a priest since you've done your training- your forgiven- try not to do it again- and to help you avoid temptation of reoffending we'll move you to an area where nobody knows your a pedophile- yes an area where nobody knows you-try to be good*wink* *wink*"
this is like saying there are no humans capable of murder- there are just preasigned murderers- who aren't human at all. they are infact a different species and cannot be christian. so if my brother murdered my motherr i would say "hang on he wasn't my brother he was a murder pretenting to be my brother so he could be close to my mother to murder her"
yes your right that does sound absurd, and so does your statement.
they were priest they did molest children how can you deny it. by denying it you are covering it up and that isn't very morale.

saying i'd say the pope after the next or a hundred after that, will allow females and marraige is unfounded- you don't know the next pope or the one after or any of their agendas- spoken or unspoken- people don't always do what they say. if you see a mistake whats wrong with correcting it straight away? maybe people with forget about it. everything is "wierd" at first it's called new. you do many new things everyday, infact everything you do was new at one stage and your used to your life as it is now, people adapt very fast it's our nature.

again thank you for your detail answer. i assure you i am not trying to catch you out or play silly games- these are just logical thoughts that come to mind after reading your answer. i wish i could believe your statement and the good intentions it holds but i cannot ingore the (apparent)cracks i see in it, i cannot help it i am synical and inquisitive by nature . this thread has been helpful to me and i understand christanity better now.

banquo

r@t wrote:

"prej·u·dice:an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."

your decision to look this definition up 10 posts into a thread that you started indicates a totaly lack of seriousness on your part to this.

Do you have any genuine questions?

r@t

i am serious. you don't think its hostile to exclude someone for no good reason??
gays are being excluded.

hardstuff wrote:

That, above (Just above this, and also the one about life and abortion), also ties in with homosexuality. It prevents life from occuring.
Catholicism, actually Christianity in general, is based around the family. Father, mother, son and daughter. Not father, father and no child (I will not ever accept homosexuals as parents), or mother and mother. Their relationship is based upon sex, it is recreational. Yes, you've all most likely heard this before: It is procration not recreation. And that is true. The pleasure from sex, is another gift from God, to make procreation enjoyable.
Now society is nothing but sex.

but hertosexual couples who are infertile or cannot concieve are the same they prevent life from occuring- but they are allowed to marry. this makes no sense to me. to me this looks like prejudice.

how is this not a genuine question??
look if i wanted to come on here and take the mick, don't you think i'd be abusive and call people names.

neuro-praxis

Hardstuff wrote:

I will refer you to this, my post in the other topic:
About contraception: Do you think the Pope just spurts out random words against anything that he feels like? "Oh today I do not like the combustion engine, I think it should be banned!!" The answer is obvious and serious no.

He gets medical researchers, doctors etc... Trained people, capeable of researching the topic. In the 1960's, with the Second Vatican Council, at the time there was a serious problem with the Pill. Sorry, but I do forget what was added to it, which made it "faulty", so I cannot search it. It caused serious birth defects, about 1 in 4 American children born, were born deformed etc... Now, if the Pope had allowed contraceptives at that time, it would have been a lot worse. The Pope doesn't say something is wrong for no reason.

I really do understand you rationalising the statements of the pope, but let's not be misleading - the pope doesn't ban contraception for the reason that the pill may have had a harmful chemical in it. Also, your statistics seem to be pulled out of thin air. The pope has moral objections to contraception, not scientific objections.

Also, life should in no way be prevented, or should someone try to prevent it. Life is God's gift to us all. And people are preventing others from enjoying that! And that IS a sin! This ties in with abortion too, even in cases of rape. (I will start off with this, and use this as an example, because this is the most serious case.) Why should the child die, for the crime of the man? If the mother does not want the child, put it up for adoption. How many families out there are childless? Who would love the gift of a child? A single mother, cannot raise a child very well, or even stay above the poverty line, why not add to her gift of life the gift of a family?

Ok, I can see you mean well, but you are making dangerous statements here. It is quite possible for a single parent to bring up a child extremely well. I assume youw ouldn't ask a widow to give her child/children away as a "gift of life" to another family?

Ok, using contraception, let's say a condom, ok? You sit down, with your girlfriend, and she tells you she has AIDs. Now, would you slip on a condom, even a latex one, and have sex with her? Be honest, you wouldn't want to. Even if she has a cut in her mouth, and you "French" kiss her, you will have a high chance of getting the STD. Certainly, contraception can help prevent disease, but not in all cases. And in cases where you know the person has the disease, contraception wont help you have sex with that person.

Again, you are making things up to serve your argument. The likelihood of contracting HIV from french kissing is almost nil. I have no problems with your opinions (although I may disagree with lots of them) but you must at least attempt to be rigorous.

In today's "modern" relationships, people see sex as something that "must" be done. They say "Oh but I love the person! It must be ok!". The relationship will then become centred around sex. Lets say, a couple, they have been together for 2 years, got married, 5 years in the sex has stopped, or rarely occurs. 10 years in, even less. By year 5, they already have regrets, by year 10, they cannot stand the other person. A lot of marriages (In the Western World) are now based upon sex, and they break down easily.

Again, this is mostly unsubstantiated rubbish. I cannot imagine a marriage based on sex. It just doesn't happen. Sometimes people get married for the wrong reasons but this is just preposterous nonsense really.

That, above (Just above this, and also the one about life and abortion), also ties in with homosexuality. It prevents life from occuring.
Catholicism, actually Christianity in general, is based around the family. Father, mother, son and daughter. Not father, father and no child (I will not ever accept homosexuals as parents), or mother and mother. Their relationship is based upon sex, it is recreational. Yes, you've all most likely heard this before: It is procration not recreation. And that is true. The pleasure from sex, is another gift from God, to make procreation enjoyable.
Now society is nothing but sex.

You are a Catholic and I am a Christian. Perhaps you feel that Catholicism is based around the family (I don't agree) but I can tell you now that Christianity is "based" around Christ and nothing else. Also, it is not the teaching of the reformed churches that sex is only for procreation. As far as I am aware, sex is also encouraged in the Catholic church amongst married couples as an expression of their love and not just for procreation - don't the Catholic church recommend natural contraception as outlined by the World Health Organisation?

Discrimintation against women. Where? By not allowing them to be Priests? I do not see that as "discrimination". I'd say either the next, or the one after, Pope will allow that, and would probably also allow Priests to marry.
But that is not discrimination. I would find it wierd to have a female Priest (Though by this statement I am not being discriminatory, because if you ask any single Catholic, they will agree. When the Church of Ireland (First Protestant religion to allow it) allowed it, many Vicars converted to Catholicism, they were allowed to keep their families. They found it wierd, it is only natural, change causes fear) but I do say, that in the future it will happen, and I do not mind it.

You cannot deny that there is discrimination against women in the Catholic church. Perhaps you agree with the discrimination and that is ok by me. But you cannot claim there is no discrimination.

This discrimination also exists in the reformed church: thankfully I am a Presbyterian and can become a minister if I so feel called.

Hardstuff, I suspect you are quite young. I advise you to moderate your arguments here so that you only state your opinions and facts - not rubbish that you make up off the top of your head.

r@t

thank you neuro for having a more logical and unbiased opinion of the matter.
have you any opinion on my question about gays(above)?
i 'd really like to hear what you have to say.

neuro-praxis

r@t, I'm not sure that I have an answer that will satisfy you. The issue of homosexuality has been done to death here in this forum before, but I will try to summarise.

The church (that is - the whole of the Christian church, regardless of denomination, and I mean "church" as in "body of believers" - not an institution) is utterly founded on the bible.

The bible does not say that it is wrong to be homosexual. The bible says that committing homosexual acts is a form of sexual sin. Sexuality is supposed to be expressed through the loving union of marriage, where marriage is defined as the joining of a man and a woman. Homosexual sex as such cannot ever exist within those boundaries by its very nature. All sexual sin is equal in nature so, biblically speaking, it is no worse for a gay couple to have sex than it is for an unmarried straight couple.

Homosexual people are welcome at church. Many Christians have no issues with gay civil union. The issue of "marriage" of gay folks is a problem because it directly contradicts the bible.

If a church claims to be based on the bible and then does exactly what the bible condemns, it is hypocritical.

Now I know I am leaving this open to "Well, the church is full of hypocrites anyway" and that of course is true. However, there is a difference between straying into hypocritical behaviour because of our brokenness, and the church openly endorsing something that the bible is clearly not in favour of.

I have gay friends and family, whom I love. And God loves them no more or less than He loves me. They are no more or less sinful than I am in God's eyes. However, for them to marry in the church would be to make a mockery of what the church is built on: God's word.

r@t

i can see where you are coming from but i can't say i agree with it.

thanks for the clear insight though.

have you any thoughts on child molestation as outline in my above question

thanks for your time.