B
buffalo
Guest
God is truth itself.
- Status
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Agreed.
E
edwest2
Guest
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Out of curiosity, what is there that makes you think that in these last (roughly) 10 years people suddenly discovered that the word of God said exactly the opposite of what everyone had hitherto believed it to say? That when Paul said that men who lie with other men shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, that this really meant that they only shall not inherit the kingdom unless they really, really wanted to lie together?
Is God that bad an Author that the very Church He founded could misunderstand what He personally told them while incarnate, and also revealed through scriptures? Do you think it likely that that such a radical reversal in opinion since forever would just now be discovered?
Or perhaps is it more likely that you’re projecting the desires of the age on to what you read?
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Yes but just because the Vatican said it doesn’t make it true.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
I think the word of God has always been the same. And I think the most important part of that is what his son said, not lines that were written in the Old Testament and then superseded.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Kingdom
**I think the word of God has always been the same. And I think the most important part of that is what his son said, not lines that were written in the Old Testament and then superseded. **
If it has always been the same, do you count St. Paul as a heretic?
I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators … nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
**I think the word of God has always been the same. And I think the most important part of that is what his son said, not lines that were written in the Old Testament and then superseded. **
If it has always been the same, do you count St. Paul as a heretic?
I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators … nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
B
buffalo
Guest
His son? His son is God Himself. There can be no contradiction between what God inspired in the OT and the NT.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
No but I do disagree with some of what St. Paul said, for example this and his position on women who he believed should be silent and never assume authority over a man.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
But Jesus got rid of some of the old testament laws/disregarded them.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
But not the moral law of personal behavior. Again, it’s all there in Matthew Chapter 5. The Sermon on the Mount reaffirms the moral law of the OT, and how. (It reaffirms it and goes even deeper.) What He did was minimize, eliminate, and de-prioritize some of the supplemental ritual and Sabbath laws, which were not core to the Torah at all. That’s why He said He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.
Jewish Moral Law is summed up, not replaced, by the Two Great Commandments which Jesus reaffirmed. Every authentic scripture scholar respected by the community of scripture scholars understands this.
E
edwest2
Guest
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Let’s check out what His Son said:
[17] Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Some of the ritual law does not apply to us now, because of the actions of Christ, but the moral law is unchanging.
Also note that the OT prohibition on homosexuality (though it didn’t need to be) was reiterated in the NT. By St. Paul.
If it’s in the bible, and if the bible is the word of God, then one cannot simply “disagree with it” without disagreeing with God. One can be misinterpreting it, as I tend to think you are with this passage in Corinthians, but we can’t just discard what we don’t like.
B
buffalo
Guest
He came to fulfill the law.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Kingdom
**But Jesus got rid of some of the old testament laws/disregarded them. **
I think I’m getting weary of your really short posts. You deny things, then refuse to back up with scriptural citations. If St. Paul could be wrong on some things, he could be wrong in everything. That makes St. Paul into a very unreliable authority. Or it makes you, rather than St. Paul, the final authority over all things St. Paul said. When did you get that authority? Who gave it to you?
You did.
**But Jesus got rid of some of the old testament laws/disregarded them. **
I think I’m getting weary of your really short posts. You deny things, then refuse to back up with scriptural citations. If St. Paul could be wrong on some things, he could be wrong in everything. That makes St. Paul into a very unreliable authority. Or it makes you, rather than St. Paul, the final authority over all things St. Paul said. When did you get that authority? Who gave it to you?
You did.
B
buffalo
Guest
He has been arguing from emotion for many posts now. :sad_yes:Kingdom
**But Jesus got rid of some of the old testament laws/disregarded them. **
I think I’m getting weary of your really short posts. You deny things, then refuse to back up with scriptural citations. If St. Paul could be wrong on some things, he could be wrong in everything. That makes St. Paul into a very unreliable authority. Or it makes you, rather than St. Paul, the final authority over all things St. Paul said. When did you get that authority? Who gave it to you?
You did.
J
jerome_ky
Guest
Do you think someone who joined 2 weeks ago and has posted on this one thread about 80 times might have an agenda? I believe the internet term is “troll.”Kingdom
**But Jesus got rid of some of the old testament laws/disregarded them. **
I think I’m getting weary of your really short posts. You deny things, then refuse to back up with scriptural citations. If St. Paul could be wrong on some things, he could be wrong in everything. That makes St. Paul into a very unreliable authority. Or it makes you, rather than St. Paul, the final authority over all things St. Paul said. When did you get that authority? Who gave it to you?
You did.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
After following this thread, it seems to me that if the posters are a good sample of Catholics then it is still going to be difficult for homosexuals to be accepted by them.
Some comments have stated that it is a sin in the eyes of the Church, but that does not make it wrong in the wider world, nor intrinsically or morally wrong.
Some posters have indicated that same sex marriage goes against marriage, because that goes against the idea that marriage is for the procreation of children. I don’t see how that can be the case, as homosexuals evolved the same way that heterosexuals did and their desire to form relationships is just the same.
I think marriage is more than just to create children and should be open to everyone, irrespective of the ability to have children and that includes homosexuals and heterosexuals, who can’t have children.
Some have said that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, but something wrong with their acts, again I can’t see how a physical expression of love between two people can be wrong. It is a process of evolution.
Despite reading all the posts I still can’t see any logic or rationale behind the Church’s position, other than it ‘has been written down’ so it must be right. I any other walk of life to condemn someone like that would be seen as prejudicial if not bigoted.
It’s very sad (and I know people say don’t argue from emotion) but that is how I feel.
Some comments have stated that it is a sin in the eyes of the Church, but that does not make it wrong in the wider world, nor intrinsically or morally wrong.
Some posters have indicated that same sex marriage goes against marriage, because that goes against the idea that marriage is for the procreation of children. I don’t see how that can be the case, as homosexuals evolved the same way that heterosexuals did and their desire to form relationships is just the same.
I think marriage is more than just to create children and should be open to everyone, irrespective of the ability to have children and that includes homosexuals and heterosexuals, who can’t have children.
Some have said that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, but something wrong with their acts, again I can’t see how a physical expression of love between two people can be wrong. It is a process of evolution.
Despite reading all the posts I still can’t see any logic or rationale behind the Church’s position, other than it ‘has been written down’ so it must be right. I any other walk of life to condemn someone like that would be seen as prejudicial if not bigoted.
It’s very sad (and I know people say don’t argue from emotion) but that is how I feel.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
If by “accepted by them” you mean have homosexual acts seen as an ok thing (which you really shouldn’t, but many people do), then it’s not difficult but impossible for faithful Catholics to ever do so.
But if by “accepted by them,” you mean what the phrase really means - that people attracted to the same sex are seen as people equal in dignity who have their own things to struggle with, then we already do.
Yes it does. For such basic moral things anyway.
And armless people came out of the same evolutionary processes as people with arms. Doesn’t mean that missing your arms is a good thing.
It is more than that, but it is MORE than that, that is, procreation plus stuff. If you don’t understand how this argument does not exclude the marriage of sterile people, then you probably should research the argument more before claiming it is wrong.
Some = All, if you mean the position that having the attraction is not sinful but fostering or acting on it is.
If I am mentally damaged, and think that beating someone to within an inch of their life expresses love, that’d still be wrong. That people think an action is loving is not enough to base an argument on.
As for the evolution thing, well perhaps, if you go by the adage that everything that exists is a result of evolution, but this would mean that susceptibility to cancer and disease and the genetic disorders that cause you to be born with no limbs are good too. Which is ridiculous.
- You don’t understand the logic because you persist in saying that anything that happens must be good.
- The “it has been written” is a legitimate argument among Catholics who accept the ability of the Church to arrive at answers, and in a slightly different way among Christians in general who accept scripture. It is not meant to convince non-Christians, and there are other arguments.
- No where once in any of the posts that I have read have any of us condemned a single homosexual. Rather, we have condemned some actions that some people really want to do. I can tell you right now that as a normal heterosexual male, many actions I have drives to do are condemned as well, and yet for some reason no one thinks the Church is condemning me.
- Bigot. Condemn. Love:
http://www.quietspeculation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/You-keep-using-that-word-300x252.jpg
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jerome
**
Do you think someone who joined 2 weeks ago and has posted on this one thread about 80 times might have an agenda? I believe the internet term is “troll.” **
Kingdom is supposed to be an Anglican. I have been trying to find out from him if the Anglican Church teaches that sodomy is o.k. He doesn’t seem to know, since he has yet to answer my question.
If that Church is o.k. with sodomy, then you could see why it is o.k. with same-sex marriage, if it really is. In any case, Kingdom doesn’t give us a clue as to why we should abandon St. Paul in favor of Kingdom.
**
Do you think someone who joined 2 weeks ago and has posted on this one thread about 80 times might have an agenda? I believe the internet term is “troll.” **
Kingdom is supposed to be an Anglican. I have been trying to find out from him if the Anglican Church teaches that sodomy is o.k. He doesn’t seem to know, since he has yet to answer my question.
If that Church is o.k. with sodomy, then you could see why it is o.k. with same-sex marriage, if it really is. In any case, Kingdom doesn’t give us a clue as to why we should abandon St. Paul in favor of Kingdom.
- Status