A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[mflorence]

I’ve been going through that today, too.

Oh well, I’m about done with this anyway Larkin. Spending time on this is something of a waste. I thought this was a forum where ideas and spirituality could be discussed, but instead I have run into the fringe faction of an institution in crisis on many fronts these days, so I got what I asked for.

 

[larkin31]

Oh well, I’m about done with this anyway Larkin. Spending time on this is something of a waste. I thought this was a forum where ideas and spirituality could be discussed, but instead I have run into the fringe faction of an institution in crisis on many fronts these days, so I got what I asked for.

I am running into this, too. I have actually had people flat out lie to me out of their intense need to rail against gay marriage. Kind of weird, really. I understand the complexity of the issue. But not the dishonesty. THAT I do not understand, esp not from adults.

 

[mflorence]

I am not in the least bit angry. Exactly what points would you like me to address? You made a very clear point that you don’t believe the Bible is the word of God. How do you want me to react? Believe what you want to believe. Give me something of substance and I’ll be happy to address it.

I had points but you missed them again. Okay, but after this I am done. I think the Bible has the general story, but I do think that it is far from the infallible word of God, because it is full of contradiction and I think God would have made it make sense under careful review. By the way, because I think the Bible was written by people doesn’t mean that I don’t love people or that I don’t love God. No Church has exclusive rights on God - He is beyond that. Okay, Here are but a few of the contradictions:.

Matthew says that right after the wise men left, Jesus’ Family fled into Egypt until Herod died, and this was about 4 years best anyone can pin down. Now Luke has it another way. In his version, on the eighth day He was circumcised and named Jesus. According to the Law, Mary then waited an additional thirty-three days, to complete her purification. Then, after the forty-one days, Jesus was presented to the Lord at the Temple in Jerusalem. After this Joseph, Mary and Jesus departed for Nazareth, which is a long way from Egypt.

Then there is Judas. In one gospel, (Matthew I think) he is filled with remorse and throws the 30 pieces of silver back into the temple and then he hangs himself. But Acts has another account. We are told that he fell headlong and his bowels burst open. The Church father Papias contradicts both Matthew and Acts by claiming Judas was crushed by horses. Paul shows Jesus meeting with the twelve after the resurrection, but if Matthew, Acts and Papias are right, there would not have been twelve anymore, because one of the twelve (Judas) died either from being hung, bursting open at the middle, or being trampled by horses. In any case, if he were somehow able to muster the strength to meet with Jesus after dying more ways than Wiley Coyote, it would be hard to imagine that he was welcome among the other 11 Apostles. They probably wouldn’t be hanging out with him much at that point. That would be a lot like Mehmet Ali Ağca being invited to lunch at the Vatican a few days after he shot John Paul II.

So, if these are the infallible words of God, I think they would at least match without a lot of tortured logic and speculation. If Judas hanged himself, burst open at the middle, and got trampled by horses, God would have said he hanged himself, burst open at the middle, and got trampled by horses. He wouldn’t give one account here, one account there and still another somewhere else just to confuse everyone or make people doubt it was His word. He wouldn’t because He is infallible. If God had written the Bible, He would have written it in such a way that even more careful readers could read it, compare one part to the next and find continuity and a sensible flow of facts. He wouldn’t have presented it in such a way that tortured logic would have to be applied later to make it all fit in the minds of people, and let’s face it – it was written for people, because God doesn’t need notes.

Anyway, that is what I think SteveVH. If you want to address some of these points, send me an email. If you want to rant at me, then do it here - I won’t be looking. I am signing off from the poisonous discord on this website. It isn’t good for anyone, and I am not here to participate in all this angry backlash. I will say that in the few weeks I have posted here, I
have changed my view on how I respect all churches, so you all have accomplished something. I have an opinion now about your Church, and I’ll have to work hard ti get rid of this opinion. I will prevail in doing so though.

 

[mflorence]

I am running into this, too. I have actually had people flat out lie to me out of their intense need to rail against gay marriage. Kind of weird, really. I understand the complexity of the issue. But not the dishonesty. THAT I do not understand, esp not from adults.

But I did very much enjoy meeting you and a few others Larkin. Good luck with this stuff and may God protect you from His followers, okay?

 

[larkin31]

But I did very much enjoy meeting you and a few others Larkin. Good luck with this stuff and may God protect you from His followers, okay?

Don’t go!

But thanks for the well-wishes!

 

[jmcrae]

ANSWER: I belong to no religion, but I embrace them all.

No, you certainly don’t. For one, you reject the Catholic faith utterly and categorically.

I have no doubt that you also reject at least the difficult portions of other faiths that place difficult moral demands on their followers, such as Islam and Orthodox Judaism. I also doubt that you accept every precept of Voodoo.

 

[mflorence]

No, you certainly don’t. For one, you reject the Catholic faith utterly and categorically.

I have no doubt that you also reject at least the difficult portions of other faiths that place difficult moral demands on their followers, such as Islam and Orthodox Judaism. I also doubt that you accept every precept of Voodoo.

Darn - I had resolved not to come back, but you know, I left the screen up and as I was going to bed, I refreshed it and saw your comment. You are still slinging mud rather than staying on point in relation to the facts that others present, are you? That happens when the facts are inconvenient in regards to what you jawbone people about. Oh well, you did get me on one thing - my profile on CAF. It said I accept all faiths. That just goes to show you, that like the Bible, my CAF profile wasn’t authored by God, and so it’s not infallible. But I do have an excuse you see - I wrote that before I met you guys. I have changed it. Live and learn! It applied to me too. Anyway, if any of you ever get the inclination to debate me on fact rather than engage in schoolyard prattle, I told you how to find me. Do you have the facts and courage to do that, or are you afraid of what you might see? If you are standing on the one and only Rock, you should be okay, right?

 

[Stephen168]

Anyway, if any of you ever get the inclination to debate me on fact rather than engage in schoolyard prattle, …

Actually your first response to me was irrational and your second was condescending. I think you came here to make fun of the Bible and people who follow it. You had no intension of defending same- sex marriage with reason because you are not able. Larkin31 has ignored me after I showed him that same-sex marriage can be condemned by reason alone.
I do find your condescending tone with its lack of substance, and your tolerance without being tolerant entertaining.
Take care

 

[mflorence]

Actually your first response to me was irrational and your second was condescending. I think you came here to make fun of the Bible and people who follow it. You had no intension of defending same- sex marriage with reason because you are not able. Larkin31 has ignored me after I showed him that same-sex marriage can be condemned by reason alone.
I do find your condescending tone with its lack of substance, and your tolerance without being tolerant entertaining.
Take care

YOU SAID: Actually your first response to me was irrational and your second was condescending.

ANSWER: Yes it was condescending, because your reply to me was insulting. If it was irrational you’ll have to tell me how it was. If you didn’t intent to insult me, then I apologize. If you did intend to insult me, then I apologize as well for responding in kind. Either way, there is no excuse and I apologize.

====

YOU SAID: I think you came here to make fun of the Bible and people who follow it.

ANSWER: The Bible is sacred, or at least I think so. It has some of the words and actions of Jesus in it, therefore it is sacred. I only pointed out that it wasn’t written by God, but by people - people who had encounters with God and were inspired to write about it. That makes it sacred. They had varying accounts and tried to explain what is beyond the grasp of the intellect in the best way they could, and that is where fallibility becomes a factor. My point was that it wasn’t written by God.

YOU SAID: You had no intension (sp) of defending same- sex marriage with reason because you are not able.

ANSWER: At least some of the people on this post tried to use the Bible to make a point against alternative forms of human love, by interpreting it in ways that supported their assertions. I pointed out that while the Bible has a theme that can be agreed on in general terms, in it’s particulars it can be read to say just about anything you like. The agenda in this case being the prohibition of gay marriage. In the course of that discussion, some contributors cited the Bible as being the inerrant word of God, written by God Himself. I pointed out that it wasn’t with logic, very specific references (to which no one has responded) and of course the Bible itself. Were some of the tings I said upsetting? Sure, if you’ve been used to people not calling you on it when you make bold and arrogant proclamations that you can’t support, like the Bible that you are using to make a debatable point is the infallible word of God, and that your Church is the only valid Church, and by the way, you might not want to go down that line of discussion, because I might have to upset you some more with those irritating facts of mine. Don’t do it - please.

YOU SAID: I do find your condescending tone with its lack of substance, and your tolerance without being tolerant entertaining.

ANSWER: Where have I lacked substance? Stay on point please. I like to be able to respond. Without particulars I cannot do so. As for the second half of that sentence, I am glad that I’ve at least entertained you.

MY SUMMARY: You still have not brought forth a counterpoint to any of my points. My points were specific, your replies have been general and rather editorialized. What is wrong? I mean, assertions about the one infallible corpus of work on this planet should be easily vindicated against the rantings of someone with no credentials in that area like myself. I’m just some guy.
.

 

[larkin31]

MY SUMMARY: You still have not brought forth a counterpoint to any of my points. My points were specific, your replies have been general and rather editorialized. What is wrong? I mean, assertions about the one infallible corpus of work on this planet should be easily vindicated against the rantings of someone with no credentials in that area like myself. I’m just some guy.
.

Ditto for me. Respond to my specific points and we can have a discussion.

 

[benidict]

But I did very much enjoy meeting you and a few others Larkin. Good luck with this stuff and may God protect you from His followers, okay?

larkin doesnt need protection from us. some of us like him. also i hope you stay. the liberal view is many times cheaply amusing for me. its fun to watch yall get angry you say the darndest things! lol! please stay on. im not going to be debating this issue, but reading your post are highly entertaining. Larkin, we need to get her into our singing circle :grouphug: leeet the suuun shiiine innn! lol! and yes, im conservative. Peace

 

[benidict]

Actually your first response to me was irrational and your second was condescending. I think you came here to make fun of the Bible and people who follow it. You had no intension of defending same- sex marriage with reason because you are not able. Larkin31 has ignored me after I showed him that same-sex marriage can be condemned by reason alone.
I do find your condescending tone with its lack of substance, and your tolerance without being tolerant entertaining.
Take care

tolerance without being tolerant. i love it! great minds think alike Peace and grace to you my brother.

 

[larkin31]

This thread probably ought to be given a mercy killing. Or a form of therapy to re-orient itself. Or maybe a chemical castration.

 

[Stephen168]

At least some of the people on this post tried to use the Bible to make a point against alternative forms of human love, by interpreting it in ways that supported their assertions.

This was not me. Let’s review:

I am always puzzled by the Christian preoccupation with homosexuality and the need to throw scripture around to prove that it is wrong…….
Stephen168;6963731:

That might be true in Protestantism but not necessarily Catholicism.

Which you followed with the irrational

I am neither.

As if you your belief system has a bearing on Catholicism.

I mean, assertions about the one infallible corpus of work on this planet should be easily vindicated against the rantings of someone with no credentials in that area like myself. I’m just some guy.
.

infallible? Are you suggesting the Catholic Church teaches the Bible was infallibly written for all things? I, for one, have found it useless as a motorcycle repair manual. It is not a very good cookbook either.

So if you are here to beat up a straw man (the Catholic Church condemns same-sex marriage based solely on the Old Testament) carry on.

 

[mflorence]

tolerance without being tolerant. i love it! great minds think alike Peace and grace to you my brother.

More mud slinging and still no replies in point to my points about the Bible. I will have to assume that there is no response. By the way, engaging you in a discussion where I present what I believe to be facts and asking for a response is not intolerance. Intolerance is making or repeating bold proclamations because you heard them repeatedly and accepted them without further exploration, and then running because you can’t support it with rational exchange is more like like intolerance, but that’s my opinion.

Neither you, or anyone like minded as yourself on this thread has addressed any of the specific biblical points of contradiction that I have cited. My points still stand, and you fellas are wasting time.

 

[Lapell]

I for one agree 100% with the Catholic church on this issue.

So does my church.

I like that article and agree with it.

I I believed that same-sex sexual orientation came from God, consistency would force me to believe that the sexual orientations toward children come from God.

Then I would either be forced to believe that paedophilia a part of God’s design, or that God gave some sexual orientations that were not meant to be acted on.

To me, the simplest explantion is that alternate sexual orientations are somehow a part of the fall and do not come from God. I think that is what your article is saying, albeit in a lot more words.

Well put, AmateurPianist.

 

[jmcrae]

Darn - I had resolved not to come back, but you know, I left the screen up and as I was going to bed, I refreshed it and saw your comment. You are still slinging mud rather than staying on point in relation to the facts that others present, are you? That happens when the facts are inconvenient in regards to what you jawbone people about.

What “facts” would those be?

A five year old child, if he were permitted to look, could see that there is no complementarity between male and male, or female and female. To assert that there is, or that any legal statement, no matter how obtusely worded or convoluted in logic could make possible what is biologically and scientifically impossible, is ludicrous.

 

[mflorence]

What “facts” would those be?

A five year old child, if he were permitted to look, could see that there is no complementarity between male and male, or female and female. To assert that there is, or that any legal statement, no matter how obtusely worded or convoluted in logic could make possible what is biologically and scientifically impossible, is ludicrous.

You’re kidding, right?

 

[jmcrae]

You’re kidding, right?

Not at all.

Do you wish to rebut, or are you just going to splutter?

 

[larkin31]

Not at all.

Do you wish to rebut, or are you just going to splutter?

Your point is simply irrelevant to what the state has ever actually dispensed marriage certificates for.

Read the ruling. The judge addresses this issue and speaks to the legal history of marriage as accorded by the state.