Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[PRmerger]

I do note Pope Francis’ recent comments on homosexuality.

His words are glorious confirmation of Catholic teaching, indeed!

 

[Rau]

My feeling is that gay marriage, like gay relationships, have to be looked at from a much larger perspective than we tend to, which appears to me to be mostly cultural and therefore relative. If being gay is part of one’s fundamental being and structure, what choice does one have except to be gay. This is simple teleology. For me, there is a natural and fundamental orientation in every human being, as in all of life, to form relationship. If one is naturally gay, then the ensuing human love relationship will likely be gay

Scripture and tradition have been been regarded as the basis of Christian belief. Tradition tends to evolve, or devolve, and I think the question of being gay in this day and age is quite a bit different from former times. Certainly the have been moral attitudes in the Christian churches against being gay, but I tend to see those attitudes as outmoded cultural belief systems.

If we accept this in so far as forming a loving relationship, does it follow that applying the sexual faculties in that (same sex) relationship is “right”, or that “marriage” is a relevant institution for that couple?

 

[CaliLobo]

You have been misinformed. It is the ritual laws of Leviticus (such as those having to do with ritual cleanliness and the prescriptions of temple sacrifice) and the manner of dealing with sinners that St. Paul was referring to, not the morality laws. At any rate, since St. Paul said that it was an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, you’re on thin ice using him as your Scriptural defender of homosexual acts, to say the very least!..

If Leviticus really does apply to us, then why do we see Christians shaving the backs of their heads and getting tattoos? Those are forbidden in Leviticus.

And yes, I agree that Leviticus does not apply to us. It applies only to the Jews of that time. Otherwise, Christians should also be eating kosher diets as well.

EasterJoy:

As concerned as I am about the number of people on this thread arguing in favor of elevating homosexual acts to the same dignity as true marital acts by elevating homosexual relationships attempting to imitate marriage to the same dignity as true marriage, I am even more concerned about the number who do not believe the Church is more competent at discerning moral law than they are or that the Church has the authority to teach moral principles that are truly binding upon the faithful.

That has even more far-reaching implications, IMHO, which is pretty scary.

Yes I agree that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus. **But the fact that the CC has committed so many crimes against humanity is a sure sign that the CC has lost its way, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer present in the CC.

That is why I don’t see the CC as more competent at discerning moral law than any other church, or myself.**

When I see how Protestant and Evangelical churches run circles around the CC when it comes to preaching, teaching, building community, Bible reading and knowledge, and missions, I see that Protestant and Evangelical churches, despite not being the original, are superior churches. The Holy Spirit is present in them and not the CC.

Personally, every time I have attempted to draw closer to the Catholic Church, it only causes me to think the most deep, depressing thoughts, as I struggle alone. When I instead draw closer to the Protestant/Evangelical churches, I am warmed and welcomed by the superior sense of community. I am pumped up by the energetic praise music. And I am taught by dynamic, engaging speakers that I feel God is using to speak to my heart directly.

In Protestant churches, it is normal to talk deeply about one’s spiritual walk and faith with one another, and people are willing and able to give advice and pray for you. Catholics, in contrast, tend to be awkward about this, as if faith shouldn’t be talked about openly. Really? Is that the church?

The CC only offers quiet sacraments and prayers to historical saints that I have no knowledge of. They offer some community events, but not at the scale and energy that Evangelical churches have. For example, the Evangelical church I go to here regularly sends missionaries to Ghana, Kenya, and Mexico. It organizes a 5k run against human trafficking. It has conferences in which they bring famous pastors from all over the USA to speak on various topics. It has junior high, high school, and college ministries to keep the faith relevant to students, to preserve the faith for the next generation.

And stuff like this is typical in large Evangelical churches!

Do Catholic parishes even do half of these things, or are they content with archaic traditions and prayers to saints? Are they content with fish fry events, and setting up parish schools that don’t even teach Catholic values (see other threads), and in which most of the kids don’t care to practice their faith?

Are Catholics okay with the lack of zeal by Catholics, compared to the zeal of Protestants?

Even Francis has admitted that tradition, if it is misunderstood by today’s people and hinders today’s people from coming to Christ, must be scrapped. As I said before in post 582:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/1…in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

**“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

“Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives.”
**
Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.

By contrast, in “Evangelii” Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop “obsessing” about culture war issues and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.

Therefore, yes, tradition changes. The tradition of forbidding gay marriage rights is a false tradition that is no longer relevant to today’s people. It should be thrown away.

 

[PRmerger]

If Leviticus really does apply to us, then why do we see Christians shaving the backs of their heads and getting tattoos? Those are forbidden in Leviticus.

And yes, I agree that Leviticus does not apply to us. It applies only to the Jews of that time. Otherwise, Christians should also be eating kosher diets as well.

That is why we have a Church, Cali, to give us the lens through which we interpret the Scriptures. We can know what “applies” to us and what does not through Her guidance.

Yes I agree that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus. But the fact that the CC has committed so many crimes against humanity is a sure sign that the CC has lost its way, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer present in the CC.

Do you think that Jesus was not with His Apostles when they denied him and left him?

What do you think of leaving Jesus and His Church because the Apostles were not sinless? Do you think that would have been a good paradigm for the early Christian/Jews to espouse: “I saw how horrible the apostles acted when Jesus was being crucified and tortured. Therefore, Jesus is not God!”

Doesn’t that seem to be a false way of discerning truth?

 

[PRmerger]

Therefore, yes, tradition changes. The tradition of forbidding gay marriage rights is a false tradition that is no longer relevant to today’s people. It should be thrown away.

Since you are not Catholic, Cali, you are under no obligation to know what Catholicism is…but if you are going to be in dialogue on a Catholic forum, perhaps it would serve you well to know at least a little bit about what we believe.

What you are talking about as far as “tradition changes” is customs. And, yes, these customs do often change. For example, it was once a custom to crown a statue of Mary with flowers every May in my church. Now we no longer do that.

However, when we talk about Sacred Tradition–that is the Word of God, given once for all to the Church–and that can never change. It may evolve. But it can never change.

 

[EasterJoy]

If Leviticus really does apply to us, then why do we see Christians shaving the backs of their heads and getting tattoos? Those are forbidden in Leviticus.

And yes, I agree that Leviticus does not apply to us. It applies only to the Jews of that time. Otherwise, Christians should also be eating kosher diets as well.

Yes I agree that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus. **But the fact that the CC has committed so many crimes against humanity is a sure sign that the CC has lost its way, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer present in the CC.

That is why I don’t see the CC as more competent at discerning moral law than any other church, or myself.**

When I see how Protestant and Evangelical churches run circles around the CC when it comes to preaching, teaching, building community, Bible reading and knowledge, and missions, I see that Protestant and Evangelical churches, despite not being the original, are superior churches. The Holy Spirit is present in them and not the CC.

Personally, every time I have attempted to draw closer to the Catholic Church, it only causes me to think the most deep, depressing thoughts, as I struggle alone. When I instead draw closer to the Protestant/Evangelical churches, I am warmed and welcomed by the superior sense of community. I am pumped up by the energetic praise music. And I am taught by dynamic, engaging speakers that I feel God is using to speak to my heart directly.

In Protestant churches, it is normal to talk deeply about one’s spiritual walk and faith with one another, and people are willing and able to give advice and pray for you. Catholics, in contrast, tend to be awkward about this, as if faith shouldn’t be talked about openly. Really? Is that the church?

The CC only offers quiet sacraments and prayers to historical saints that I have no knowledge of. They offer some community events, but not at the scale and energy that Evangelical churches have. For example, the Evangelical church I go to here regularly sends missionaries to Ghana, Kenya, and Mexico. It organizes a 5k run against human trafficking. It has conferences in which they bring famous pastors from all over the USA to speak on various topics. It has junior high, high school, and college ministries to keep the faith relevant to students, to preserve the faith for the next generation.

And stuff like this is typical in large Evangelical churches!

Do Catholic parishes even do half of these things, or are they content with archaic traditions and prayers to saints? Are they content with fish fry events, and setting up parish schools that don’t even teach Catholic values (see other threads), and in which most of the kids don’t care to practice their faith?

Are Catholics okay with the lack of zeal by Catholics, compared to the zeal of Protestants?

Even Francis has admitted that tradition, if it is misunderstood by today’s people and hinders today’s people from coming to Christ, must be scrapped. As I said before in post 582:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/1…in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

**“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

“Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives.”
**
Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.

By contrast, in “Evangelii” Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop “obsessing” about culture war issues and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.

Therefore, yes, tradition changes. The tradition of forbidding gay marriage rights is a false tradition that is no longer relevant to today’s people. It should be thrown away.

No, Pope Francis called for Catholics to find a balance and not talk about those issues only. He did not say that Catholics should ignore those issues, let alone that the fundamental teachings had changed.

And yes, when it comes to teaching moral law, there are some Protestant denominations that have followed the practice of theologically running around in circles. That may be why there are so many of them.

 

[Arlotus]

His words are glorious confirmation of Catholic teaching, indeed!

Maybe ‘Catholic’ teaching in a cultural sense? I agree with that. But when we get into a larger dimension, I am not so sure.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe ‘Catholic’ teaching in a cultural sense?

I don’t understand what you mean here.

 

[Arlotus]

If we accept this in so far as forming a loving relationship, does it follow that applying the sexual faculties in that (same sex) relationship is “right”, or that “marriage” is a relevant institution for that couple?

Marriage is not just about expressing the ‘sexual’ faculties, as you put it, it is about furthering the basic human drive and desire for union, which ultimately is union with the divine. At the ‘a priori’ level, precognitive, pre whatever you want to call it, there is a desire and drive for fulfilment in the other. Instead of seeing a narrower category, which is heterosexual only marriage and to hell with the rest who do not fit into that narrow category, you have to rethink what marriage is all about. It is difficult to know where to start when the framing has already been done.

As for earlier comments about tradition not changing, let’s be realistic.

Look at ‘extra ecclesia nulla salus’ - are you telling me that the development of that concept has not required fundamental changes?

 

[PRmerger]

Marriage is not just about expressing the ‘sexual’ faculties, as you put it, it is about furthering the basic human drive and desire for union, which ultimately is union with the divine. At the ‘a priori’ level, precognitive, pre whatever you want to call it, there is a desire and drive for fulfilment in the other. Instead of seeing a narrower category, which is heterosexual only marriage and to hell with the rest who do not fit into that narrow category, you have to rethink what marriage is all about. It is difficult to know where to start when the framing has already been done.

Again, are you also talking about man-boy-love/marriage here?

As for earlier comments about tradition not changing, let’s be realistic.

Look at ‘extra ecclesia nulla salus’ - are you telling me that the development of that concept has not required fundamental changes?

Let me disabuse you of any misconceptions you may have regarding EENS. It has not changed. The constant teaching of the Church has always been : outside of the Catholic Church you cannot be saved.

That is: if you are in heaven, it is because of the CC.

This was what was believed in the 1st century. It is what is proclaimed today.

 

[EasterJoy]

Marriage is not just about expressing the ‘sexual’ faculties, as you put it, it is about furthering the basic human drive and desire for union, which ultimately is union with the divine. At the ‘a priori’ level, precognitive, pre whatever you want to call it, there is a desire and drive for fulfilment in the other. Instead of seeing a narrower category, which is heterosexual only marriage and to hell with the rest who do not fit into that narrow category, you have to rethink what marriage is all about. It is difficult to know where to start when the framing has already been done.

As for earlier comments about tradition not changing, let’s be realistic.

Yes, the framing has already been done by our nature. Once you cut loose from that mooring, the problem isn’t where to start. It is where it all ends!

Why do we “have to” rethink what marriage is all about? Why do we have to swallow the idea that the homosexuals who are going out and finding someone of the opposite sex so they can pretend to “get pregnant” or “become parents” have the same thing as marriage? Why should homosexuals have a right to pretend to have a heterosexual relationship? (When you answer, remember that the Catholic Church teaches that in vitro methods of becoming pregnant are immoral for anyone, even a heterosexual couple. Don’t throw the “the heterosexuals do it” red herring in there, because the Church has stood against that misuse of the sexual faculty, too.)

Why, for that matter, should two homosexuals have societal advantages and status that single people or adults who take care of each other but aren’t having sex with each other don’t get? Why shouldn’t the drive to marry more than one person get the same dignity as the “drive” to have disordered sex, which is to say sex that the human body was not designed to have? I mean, when it comes to “to hell with the rest who do not fit into that narrow category,” listening to the gay activists denouncing polygamy really takes the cake! Who are they to “define marriage for someone else”? If there is no such thing as a disordered sex drive, no such thing as a disordered form of a “basic human drive,” then how is it possible for there to be a disordered form of marriage? If there is such a thing as a disordered sexual drive, how is it that homosexual drives are OK and other sex drives that obviously occur in the nature of humankind are not disordered?

Look at ‘extra ecclesia nulla salus’ - are you telling me that the development of that concept has not required fundamental changes?

No, it is fundamentally the same.

RECENT:
*16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

1. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain “under the control of his own decisions,”(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him.** Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure.** Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skillful action, apt helps to that end. Since man’s freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God’s grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower.** Before the judgment seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil. *(13)

from Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

EARLY:
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. Rom. 2:14-16

 

[Arlotus]

Again, are you also talking about man-boy-love/marriage here?

Let me disabuse you of any misconceptions you may have regarding EENS. It has not changed. The constant teaching of the Church has always been : outside of the Catholic Church you cannot be saved.

That is: if you are in heaven, it is because of the CC.

This was what was believed in the 1st century. It is what is proclaimed today.

You are disabusing me! What a laugh! I think you need to disabuse youself.

All I can say to you, in my view you may be in for a surprise when you die. I am taken aback by your fundamentalism. Actually, I am not really taken aback, more disappointed.

“It is not possible to build bridges between people while forgetting God. But the converse is also true: it is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world. And it is also important to intensify outreach to non-believers, so that the differences which divide and hurt us may never prevail, but rather the desire to build true links of friendship between all peoples, despite their diversity” (Vatican Information Service, 22-03-2013, Year XXIII, Num. 69).

 

[Rau]

Marriage is not just about expressing the ‘sexual’ faculties, as you put it, it is about furthering the basic human drive and desire for union, which ultimately is union with the divine. At the ‘a priori’ level, precognitive, pre whatever you want to call it, there is a desire and drive for fulfilment in the other. Instead of seeing a narrower category, which is heterosexual only marriage and to hell with the rest who do not fit into that narrow category, you have to rethink what marriage is all about. It is difficult to know where to start when the framing has already been done.

I did not reduce marriage to sexual relations at all. That was your leap. I just asked 2 questions:

1). Does it follow that it is right for 2 same sex persons to apply their sexual faculties in their relationship?

1. Does it follow that marriage is the right institution for a same sex couple? (Might it be appropriate to define an institution that by its name draws a distinction with marriage, but by its rights and obligations would include many equivalent provisions, eg inheritance, hospital visitation, etc)

 

[Arlotus]

I did not reduce marriage to sexual relations at all. That was your leap. I just asked 2 questions:

1). Does it follow that it is right for 2 same sex persons to apply their sexual faculties in their relationship?

1. Does it follow that marriage is the right institution for a same sex couple? (Might it be appropriate to define an institution that by its name draws a distinction with marriage, but by its rights and obligations would include many equivalent provisions, eg inheritance, hospital visitation, etc)

1. As an expression of deep abiding love, yes.
2. The outer machinery may not match the ‘perfect’ template, but in this world of duality and maya, little does. At the heart and soul level where perfection is glimpsed, the same thirst for love and acceptance exists in each of us.

" 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself."

Anyway, I think we know our separate perspectives on this topic, so let’s move on - I am happy to agree to disagree. We can easily get lost in our theological heads. There is a world out there, and we are all born under the one sun and live and exist under the canopy of the divine, and are equal in all respects. We are all going back to our home by and by. God reads our hearts, and thank God not our minds.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. As an expression of deep abiding love, yes.
2. The outer machinery may not match the ‘perfect’ template, but in this world of duality and maya, little does. At the heart and soul level where perfection is glimpsed, the same thirst for love and acceptance exists in each of us.

" 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself."

Anyway, I think we know our separate perspectives on this topic, so let’s move on - I am happy to agree to disagree. We can easily get lost in our theological heads. There is a world out there, and we are all born under the one sun and live and exist under the canopy of the divine, and are equal in all respects. We are all going back to our home by and by. God reads our hearts, and thank God not our minds.

God doesn’t read minds? Really? Our minds and our hearts are disconnected? (How dualistic of you.)

How does your run of sweet-sounding words not apply to anybody who wants to define marriage any way they want and include whoever or whatever they want? We can easily get lost in spinning a lot of words that very purposefully lack a specific meaning, too, spun that way in order to obscure that there is a real difference under discussion. What does it even mean to drag Juliet’s monologue into this discussion? It may not have mattered to her that her Romeo was a Montague, but does anyone here argue that the play would not have turned out quite differently if (as happens in some of Shakespeare’s plays) if Juliet had fallen for a Ramona, not a* Romeo*?

 

[CaliLobo]

That is why we have a Church, Cali, to give us the lens through which we interpret the Scriptures. We can know what “applies” to us and what does not through Her guidance.
…
Do you think that Jesus was not with His Apostles when they denied him and left him?

What do you think of leaving Jesus and His Church because the Apostles were not sinless? Do you think that would have been a good paradigm for the early Christian/Jews to espouse: “I saw how horrible the apostles acted when Jesus was being crucified and tortured. Therefore, Jesus is not God!”

Doesn’t that seem to be a false way of discerning truth?

And I just explained to you why I, and billions of others, do NOT give much weight to the Catholic Church’s lens for interpreting Scripture. It does NOT prove that Jesus is NOT God.

Rather, it proves that the CC has no credibility.

EasterJoy:

No, Pope Francis called for Catholics to find a balance and not talk about those issues only. He did not say that Catholics should ignore those issues, let alone that the fundamental teachings had changed.

And yes, when it comes to teaching moral law, there are some Protestant denominations that have followed the practice of theologically running around in circles. That may be why there are so many of them.

EasterJoy, you skipped over most of my post. Could you explain why:

1. The CC’s insistence on adhering to tradition is ineffective, and the Protestants’ espousing of modern methods is effective?
2. Protestant churches have better community than Catholics?
3. Protestants are willing to discuss faith, and encourage each other in faith, more openly than Catholics?
4. Protestants know the Bible, teach it, and preach it better and with more charisma than Catholics?
5. Every time I come close to the CC, I feel depressed and alone, and every time I come close to a Protestant church, I feel spiritually fed? This despite no Real Presence?
6. Protestants are able to re-Christianize Europe and Latin America, whereas Catholics are doing nothing while we are losing Europe to Islam, the way we lost North Africa to Islam centuries ago?

Could you explain why we have to disallow gay marriage in the political arena, an arena Jesus never touched? How is that love? How is that making Christianity relevant to today’s people?

If other denominations, such as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and some Evangelicals, have, through their academic research, concluded that it is okay to support gay marriage rights in the political arena, then why should I give their interpretation less weight than that of the Catholic Church? Aren’t other denominations as intelligent as the Catholics?

Why should I tolerate the excuses you guys make for the Catholic Church’s crimes against humanity? Why would I want to be part of an organization that commits genocide and harbors sex offenders?

I understand that maybe we need an outside lens to interpret the Bible, but why does it have to be your foggy lens? The historical abuses of the CC, and the ineffectiveness of the CC I describe in items 1-6 above, prove that the CC’s lens isn’t that great after all. No amount of Apostolic Succession will justify such a foggy lens.

Looking objectively the history of the West, couldn’t we conclude that the CC has lost its way, and the truth is now found in other churches?

Why can’t we use another lens and conclude:
A) The Bible doesn’t say anything about how to vote or act politically
B) Since Jesus never overthrew Rome, it means Jesus cared more about evangelism than political involvement
C) Jesus did say to love your neighbor as you love yourself, his 2nd commandment
D) Therefore, it is possible to be a faithful, loving Christian and support same-sex marriage rights politically
E) After all, life on Earth is a blip on the radar compared to the afterlife, so why do earthly politics really matter either way?

 

[Arlotus]

God doesn’t read minds? Really? Our minds and our hearts are disconnected? (How dualistic of you.)

How does your run of sweet-sounding words not apply to anybody who wants to define marriage any way they want and include whoever or whatever they want? We can easily get lost in spinning a lot of words that very purposefully lack a specific meaning, too, spun that way in order to obscure that there is a real difference under discussion. What does it even mean to drag Juliet’s monologue into this discussion? It may not have mattered to her that her Romeo was a Montague, but does anyone here argue that the play would not have turned out quite differently if (as happens in some of Shakespeare’s plays) if Juliet had fallen for a Ramona, not a* Romeo*?

Let me just say that God, as I feel and see God, responds to our hearts. It is only when we are quiet, that we begin to get in touch with our true natures. Our minds are often not e reflection of truth. The nature of God is love, not dialectic and divisiveness. Love is our true nature. It is only really though love that union and connection are achieved.

Peace to you.

 

[PRmerger]

And I just explained to you why I, and billions of others, do NOT give much weight to the Catholic Church’s lens for interpreting Scripture

That’s a non-sequitur, Cali.

You asked “why do we see Christians shaving the backs of their heads and getting tattoos? Those are forbidden in Leviticus.”

The answer is: because we are guided by the Church.

Rather, it proves that the CC has no credibility

It has no more credibility than Jesus did when Peter and Judas betrayed him.

Do you think it was smart for the Romans and Jews to look at Peter and Judas and decide that Jesus had no credibility?

 

[PRmerger]

All I can say to you, in my view you may be in for a surprise when you die. I am taken aback by your fundamentalism.

That’s a pretty fundamentalist approach you seem to be taking.

“It is not possible to build bridges between people while forgetting God. But the converse is also true: it is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world. And it is also important to intensify outreach to non-believers, so that the differences which divide and hurt us may never prevail, but rather the desire to build true links of friendship between all peoples, despite their diversity” (Vatican Information Service, 22-03-2013, Year XXIII, Num. 69).

Amen! Magnificent words!

 

[PRmerger]

Let me just say that God, as I feel and see God, responds to our hearts. It is only when we are quiet, that we begin to get in touch with our true natures. Our minds are often not e reflection of truth. The nature of God is love, not dialectic and divisiveness. Love is our true nature. It is only really though love that union and connection are achieved.

Peace to you.

Very Catholic, this!

(Not to mention, it oozes fundamentalism. Catholic fundamentalism, to be sure! )