After a while? What about during the “early church”, as you defended? Because the “early church” is clearly described in Acts and all throughout the New Testament. And contary to the statement you defended namely: “even the early Church called itself the Catholic Church”, the “early Church”, as described in the book of Acts, never did call itself the Catholic Church. It’s me who dosen’t understand the complication here.The churches at Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc. that are discussed in the Acts of the Apostles are the nucleus of what became the Catholic Church. They weren’t officially called “Catholic” until 110 AD., but they were the same churches that made up the Catholic Church from it’s beginning.
After awhile, that Church became known as the Catholic Church. I don’t see why this is complicated.
When you speak of the Mosiac Law, which books of the bible are you referring to?Regarding the Scripture passages which speak against homosexual activity, as others have since pointed out and as I think we all agree, most (not all) of the Mosaic Law was a temporary sign post.
The early Church is the period up to at least the Council of Nicea in 325 (Nicene Creed) or the Council of Rome in 382 (which established the Biblical canon). Acts of the Apostles ends in 62 AD with Paul preaching in Rome - sowing the seeds for what would blossom into the Catholic Church.After a while? What about during the “early church”, as you defended? Because the “early church” is clearly described in Acts and all throughout the New Testament. And contary to the statement you defended namely: “even the early Church called itself the Catholic Church”, the “early Church”, as described in the book of Acts, never did call itself the Catholic Church. It’s me who dosen’t understand the complication here.
As I said before and will say again if I have to, your use of the term “early Church”, relies on what proceeds after the “early Church” as penned in Scripture. According to the dates you provided, the earliest reference of what you call the “Catholic” church as recorded in Acts, referes to its followers as “Christians”, all the while the church you claim they belonged to: the “Catholic Church”, dosent get discovered until nearly a half a century later. Are you suggesting that the “first Pope”, Peter, never equated the “early Church”, in Acts with the “Catholic Church”?The early Church is the period up to at least the Council of Nicea in 325 (Nicene Creed) or the Council of Rome in 382 (which established the Biblical canon). Acts of the Apostles ends in 62 AD with Paul preaching in Rome - sowing the seeds for what would blossom into the Catholic Church.
peduzzi89, I agree with you. My brother’s relationship with his partner has manifested this to me. I don’t understand it totally, I don’t need to, but I know it exits.Same sex couples CAN have the same sort of relationship as heterosexual couples do. Whether or not you believe it to be wrong, sinful, disordered, unnatural, or whatever else is fine, but it’s still there. To presume to know what other people can or cannot feel is completely ignorant and incorrect. Despite what you think of it, 2 men can love eachother and complement eachother emotionally in the same way as a man and a woman. That is not a debatable subject. There is no matter of opinion there. It is as black and white as the letters on this page: it exists.
I became ‘angry and confused’ before I knew how to tie my shoes then! That’s when I started acting a-typically gendered, at about…oh…three according to my parents. I’m sure I had lots of decision making powers back then.If you are homosexual and offended by statements that people are posting on here, I am truly sorry and I feel compassion for you. I believe that you are beside yourself and lost or angry and confused or something, but I do not believe you were born that way. In fact, I know you weren’t, because God made it clear in the very beginning of the Bible when he created a man in his image and a woman in the man’s and brought them together.
Gay’s cannot have a unity of Holy matremony whether it’s “legal” or not, because it is not of God.
No. Sex is not necessary for love. Of course, all of our relationships in life should be relationships of love (with our children, our parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, community members, etc., etc. - Note that “loving” and “liking” someone are two different things. We are commanded to love- seek the good of - all; we do not have to like anyone.The bible doesn’t ever mention anything remotely close to what my partner and I have. We have lived together for half a decade, we are celibate, but we are deeply in love regardless. Sex is not necessary for love.
Oh ok. Gotcha.It’s not really meant to be followed. I’m just throwing it out there. I would be curious to know if there are any developmentally disabled homosexuals out there. Where in my friends , a group of around seventy, there is a clear desire to interact with those of the opposite sex. Outside of our biweekly worship experience together we have a dinner dance once a year and these friends of mine are only interested in dancing with the opposite sex.
This is my only introduction to people with special needs I’ve worshiped with them for six years now and I thought they might be an example of good healthy impulses unhampered by societies embrace of homosexual lifestyle.
Yeah, that is a common thread in homosexuals that I know personally as well - with one exception. More on this in a bit…I also have friends that are homosexual, I lived in NYC for years and even returning home to Indiana have always had gay couples in my life. All have had traumatic childhoods.
The Church has told me I am not allowed romantic love, as I am intersexed, ‘either sex’ could be the opposite/same sex so I am not permitted to have a relationship outside of disinterested friendship with anyone at all.W If it supposed to be a “romantic” relationship, then, yes, sex is a part of the deal (as is being of opposite genders). If, on the other hand, you are just two men (or two women, or one man and one woman) that literally love each other…Nothing wrong with that at all.
That was me who said that. I apologize - to both of you - for the confusion. I don’t get on the forums every day, but I didn’t mean to abandon the discussion and would be happy to address your points.Sure! But perhaps you should first be reminded that my original response was to the following statement (which by the way you did not write so I apologize for the error) :
"…the early Church even called itself the Catholic Church"
Do you even know what “Catholic” means? The word catholic was Greek for “universal” or “worldwide.” It means that the Lord has called us to convert the entire world to Him.You’re right it is getting off topic. Because I wasn’t interested in what you claim the referenced “church” later came to be recognized as. I was interested in the fact that the scripture which saw fit to identify the followers of Christ as being “christians”, says absolutely nothing about their church being “Catholic”.
While this is beside the point, A.D. 110 is indisputably within the very early period of Church history. The man Mea Culpa and I quoted - St. Ignatius of Antioch - learned the faith from the Apostle John himself.And this fact present itself in what indeed is the “early Church”. So when you say that "the early church even called itself the “Catholic Church”, (and you underlined early to make your point), that is misleading to say the least. That statment hides the fact that your reference point for “early” is actually after the penning of Scripture".
Wrong:And for Catholics who erroneously assert that the Catholic church “practically wrote the new testament” (as a poster in another thread retorted), oddly enough that same “Church”, left its own name out. Because not one verse in all of scripture ever referes to the “early church” as being “Catholic”. Out of the two fundamental elements of Catholicism: “Catholic”, and “Christian”, one is sorely missing from the pages of God’s Word.
As I pointed out above, it’s not about the name (although I do stand by my claim). It’s about the identity of the early Christian Church, regardless of what they called themselves.The whole thrust of your response to my request was to show just how far back in history the term “Catholic” extended.
Let me remind you yet again: “catholic” means “worldwide” or “universal.” If you believe that the good news about Jesus Christ is meant to be spread across the entire earth, then you too agree that the early church - just like the modern church - was “catholic.”And to add credence to your position you even sighted the letters of St. Ignatius to validate the term’s heritage. And to validate St. Ignatius, you referenced how he “directly heard the teachings of John.” I proceeded to followed your lead, and found that the teachings of John, who was personally taught by Jesus, who’s followers the Bible calls “Christians”, never refered to their Church as it being the “Catholic Church”. In fact you even made the remark that “Even so AD110 is pretty early”, as if to say the earlier the better. The fact is, for you to even support the statement that “even the early Church called itself Catholic…”, is to deny that the “early Church”, is the same Church discussed in the book of Acts.
Well said.As opposed to later, I guess. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle, as I stated above. He is a Early Father of the Church, was a Bishop of the Church, and was the first to use the term “Catholic Church,” around 110 AD.
If your point is that Jesus, in Matthew 16, didn’t say “You are Peter, and on this rock I will found my CATHOLIC church.” - you are right. He didn’t say “my CHRISTIAN church” either. He just called it “my church.” And the Church founded by Peter and the Apostles was the Catholic Church.
I’m not seeing what you think you’re proving by pointing out that the word “Catholic” isn’t in the Holy Scriptures. Could you please explain that?
I myself am sure this is true.And this, Mea Culpa is where we get to a brick wall. When all else fails for the Catholic side of the argument. one goes to the Magisterium. And that is where we part ways - because I believe it is wrong. I know what you’re going to say to that, so save yourself the time and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. But there is one more thing. One that you are more wrong about than you can possibly imagine. Same sex couples CAN have the same sort of relationship as heterosexual couples do. Whether or not you believe it to be wrong, sinful, disordered, unnatural, or whatever else is fine, but it’s still there. To presume to know what other people can or cannot feel is completely ignorant and incorrect. Despite what you think of it, 2 men can love eachother and complement eachother emotionally in the same way as a man and a woman. That is not a debatable subject. There is no matter of opinion there. It is as black and white as the letters on this page: it exists.
And what would your explanation for the bolded section be, out of curiosity?Frinjaaa, I am sorry you were misinformed, but no one exactly knows what causes homosexuality. Even the Magisterium says so. There are some things we do know, because millions of people have experienced it. We know that it is not a choice. And it is not solely the environment because homosexuals exist in every sort of environment and social class. I’m interested to know how you came up with the idea that it is an excuse for something…I mean there are millions of gays out there who are not even slightly confused or angry, and are perfectly happy with their life and the way they feel. Many who come from perfectly normal, Catholic, traditional households, many who had girlfriends too.
Here’s the deal…I didn’t say the Bible is completely invalid. I said that you have to think about the context and translation in order to fully understand it. And I said, twice, that the words themselves are not ambiguous - I can read you know. But do you know the original ancient Hebrew, greek or roman words that we now have translated as homosexuality? They point towards men who rape men, male prostitutes, men who abuse young boys, the boys they abuse, and ritual homosexual orgies. I’m sure you would agree that the countless times that the Bible mentions slavery are not a justification for it. Why? Because we analyze it and apply it to modern day life. But with homosexuality you love to revert to literalism to get the point across that you believe to be true.
The word homosexual doesn’t appear in english until about the mid 1800’s, so it obviously wasn’t in any biblical translations until at least then.In 1 Cor. 6:9, the word used in the RSV is “homosexuals”…much less wiggle room. But I’m gonna give this one to you too, just 'cause. It’s free. Let’s pretend it to is actually a reference to men who, say, engage in orgies.
The Douay-Rheims translation is:The word homosexual doesn’t appear in english until about the mid 1800’s, so it obviously wasn’t in any biblical translations until at least then.
Read a few posts back. Sodomite mainly appears to refer to male prostitutes, not all male homosexuals.The Douay-Rheims translation is:
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
Sodomites clearly means homosexuals - referring back to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.