Questions on being Narrow-Minded

[hippyprincess]

How dark it is in your eyes! You words just made me , trembling and aflame.
you are not a true princess!
How can you say :"Things don’t just happen for no reason. Even your Bible says it. It’s becoming more politically acceptable to be homosexual in this day and age, and I think it’s a wonderful step towards progress. "
Oh, I want tell you how Bible say about it:

“So God created humankind in
his image,
in the image of God He created
them;
male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1:27

“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle,and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said:
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was
taken.’
Therefore a man shall leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.”
Genesis 2:18-24

See God created man and woman as husband and wife.
you say :"Even your Bible says it. It’s becoming more politically acceptable to be homosexual in this day and age, and I think it’s a wonderful step towards progress. "
Oh I want tell you what Bible say about it:

** “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; that is an abomination.
-Leviticus 18:22

“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,and in the same way also the men,giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
—Romans 1:26-27 **

Right, I’m fully aware of your Bible’s discrimination and hate towards homosexuals. Definitely not going to deny that fact.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the Bible’s implications that everything happens because God causes it to; omnipotence. Read the sentence before that, please. The references to the Bible were not said about homosexuality, but about Gpd’s omnipotence.

 

[Philthy]

hippyprincess;:

I should probably mention that I’m a liberal atheist who believes that everyone should be valued based on merit of character, rather than immutable facts. Obviously, this goes directly against the Catholic church, so I’ll try to put minimal bias into my answers.

Hi Hippy!
Excepting the atheist part, I dont see how any of this “obviously goes directly against the Catholic church”. That is, in fact, a bias! As a matter of fact there is no organization or institution which places a higher value on the dignity of every single human life than the Catholic Church.

1. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

Number 3 is an obviously biased assessment. Why would conservative imply close-minded relative to liberal? They are simply opposites. To be entrenched in either without entertaining opposing viewpoints is narrow minded, no?

For all of history, Christians have been condemning, killing, torturing those who were different from them.

Oh yeah, thats an unbiased, well rounded presentation of the contributions to society from Christianity. This is true of every form of humanity throughout time: For all history atheists, theists and agnostics have been condemning, killing, torturing those who were different from them

I,…believe science is the basis of and the reason for everything.

Too bad you cant prove this conclusion through science - then it might actually be meaningful.
In addition, you dont appear to understand what science is.

Science has made it so that female eggs are able to get pregnant from male sperm. It allows for the continuance of life.

Uhh, you mean nature has made it so, dont you? Science does not “make” things. Science is a method to understand the physical universe.

But science has also allowed for the creation of homosexuality. It occurs, making it a natural thing; it is from nature.

You need to look up the word science and then look up the word nature. Science does not “allow” things. The fact that homosexuality occurs does not make it a “natural” thing. Synthetic plastics “happen” that does not make them “natural”.

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is science’s way to say “STOP HAVING BABIES.” Theoretically, homosexuals cannot produce children, therefore combating overpopulation.

This is a pretty weak theory which is perfectly understandable for those who wish to justify the existence of homosexuality. There have been many, many instances of “overpopulation” in a variety of species through recorded history. None of those species have demonstrated an increase in homosexuality. What does repeatedly show up is true limiting factors of population - like starvation and disease.

There *has *to be a reason why more and more people are coming out as homosexual.Things don’t just happen for no reason. Even your Bible says it.

Yes but the reason doesnt have to be natural and it doesnt need to be accessible by science.

It’s becoming more politically acceptable to be homosexual in this day and age, and I think it’s a wonderful step towards progress.

Really? Progress toward what? What benefit has it provided to society?

there are homosexual people… they are in love and want to get unionized to each other.

Yes but they cant, thats the problem! When a man and woman “unionize” they truly can become “one” through the creation of a child. Union of sperm and egg produces one life. They have been “unionized”. Now you can pretend that other forms of deviant sexual behavior are no different, but you are not being objective in pretending, you’re being biased and unscientific.

Yes, it’s close-minded to say that someone cannot be with the one they love because of an ancient book.

No one says that two people cannot “be” with one another. What we say is that sex is naturally and spiritually meant to be between male and female. Whatever you want to call the other things that people do, it technically is not sexual. This is more objective fact for you - not culture influenced bias.

Marriage is a church term.

Correct! The Church owns it! Thats why its an insult for you to pretend you can own it too! Call the desire to contractualize an unnatural relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want to call it, JUST DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE! Its really very simple - and you know Im right.

Union is a joining together of two people who love each other.

Its a contractual arrangement.

To deny people of rights, of benefits just because they are born as homosexual is absolutely wrong.

Rights? What rights are being denied to homosexuals?

To tell someone they can’t* be who they are*, to me, is disgusting.

No one tells anyone they cant be who they are. Be what you want to be - just dont pretend its something its not and dont attempt to impose on others that same pretence.

But, unfortunately, church and state is still not completely separated.

You need to think more and speak less. Separation of religion and politics is neither possible nor is it beneficial. If you think it is, then, as Ghandi (I think) said, “you understand neither”.

 

[roselily]

Right, I’m fully aware of your Bible’s discrimination and hate towards homosexuals. Definitely not going to deny that fact.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the Bible’s implications that everything happens because God causes it to; omnipotence. Read the sentence before that, please. The references to the Bible were not said about homosexuality, but about Gpd’s omnipotence.

:blush:I know that I acted very unkindly, very unkindly,
I should say “How dark it is in my eyes! I did not know many things”
Oh hippyprincess, our Father in heaven made us, and like at the end of Ecclesiastes say: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. "

Forgive my unkind words-that I have many wrongs and misunderstandings too, here some words in Bible for you:

“May your soul rejoice in God’s
mercy,
and may you never be ashamed
to praise him.”

roselily with love

 

[hippyprincess]

hippyprincess;5173722:

Hi Hippy!

Excepting the atheist part, I dont see how any of this “obviously goes directly against the Catholic church”. That is, in fact, a bias! As a matter of fact there is no organization or institution which places a higher value on the dignity of every single human life than the Catholic Church.

Please see the first paragraph from my previous post. Actually, I’ll repost it for you. xD

*Yes, but you can’t deny that there is some apparent sexism in the church, mainly because women are not allowed to be Catholic preists. You could argue that they’re allowed to be nuns, but point blank, women are not seen as equals to men when it comes to religious teachings. It’s what Catholicism teaches, and it’s also illegal in my country; to hold jobs on the basis of sex, orientation, race, etc.

And to say that someone can’t enter heaven because they’re born as a homosexual is so wrong. That’s placing a value based on immutable facts, facts that a person cannot change. That teaches that if you live your life as a kind, just, giving, and loving person but happen to be a homosexual, you can’t enter heaven. *

Number 3 is an obviously biased assessment. Why would conservative imply close-minded relative to liberal? They are simply opposites. To be entrenched in either without entertaining opposing viewpoints is narrow minded, no?

That’s a dictionary quote, the dictionary isn’t biased. I can’t really say much more about that, I didn’t write the dictionary.

Oh yeah, thats an unbiased, well rounded presentation of the contributions to society from Christianity.

Sure, I can appreciate the art, music, and architecture. I’m not denying that Christanity certainly shaped history as we know it, but there’s no denying that much blood was shed for the cause.

Too bad you cant prove this conclusion through science.

No more than you can prove it through faith. What it all comes down to is personal belief.

Uhh, you mean nature

has made it so, dont you? Science does not “make” things. Science is a method to understand the physical universe.You need to look up the word science and then look up the word nature. Science does not “allow” things.

Please see my previous post.

The fact that homosexuality occurs does not make it a “natural” thing. Synthetic plastics “happen” that does not make them “natural”.

Right, but synthetic plastics aren’t borb. They don’t come out of a womb, they’re made by man. Synthetic plastics are not an immutable fact, nor a personality. This metaphor really has null value.

This is a pretty weak theory which is perfectly understandable for those who wish to justify the existence of homosexuality. There have been many, many instances of “overpopulation” in a variety of species through recorded history. None of those species have demonstrated an increase in homosexuality. What does repeatedly show up is true limiting factors of population - like starvation and disease.

This is 100% incorrect, actually. Homosexuality in animals has been observed on a large scale in species such as rats and chickens. A close family friend actually studies this for a living, and it’s been found that homosexuality in animals mainly occurs in “baby-boom” years.

Christianity, as I’ve said, is probably the most biologically flawed religions that I know of.

Yes but the reason doesnt have to be natural and it doesnt need to be accessible by science.

It also dosn’t have to be unnatural or caused by media. The point is, we don’t know what causes homosexuality thus far.

Really? Progress toward what? What benefit has it provided to society?

Change, equality, tolerance. I could go on and on about how everyone deserves equal rights and benefits, but it would really be useless in a situation such as this.

Yes but they cant, thats the problem! When a man and woman “unionize” they truly can become “one” through the creation of a child. Union of sperm and egg produces one life. They have been “unionized”.

Union referring to a civil union, not in a sexual union.
What’s the problem with not being able to produce children? If you’re with the one you love, there are other ways to get a child to raise and love. it’s not your sole purpose in life to have a baby.

Now you can pretend that other forms of deviant sexual behavior are no different, but you are not being objective in pretending, you’re being biased and unscientific.

To call it deviant is just ignorant and offensive. Why do you care what other people do for their sex lives? It doesn’t affect you in any way whatsoever, so why should a church have authority over that? I’m not saying that anal sex can produce children, if that’s what you’re claiming. I don’t believe the sole purpose of sex is to produce children, obviously. But that’s a religious principle, so I’d prefer not to argue that.

• CONTINUED -

 

[hippyprincess]

No one says that two people cannot “be” with one another. What we say is that sex is naturally and spiritually meant to be between male and female.

But love is meant between two people. I personally value love more than sex, but that’s your belief.
Philthy;5174736:

Whatever you want to call the other things that people do, it technically is not sexual.

If you’re referring to anal sex, which involves penetration, then it technically is sexual. That’s why “sex” is stuck at the end of it.

Correct! The Church owns it! Thats why its an insult for you to pretend you can own it too!

What are you talking about? I think marriage should be for the church and union should be for the state. Meaning, every single couple that wants to get unionized has to get married by a justice of peace. This will get you state benefits, and you’ll be legally married in the eyes of the state. If you want to get married in the church, you can follow their rules. Then you;d be married in the eyes of god. That way, everyone wins! Homosexuals will be allowed the same benefits, and the church won’t have those evil nasty gays ruining their holy establishment.

Call the desire to contractualize an unnatural relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want to call it, JUST DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE! Its really very simple - and you know Im right.

I wasn’t calling it marriage, I was calling it a union. You don’t need to be so self righteous, I understand the difference between marriage and union.

Its a contractual arrangement.

It’s the ability to get federal and state benefits.

Rights? What rights are being denied to homosexuals?

The are not allowed to have federal benefits that straight couples have; if one partner dies, the other can’t inherit the house. They can’t share medical benefits. Fact is, they can’t have most of the rights as straight couples. That is WRONG.

No one tells anyone they cant be who they are. Be what you want to be - just dont pretend its something its not and dont attempt to impose on others that same pretence.

You’re imposing your views, so I have the right to impose mine. Nobody here is claiming that marriage isn’t a church term, so you don’t need to be quite so defensive.

You need to think more and speak less. Separation of religion and politics is neither possible nor is it beneficial. If you think it is, then, as Ghandi (I think) said, “you understand neither”.

Seperation of church and state is not the principle that government should not be influenced by politics.

 

[srlucado]

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to ask; do I agree with Islam? No, I don’t. This isn’t the Islam forum, and the religion of Islam was not involved in the discussion. I don’t really see how this is applicable. I’d be happy to give an explanation if you care to elaborate.

My point, you silly girl, is that it’s easy to come trolling in a Catholic forum and bad-mouth Catholics–but are you brave enough to do the same to Muslims on an Islamic forum? Or how about protesting for gay rights in front of a mosque? I’ll bet you wouldn’t–in fact, I’ll bet it never even occured to you.

Yet you’re so eager to show everyone how right you are and how wrong everyone else is…well, start with some people who are really, really wrong, then.

Catholics haven’t persecuted anybody in a long time, whereas Islam is executing homosexuals right now. Yet where are you aiming your protests? At the people who *won’t *come to your house and cut your throat, of course. How brave.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[SteveGC]

Yes, but you can’t deny that there is some apparent sexism in the church, mainly because women are not allowed to be Catholic preists. You could argue that they’re allowed to be nuns, but point blank, women are not seen as equals to men when it comes to religious teachings. It’s what Catholicism teaches, and it’s also illegal in my country; to hold jobs on the basis of sex, orientation, race, etc.

Take my word for it…you don’t understand Christianity. If you did, you wouldn’t feel the way you do about this. Not even remotely. Women are not stifled, nor made inferior in Christianity. They have a vastly important role in humanity that the Church honors and encourages. It is not within the capacity of the Church to ordain women as priests, because it is not God’s will to endow them in that specific role. Again, you’d have to first understand Christianity. Whatever version of it you’ve learned is clearly erroneous.

And to say that someone can’t enter heaven because they’re born as a homosexual is so wrong. That’s placing a value based on immutable facts, facts that a person cannot change. That teaches that if you live your life as a kind, just, giving, and loving person but happen to be a homosexual, you can’t enter heaven.

Again, value is not the issue. Sin is. Regardless, what do you care about “entering heaven”, or what you presume to be some Church’s position on what is required to attain it? For an atheist, you seem to be overly concerned about heaven. I thought your issue was with earthly rights, not eternal destiny.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. What I meant to say was that I believe the world has been designed to fix the problems presented in nature.

Designed by whom? Things don’t design themselves.

When I look at anything in nature, the way cells function to continue life, or how photosynthesis occurs in such a perfect formula I find it so amazing how everything in the universe works in such a perfect cycle.

So amazing, and yet impossible that at unseen Creator is at it’s source?

And I think that most, if not every, occurance that develops in nature can be explain scientifically.

Is that important to you? That everything be capable of being explained?

(Any particular reason why these were capitalized?)

No.

Pornography, adultery, yes. Murder, rape, and incest, no.

So, adultery is ok, but incest isn’t? Can you explain the logic there?

I didn’t mean it quite as literally as you took it. I was talking about occurances in genetics and heredity, not human motives.

There are studies suggesting serial killers have genetic predispositions to violence. These are “scientific” studies…right up your alley. Should we allow people to be violent if it is proven they have a genetic proclivity to it? The genetic proclivity to homosexuality is no more definitive in its conclusions than any other study of abnormal behaviors stemming from genetics.

Sure, invitro fertilization or a surrogate mother.

I see. So you mean, a homosexual “couple” can reproduce…so long as the couple is NOT actually acting as a couple, but as a “threesome”…adding either a third party sperm or egg/womb source? Yes, very natural.

The Bible says that homosexuals are not permitted to enter heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

Again, you seem to be quite concerned about eternal destinations. To be clear, God teaches us that those who reject Him will get what they want…eternal separation from Himself (called Hell). Homosexuals, who ACT on their homosexual impulses/temptations (fornication with other same sex individuals), without repenting of this sinful behavior before death, will presumably attain what they desire…everlasting life without God.

What makes them “sinful temptations?” Because they are called that by your god?

Um, yes. That’s why it’s called “sin”. There is no utilization of the word “sin” apart from God, for the word itself essentially means “to turn from God”.

I completely disagree with the discrimination against homosexuals.

So do Catholics

What if god has said “Blacks aren’t allowed to enter heaven.” Would you so blindly believe that because someone else believes it is right?

Well, since being Black is not sinful, this is an empty argument. You can try to equate being born into a certain race with being born homosexual if you wish. Bottom line is that there is no definitive proof of your position on this. And again, genetic predispositions seem to include many abnormal behaviors…why don’t we “allow” people to act on everything they naturally feel like doing?

How can it be rewarding to live your life pretending to be someone you’re not?

On the contrary…fighting off strong temptations to disobey God is not pretentious, it is righteous, and hence, highly rewarding.

 

[SteveGC]

It is their right, certainly, but is it right? What if the KKK lobbyed against blacks, to ban them from getting a job, because they believed, in good faith, that it was wrong with their moral code? How about the Nazis, who believed, in good faith, that the Jews should be killed? Just because something is driven by faith, it isn’t justified.

You would lobby to allow same-sex unions, no? You would claim you have the “right” to do so. But, is that right? According to whom? You? It seems you would want to give everyone the right to lobby for what they wanted, so long as they all lobby for what YOU think is right. There is a higher source of right and wrong than any individual person. Thank God for that. Well, atleast I will. I think it is also highly unfair of you to attempt to equate lobbying against homosexual union with the murder of Jews, or the discrimination of blacks. The burden on homosexuals who can’t receive marital benefits is a speck of sand compared to the beaches of injustice to blacks and Jews to which you refer. No one is suggesting homosexuals can’t get jobs, or should be killed. I realize there is a burden of the absence of financial and health-related benefits, but we all have burdens. I’m not going to support same-sex unions just so a homosexual can get those benefits off their ‘significant other’. No one is denying them their own individual finances or health benefits.

Of course there’s a difference! Theft is violating someone else, to take something that doesn’t belong to you. How does it affact YOUR life if a gay couple wants to be married? To equivocate homosexuality with theft is not just offensive, it’s downright ridiculous.

It affects MY life because MY life is centered around obedience to God, who teaches me that supporting and encouraging sinful behavior is sinful for me. Legalizing same-sex unions sends a message to the world justifying this behavior, thus drawing them further and further from God, who desires them to be nearer and nearer to Himself. So, yes…it indeed DOES affect my life.

A state term, a legal term. Gay couples should be allowed all the federal benefits a straight married couple is allowed. It is not the responsibility of the church to govern who gets married, it’s the responsibility of the state.

Well, the states have yet to break from their national heritage, which was a Constitution designed largely with Godly, Christian values. The culture of death runs rampant, and who knows? maybe someday you’ll get your wish…but it WILL have consequences. Christians everywhere pray that eyes will open to this, before it is too late.

 

[roselily]

-that is for hippyprincess:
May Christ have mercy!
How dark it is in my eyes! I did not know many things, and I have many wrongs myself-but I say to other: "How dark it is in your eyes! ":bighanky:
Oh, have mercy , Christ! Forgive me,
Because I feel remorse, and I do not wish wrong on anyone, and the one is alone in the world and is very, very pity.
"O Christ, aid! O Christ, save! "

SACRED HEART OF JESUS, THY KINGDOM COME!

 

[roselily]

**HAIL Mary, full of grace! the Lord is
with thee; blessed art thou among
women,and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. **

 

[roselily]

**HAIL Mary, full of grace! the Lord is
with thee; blessed art thou among
women,and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. **

 

[roselily]

**HAIL Mary, full of grace! the Lord is
with thee; blessed art thou among
women,and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. **

 

[JRKH]

Let me just pose a few questions (sparked by a conversation I had with a very liberal atheist today):

1. What does it mean to be narrow-minded?
2. Are Catholics narrow-minded for not condoning homosexual marriages? The obvious answer being no, how do we defend statement?
3. Does “separation of church and state” mean that you should not vote how you do because of what you believe religiously? If not, what other definition can we offer?

Offer your thoughts on any or all of these questions.

In order to draw the conversation back toward teh OP allow me to offer a couple of thoughts.

Question One has some rather clear “dictionary” answers and so is clearly defined - asuuming your friend is sticking to a dictionary definition. Of course even a dictionary cannot truly define what each person will consider as “Not being open to other ideas”, or “prejudgiced” so even with a dictioinary definition there can be subjectivity on the part of those involved in conversation.

Question Two naturally depends upon to some extent upon two things. First is your spiritual disposition. The Catholic will say no it is not narrowminded, while the Athiest will say it is. In point of fact it is rather pointless for a Catholic and Athiest to argue homosexuality until points of commonality are defined. We see that on this thread with the discussions back and forth with “princess”.

Question three is probably the silliest notion of all and highlights something that is becoming all to prevelent today. The Anti-Liberty Liberal. The very notion that someone who defines themselves as 'Liberal" should say that a person should leave their faith outside of the voting booth is ludicrous. Simply tell such a person that you will leave “religious morality” outside the voting booth as soon as they leave science and their “Secular morality” outside of the Voting Booth.

Peace
James

 

[Philthy]

Philthy;5174736:

Yes, but you can’t deny that there is some apparent sexism in the church, mainly because women are not allowed to be Catholic preists.
You could argue that they’re allowed to be nuns, but point blank, women are not seen as equals to men when it comes to religious teachings. It’s what Catholicism teaches, and it’s also illegal in my country; to hold jobs on the basis of sex, orientation, race, etc.

Suffice it to say that the basis for an all male priesthood is an article of faith and is not based upon anything else.

And to say that someone can’t enter heaven because they’re born as a homosexual is so wrong. That teaches that if you live your life as a kind, just, giving, and loving person but happen to be a homosexual, you can’t enter heaven.

The Church doesnt teach this - its another of your misunderstandings. Its called a straw man argument: you invent something the Church doesnt actually teach and then attack the Church for teaching it.

That’s a dictionary quote, the dictionary isn’t biased.

Really? How would you know that? Sounds like another unproven bias to me.

No more than you can prove it through faith. What it all comes down to is personal belief.

Yes, but we dont pretend that our beliefs aren’t an expression of faith - secularists do.

This is 100% incorrect, actually. Homosexuality in animals has been observed on a large scale in species such as rats and chickens. A close family friend actually studies this for a living, and it’s been found that homosexuality in animals mainly occurs in “baby-boom” years.

Im not narrow minded - do you mind sharing the published info? Im especially interested in the definition of homosexuality used as applied to rats; how they determine whether the rat is conscious that it has chosen to interact with another rat of the same sex and whether their is both male to male sexuality and female to female sexuality.

It also dosn’t have to be unnatural or caused by media. The point is, we don’t know what causes homosexuality thus far.

We know we cant find a physical cause for it, thats for sure. All your spouting about being born that way, unable to change and it being immutable is a unproven bias that you have.

Change, equality, tolerance. I could go on and on about how everyone deserves equal rights and benefits, but it would really be useless in a situation such as this.

Change is not always a good thing
I dont see any rights having been violated
Tolerance is a two way street.
What you are truly reduced to is claiming that things that YOU PERSONALLY value have been forwarded by homosexuality. If the rest of us happen to not value what you personally value then what?

 

[JRKH]

One other point I would like to make as regards the conversations with "hippyprincess’ (by the way - Welcome to the forums hp).
Such conversations remind me of a line from the Movie “Song of Bernadette” it goes:

For those who believe in God,
No explanation is necessary.
For those who don’t believe in God,
No explanation is Possible.

It speaks eloquently to the pointlessness of discussions that have no common, and agreed upon point of departure.

From a scientific viewpoint, homosexuality is an abormal behavior. It simply does not conform to the “norm” and the object of the sexual act, which is procreation. This is really about all that science can tell us about the condition other than possibly providing some insight into it’s origins (genetic or environmental).
After this point, the entire issue becomes one of “culture”, “morality” and/or faith. These things by their very nature are imprecise and subject to subjectivity.

Peace
James

 

[hippyprincess]

My point, you silly girl, is that it’s easy to come trolling in a Catholic forum and bad-mouth Catholics–but are you brave enough to do the same to Muslims on an Islamic forum? Or how about protesting for gay rights in front of a mosque? I’ll bet you wouldn’t–in fact, I’ll bet it never even occured to you.

Yet you’re so eager to show everyone how right you are and how wrong everyone else is…well, start with some people who are really, really wrong, then.

Catholics haven’t persecuted anybody in a long time, whereas Islam is executing homosexuals right now. Yet where are you aiming your protests? At the people who *won’t *come to your house and cut your throat, of course. How brave.

Color me unimpressed.

Are you attacking me for not protesting gay rights in front of a mosque? Or not equally debating each religion? I don’t really see how this is applicable at all. I don’t support the persecution of homosexuals, from any religion. I agree with the statement that it is wrong to kill people for being different than you.

I truly think religion will be the downfall of the world. Not specifically Catholicism, but organized religion as a whole. I could get into a whole speech about what’s wrong with it and how it has no merit, but this isn’t the place to do it, and it’s not likely to have any effect here.

No, I’m not laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of homosexuals. But are you laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of another human being, because it’s against your personal beliefs? Presumably not.

 

[JPUSC]

Are you attacking me for not protesting gay rights in front of a mosque? Or not equally debating each religion? I don’t really see how this is applicable at all. I don’t support the persecution of homosexuals, from any religion. I agree with the statement that it is wrong to kill people for being different than you.

I truly think religion will be the downfall of the world. Not specifically Catholicism, but organized religion as a whole. I could get into a whole speech about what’s wrong with it and how it has no merit, but this isn’t the place to do it, and it’s not likely to have any effect here.

No, I’m not laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of homosexuals. But are you laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of another human being, because it’s against your personal beliefs? Presumably not.

He’s trying to say that while you are intent on attacking Christians as murderers and torturers, you aren’t doing the same for Muslims who have the same views on same-sex-marriage.

Why exactly did you choose this Catholic website? The Mormons paid for the California Prop 8 campaign and some Protestant congregations, such as the Westboro Baptist Church use hate-filled language for various groups of people.

Go start trouble elsewhere.

Here, let me help you get started:

lioncity.net/buddhism/
hinduforum.net/
lds.net/forums/
topmuslimforums.wordpress.com/
thejewishforum.com/
christianforums.com/

Or you can follow that new trendy slogan a lot of teenagers stick on their bumpers, and let people be.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JRKH]

Are you attacking me for not protesting gay rights in front of a mosque? Or not equally debating each religion? I don’t really see how this is applicable at all. I don’t support the persecution of homosexuals, from any religion. I agree with the statement that it is wrong to kill people for being different than you.

I truly think religion will be the downfall of the world. Not specifically Catholicism, but organized religion as a whole. I could get into a whole speech about what’s wrong with it and how it has no merit, but this isn’t the place to do it, and it’s not likely to have any effect here.

No, I’m not laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of homosexuals. But are you laying in front of a mosque protesting the murder of another human being, because it’s against your personal beliefs? Presumably not.

For what it’s worth hippy princess, I agree that the comments re: your involvement in “Gay rights” was poor and unchristian. We have no Idea what, if any, steps you take regarding social justice as you see it.

Your comment re: religion being hte downfall of the world seems a bit odd considering the fact that western civilization and education is built upon the foundations layed by the Church institutions AFTER the “downfall of the world” when the Western Roman Empire collapsed.
While it would be foolish to deny that narrowminds and shortsightedness among religious persons and institutions have caused great harm, it is also foolish to deny or minimize the great good and benefits that society has derived from religious persons and institutions. Look at teh number of Hospitals with religious names and dig into their histories and how they came to be. Look at work among the poor. Look at the history of Education in western Europe and how it developed out of Church Sponsored institutions. Even Scientific investigation was promoted by the Church both then and now.

I think it would be most interesting to read you holding forth on why you believe that Religion will be the downfall of the World. Perhaps you could start a new thread on that - perhaps in Apologetics or Moral theology. I’ll watch for it.

Peace
James

 

[hippyprincess]

Take my word for it…you don’t understand Christianity. If you did, you wouldn’t feel the way you do about this. Not even remotely.

I understand plenty about Christianity. I went to Roman Catholic school for 6 years, and even in 2nd grade it disgusted me. I, and most of the Protestant community, disagree with the inferiority of women in the church. Many other Christian denominations allow women to be priests, but Catholicism does not.

Women are not stifled, nor made inferior in Christianity. They have a vastly important role in humanity that the Church honors and encourages.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

They *certainly * are stifled, not being permitted to speak in church, instead being told to ask their husband to interpret their faith for them.

It is not within the capacity of the Church to ordain women as priests, because it is not God’s will to endow them in that specific role.

Right, that just proved my point. Women and homosexuals are considered inferior. Women aren’t allowed to be priests, homosexuals aren’t allowed to go to heaven.

Again, you’d have to first understand Christianity. Whatever version of it you’ve learned is clearly erroneous.

That women aren’t stifled? There are Bible quotes, one that I’ve already cited, saying that women SHOULD be stifled, and submit to their husbands completely. How about 1 Timothy 2:11-12?

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Again, value is not the issue. Sin is. Regardless, what do you care about “entering heaven”, or what you presume to be some Church’s position on what is required to attain it? For an atheist, you seem to be overly concerned about heaven. I thought your issue was with earthly rights, not eternal destiny.

No, I don’t believe in heaven of hell. I was referring to heaven and hell because everyone here believes in it. I didn’t feel it appropriate to argue it’s existence in this message board.

I can’t imagine that an innocent, 2-week-old baby who dies of pneumonia will rot in hell for eternity because he didn’t live long enough to be baptized. How can you say a helpless infant is born full of sin? That’s perverse.

Designed by whom? Things don’t design themselves.

Sure they do. There’s no proof of a god, and science has showed us the answer to many things thus far. I’m not claiming to know the exact origins of life, but I, as do many other people, believe that the natural world is the cause.

So amazing, and yet impossible that at unseen Creator is at it’s source? Is that important to you? That everything be capable of being explained?

Yes, it is important to me. Why would you want to explain away so many mysteries with fairy tales? That just limits your mind. The more we explore, the more potential we have to understand.

So, adultery is ok, but incest isn’t? Can you explain the logic there?

Was I condoning adultery? Nope. But I can’t *equate *cheating on a husband or wife with killing another human being. There are few worse things you can do than kill. And it saddens me to know that men holding guns is more acceptable than men holding hands.

There are studies suggesting serial killers have genetic predispositions to violence. These are “scientific” studies…right up your alley. Should we allow people to be violent if it is proven they have a genetic proclivity to it?

No, because it harms other people. Like I said, like your Bible says, killing another person is the worst thing you can do. (I’m not even going to mention the hypocrisy of this teaching.) It’s ignorant and unreasonable to equate murder with homosexuality.

The genetic proclivity to homosexuality is no more definitive in its conclusions than any other study of abnormal behaviors stemming from genetics.

Why are you arguing this? I’ve said many times that I agree that there is no definitive cause.

I see. So you mean, a homosexual “couple” can reproduce…so long as the couple is NOT actually acting as a couple, but as a “threesome”…adding either a third party sperm or egg/womb source?

Yes, a member of a homosexual couple can reproduce with a third party sperm/egg source. Why is couple in quotation marks?

Yes, very natural.

About as natural as Mary getting pregnant without sperm. Ahem.

Well, since being Black is not sinful, this is an empty argument. You can try to equate being born into a certain race with being born homosexual if you wish.

I realize that being black is not considered sinful. I was posing a hypothetical question; if God believed being black was sinful, would you agree?

Bottom line is that there is no definitive proof of your position on this. And again, genetic predispositions seem to include many abnormal behaviors…why don’t we “allow” people to act on everything they naturally feel like doing?

Because homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t understand if you’re trying to imply that homosexuality is equivalent to serial killing.

 

[JPUSC]

Right, that just proved my point. Women and homosexuals are considered inferior. Women aren’t allowed to be priests, homosexuals aren’t allowed to go to heaven.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**1934 **Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin… All therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, colour, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.

1937 These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular ‘talents’ share the benefits with those who need them…

1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions…

2333 … The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 ‘In creating men “male and female”, God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.’ ‘Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.’

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way…

I can’t imagine that an innocent, 2-week-old baby who dies of pneumonia will rot in hell for eternity because he didn’t live long enough to be baptized. How can you say a helpless infant is born full of sin? That’s perverse.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

And stop quoting random passages from the Bible out of context…you are misinterpreting them. Some of it is not meant to be taken literally. You have to read Scripture in mind of its historical and cultural context, just like with any other piece of literature.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.