Spanish Bishop Angers Homosexuals by Mentioning Church Doctrine

[Wolseley]

Why don’t you sleep on it. And give yourself time to let what i have presented, actually sink in.

Great idea. And while you’re snoozing tonight, think on this:

The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a masculine noun defined in English as “one who lies with a male as with a female”.

Now, regardless of whether the specific word being used in any given translation is "sodomy’, “idolatry”, “poofterism”, “raisin bran”, or “shinola for short”, what does the definition “one who lies with a male as with a female” mean to you???

 

[agmoose02]

Oh really? Just how long was it before interracial marriage wasn’t considered unnatural and outlawed. And just how long was it before the Southern Baptist Convention renounced its racist past, using the bible…THE BIBLE!! to promote slavery. Whether its SSA or being black, each have had the same reality withn the timeline of humanity. Their descrimination was the SAME!!

Through implication since this forum is about the Catholic Church your first sentence implies a racist past for the Church. The only group you flatly accuse of racism, though, is the Southern Baptist Convention. However your implication in this post is to say that all Christians are bigots, who use the Bible as an excuse, and that is just one example. To answer the question you began with though, the Church has never considered interracial marriage to be unnatural or tried to outlaw it in anyway. In fact it was extremely common throughout the lands colonized by Catholic nations. So please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting you again.

 

[agmoose02]

Also truagape, I find it interesting that you are caught up in meaningless word games. Obviously, you haven’t gotten too far in any language studies if you think that precise words are translated, except for basic vocabulary it is concepts that are translated. The reason translation is possible is that from culture to culture those concepts are very similar. What I find even more interesting is that while the thread was about a Spanish bishop’s talk denouncing the sin of homosexuality and particularly gay marriage, you are yet to say anything about the facts and statistics that I presented in Post #30, but endlessly derail the discussion with pointless semantics. These numbers are credible and unbiased evidence that point to these activities being disordered. These relationships are less stable than the traditional man-woman relationship established by God.

 

[paulchinnz]

Don’t want to get too off topic, but I’d be careful agmoose02 about using statistics to back up Catholicism (or religion in general for that matter). I think these are human inventions to aid understanding of the world, but understanding God is a different matter. After all, does that mean that prayer ‘doesn’t work’ because of the results of the STEP trial (see this review for a more in depth discussion)?

Back on topic, as a Catholic, I have faith in the truth of the Catechism. What Wolseley quoted is pretty explicit and straightforwards. By the way, great to hear about this Spanish bishop … I often attend a Baptist church (my fiancee has been attending for some years) in addition to my usual church, and have often felt that the stuff being preached at the Baptist could be preached at the Catholic church and vice versa … but that’s to do with my ignorance. That’s why I’m here, to learn more about my faith. God bless.

 

[mlchance]

“One consults a dictionary to determine what a marriage is and it says that it is a stable and lasting union between a man and a woman.”

One does not consult the dictionary. One consults natural law and hundreds of years of tradition/Tradition. Words change meaning, and dictionaries reflect those changes. Natural law, OTOH, doesn’t change, and altering the definition of “marriage” doesn’t change the underlying reality.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[agmoose02]

Don’t want to get too off topic, but I’d be careful agmoose02 about using statistics to back up Catholicism (or religion in general for that matter). I think these are human inventions to aid understanding of the world, but understanding God is a different matter. After all, does that mean that prayer ‘doesn’t work’ because of the results of the STEP trial (see this review for a more in depth discussion)?

I can see your point. I do agree that undersanding God is not dependant on statistics and wasnt trying to do this. I also understand that statistics can be misused easily. After all 77.3% of statistics are made up on the spot . I am simply trying to point out that some research into the realities of this situation has been done and that the demand for homosexual unions is not as great as the publicity makes it out to be and that these unions are significantly less stable than the traditional and sacramental union between a man and woman. I was not trying to put the human study of sociology above God’s word, just throwing out some supporting evidence (not that God needs it), since in the debate the other side often doesnt accept scripture alone as proof. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my post. I will endeavor to do better in this regard in the future.

 

[paulchinnz]

I was not trying to put the human study of sociology above God’s word, just throwing out some supporting evidence (not that God needs it), since in the debate the other side often doesnt accept scripture alone as proof. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my post. I will endeavor to do better in this regard in the future.

I didn’t think you were, but might be interesting to debate on another thread worthiness of the use of scientific evidence to support religious arguments.