Arguments about teaching children god is real

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

You should be arguing for putting children in Catholic families into care then to be logically consistent?

In such conversations as these misogynistic / homophobic need more meat.

It isn't homophobic to believe that all sexuality should be confined within a marriage. One can hold such a position and not hate / fear homosexuality. Does disagreement = hatred? Personally I strain to see so.

If you read the thread (or perhaps it was the clone thread in A&A) you'd see I've already said I don't think religion equates to child abuse - the only logical inconsistency I see is claims of a religion/god that loves everyone and a religion that does no harm when there is reams of evidence on PI or RI that that just isn't the case at all - tho I wouldn't be so quick to call it child abuse either, a gross parenting failure perhaps.

You strain to see so? Is it really beyond your comprehension to see how damaging it could be to tell a gay son or daughter that they can never have a sexually fulfilling sexual relationship and be deemed a good person? I'm astonished.

Ickle Magoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

:rolleyes:

At least try be honest or reread your threads before you post if you want a decent discussion.

You know what rhetorical means, right?

Unwilling

Croga - what is your take on SANTA CLAUS then!?

Herbal Deity

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't homophobic to believe that all sexuality should be confined within a marriage.

No, but it's a damaging, unnatural and unhealthy attitude to inflict on a child.

I mean, if you have a child and they tell you they're gay, what is your response?

Anger?
Telling them that you're disappointed?
Requesting/Advising that they do not indulge in their sexual desires?

(If they even told you in the first place. Were I gay, I certainly would be slow to tell my parents if I knew they disagreed with homosexual acts)

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What about those religions, catholicism included, which are inherently misogynistic and/or homophobic...I presume you see nothing wrong with raising a child to think all gay people are banned from sexual activity if they want to go to heaven? That is part of the catholic churches innocent and healthy teaching, after all.

Thats not what I learned. I learned we all go to heaven. We never learned anything about being gay.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats not what I learned. I learned we all go to heaven. We never learned anything about being gay.

I did stress "those religions". As far as I know all catholic churches are in full communion with rome...again, I'm not sure what personal experience of cherry-picking edict does to negate criticism at the general tenets - are there not churches and indeed parents who do discuss hell and those hell-bound gay sinners? I'm sure we all agree for every apathetic theist there is as many right-wingers...

AudreyHepburn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You know what rhetorical means, right?

Yes I know what it means.

Nothing in your post struck me as rhetorical thb.

What you said was you presumed that I believed homosexuality was wrong because I had said I'm Catholic.

I merely responded to that, asked you not to make assumptions and said that I have no time for anyone who would deny gays/lesbians their rights.

I'd teach this to my children also, just to keep on topic.

Truley

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats not what I learned. I learned we all go to heaven. We never learned anything about being gay.

Same with me, was raised a catholic but parents always taught me that there was nothing wrong with sex or homosexuality. In school we were taught the Alive O curriculum which is the standard national school catholicism programme, what the vast majority of catholic schoolchildren are taught in this country. It doesn't teach anything against masturbation, homosexuality or mention hell at all for that matter.

Ickle Magoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I know what it means.

Nothing in your post struck me as rhetorical thb.

What you said was you presumed that I believed homosexuality was wrong because I had said I'm Catholic.

I merely responded to that, asked you not to make assumptions and said that I have no time for anyone who would deny gays/lesbians their rights.

I'd teach this to my children also, just to keep on topic.

Well just because it didn't strike you doesn't mean it wasn't so. I've witnessed the myriad of demands around what you claim you can define yourself as regardless of common definitions. I assumed you wouldn't agree with such a thing despite it being a key teaching of the catholic church you were presuming to defend - hence the rhetoric.

You must see the obvious contradiction in claiming to have no time for anyone who would deny gays and lesbians their rights while vociferously defending the catholic church?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I did stress "those religions". As far as I know all catholic churches are in full communion with rome...again, I'm not sure what personal experience of cherry-picking edict does to negate criticism at the general tenets - are there not churches and indeed parents who do discuss hell and those hell-bound gay sinners? I'm sure we all agree for every apathetic theist there is as many right-wingers...

I don't know what to tell you. I was raised and educated as a Catholic. Didn't learn that.

Although I grew up in NYC, which is very Jewish, so I'm probably half Jewish by osmosis.

Ickle Magoo

Truley wrote: »

Same with me, was raised a catholic but parents always taught me that there was nothing wrong with sex or homosexuality. In school we were taught the Alive O curriculum which is the standard national school catholicism programme, what the vast majority of catholic schoolchildren are taught in this country. It doesn't teach anything against masturbation, homosexuality or mention hell at all for that matter.

I imagine that has more to do with the education boards influence on curriculum than what the RC would prefer to be teaching tbh...

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't know what to tell you. I was raised and educated as a Catholic. Didn't learn that.

Although I grew up in NYC, which is very Jewish, so I'm probably half Jewish by osmosis.

By osmosis, lol. I like that. This thread reminds me of some of the threads in A&A from people vigorously denying their religion does X, Y & Z just to discover it was their parents having the good sense to edit the religion rather than the religion being taught in all it's glory - which says an awful lot about religion in itself.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I imagine that has more to do with the education boards influence on curriculum than what the RC would prefer to be teaching tbh...

I wasn't educated here. American schools are not subject to the IRish education boards.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wasn't educated here. American schools are not subject to the IRish education boards.

And you aren't Truley either, are you?

I'm not sure what your point is? So some schools and religious people water down the religion to commonly acceptable levels and that negates all criticism of the religion and of those who teach it in full?

I find it baffling that any parent would want to pass on a religion that would require watering down so as not to pass on homophobia or sexual issues but meh, what do I know.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And you aren't Truley either, are you?

I'm not sure what your point is? So some schools and religious people water down the religion to commonly acceptable levels and that negates all criticism of the religion and of those who teach it in full?

I find it baffling that any parent would want to pass on a religion that would require watering down so as not to pass on homophobia or sexual issues but meh, what do I know.

Well, you'd rather they pass down fundamentalism?

People keep telling me the church says homosexuality brings you to hell and oddly its never been a Catholic who told me that.

AudreyHepburn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And you aren't Truley either, are you?

I'm not sure what your point is? So some schools and religious people water down the religion to commonly acceptable levels and that negates all criticism of the religion and of those who teach it in full?

I find it baffling that any parent would want to pass on a religion that would require watering down so as not to pass on homophobia or sexual issues but meh, what do I know.

You'd rather we taught to be homophobic, to abstain from sex forever etc then?

Do you not see that you can be religious and actually be able to think for yourself and know what is morally right and wrong and be able to educate children correctly?

Or is it that you don't want to see it because it would negate your point?

Greyfox

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You must see the obvious contradiction in claiming to have no time for anyone who would deny gays and lesbians their rights while vociferously defending the catholic church?

Why do you persume that all catholics think being gay is wrong? I grew up a catholic surrounded by catholics and I've never been taught that being gay is wrong, and if someone said it was wrong I just wouldn't listen to them. If you actually talk to most catholics they don't believe being gay is wrong. Like most of the Irish population been brought up a Catholic didn't do me any harm so I can't see how if I brought my kids up as one would do any harm. Yes theirs the silly going to hell if your a sinner but sure that was all forgiven by going to confession so was never a worry.

I believe you need to differenciate between parents who teach religion but don't force it on their kids and the minority of religious fanatics that do force their religion on their kids

In any case if we were to not allow parents to teach that god is real, how do we go about enforcing this?

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, you'd rather they pass down fundamentalism?

People keep telling me the church says homosexuality brings you to hell and oddly its never been a Catholic who told me that.

Are you deliberately ignoring a very public catholic mandate in favour of personal rhetoric here? I was told to christen my child or if they died they'd go to hell - by a catholic, you see, personal rhetoric ftw.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You'd rather we taught to be homophobic, to abstain from sex forever etc then?

Do you not see that you can be religious and actually be able to think for yourself and know what is morally right and wrong and be able to educate children correctly?

Or is it that you don't want to see it because it would negate your point?

I'd rather consistency and honesty. If people are going to defend religion from any criticism then they should do so based on what that religion advocates rather than based on their own or their families ability not to follow said religion in anything but title. Hardly rocket science.

Greyfox wrote: »

Why do you persume that all catholics think being gay is wrong? I grew up a catholic surrounded by catholics and I've never been taught that being gay is wrong, and if someone said it was wrong I just wouldn't listen to them. If you actually talk to most catholics they don't believe being gay is wrong. Like most of the Irish population been brought up a Catholic didn't do me any harm so I can't see how if I brought my kids up as one would do any harm. Yes theirs the silly going to hell if your a sinner but sure that was all forgiven by going to confession so was never a worry.

I believe you need to differenciate between parents who teach religion but don't force it on their kids and the minority of religious fanatics that do force their religion on their kids

In any case if we were to not allow parents to teach that god is real, how do we go about enforcing this?

I'm stating catholic mandate, I'm not presuming anything about religious parents. If people have to ignore part of their chosen churches teaching to make it more palatable then that's up to them - utterly bizarre - but entirely up to them all the same and it still doesn't negate what their church stands for or what they really "should" be teaching according to said church.

metrovelvet

^ Look there's always a leap between officialdom and reality. Massachusettes still has a law on the books that says oral sex is wrong.

Who listens to that? No one.

I know plenty of Jews who dont eat Kosher.

That's people for you.

Ickle Magoo

Ignoring an archaic law is one thing - ignoring modern mandate given by a church you claim to be a member of is something else. If parents are cherry-picking which parts of religion to pass on to their off-spring according to what they consider to be worthwhile rather than the whole then they aren't passing on <insert relevant faith here> they are just passing on snippets and calling it <insert relevant faith here>.

When people bandy about the term child abuse in relation to a specific religion, I assume they are talking about people who actually pass on that religion, the whole she-bang, warts and all, sexual repression, homophobia, the lot. That is "the religion" - not the wishy-washy tipp-ex out the bits we don't like and claim same religion is nothing but sweetness and light variety.

I don't agree with calling it child abuse unless we're talking about harming a child btw but there is a big grey area there as to when religious indoctrination of any sort crosses into being harmful...I believe you said yourself that threat of hell would be?

we'llallhavetea_old

metrovelvet wrote: »

Although I grew up in NYC, which is very Jewish, so I'm probably half Jewish by osmosis.

i lol'd hard

i'm with ickle magoo on this one. it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if you raise your child "catholic" and tell them that being gay is not a sin, because you've branded them with the catholic badge, eventually they'll realise that the religious organisation they are a member of, thinks that being gay is a sin and is punishable in hell.

people say they are catholic when in actual fact they're not. you can't pick and choose what to believe, you either believe it all or you believe nothing in my eyes.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ignoring an archaic law is one thing - ignoring modern mandate given by a church you claim to be a member of is something else. If parents are cherry-picking which parts of religion to pass on to their off-spring according to what they consider to be worthwhile rather than the whole then they aren't passing on <insert relevant faith here> they are just passing on snippets and calling it <insert relevant faith here>.

When people bandy about the term child abuse in relation to a specific religion, I assume they are talking about people who actually pass on that religion, the whole she-bang, warts and all, sexual repression, homophobia, the lot. That is "the religion" - not the wishy-washy tipp-ex out the bits we don't like and claim same religion is nothing but sweetness and light variety.

I don't agree with calling it child abuse unless we're talking about harming a child btw but there is a big grey area there as to when religious indoctrination of any sort crosses into being harmful...I believe you said yourself that threat of hell would be?

I took OP to mean any kind of religious indoctrination, from saying there is a god to memorising the ten commandments. I think anything can become or has the potential to be abusive if exploited in such a way to guilt trip or demean someone into obedience, which has been traditional child rearing in many families, whether by the threat of hell or the leather belt.

I quite liked religion as a child because I liked stories. I liked the story of the snake in the garden an Jonah and the whale, and Moses and the mountain, etc etc. Its something that has enriched me immensely and I would like my son to have a sense of story too.

Religion is not just about theology. It is a big part of it but its also about community and identity,belonging and heritage.

Shopping cart Catholic? Yep. But unlike Judaism where you can be reformed, conservative etc so you havent much choice there but to shop.

How many Catholics believe in transubstantiation? Probably about five and it is the bottom line difference between itself and Protestantism.

TBH Im surprised there hasn't been a schism.

Ickle Magoo

The OP specifically stated:

Telling a child that there's a man in the sky keeping an eye on them, watching their every move, listening to every thought and telling them that they will spend eternity burning in fire if they dont believe in this man or doing something "wrong" is abusive. Because childrens brains arent developed its no different than someone going into a mentally handicapped home and telling them there's a man in the sky watching everything they do and is going to send them to burn them forever after they die. Someone would be arrested for doing this.

I took it from that they didn't mean canteen <insert faith here>...

Herbal Deity

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats not what I learned. I learned we all go to heaven. We never learned anything about being gay.

I never "learned" this directly either. However, one tends to discover things about one's religion indirectly.

Personally, now and then we'd go on retreats with Catholic groups external to our school, who would be less reserved about mentioning things like masturbation and homosexuality and how they are "wrong". And the sex ed book and one or two other Catholic books I had access to also taught these things.

These days, a curious child being brought up Catholic can google "Catholicism" to find out more about their religion, where they will find this kind of doctrine to be standard.

I think that what this thread highlights is that there's nothing incredibly wrong with teaching children that God is real, it's the crazy morality that often goes along with this teaching, or can be inferred by a child from being taught that they are an adherent of a certain religion that is a problem.

IMHO, teaching children that they are "Catholic" is toxic. Some benign deism and that an afterlife exists, while a little misguided IMO, is not much of a problem at all.

But people will still insist on using the label "Catholic" and attending Catholic services for retarded "cultural reasons".

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The OP specifically stated:



I took it from that they didn't mean canteen <insert faith here>...

I think that's abuse of the theology anyway. That is nothing that I ever learned.

He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake...he knows when you've been bad or good.. so be good for goodness sake..'

OP described Santa.

But I do think it has to be moderated. Ive put a limit on my son's church attendance when he came home talking about body and blood.

People are so used to mass they forget its about a human sacrifice.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure how it can be an abuse of the theology when it's cited either in holy books or religious mandate. I'm fairly certain the people who run the club get to decide rules of said club, not the members.

I heard a woman the other day threaten her child that "the man" would get the child if they didn't behave - just more examples of lousy/lazy parenting, tbh. Regardless, I'm not sure how a christmas ditty equates to biblical reference or religious mandate? Unless santa has decreed parents should be singing that song in order that their children might hang out stockings then I'm not seeing the similarity. :pac:

AudreyHepburn

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i lol'd hard

people say they are catholic when in actual fact they're not. you can't pick and choose what to believe, you either believe it all or you believe nothing in my eyes.

What makes you think you can tell people what they do or don't believe? And since when does saying you believe in something mean you have to follow the teachings to the letter?

Sorry if this is a little OT but it really gets up my wick when people assume that you can't be both religious and capable of questioning and critically thinking about your faith.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure how it can be an abuse of the theology when it's cited either in holy books or religious mandate. I'm fairly certain the people who run the club get to decide rules of said club, not the members.

I heard a woman the other day threaten her child that "the man" would get the child if they didn't behave - just more examples of lousy/lazy parenting, tbh. Regardless, I'm not sure how a christmas ditty equates to biblical reference or religious mandate? Unless santa has decreed parents should be singing that song in order that their children might hang out stockings then I'm not seeing the similarity. :pac:

The people of the club get to run the club when they are running the club. But they aren't running anything since the dawn of democracies. They can try getting their theocracy back but good luck. [I love Paradise Lost. It is one of my favorite works of literature. Have you noticed that hell is a democracy? I love Protestants, I'd love to be an Anglican.] They soon better wake up with these scandals. It's pretty disgusting.

Well, invisible policemen have always been used as control tactics. We had an honour code in college. And guess what, not that many people cheated. But that is the nature of power, it is insidious and operates even when the agent isn't immediately visible.

I have never read anything about a man in the sky watching me btw. Ever. News to me.

Ickle Magoo

Well, what I mean is, I can stand up and claim I'm a catholic despite never having been christened, baptised, confirmed, not believing in substantiation or any other biblical miracles but clearly I'm not and if you asked the head of the catholic church whether I'm a member despite not following their rules and regs then I think they'd be quite clear on the matter - I'm heading for a fiery democracy.

Never heard about a man watching you? I know someone who prays before having sex and apologises for the sins they are about to commit...it's quite sad what parents can do to their children.

metrovelvet

No you can't. YOu can't because you haven't gone through the sacrements.

Let's say I didn't believe Jesus was the son of God and that I was part of a tribe of chosen people. That doesn't make me Jewish. I would have to go through rights and sacriments and a conversion first.

Greyfox

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd rather consistency and honesty. If people are going to defend religion from any criticism then they should do so based on what that religion advocates rather than based on their own or their families ability not to follow said religion in anything but title. Hardly rocket science.

I'm stating catholic mandate, I'm not presuming anything about religious parents. If people have to ignore part of their chosen churches teaching to make it more palatable then that's up to them - utterly bizarre - but entirely up to them all the same and it still doesn't negate what their church stands for or what they really "should" be teaching according to said church.

Yes but how can you have honesty if your telling your kids something you don't fully believe? I believe what your trying to say is you have to either believe everything a religion tells you or nothing and if so your talking complete and utter sh**e. You don't seem to accept the fact that people have free will and are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, particularly when it comes to things that can't be proven. Only an idiot would follow a religion blindly without questioning what their been taught, surely you can see this? I don't know why you think it's utterly bizzare to not believe everything a religion teaches, everyone I know would agree that it makes perfect sense to use your own judgement and common sense

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

No you can't. YOu can't because you haven't gone through the sacrements.

Let's say I didn't believe Jesus was the son of God and that I was part of a tribe of chosen people. That doesn't make me Jewish. I would have to go through rights and sacriments and a conversion first.

But I can, because apparently I don't need to follow doctrine, believe in dogma or listen to the head of that organisation to use the label...

Greyfox wrote: »

Yes but how can you have honesty if your telling your kids something you don't fully believe? I believe what your trying to say is you have to either believe everything a religion tells you or nothing and if so your talking complete and utter sh**e. You don't seem to accept the fact that people have free will and are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, particularly when it comes to things that can't be proven. Only an idiot would follow a religion blindly without questioning what their been taught, surely you can see this? I don't know why you think it's utterly bizzare to not believe everything a religion teaches, everyone I know would agree that it makes perfect sense to use your own judgement and common sense

What would make perfect sense, judgement and common sense to me would be people picking religions that they actually can follow, rather than blithely claiming to be of a religion that they have to cherry-pick bits from and ignore other bits...

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, what I mean is, I can stand up and claim I'm a catholic despite never having been christened, baptised, confirmed, not believing in substantiation or any other biblical miracles but clearly I'm not and if you asked the head of the catholic church whether I'm a member despite not following their rules and regs then I think they'd be quite clear on the matter - I'm heading for a fiery democracy.

Never heard about a man watching you? I know someone who prays before having sex and apologises for the sins they are about to commit...it's quite sad what parents can do to their children.

I would feel very bad for that person you know. That is ABUSE. I would in fact call that a kind of sex abuse too.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But I can, because apparently I don't need to follow doctrine, believe in dogma or listen to the head of that organisation to use the label...

No you don't. But you need to go through sacriments. You need to oblige the formalities.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

No you don't. But you need to go through sacriments. You need to oblige the formalities.

I don't understand why. If others can ignore the most basic tenets that they should adhere to as a member of that religion, I'm not sure why I can't ignore them too...perhaps rather than getting christened, I could just have a bath? Or perhaps I could just claim not to believe that sacraments are necessary and put it down to common sense and good judgement?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't understand why. If others can ignore the most basic tenets that they should adhere to as a member of that religion, I'm not sure why I can't ignore them too...perhaps rather than getting christened, I could just have a bath? Or perhaps I could just claim not to believe that sacraments are necessary and put it down to common sense and good judgement?

Well you can do what you like but you wont be recognised as part of the religion without going through the rites.

we'llallhavetea_old

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What makes you think you can tell people what they do or don't believe? And since when does saying you believe in something mean you have to follow the teachings to the letter?

i don't think i can tell people what they do or don't believe, less of the dramatics please :rolleyes: people can believe what they want, but i personally feel that if you say you're a catholic, you believe everything that goes with it, otherwise um.. well, you're not really catholic then are you? its a bit like saying your a vegetarian but you eat chicken.

Sorry if this is a little OT but it really gets up my wick when people assume that you can't be both religious and capable of questioning and critically thinking about your faith.

i'm not assuming anything, i understand that people pick what parts of their chosen religion suits them and they honestly really believe in that, but to me, they're not catholic!

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well you can do what you like but you wont be recognised as part of the religion without going through the rites.

Recognised by whom? The people who's mandate I'm ignoring & set the criterion for being "catholic" or joe public who doesn't get to decide what label I wear, anyway?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Recognised by whom? The people who's mandate I'm ignoring & set the criterion for being "catholic" or joe public who doesn't get to decide what label I wear, anyway?

Well, yeah. You're the only one who'd think you are a Catholic. If you ticked Catholic on the box at the hospital Im sure they'd call you a priest on your deathbed, whatever your beliefs were or if you never had confirmation either.

But if you wanted a Church wedding and the priest didnt know you, you might have to show some paperwork.

Greyfox

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i'm with ickle magoo on this one. it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if you raise your child "catholic" and tell them that being gay is not a sin, because you've branded them with the catholic badge, eventually they'll realise that the religious organisation they are a member of, thinks that being gay is a sin and is punishable in hell.

people say they are catholic when in actual fact they're not. you can't pick and choose what to believe, you either believe it all or you believe nothing in my eyes.

That's nonsense, EVERYONE I grew up with was raised a Catholic and to the best of my knowledge 0% of them believe that being gay is a sin. People are actually capable of using a bit of common sense when it comes to religion you know. In the bibles old Testiment it says that a women should be stoned to death for committing adultry, are you saying that the worlds billion catholics should believe this to be true and we should try to make this the law for all Catholics?

metrovelvet

Can I see some evidence that the current doctrine says being gay sends you to hell?

we'llallhavetea_old

Greyfox wrote: »

That's nonsense, EVERYONE I grew up with was raised a Catholic and to the best of my knowledge 0% of them believe that being gay is a sin. People are actually capable of using a bit of common sense when it comes to religion you know. In the bibles old Testiment it says that a women should be stoned to death for committing adultry, are you saying that the worlds billion catholics should believe this to be true and we should try to make this the law for all Catholics?

no, i'm saying if thats what the bible says and they know it to be bull, then stop calling yourself a catholic/christian.

it's no big deal, i'm not trying to piss people off, i just think if you don't believe in your religions teachings then stop labeling yourself.

edit;

also, another thing that is just laughable to me is that they can change the doctrine over the years, seriously, if you were wrong in the first place, bloody give up.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can I see some evidence that the current doctrine says being gay sends you to hell?

Well, I think it's biblical mandate firstly - St Paul I believe felt strongly about it. Genesis and leviticus all make reference to the sin of homosexuality.
Here's the relevant catachism...

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

It's not being gay, metro, very important distinction - lest anyone think there was any homophobia going on - no, no, no it's indulging in any sexual activity with anyone of the same sex that is a sin - and we all know where sinners go, back to the fiery democracy! So the rather lovely choice for any gay person who actually want to practice the catholic faith - and catholicism wouldn't be the only faith with an odd obsession with homosexuality - is chastity or hell...

I believe there is a rather lovely vatican approved help-site for fighting those unnatural urges here at the rather insidiously titled "courage"...
http://www.couragerc.org/

<insert pukey smiley>

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, I think it's biblical mandate firstly - St Paul I believe felt strongly about it. Genesis and leviticus all make reference to the sin of homosexuality.
Here's the relevant catachism...

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

It's not being gay, metro, very important distinction - lest anyone think there was any homophobia going on - no, no, no it's indulging in any sexual activity with anyone of the same sex that is a sin - and we all know where sinners go, back to the fiery democracy! So the rather lovely choice for any gay person who actually want to practice the catholic faith - and catholicism wouldn't be the only faith with an odd obsession with homosexuality - is chastity or hell...

I believe there is a rather lovely vatican approved help-site for fighting those unnatural urges here at the rather insidiously titled "courage"...
http://www.couragerc.org/

<insert pukey smiley>

You couldn't find anything from the Vatican or Canon Law?

Biblical mandates would only count with fundamentalist religions, that is religions who take a literal reading of the Bible. Catholics and most protistants don't do this.

Ickle Magoo

That would be covered by the catechism link, wouldn't it? I would think christian mandate all originate from the bible. I know it's a translation but I believe the original is in latin...

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

You couldn't find anything from the Vatican or Canon Law?

Biblical mandates would only count with fundamentalist religions, that is religions who take a literal reading of the Bible. Catholics and most protistants don't do this.

Catholics and Protestants don't take the Bible literally?

So no Jesus, no resurrection, no Paul, no Apostles ... ?

metrovelvet

I don't see anything about going to hell for being gay.

super_furry

Cróga wrote: »

Ever try to have a conversation with someone religious? They can never be reasoned out of it, because they were never reasoned into it. Religion = child abuse.

Starting a thread with such antagonistic rhetoric suggests you can't be reasoned with either.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

Catholics and Protestants don't take the Bible literally?

So no Jesus, no resurrection, no Paul, no Apostles ... ?

Fundamentalists do.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't see anything about going to hell for being gay.

And neither are you likely to, as I've already pointed out:

It's not being gay, metro, very important distinction - lest anyone think there was any homophobia going on - no, no, no it's indulging in any sexual activity with anyone of the same sex that is a sin - and we all know where sinners go, back to the fiery democracy! So the rather lovely choice for any gay person who actually want to practice the catholic faith - and catholicism wouldn't be the only faith with an odd obsession with homosexuality - is chastity or hell...

I believe our very own Pope Benny called homosexuality a moral evil not so long ago...

Herbal Deity

Greyfox wrote: »

I don't know why you think it's utterly bizzare to not believe everything a religion teaches, everyone I know would agree that it makes perfect sense to use your own judgement and common sense

The reason it doesn't make any sense, particularly in relation to Catholicism, is that there are usually plenty of other Christian denominations which are much, much more in line with the beliefs of many people who call themselves "Catholic". Were it the case that the Catholic Church was the only Christian church in existence, then it might make some sense.

You don't think Homosexuality or masturbation is wrong? Or <insert Catholic teaching here>? Then join a Christian denomination that does. Don't keep calling yourself a "Catholic" if you don't hold Catholic beliefs, it's that simple.

And I'm not just saying this to be pedantic, it really is a big deal. Why? Because the more people who call themselves "Catholic", the more power the Catholic Church has. This is an organisation which does speak out against Homosexuality, contraception, masturbation etc.