Christian and Queer

easychair

Asry wrote: »

oh, no, Fanny was just referring to the gay Christians she knows of, the ones she mentioned there at the start. She wasn't being all 'oh, you people' about it.

I quoted what was actually said, and I'm sure fanny can speak for her/him self and doesn't need a translator!

Asry wrote: »

As I've said before, I am very attached to the RCC but it hardly becomes relevant in my everyday life because nobody I know, gay or straight, is a believing, practicing Catholic! So we're in a minority anyways Where it really matters, then, is in my heart and in my head. And the eyes of God. Apparently. If the bible is the complete unadulterated version of the word of God. Which is debatable.

That being said also, I'm not arguing that because I want to reject the pieces I don't like just because they don't fit with my life. I'll do my best to live my life the way I've been guided to...and after that, well. I guess we'll find out on the last day!

But like as well, all these virulent anti-gay lobbying Christians seem to think that they have some right to hate us. And it's really important (and really f*cking hard) to remember that the opinions of these people can't touch you.

The bible never claimed to be the "unadulterated version of the word of god". It was purportedly written by humans calling on their memory often many years after the events.

If you are attracted to the RCC, I assume that means you like some bits and don't like other bits, such as their cruel and hateful stance on homosexuality.

If you can join an organisation which requires you to share this view, and suppress your sexual desires to be a member of their organisation, then go ahead. personally, I'd want to know why they insist on their members suppressing their sexual desires ( I understand mastubation is also forbidden), and further want to know where in the Bible god or jesus forbids masturbation and sexual acts ( whatever they entail) with someone of the same sex.

For me, the RCC has always been unnaturally obsessed with (a) sex and particularly telling every what they can do, how and when and (b) unnaturally obsessed with control in other ways, which has led to their members leading miserable and pretty awful lives.

Asry

A little benefit of the doubt goes a long way, as regards what the tone of voice might be when applied to internet text.

As for my reasons attracting me to the RCC, as I said before earlier, my personal life is no longer open to discussion Just scripture interpretation, thank you If you really are burning to know, you can always PM me.

On the stance on the Scripture regarding its infallibility, the RCC does take it as the absolute word of God, as inspired divinely to the prophets. It doesn't just contain the word of God, it *is* the word of God. Context of denomination.

philologos

easychair wrote: »

The bible never claimed to be the "unadulterated version of the word of god". It was purportedly written by humans calling on their memory often many years after the events.

Paul does note in 1 Timothy that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God revealed to mankind. It is possible that God can be speaking through the accounts of the authors. Nobody says that God wrote it with His own hand, but people do say that God inspired it and as such it is faithful and reliable.

Of course we can also look textually to the manuscripts of the New Testament to see whether they are reliable. Most accounts seem to suggest that in comparison with other ancient works such as those of Plato & Aristotle the Bible holds up pretty well.

easychair

Asry wrote: »

A little benefit of the doubt goes a long way, as regards what the tone of voice might be when applied to internet text.

As for my reasons attracting me to the RCC, as I said before earlier, my personal life is no longer open to discussion Just scripture interpretation, thank you If you really are burning to know, you can always PM me.

On the stance on the Scripture regarding its infallibility, the RCC does take it as the absolute word of God, as inspired divinely to the prophets. It doesn't just contain the word of God, it *is* the word of God. Context of denomination.

it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves, I guess. And if someone wants to decide that the Bible is infalliable and gods word, then I won't agree. After all, the evidence shows the RCC has, for hundreds of years, made it up as they go along to suit itself.

philologos

^^ The claims of Christianity as expoused in the Bible aren't quite the same thing as the teachings of the RCC. One is a denomination of the former. As such whether or not the RCC changes or alters its teaching is irrelevant as not all Christians are Roman Catholic.

easychair

philologos wrote: »

^^ The claims of Christianity as expoused in the Bible aren't quite the same thing as the teachings of the RCC. One is a denomination of the former. As such whether or not the RCC changes or alters its teaching is irrelevant as not all Christians are Roman Catholic.

I'm sure no one can disagree with either point.