Change of Catholic Beliefs

amen

how could the pope go against gods law and principles as written in the bible

which part of the bible? the new or old testaments?

Juza1973

doctoremma wrote: »

Actually, having a second go at this statement, I've noticed something far more sinister...

The only reason you don't beat people up is because god told you not to?

He meant certain people in his mind, not all people...

Snappy Smurf

Northclare wrote: »

Prove it mate....

Where in the New Testament did God say its a sin.

http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/st-pauls-argument-from-nature-against.html

Read it.

Northclare

That's only one interpretation.

Gumbi

Northclare wrote: »

That's only one interpretation.

How does one decipher which interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Northclare

I don't know really.
It's very hard to interpret a lot of things.
Look at all the different branches of the Christian faith....

Sometimes I think the Gardener needs to give that tree a good pruning,then get rid of the mildew and diseased branches,take away the rotten fruits.
Rake up all the cuttings,throw them into a shredder.

Throw the shreds into a compost heap....

And maintain that tree so it will provide fruits that's good for all mankind.

Reclaim the forbidden fruit.....

Northclare

I don't know really.
It's very hard to interpret a lot of things.
Look at all the different branches of the Christian faith....

Sometimes I think the Gardener needs to give that tree a good pruning,then get rid of the mildew and diseased branches,take away the rotten fruits.
Rake up all the cuttings,throw them into a shredder.

Throw the shreds into a compost heap....

And maintain that tree so it will provide fruits that's good for all mankind.

Reclaim the forbidden fruit.....

tommy2bad

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/st-pauls-argument-from-nature-against.html

Read it.

From it;

There were plenty of negative repercussions for health with regard to sodomy before AIDS came around. AIDS is just one more confirmation that unnatural sex is physically dangerous (we know, e.g., that AIDS spread rapidly in Africa even among heterosexuals. Why? Because heterosexual anal sex is prevalent among many Africans - hence the spread of the disease).

Yeah right, cos AIDS is only spread by anal sex and only anal sex carries a disease risk :rolleyes:

lmaopml

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Trimming your beard, eating shellfish, letting eunuchs into the church, letting women teach, working on the sabbath were all considered sins in the bible yet they have been either ignored or interpreted to mean something else than their literal interpretations, so why not the same with being gay?

I think it's very easy to say...'Oh look at Leviticus...' and have a good ol belly laugh and walk away, especially if one doesn't know what they are walking away from - it's a cop out.......it lacks rigour in so many ways....

I think it's important, to actually understand the 'relationship' between God and man, even if one is Atheist or Agnostic, it's best to speak the same language, ( which can be difficult ) otherwise a person risks sounding like any pop culture book, not exactly earth moving


We share in hoping and knowing that some people don't actually believe that all the generations before them were stupid, and don't say, no not I, because I 'know' I 'know' right now..pml..

.... from Adam, to Abraham, Isaac and of course Jacob (Isreal) from the beginning - and put it in context properly....the revelation of God, and how in fact - really BIG, in fact - we take those values and apply them today as if they are a given and abuse them as if they aren't, nothing new, read the OT, they did the same thing

- It's almost like a Parent and unruly child when you actually read through..The whole concept of inalienable rights and value which this enlightened society built itself on comes from well...God, and revelation. The idea of something 'good' not just less than good, or even slightly less than good, but 'good' and the value of human life.

The whole idea of human sexuality and their value is tied up in - as regards Christianity - the 'value' of human life and the protection of it, and that is the lesson I guess.



It's like when I get terrified when I sit with my brother in law ( who's gay ) and one of the kindest people I know, and has the most lovely and loving partner too......(that's hard to ignore) and I think, wearing a cross necklace will be 'noticed' - he knows I'm Catholic, so is he, just not a practicing one, like me in many ways.....because I'm far from perfect, and less than a 'Saint' - I'm learning, just like him, no better, no worse - Doesn't he know we're the same, just like everybody else, we're 'sinners', my sin could be pride, his could be something else.........

I often think, does he think I 'hate', or want to control him? Gosh, nothing could be further than the truth. Does he even realise how much I know how imperfect I am first? Does he know how much good I see in him and his partner, and see my own failings every single day?

I had a very 'brief' conversation about marriage - it was along the lines of 'why I'm Catholic still'...lol...how bizarre?? Perhaps the most abrupt one too -

Why wouldn't I be? This is my religion, the God who makes everything in my heart sing with what is right and just?

but that's not a cool thing to say, even worse is to say that you are a practicing Catholic, and the presumtion associated with having 'hatred' for some is a terrible injustice - nah, that's not what it's about, I think most no better than that in real life.


- but nonetheless it's the truth, I am a Catholic and a Christian because I believe. It's difficult to tread over that ground in particular with somebody you really love and somebody who you know loves you too....I can only say that I think Marriage represents new human life more than anything else.

Yes, Marriage is about sex, but it's about sex because ( as a Catholic ) that is how new human life is created...and THAT...is the essence of Marriage, not sex or even 'love' - but 'love' and commitment to a child. That's the essence, the reason for being bound.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by lmaopml;
Yes, Marriage is about sex, but it's about sex because ( as a Catholic ) that is how new human life is created...and THAT...is the essence of marriage, not sex or even 'love' - but 'love' and commitment to a child. That's the essence.

No thats matrimony. 'mother making' it may be the traditional Christian understanding of marriage but were talking about civil marriage and thats not a Christian concept at all.
The trouble comes from trying to impose Christian understanding and values to something that isn't part of the Christian moral code but only parallels it.

Wiggles88

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's very easy to say...'Oh look at Leviticus...' and have a good ol belly laugh and walk away, especially if one doesn't know what they are walking away from - it's a cop out.......it lacks rigour in so many ways....

The reason I posted those was to show

a) that despite what is said in this thread the catholic church does change their mind on things albeit in an extremely slow way, and

b) many quote the bible verses against homosexuality which say it is an abomination and say that it must be taken literally but there are many other abominations in the bible which are in no way taken literally despite no distinction between those abominations and the abomination of homosexuality made within the bible. The distinction is purely that of interpretation.

lmaopml wrote: »

I often think, does he think I 'hate', or want to control him? Gosh, nothing could be further than the truth. Does he even realise how much I know how imperfect I am first? Does he know how much good I see in him and his partner, and see my own failings every single day?

Perhaps but you see this as a "failing" in him, something wrong which needs to be corrected. Now I am not your brother nor or am I gay however just let me make a point here. First being gay (or acting on this) is in no way a "failing" beyond what the churches interpretation of a few lines in the bible is (and fyi there are many Christian churches out there which disagree with this interpretation and do not consider being gay a sin). I personally find the church constantly telling homosexuals that what theyre doing is a sin, they need to repress their sexual desires and they'll burn in hell for it etc. is quite sick and highly immoral (imho). Perhaps thats not your personal view of your brother (I have no idea what your view is and I would not presume to know) however that is the view the catholic church constantly puts forward.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, Marriage is about sex, but it's about sex because ( as a Catholic ) that is how new human life is created...and THAT...is the essence of Marriage, not sex or even 'love' - but 'love' and commitment to a child. That's the essence, the reason for being bound.

If marriage is solely about making babies then you must also be against marriage between infertile heterosexual couples, post menopausal heterosexual couples and so on. All of which is ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree, I'm just pointing out the failing of the logic that marriage is only about baby making.

And even still, I, and I believe many others posting here in support of homosexual marriage, have no problem with a particular private church following its own guidelines for church marriages however the problem is that the religious do not confine their beliefs to their own church, they put those beliefs into law so they are forced on anyone looking for a civil marriage, something that has nothing at all to do with religion, which is why this is such a big issue.

lmaopml

Wiggles88 wrote: »

The reason I posted those was to show

a) that despite what is said in this thread the catholic church does change their mind on things albeit in an extremely slow way, and


That is one thing I would argue as far as any kind of morality us concerned as regards the sanctity of Marriage and the value of the Child, that the Catholic Church does not do..despite those who critiscise her...I would say she is the last voice out there as regards taking responsibility for ones actions is concerned, and the one who one can find forgiveness too....which I have availed of myself being a bit of wagon at times...





b) many quote the bible verses against homosexuality which say it is an abomination and say that it must be taken literally but there are many other abominations in the bible which are in no way taken literally despite no distinction between those abominations and the abomination of homosexuality made within the bible. The distinction is purely that of interpretation.

Did you ever read about Jezebel? About the abomination of destruction? In the history of Isreal? 'Sex' is not the point - No - neither is sexual attraction the point - despite the way some look on heterosexuals, or homosexuals, they are not always building their relationship on their 'sexuality' alone, no, it's more than that - Kind David sinned when he was swayed by viewing Bethsheba and thought her beautiful - even though she was anothers wife - yet he was favoured by God who knew our shortcomings in so very many ways...

Don't you understand?

Perhaps but you see this as a "failing" in him, something wrong which needs to be corrected. Now I am not your brother nor or am I gay however just let me make a point here. First being gay (or acting on this) is in no way a "failing" beyond what the churches interpretation of a few lines in the bible is (and fyi there are many Christian churches out there which disagree with this interpretation and do not consider being gay a sin). I personally find the church constantly telling homosexuals that what theyre doing is a sin, they need to repress their sexual desires and they'll burn in hell for it etc. is quite sick and highly immoral (imho). Perhaps thats not your personal view of your brother (I have no idea what your view is and I would not presume to know) however that is the view the catholic church constantly puts forward.

Jeepurs, that's what I am scared of! It's the idea that 'Marriage' that is the foundation of 'children' is or is something that can just be about the adults and their sexuality and not about their offspring -

This is not a traditional view of Marriage - It's about taking the good and the bad and sticking together for the sake of children, it's about two people becoming 'one' - not the Hollywood version...of two people living seperate lives after marriage and not sacrificing something of themselves for the sake of their love and unity and of course their children.

If marriage is solely about making babies then you must also be against marriage between infertile heterosexual couples, post menopausal heterosexual couples and so on. All of which is ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree, I'm just pointing out the failing of the logic that marriage is only about baby making.

Well that's just silly - It's juvenile! People don't get married and then know all of a sudden that they are going to have children or know they aren't going to have children - You should look up Hannah in the OT and her song -

And even still, I, and I believe many others posting here in support of homosexual marriage, have no problem with a particular private church following its own guidelines for church marriages however the problem is that the religious do not confine their beliefs to their own church, they put those beliefs into law so they are forced on anyone looking for a civil marriage, something that has nothing at all to do with religion, which is why this is such a big issue.

I don't think that throughout the history of man that people did not have their own 'Church' where they praised in the high places just like our ancestors - There are very many willing to 'marry', even in the name of God.

However, I think it's a dreadful thing to think you are a 'free soul' and knowing that others believe that marriage is an institution of God, to think that you can just bulldoze them and accuse them of hatred when you are are grandchildren, and we no more hate and you know it - what does that say about your 'freedom'...and how you use it. Pot and kettle - nothing new.

ResearchWill

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's very easy to say...'Oh look at Leviticus...' and have a good ol belly laugh and walk away, especially if one doesn't know what they are walking away from - it's a cop out.......it lacks rigour in so many ways....

I think it's important, to actually understand the 'relationship' between God and man, even if one is Atheist or Agnostic, it's best to speak the same language, ( which can be difficult ) otherwise a person risks sounding like any pop culture book, not exactly earth moving


We share in hoping and knowing that some people don't actually believe that all the generations before them were stupid, and don't say, no not I, because I 'know' I 'know' right now..pml..

.... from Adam, to Abraham, Isaac and of course Jacob (Isreal) from the beginning - and put it in context properly....the revelation of God, and how in fact - really BIG, in fact - we take those values and apply them today as if they are a given and abuse them as if they aren't, nothing new, read the OT, they did the same thing

- It's almost like a Parent and unruly child when you actually read through..The whole concept of inalienable rights and value which this enlightened society built itself on comes from well...God, and revelation. The idea of something 'good' not just less than good, or even slightly less than good, but 'good' and the value of human life.

The whole idea of human sexuality and their value is tied up in - as regards Christianity - the 'value' of human life and the protection of it, and that is the lesson I guess.



It's like when I get terrified when I sit with my brother in law ( who's gay ) and one of the kindest people I know, and has the most lovely and loving partner too......(that's hard to ignore) and I think, wearing a cross necklace will be 'noticed' - he knows I'm Catholic, so is he, just not a practicing one, like me in many ways.....because I'm far from perfect, and less than a 'Saint' - I'm learning, just like him, no better, no worse - Doesn't he know we're the same, just like everybody else, we're 'sinners', my sin could be pride, his could be something else.........

I often think, does he think I 'hate', or want to control him? Gosh, nothing could be further than the truth. Does he even realise how much I know how imperfect I am first? Does he know how much good I see in him and his partner, and see my own failings every single day?

I had a very 'brief' conversation about marriage - it was along the lines of 'why I'm Catholic still'...lol...how bizarre?? Perhaps the most abrupt one too -

Why wouldn't I be? This is my religion, the God who makes everything in my heart sing with what is right and just?

but that's not a cool thing to say, even worse is to say that you are a practicing Catholic, and the presumtion associated with having 'hatred' for some is a terrible injustice - nah, that's not what it's about, I think most no better than that in real life.


- but nonetheless it's the truth, I am a Catholic and a Christian because I believe. It's difficult to tread over that ground in particular with somebody you really love and somebody who you know loves you too....I can only say that I think Marriage represents new human life more than anything else.

Yes, Marriage is about sex, but it's about sex because ( as a Catholic ) that is how new human life is created...and THAT...is the essence of Marriage, not sex or even 'love' - but 'love' and commitment to a child. That's the essence, the reason for being bound.

And thankfully I have the ability to respect your belief but totally think that this god thing is bull because that's what I believe, like I respect your belief I expect, no I demand you respect mine. I don't believe in sin, I believe in harm, I don't believe in dogma I believe in study, I don't believe in the Christ you speak of I believe in the man who thought a simple message that has been twisted by man to suit man.

lmaopml

ResearchWill wrote: »

And thankfully I have the ability to respect your belief but totally think that this god thing is bull because that's what I believe, like I respect your belief I expect, no I demand you respect mine. I don't believe in sin, I believe in harm, I don't believe in dogma I believe in study, I don't believe in the Christ you speak of I believe in the man who thought a simple message that has been twisted by man to suit man.

Christ is the reason for my life - I may believe he is the reason for yours, but I cannot choose for you, only you can do that in your own time...innocence is a difficult thing, so too is life honey, I wish you the very best - The good thing is that even if you reject Christ, we will be there for you no matter, you will find us if you look.


However, I must add that I don't always think you will think it 'ok' for me to follow Christ, forgive me, but I don't 'trust' your sense of equality, history tells me not to - you see an enemy where there is none. It's a strange thing, but it's a truth that I cannot deny.

ResearchWill

lmaopml wrote: »

Christ is the reason for my life - I may believe he is the reason for yours, but I cannot choose for you, only you can do that in your own time...innocence is a difficult thing, so too is life honey, I wish you the very best - The good thing is that even if you reject Christ, we will be there for you no matter, you will find us if you look.


However, I must add that I don't always think you will think it 'ok' for me to follow Christ, forgive me, but I don't 'trust' your sense of equality, history tells me not to - you see an enemy where there is none. It's a strange thing, but it's a truth that I cannot deny.

History has taught me that it is far more likely that you will not think it ok for me not to follow your religion, America, Spain, the pograms, and much more, the inequality is far more likely to come from the believer than the non.

But I wish you the best, and I do not reject your Christ in a vacuum, I have thought long and hard before I decided what I did, and while I am happy in that, I am also delighted for you. I promise to keep my non belief out of your life all I ask is the same.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by lmaopml ;
Well that's just silly - It's juvenile! People don't get married and then know all of a sudden that they are going to have children or know they aren't going to have children - You should look up Hannah in the OT and her song -

Yes it seems silly now but their was a time when the church refused the sacrament of matrimony to couples where the woman was past childbearing age. It didn't apply to them as the sacrament was about motherhood. This has changed.
Changed so much that it looks silly now.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Originally Posted by lmaopml;
Yes, Marriage is about sex, but it's about sex because ( as a Catholic ) that is how new human life is created...and THAT...is the essence of marriage, not sex or even 'love' - but 'love' and commitment to a child. That's the essence.

No thats matrimony. 'mother making' it may be the traditional Christian understanding of marriage but were talking about civil marriage and thats not a Christian concept at all.
The trouble comes from trying to impose Christian understanding and values to something that isn't part of the Christian moral code but only parallels it.

Christianity does speak about marriage. Genesis 2 describes the pre-fall model, and Jesus Himself understood marriage as the union between a man and a woman under God and indeed chastised the Pharisees for holding such a liberal attitude towards divorce in Matthew 19.

Marriage is about all three of those things, love, sex, and children. That's its intent and purpose. What people often forget also is marriage in Christian terms is a union which is about serving God. In the Genesis passage Eve was created to help Adam in the work that God had given to him.

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

Christianity does speak about marriage. Genesis 2 describes the pre-fall model, and Jesus Himself understood marriage as the union between a man and a woman under God and indeed chastised the Pharisees for holding such a liberal attitude towards divorce in Matthew 19.

Marriage is about all three of those things, love, sex, and children. That's its intent and purpose. What people often forget also is marriage in Christian terms is a union which is about serving God. In the Genesis passage Eve was created to help Adam in the work that God had given to him.

Thats great for a Christian marriage but there is a difference between a civil marriage and a Christian one and just as the views of civil marriage should not be forced upon a christian one, christian views should not be forced upon a civil marriage.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes it seems silly now but their was a time when the church refused the sacrament of matrimony to couples where the woman was past childbearing age. It didn't apply to them as the sacrament was about motherhood. This has changed.
Changed so much that it looks silly now.

Tommy, I think I may have asked you before about this? Would you please provide a link to whatever it was you read about this? Thanks.

tommy2bad

lmaopml, can't provide a link. It's from a book I read. From memory the thinking was a perfect marriage had 3 components , fruitfulnesses, solace and protection from sin. As the first was missing no valid sacrament could be performed.
Having said all that, this was back in the middle ages when marriages were a matter for the wealthy and plebs had to content themselves with sparse clergy who didn't fancy traveling for one wedding that would have little chance of a decent contribution to the church roof fund.

Obviously Elisabeth is the get out for refusing on the grounds of 'barrenness' but the notion that marriage is some fixed set of circumstances is nonsense. Otherwise polygamy would still be on the books.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

lmaopml, can't provide a link. It's from a book I read. From memory the thinking was a perfect marriage had 3 components , fruitfulnesses, solace and protection from sin. As the first was missing no valid sacrament could be performed.
Having said all that, this was back in the middle ages when marriages were a matter for the wealthy and plebs had to content themselves with sparse clergy who didn't fancy traveling for one wedding that would have little chance of a decent contribution to the church roof fund.

Obviously Elisabeth is the get out for refusing on the grounds of 'barrenness' but the notion that marriage is some fixed set of circumstances is nonsense. Otherwise polygamy would still be on the books.

Thanks Tommy. I seem to recall this point a while ago, but I have no idea about it's source...I couldn't find a single one. There are books about everything, not all of them tell the truth. Thanks hun.

tommy2bad

Yes we think of marriage as a natural condition thats described by law when in fact its a construct created by law.
Christian beliefs are a continuation of Jewish beliefs which in turn are a progression from whatever came before. I'm not saying that people didn't get together and set up lifelong relationships before the legal concept of marriage but that was not what the legal definition of marriage was about. It was about inheritance and property.
Whats galling is that the church says it's definition of marriage is the correct one and legal marriage is but a reflection of that, then gives precedence to a legal marriage over a natural marriage.
If I am drunk enough to get a Vegas wedding to the cute showgirl, thats the one the church will recognize, not the relationship I had with my partner of 10 years.

skooterblue2

This posted was deleted due to being off-topic (not because it was full of inaccuracies - which it was)