Christians finally start to embrace gay marriage.

thatkindofgirl

I ignore the teachings of the heretic anti-christ pope. NOT the teachings of Christ.

You show me the church that denies communion to Chuckie mcCreepy and Mr McDowell for ignoring the plight of the poor, and I'll believe you that your religion is based on Jesus Christ, as opposed ot a Roman bastardised imperial power centre masquerading as faith.

Betcha a million that given the choice they would first deny it to the homosexual, not the greedy, or the cruel, or even the adulterer or child molester. Homosexuality is the first sin of all the churches at the minute because it suits their power hold. They did the same once with race relations. This too will pass when it ceases to help them make money.

Hybrid churches? Is that a way of putting down real churches? Or just your way of not making a point?

rsynnott

AndyWarhol wrote:

You pass off people who don't subscribe to the liberal status-quo as being idiots, when in fact most people are disgusted by the homosexual act of sticking your penis up somebody else's anal passage (indeed, with complete disregard to the long-term health aspects of this). Just because such 'idiots' don't conform to the politically correct garbage that one reads in the Irish media doesn't mean they are idiots.

Heterosexuals do that as well, you know

I assume you know your namesakes history, by the way?

AndyWarhol wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, gay people can have all the civil arrangements with each other as they like, and can have sex with each other as much as they like in the privacy of their own home. They cannot however be expected to be warmly welcomed into the Catholic Church if they are living in sin. That said, the Catholic church will always welcome people no matter what their predicament, but if you engage in homosexual acts, then you are living in sin, and should not take communion. There certainly is not, and hopefully never will be (God willing), any scope to marry others of the same sex.

You're getting confused. In this country, and in most (all?) other countries, we have civil marriage. Civil marriage is nothing in particular to do with the Catholic church, and no-one is asking the Catholic church to marry gay people. Try to keep up (or indeed, read the posts you reply to).

AndyWarhol

rsynnott wrote:

Heterosexuals do that as well, you know

I assume you know your namesakes history, by the way?



You're getting confused. In this country, and in most (all?) other countries, we have civil marriage. Civil marriage is nothing in particular to do with the Catholic church, and no-one is asking the Catholic church to marry gay people. Try to keep up (or indeed, read the posts you reply to).

Let's not forget the context of this debate about "Christians finally start to embrace gay marriage". For a start, the Catholic church will never 'embrace' gay marriages.

You talk about hetrosexual (I hate using this contrived term as it implies some kind of equivalence with homosexual) couples engaging in sodomy: this is no justification to the fact that the Catholic church does not approve of gay sex, indeed sodomy of any kind. Sticking ones penis up the anal passage of another person is quite disgusting in my view.

I'm glad to hear you're not demanding the Catholic Church marry gays. I would not like to see civil marriages being introduced because it conflicts with my moral framework and were there a referendum, I would vote against gays being allowed civil marriages where children could be adopted. They can cohabit and have sex with other all day long if they so chose, but they should not be allowed experiment with the lives of innocent children for the sake of political correctness and 'sexual equality'. These children will find it very difficult growing up in this country where most people are Catholic and would not be open to gayness in the way that gay people themselves might like to think.

And by the way, Andy Warhol was a wonderful artist. Yes he was gay, but nobody's perfect and we're all sinners eh? I know people who are gay and there's usually no problem, it's just I would have to fundamentally disagree with them on a number of issues. This is not to say that these gay acquaintances of mine are not wonderful artists, musicians, debaters etc. Everyone has their talents.

rsynnott

Please note that Catholic != Christian, by any means. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

Boston

rsynnott wrote:

Please note that Catholic != Christian, by any means. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

Wrong by any definition of subset.

rsynnott

Clarification: the groups of people represented by those terms. Catholic doctrine is more or less a superset of Christianity.

Boston

rsynnott wrote:

Clarification: the groups of people represented by those terms. Catholic doctrine is more or less a superset of Christianity.

correct.

AndyWarhol

rsynnott wrote:

Clarification: the groups of people represented by those terms. Catholic doctrine is more or less a superset of Christianity.

What about the Society of Saint Pius X, the breakaway ultra-traditionalist Catholic group that were excommunicated by the Vatican in 1988?

Is the Catholic Church therefore a subset of the Society of Saint Pius X? (Certainly not!)

You'll find that you can't classify religions in a 'beliefs space' and subdivide religous faiths into subsets as if it were some computer program you were working on.

There are plenty of hybrid religions out there who tout as 'Christians' (whatever that means these days) who will marry gays and will probably marry animals in future if there's consensus. This kind of 'religion' is bogus as there is no basis to the faith as they just make it up as they go along so as to suit their members. Look at evangelical christian groups in the US: they are run more like private companies that sell spirituality in a bottle to people who live in the void of nothingness. The Pope recently spoke out about the commercialisation of religion at World Youth Day that serves to fulfill peoples' need for spirituality in return for profit. Such 'religions' are meaningless and will let you down when you need true faith most.

rsynnott

AndyWarhol wrote:

There are plenty of hybrid religions out there who tout as 'Christians' (whatever that means these days) who will marry gays and will probably marry animals in future if there's consensus. This kind of 'religion' is bogus as there is no basis to the faith as they just make it up as they go along so as to suit their members. Look at evangelical christian groups in the US: they are run more like private companies that sell spirituality in a bottle to people who live in the void of nothingness. The Pope recently spoke out about the commercialisation of religion at World Youth Day that serves to fulfill peoples' need for spirituality in return for profit. Such 'religions' are meaningless and will let you down when you need true faith most.

It could be argued that the basis for all religion is that somebody made it up to begin with; we have no hard evidence to the contrary. In addition, reinterpretation of the Bible and so on has a long historical basis. Just because a church is doing it NOW doesn't make it particularly different from a church who did it 500, or 1500 years ago.

In any case, branches of Anglicanism, for instance, have started blessing same-sex unions. And Reform Judaism (the largest branch) performs full marriage ceremonies. You can't argue but that Anglicanism is an established religion.

AndyWarhol

rsynnott wrote:

It could be argued that the basis for all religion is that somebody made it up to begin with; we have no hard evidence to the contrary. In addition, reinterpretation of the Bible and so on has a long historical basis. Just because a church is doing it NOW doesn't make it particularly different from a church who did it 500, or 1500 years ago.

In any case, branches of Anglicanism, for instance, have started blessing same-sex unions. And Reform Judaism (the largest branch) performs full marriage ceremonies. You can't argue but that Anglicanism is an established religion.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one truth and that is the truth of the Gospel through the Catholic church. Anglicans can do whatever they like, but they are a fractured faith and can drivvle amongst each other as much as they like for all I care. If anything, the infighting that goes on within Anglicanism just goes to show how shallow a religion it really is. I pray they'll see the light one day.

You talk about evidence (I assume you mean the ressurection), but you're a non-believer as far as I can see so it shouldn't matter to you. I'm a faithful follower of Christ and have never seen yet still believe. You and I are singing from a different hymn sheet so we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid, but I pray in hope that one day you will see the light and will be saved.

Excelsior

Warhol wrote:

Look at evangelical christian groups in the US: they are run more like private companies that sell spirituality in a bottle to people who live in the void of nothingness.

Your critique might be justifiable if you grounded it in some analysis, showed some personal experience or indeed, if it had any relevance to the discussion at hand. Instead, it shows a heart-stopping disrespect for your brothers and sisters in Christ. Would you like the non Catholic Christians on this forum to start listing what they see as the failings of Romanism? Check yo'self!

rsynnott wrote:

It could be argued that the basis for all religion is that somebody made it up to begin with; we have no hard evidence to the contrary.

If by hard evidence, you mean arguments that sufficiently overpower your faith belief that all religions are the same, then I agree. But there is a substantial historical evidence for the area of my own expertise, Christianity, that I think people should engage with.

rsynnott wrote:

In addition, reinterpretation of the Bible and so on has a long historical basis. Just because a church is doing it NOW doesn't make it particularly different from a church who did it 500, or 1500 years ago.

This is a pertinent point. Roman Catholicism has begun to reinterpret the role of "tradition" in the last 200 years to such an extent that they have now, in a few areas, wildly deviated from Scripture. Those horrible evangelical churches that Warhol thinks are so empty have meanwhile, moved back towards Scripture, especially in regards to the role of women.

rsynnott wrote:

In any case, branches of Anglicanism, for instance, have started blessing same-sex unions.

They won't be Anglican for long though. Some might even argue they are already disaffiliated. It is obviously unsupportable in Scripture to marry homosexual couples so Anglicanism is being true to itself when it removes the very arrogant (regardless of what side of the argument you are on) US Episcopalian church.

Warhol wrote:

They cannot however be expected to be warmly welcomed into the Catholic Church if they are living in sin.

I think there is a reasonable point hidden underneath that somewhere. But it at it is expressed it is so far from reasonable its insulting. Surely a cornerstone of biblical Christianity is that every human is living in sin and that all sin is equal, that is infinite in consequence. I know plently of nominal/laisse faire Catholics who are co-habiting who still receive sacraments and yet they are committing the exact same sin.

Warhol wrote:

if you think being gay is righteous, you cannot be a Catholic since you ignore the teachings of Christ.

Again, the logical implication of your statement is that to diverge from the teachings of Christ is to not be a Christian. I would be amazed and scared if you could demonstrate that you live fully in accordance with Christ's teaching.

It gets more complicated however, since Christ didn't talk about homosexuality. I imagine you would view this as a red herring argument with very little real understanding of Scripture and I would passionately agree but we still have to admit that the Jesusian side of the argument do have a strong right to hold their beliefs.

Surely you aren't going to slip back into the Roman heresy of "Error has no right"?

Warhol wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one truth and that is the truth of the Gospel through the Catholic church.

So you disagree with your own Second Vatican Council that stated "the Roman Catholic Church subsists in the invisible Church of the pilgrimaging people of God"? You disagree with the commitments that the current Pope made last winter with the German Lutheran church that aligned your church with it? You disagree with the meeting Papa Ratzie has every month with Rowan Williams on the reconciliation of Anglicanism? You are curiously diverging from Roman Catholic belief here and you are phenomenally unbiblical. I wouldn't object to anyone saying, "If Warhol's arguments are so off base on ecclissiology, why should I listen to him on homosexuality?"

warhol wrote:

If anything, the infighting that goes on within Anglicanism just goes to show how shallow a religion it really is.

And to me it shows a group of passionately committed men trying hard to struggle with problems presented to them. Anglicanism is not Roman Catholicism. It has a different structure which encourages open debate. That doesn't make arguments about biblical authority, human rights and human sexuality "drivel". I would call that an argument of supreme importance that needs to be argued at length. As a wretched, Spiritually empty evangelical, I want to see the Biblical revelation of God upheld. However, I pray that I in no way let my disagreement with the Episcopalian side of the argument to colour my Christian concern for them and that I should leave judgement to God.

Warhol wrote:

but you're a non-believer as far as I can see so it shouldn't matter to you.

Come on! Surely if you believe the Resurrection then you would be evil or stupid to not see it as a matter of supreme importance that non-believers come to understand it!

Warhol wrote:

You and I are singing from a different hymn sheet so we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid, but I pray in hope that one day you will see the light and will be saved.

If I was rsynnott I would be so insulted by this condescension that I would internally promise to myself never to join a belief system so arrogant. I fear in this discussion, you are a clanging cymbal.

Asiaprod

This may cause some controversy, but If one were to also be allowed to take into account the Gnostic gospels, a vast body of work that many refuse to acknowledge as being applicable to modern day Christianity, one might well come away with a very different picture. Sexual relations is mentioned many times.
To list but a few:
Jesus and John (as remarked upon by Peter)
Jesus and Mary Magdalene (as remarked upon all the disciples)
Jesus and Lazarus (as quoted below dealing specifically with homosexuality and taken from what is called the Secret Gospel of Mark)

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

It is interesting to note that the Gnostic gospels do not condemn homosexuality. As a matter of fact, there are not that many religions that do condem homosexuality. Those that do all seem to have a Judeo-Christian background. There really seems to be some kind of sexual hang-up whenever God comes into the equation. So much so that Jesus could not even have a normal birth or conception, but had to defy all medical logic and be born of a virgin with no help from Joseph. These same religions are the ones that are facing all the problems of sexual abuse of minors and homosexuality within their own ranks. How come? If they condemn it so much, and fear the wrath of their God so much, and spend so much of their time preaching against it, how come they are the ones being caught, consistently, breaking their very own laws.
What is the hang up with sex?

Excelsior

Asiaprod, the Gnostic "gospels" you refer to can't possibly be considered Gospels by any thinking Christian, or agnostic for that matter. Gospel means Good News (of a momentous nature). When referred to in the Christian sense, it means the message of liberation Jesus brought. The gnostic texts you refer to do not contain this message. They are gnostic. Gnosticism is a whole other religion.

They are also massively later than the canonical gospels. Just taking as example the Gospel of Philip in which Mary Magdalene is seen to kiss Jesus. That is from the middle of the 3rd century, or in other words, 200 years later than Mark. It is as far from Christ as we are from George II. If we were to go back in time that far, George Washington would be a little boy! It is not a valid account of Jesus.

While the sex scandals that have shaken the Catholic church have been heavily publicised (in many cases because of passive or active cover-ups) it is a well attested fact that the rate of sex abuse is no higher amongst clergy than any other sector of society.

There is no hang up in Christianity about sex. So many respondents on these boards engage with Christianity and sexuality only in so far as they can describe a straw man, the fundamentalist Christian. Such people are a small but loud minority within the greater community of Christians. Christian attitudes to sex outside of the sever hang-ups of extremists is best described by the word liberation. Christianity exalts sex as a very important and beautful gift from God to be enjoyed and savoured. But because it is so important and so profound it is to be valued.

In fact, I could bore us all at length taking angles on the theology of sexuality within Christianity but I won't, because the Bible will make a much better case for me than I ever could alone. The Song of Solomon is a canonical Hebrew text on the joy and intimacy to be found within a blossoming relationship. Read that text and you will never again claim Christianity is hung up on sex.

What people mean to say when they make such a claim is that the values of Christianity, of Jesus, of the Gospel, come into conflict at certain points with the values of our time. That is as it always has been and always will and should be. But Peter, you are a man dedicated to finding the truth and as such you should spend some time investigating the thing you reject before dismissing it.

robindch

> it is a well attested fact that the rate of sex abuse
> is no higher amongst clergy than any other sector
> of society.

According to the periodical, 'Irish Catholic', this is not true -- around 18 months ago, it printed the front-page headline "Only 4% of Convicted Paedophiles are Priests". Given that the 2002 census reported that there are 4,000 clergy in Ireland and that the population is 4 million, we'd expect (assuming an equal chance of conviction over the population at large) that only 0.1% of the prision population should be clergy. The Irish Catholic, presumably reliable when reporting what's a fairly damning statistic concerning its own workers, says that the proportion of convicted clergy is in fact forty times greater than we should expect!

> There is no hang up in Christianity about sex.

I would beg to disagree -- in my experience, Christians are frequently hung up about sex, especially where other people's sexuality and habits are concerned. To get a feel for this, see the excellent documentary "The Education of Shelby Knox", which documents the attempts of mainstream Christians' (and their political colleagues in the Republican party) to control sex and sex education in America, with predictable results for public health. I have an electronic copy of this worthwhile documentary, if anybody's interested.

Alternatively, try the highly unscientific method of googling for various combinations of words and see what comes up -- "christian god" gives 42million hits, "christian sex" gives 22m, "christian gay" gives 17m (and so on; interestingly, corresponding searches for Islam give almost identical ratios). These finger-in-the-wind searches seem to suggest that sex is seen to be slightly more than half as important to christians as god is.

There are excellent religious-memetic reasons for the existence of such close linkages between religion and sex, as various people, including Dawkins, have pointed out.

> the values of Christianity, of Jesus, of the
> Gospel, come into conflict at certain points
> with the values of our time

This depends upon which parts of the bible one reads -- see, for exampe, Deuteronomy 22, where one is, slightly oddly, told not to wear wool + linen at the same time, nor to plow with an ox an an ass (no reasons given), one is also instructed to stone adulterers to death

Excelsior

Excellent point from the Irish Catholic Robin to which I have no possible response.

As original a research device as googling words and counting responses is, the point I've made is that Christianity has no hang ups about sex. Some Christians have, but they are not alone in that.

Quoting from Deuteronomy 25 in response to a point about how the values of Christianity, Christ and the Gospels come into conflict with the zeitgeist is (and I think you know this Robin) a diversionary tactic at best. The New Covenant fulfills the law as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33.

Someone who knows their Bible as well as you should know how directly relevant this New Covenant is in say, the way one treats a woman caught in adultery?

Christianity exalts sex and values it. But its value lies in a different place to the values of our culture. Many Christians, like many people generally, hate or fear sex and/or devalue it. And many fundamentalists have Microsoft FrontPage and a penchant for flashing gifs. This and many more things I propose!

Asiaprod

<<<<<Christianity exalts sex and values it. But its value lies in a different <<<<<place to the values of our culture.


Excelsior, please expand on this statement for us. Where exactly do Christianity's value lie in relation the values of our culture.
Peter K

Excelsior

Christian ideas of sexuality are based on the fact that every human is created uniquely in God's image and is of priceless worth. This puts Christianity at complete loggerheads with a lot of sexual attitudes prevalent in Irish society today, maybe most especially in the case of pornography. XXX Church is my favourite response to that conflict point.

Because of this fundamental and non-negotiable belief within Christianity, any kind of objectification that seeks to highlight one aspect of a person at the expense of or while ignoring the fullness of their identity has to be challenged. Again, this means that the hyper-sexualisation that is becoming more common in our society (but is still nowhere near dominant) whereby people view their lives as impossible without sexual expression would be challenged. Sex is great but it can't be your everything. Christianity, and I'm speaking here straight from the Bible, would say that the best sex is sex where you focus on the other person. Such simple wisdom but there are voices within our culture that would view sex as a self-affirming or actualising force and Christianity would deny that identity can be secured so cheaply.

I guess the most obvious conflict point between Christianity and the zeitgeist on sex is in the area of vulnerability and sacrifice. Christianity, as a result of the Genesis matrimony passages, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, the Cana wedding and the metaphor of the church as bride as Christ has an unavoidable emphasis on the fulfillment of sexual appetite within the Christian marriage, which ought to be a covenant that being life-long, offers a security and the potential for selflessness in which our sexual expression can prosper. This expression can also be chanelled into the creative act of child bearing to make a family. Our culture doesn't value or emphasise this aspect of life and so is in conflict with Christianity.

There are 3 contact points. Does that explain it any better?