Frank- Wanna bet that someone attempts to explain away this one by saying that Leviticus is from the Old Testament!
Just because??? 
Phoenix32890 wrote:Frank- Wanna bet that someone attempts to explain away this one by saying that Leviticus is from the Old Testament!
And why would that be "wrong"?
More interestingly, these debates show why the Bible cannot and should not be individually interpreted (the capital sin of Protestantism, from which much confusion has ocurred in the U.S. and elsewhere... ask the Mormons, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the believers in "the Rapture"). It is not up to me or to you to read the Bible on our own to determine Christian (or Jewish) doctrine.
To understand the Bible, you need to read it in the context of the community and tradition within which it was written. And in Christianity, this community and this context is provided by the Catholic Church ("2000 years of Christian tradition, as the t-shirt says). It was within the Church that the New Testament was written, and it was the Church who decided which books were inspired and which book were not.
Unfortunately many cultural or active Protestants don't know this. Without knowing it, they accept the Church's declaration of which books belong in the Bible--but reject the Church's authority to interpret them. Then, they come up with their own wild interpretations, fight over them, and go on to found yet another storefront "church". And this gives plenty of ammunition to those who misunderstand Christianity due to its "many voices".
maliagar wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:Frank- Wanna bet that someone attempts to explain away this one by saying that Leviticus is from the Old Testament!
And why would that be "wrong"?
More interestingly, these debates show why the Bible cannot and should not be individually interpreted (the capital sin of Protestantism, from which much confusion has ocurred in the U.S. and elsewhere... ask the Mormons, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the believers in "the Rapture"). It is not up to me or to you to read the Bible on our own to determine Christian (or Jewish) doctrine.
To understand the Bible, you need to read it in the context of the community and tradition within which it was written. And in Christianity, this community and this context is provided by the Catholic Church ("2000 years of Christian tradition, as the t-shirt says). It was within the Church that the New Testament was written, and it was the Church who decided which books were inspired and which book were not.
Let's see, Frank:
Quote:"There is much more to be explained about your religion, Maliagar, than just the Bible. Much more."
No doubt. So much more, that this forum cannot contain all the explanations that are pertinent.Fortunately, Christianity has been around for a while, and anybody seriously interested in those explanations can go and look for them. They are available for everybody, on the web, on a serious Christian bookstore, etc.
It is true, however, that the "religion of no-religion" has even much more explaining to do.
Quote:"Your claims that there is but one church -- and that the church is the Catholic Church is audacious"
True.
Quote:"...and offered with nothing more than your "belief" as support."
Not true. It is something that can be proved. You just have to look at the historical record. You can begin your research with the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is no official publication of the Catholic Church). Then you can read 1st, 2nd, 3d, and 4th century Christian authors, to see if they were affiliated to different "Christian" churches, or just to the One and Only :wink: .
Quote:"The Bible is a book filled with contradictions and absurdities..."
Indeed. However, that is not the only thing that can be found in the Bible. That is why we need GUIDANCE to understand it. Otherwise, people are very likely to misunderstand it. Even Christians misunderstanding (that's why you have THOUSANDS of Protestant "denominations" stealing converts from each other).
Quote:"-- and frankly, I am no more impressed with the rationalizations offered by the Catholic Church..."
It is not a matter of impressing you. It is a matter of taking the issue of God and Jesus Christ seriously (as serious people can discuss Buddha, or atheism, or other important topics).
Quote:"In any case, if a particular passage of the Bible has been misinterpreted here -- which is what you are essentially asserting -- bring it up for discussion. Offer your take as to the correct interpretation."
There is no point in doing that. We probably wouldn't move beyond a war of Bible verses, or of acts of faith (I believe in X, you believe in Y). And I'm not presenting "my take" on this issues. I'm presenting (as much as time and space allow) the Christian view of these things, as expressed by the largest, most ancient, and most authoritative Christian body: The Catholic Church.
The real point is this: Nobody understands the Koran just by reading it. You need to see how it is actually read and interpreted by Muslims. The same applies to Judaism and Christianity. And within Christianity, the Catholic Church provides the only tradition with an uninterrupted linkage with the origins of the faith (i.e., with the time in which the Bible was put together), and the only authority structure worthy of the name.
Quote:"Those of us who mistrust Christianity are doing just that, Maliagar, mistrusting it. We are not "misunderstanding" it."
Oh yes. You are misunderstanding many things about Christianity. And that shouldn't surprise anybody, considering the plethora of "Christian" voices that you see in the United States.
Quote:"In fact, we probably understand it in a more profound and honest way than you are able to do."
I doubt it. To understand it you have to (1) respect it, and (2) live it.
Don't forget to mention something about your trust and understanding of the "religion of no-religion". :wink:
cicerone imposter wrote:When I say sexual preference, most of us are talking about consenting adults. How you are able to translate such ideas into pedophilia is beyond my sphere of ideas or thinking.
Let's work within your sphere of thinking: "Who is to say" that the only relevant criterion is "being consenting adults"? As a matter of fact, through education, we force (yes, force) a lot of things on "non-adults". We force on them a name, a culture, a national allegiance, certain values, an education, etc., etc. And we do that because we think it is good for their development as adults. Well, let me remind you that pedophilia started as an educational tool in ancient Greece. You can read Plato's dialogues, and you'll find countless references to it. One day some "enlightened" anti-Christian "theorist" could come up with the brilliant idea of getting rid of yet another Christian value, and propose a new kind of intimacy between teacher and student. Wouldn't it be a great idea? They could even bring research to support the notion that students that engaged in sexual intimacy with their teachers have all kinds of educational advantages. And since we have already thrown over board the rejection of homosexuality, this pedagogic intimacy could be between same-sex couples of teacher-students. And since we don't need the Christian notion of monogamy, we could have teachers having sexual intimacy with several students of either sex at the same time. And since sex is not for procreation but for recreation, a teachers could engage in this type of educational practice with their own kids.
It's been done in the pre-Christian past, it can come back. Where would you stand and why?
Quote:Maybe I need to learn christianity to think beyond the 'normal.'
Or maybe you need to become more aware of the moral "possibilities" of non-Christian societies. Study Greece, Rome, the Aztecs, the Incas, other African civilizations, and you'll see the moral standards of non-Christian societies. That's where we are headed, in one, two, or three hundred years.
Quote:Your quote: "what if (contrary to common belief) Christian morality were based on BOTH faith and reason?" It's not based on "reason." It's based on many contradictions that you are unable to see.
Look: Christian thinkers have dealt with this for two thousand years. Just to mention one, I suggest you read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa contra Gentiles, and you'll discover a very powerful rational presentation of Christian morality.
Quote:Quote:Homosexuality is not wrong...
So you say, out of pure faith.
Quote:only people who believe in a fictional book lieve it's wrong.
I already explained why this is not true.
Quote:Prove that homosexuality is wrong based on "biology and psychology?" I can't.
I can. You just have to take a careful look at the anatomical complementarities of a man and a woman's bodies. The male's body is made for the woman's, and vice versa. The male body is not made for another male's.
Quote:I just know it discriminates against a group of people who love each other.
We always discriminate. We discriminate against rapists, against pedophiles, against polygamists, etc. In the last 30 years homosexuality has become more acceptable to the general U.S. culture, whereas pedophilia is not (for the time being). Why is that? Are you just following the culture? Or do you have your own views?
Quote:My culture is American: it provides me the freedom of speech and religion - or lack of religion.
Well... those freedoms do not exist only in the U.S. And it is true that, for some people, patriotism is their religion.
Quote:Your faith is based on a fictional book called the bible. There are many contradictions in the bible.
1. The Bible is made of many books (it is not just one book).
2. In the Bible you have all kinds of styles. You have poetry, you have fiction, you have letters, you have legal codes, etc. Each one needs to be read according to the style in which it was written.
3. There are certainly contradictions in the Bible. Why? Because it was written by many authors over a period of 2000 years.
That is why you need guidance to understand it. The type of truth you find in a poetic book is not the same as the truth you find in a letter. Sometimes people are not aware of this, and interpret the Scriptures in wild ways. In response, some become fundamentalists (who believes that in order to respect the Bible you have to read it all the same--as a legal code), and some become skeptics (like you). But there is a third possibility, and that's what I'm presenting here.
Quote:Frank is an expert, and I will allow him to answer your questions on these contradictions.
It seems like you have placed a lot of FAITH in him. You see, faith is an inescapable fact of life. The real issue is: Where do we choose to place our faith? Who deserves our precious TRUST?
Take care.
Tartarin wrote:Maliagar, what the heck is wrong with homosexuality, in your view? I mean your personal view.
We could begin by saying that homosexuality is antinatural (do I really need to explain that the sexual capacities of males and females are inescapably complementary, made for each other?). Therefore, homosexuality is as depraved as having sex with a papaya or with a cat...
More specifically: The male organ is not made for a papaya, and the female organ is not made for a banana.
Some people may want to surround homosexual relations with an aura of respectability (they use the word "love"), but in most cases it is a matter of exploiting your own sexuality for your own pleasure getting rid of the normal, natural functioning of sex. This leads to unbalanced lifes... It is no secret that homosexuals lead very promiscuous lifestyles (even those who claim to be looking for a "stable" relationship'). And promiscuity also has all kinds of social impacts (on character, family, health, etc.).
Quote:You don't have to be a homosexual to believe that there is nothing inherently harmful or antisocial or "wrong" about homosexuality.
Maybe you need to think again. Homosexuality is socially harmful (antisocial) because it destroys the necessary linkage love-commitment-sexuality-procreation-education of children. Men or women that could be establishing solid families and raising good citizens choose instead to become unavailable for the opposite sex and indulge in a form of masturbation. Homosexuality is one of many ways people opt for lust instead of love. And lust out of control leads to the exploitation of people. Let me remind you that suicide or drug use do not necessarily harm other people. And they are rightly considered immoral. They go against the love and self-respect any individual should have. And they make individuals unavailable for the common good (the rest of society).
Quote:Leaving aside what the Bible says, what do YOU think is wrong, specifically, about homosexual relationships?
You seem to have a persistent and mistaken assumption about this. I know that, in a Protestant environment such as the one still prevailing in the U.S., people believe that the moral teachings of Christianity are based on Bible verses. And I understand that, given this environment, you would like to hear a different type of answer.
So let me remind you that this "Biblicist" view of Christian teaching is not true for the largest, most ancient, and most authoritative Christian Church. Learn more about the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the truth about humankind. And this truth can be expressed in purely rational terms, in religious terms, or in both. The Church's teaching is based on BOTH.
For example, murder is wrong. It can be attested by human reason or by the Bible. Both (Revelation and Reason) are expressing the ONE truth. So, homosexuality is wrong not just because the Bible says so, but because it goes against the truth about man. And this truth is one, be it that we arrive to it through reason or through faith.
Quote:Do you think it's equally wrong in the animal world, where it occurs with frequency and where young male animals will often "practice" with each other much as Greek kids did openly...
We are not animals. The animals are not moral beings. We are.
Quote:Could you perhaps accept that sexuality and relationships are far more complicated in real life than they are depicted in that wonderful old, much translated, inaccurate book of highly unreliable reportage based on hearsay and (as you say) "faith"
If you were more familiar with Christian teaching (which, for the thousandth time, is not really based on Bible verses alone, as the Protestants claim), you would know that Christianity knows a lot more about those "real life complications" that bother you than most people know. Let me give you a hint: Look or ask for the difference between theology (or doctrine) and pastoral applications. You'll be surprised. To summarize the Church's moral teaching: Withouit a doubt, the standard is high (God calls humanity to His side, and this implies being perfect and holy, nothing less) but the process takes a lifetime. And we have the mercy of God to sustain us.
Quote:-- which you're basing your argument on?
You asked a question, and now you're assuming my answer. By now it should be abundantly clear that I did not based my argument on one single source.
Take care.
