Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Hey Maliagar,

Thanks for your reply.

I was not actually expecting you to give an answer to my questions -- I was expecting exactly what I got -- an evasion. That is what the Catholic Church does with regard to these kinds of things -- and you appear to be exactly what the Catholic Church wants its adherents to be -- blindly loyal and unquestioning. (none of that was meant as insult, just observation.)

I would remind you, however, that you entered a thread discussing the biblical view of homosexual conduct -- specifically the command of the god of the Bible to kill people who engage in such activity -- and further discussing whether or not it is hypocritical of Christians not to kill them or, at very least, to lobby for laws making homosexual conduct a capital crime.

Now it seem you are essentially saying: I don't care what this thread is about, I want to discuss what I want to discuss.

Well, Maliagar, I really do not care if you think homosexual conduct is wrong or not -- or evil, or sinful, or anything else. I am interested in whether or not the command of your god to do something specific when specific circumstances present themselves -- is binding -- or is something that can simply be disregarded.

This thing you are doing with Craven is interesting (in a way), but it is going nowhere. You two are sharing opinions about homosexuality that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other -- and each of you is clever and resourceful enough to make his position seem more reasonable than the other.

But why don't we discuss the actual subject of the thread for a bit?

Surely there is nothing in there that causes you discomfort.

You will not be placing yourself in an occasion of sin if you discuss it, will you?

Is the command of the god of the Bible -- which is to say, the command of the god of the Christians -- to kill people who engage in homosexual conduct -- in any way binding on Christians -- or are Christians allowed to disregard commands from their god if they don't particularly like the command?

Quote:

You probably also know that neither the Church nor Judaism are in the business of providing verse-by-verse interpretations of the Bible. That ahistorical and legalistic expectation completely disregards the holistic way the Jewish and Christian communities have related to the Scriptures for centuries.

Yes, I do know that. But to be honest with you, Maliagar, I equate what they are doing there to something you said earlier to someone else in this thread.

You wrote:

Quote:

Believe me: Many people reject the Church's teachings not because they are not persuasive or false in their view, but because they are not convenient.

Well far be it for me to ask you to "believe" anything I write, but it is my opinion that the reason Jews and Catholics don't deal with individual passages is not because it makes no sense -- but because it allows them to avoid facing up to the many passages that show the god of the Bible to be a murderous, barbaric, petty monster.

In other words: it is not convenient for them to do so.

Quote:
If the issue that concerns you is slavery, and you really want to know Christian teaching about it (and not just what Leviticus says), I'm sure you have at hand a heavily highlighted and underlined 2nd edition of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. The books of the Bible do not provide a systematic presentation of Jewish or Christian doctrines. This is provided by a Catechism (but of course, you already knew that).

Ahhh...yes. My copy of the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism is very tattered -- and my copy of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church has more than its fair share of dog-eared pages. But both are still very readable.

You know what...I think there is almost as much rationalization and out-right denial in A2K as there is in those two books.

Humans wrote those books -- and humans, like you, are apt to gloss over the obvious in order to try to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

But since you brought it up, I will quote item 2414 -- which is the only applicable paragraph in the Catechism regarding the Church's position on slavery:

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason -- selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian -- lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother...both in the flesh and in the Lord."

Interesting that this paragraph was among the many that received the blessings of the Church and the Pope -- and the Imprimi Potest of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church...

...because it is wrong and false in at least two major areas.

First: the seventh commandment (Thou shall not steal) obviously does not forbid slavery. The interpretation of the seventh commandment to forbid such enterprise is a stretch of unacceptable proportions.

In any case, since the passage I quoted from Leviticus specifically has the god of the Bible telling Moses that slaves could be bought and sold -- and treated as chattels -- and passed on as inheritance -- and kept slaves forever - it is obvious that the god did not mean to command against slavery.

Second: St. Paul DID NOT DIRECT a Christian master (Philemon) to treat his Christian slave (Onesimus) "...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother...both in the flesh and in the Lord." In fact, Paul went out of his way to say he was not directing or commanding -- but merely requesting or suggesting it. That may seem an insignificant distinction, but it is not -- since Paul specifically mentioned that he was not commanding or directing -- but merely suggesting - and indicated that he thought he had the authority to command it - but definitely was not doing so.

Also, the writer of the paragraph, who went to the trouble of mentioning what Paul thought of slavery in this erroneous and false rendition of the Epistle to Philemon, neglected to mention that in several other passages, Paul indicates absolutely no problem with the institution of slavery. In fact, Paul seem perfectly content with slavery - and with its morality.

In several, Paul cautions Christian slaves to work hard as slaves; in several he tells Christian slaves not to take advantage of masters who might also be Christian; and in one, he actually tells Christians slaves that even if they could secure their freedom, they'd be better off staying slaves and making the most of their situation, BECAUSE MORE THAN LIKELY, THEY WERE SLAVES BECAUSE GOD WANTED THEM TO BE SLAVES.

Thanks for reminding me about the catechism, Maliagar. I almost missed that.

0 Replies

maliagar, The above post by Frank explains why I have left this issue in his good hands. He knows more about religious' teachings than I'll ever know in this life time. He knows how to ask the questions in the proper format and support. My questions and response would be elemental in comparison, and a waste of time for all participants in this forum. Frank will get to the knub quickly and succinctly. c.i.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

. But of course, you already know that, 'cause you really know Catholicism... :wink:

Quote:

Unfortunately, and despite your vast knowledge of Catholicism...

Quote:

I'm sure you have at hand a heavily highlighted and underlined 2nd edition of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. The books of the Bible do not provide a systematic presentation of Jewish or Christian doctrines. This is provided by a Catechism (but of course, you already knew that).

Quote:

Again, if the topic that worries you is homosexuality, go and check your Catechism (if it's worn out, it's also on the web

Quote:

...you can find more about this in the Cathechism, which I'm sure you've read already several times.

Hummmm....

Just want to put your mind at ease on the inferences here, Maliagar.

Perhaps a bit of background is in order.

I was raised Catholic -- and until well into my 20's, I thought I had a calling to a religious vocation. I studied Catholicism and Catholic teachings all along as though I was going to become a priest.

However, at some point, pussy took control of my mind -- and I realized that I would never be able to be true to the celibacy requirement, so I abandoned the idea. I consider this to be a "blessing" both for me and the Church.

I served mass until I was in my mid-20's -- and probably could still do a very acceptable Latin rite mass.

I have served a Cardinal as an acolyte; and several dozen priests. (All were fine gentlemen -- and all had a positive influence on my life.)

I was privileged to serve mass in the Basilica of St. Peter's in Rome.

I even had an audience with Pope Pius XII -- along with 2000 other people!

I not only have those catechisms you asked about -- I have a Protestant catechism also (yep, there are Protestant catechisms) -- and I study them often.

I have over a dozen Bibles in my study -- Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. I also have the Book of Mormon -- and I study them also.

I have an extensive library of books ABOUT religion -- and tons of books on philosophy.

I essentially have an undergraduate major in philosophy, religion, and comparative religions -- my undergraduate work was done at a Lutheran College and courses in philosophy and religion were required in every term.

I have debated extensively with priests and monsignors (in private life and over in Abuzz) -- and if necessary, I could probably look up a few threads where these men complimented me on my knowledge of Catholicism and Catholic teachings.

I mentioned earlier that there are not many Catholics around in A2K to defend or explain the Catholic position -- and at times, I have taken on that function.

Try not to fret over my abilities to handle myself in this discussion. I promise you I can take care of myself very adequately.

0 Replies

All hail the poontang! Recently approved for Catholics too! Now here is a humorous piece that warrants discussion:

http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/gay_jesus.html

0 Replies

I think prejudice is unnatural and wrong and has fallacy written all over it, Craven, and your world will remain steady. Except I see you live in California which, given the Fault and Issa, is on very shaky ground!!

0 Replies

" I spent a whole afternoon out there pretending I was Wilma Flintstone."

0 Replies

Hey, Craven:

You seem to have a complete decalogue of immoral fallacies not to be ever used in discussion under penalty of sin and laughter. You seem to adhere very tightly to these "no-nos", as if they were God-given. Furthermore, you seem to have a very strict notion of the certainty that one is to expect about these issues. "If it is not evidently clear like a geometric axiom, then it is nothing".

Let's take the ad hominem argument.

Sure, I also dislike how it sometimes puts a discussion out of focus. It seems to be the perfect way out for some Marxists, Freudians, Feminists, etc.

However, we would blind ourselves if we didn't recognize that there MAY be a point to an ad hominem argument. And the point does not depend on a lineal argumentation, but on a perception and a more direct "understanding" of what the motivations of a person may be. In the human realm (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), EMPATHY is as essential a research tool as other forms of observation and reasoning. Of course, it is very hard to assess the degree of certainty empathy provides. But it exists, is one of our perceptive capacities, is useful, and even necessary.

Now, a more relevant example: I said that all the great religions of the world (the wisdom of the ages) agree on the basic "commandments" of morality, including homosexuality. You are very quick to discard this argument and call it a fallacy. Well, it depends on the standard of certainty you use. If you adopt the highest standard, then yes, it is not 100% persuasive. After all, everybody else may be wrong, right? This is certainly **possible**, but is it **probable**?

In the realm of philosophy, too many thinkers have seen that the highest standards of certainty (only attainable in the formal, a priori sciences) are not applicable to the physical world (physics, biology), and certainly not applicable to the human world. If we adopted your standard, most social and human sciences would be impossible.

So if we adopt a less strict standard of certainty, it would be certainly prudent to respect and ponder the reason why homosexuality has always been considered "bad" (not only by Christians). It would be prudent for us not to discard the opinions of the majority too quickly. The burden of proof would be on us.

A kid may have no argument in favor or against murder. But just the fact that all the religions of the world teach that it is wrong, and that the majority of people disapprove of it, should make him wonder and, at least out of prudence and awareness of his own limitations, accept that judgement. That would be the wise thing to do. In other words, in the unavoidable absence of certainties, this is a matter of probabilistic reasoning.

Now of course, you may want to be a rebellious teen who needs to experiment everything all over and make his own mistakes and see things in black and white, to reinvent the wheel. That's what the Modern world has been doing for 300 years. The result: Social mistakes that we've seen in the past (broken families, abandoned kids, etc.) appear once again. But of course, there is always the Government or Catholic Charities to take care of abandoned children or AIDS patients.

One of the distinctions the Modern world lost after Descartes was the one between Wisdom and Knowledge. Knowledge involves only the mind. Wisdom is more experiential and moral (and harder to communicate, which is its downside). People gain knowlege by reading. Wisdom is obtained by living. The model of knowledge is empirical experimentation and logical reasoning. The model of wisdom is mentoring (a monk and his disciple). If we don't recover this distinction, we'll remain myopic to the very mess we are turning this world into out of clueless experimentation. We'll amputate some of our essential thinking abilities ('cause they don't provide the certainty we've come to expect), and hypertrophiate others (that are not entirely appropriate to understand the human realm).

Take care.

0 Replies

maliagar "

Quote:

Sure, I also dislike how it sometimes puts a discussion out of focus. It seems to be the perfect way out for some Marxists, Freudians, Feminists, etc

."
I think you are on a roll here, pure standup comedy routine, reminds me of Lenny Bruce in a kinky sorta way...(but you know you should have added in the tree huggers)

0 Replies

maliagar,

I am at work and have some pressing tasks so I'll respond to your post from home. But if you get the cance can you complete or enhance my simple logical form:

Pick one of the following:

A) "I believe homosexuality is wrong"
B) "Homosexuality is wrong"

If A: "I agree, you do indeed believe homosexuality is wrong"
Else: "Please substantiate your earlier arguments that homosexuality is unatural"

If attempt made to substantiate is made: "let's bat this around"
Else: "I am waiting"

If bat this around: we eventually move to the establishment of a connection between unatural and wrong
Else: we give up

If connection between "unatural" and "wrong" is established: Your declaration will have validity
Else: it won't

0 Replies

Thanks for the refreshing comment, Cavfancier.

cavfancier wrote:

I think this has actually been a very level-headed discussion, much more so than some that pop up in this forum, or in politics. I have enjoyed watching it so far. As long as it stays civil, which it has, I am still interested. While I do not agree with maliagar's reasoning, he hasn't really flamed anybody, or been overly rude. I look forward to seeing where this thread goes.

0 Replies

Let's see, Frank:

Quote:

I was not actually expecting you to give an answer to my questions...

You have me all figured out, eh? But I am a man of faith, and I'm still hoping for you to enlighten this poor soul about the depths of "the religion of no-religion". I could say that you have quietly brushed the subject under the carpet, but this would be uncharitable and presumptuous. It would be like saying that I have you all figured out, and that that's why I'm not going where you want to take me. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I was expecting exactly what I got -- an evasion. That is what the Catholic Church does with regard to these kinds of things...

I don't know. You're the expert. However, when I read Rahner or the Catechism, I don't see any evasions... But hey, that's just me. It may be the brainwashing I've been subjected to.

Quote:

you appear to be exactly what the Catholic Church wants its adherents to be...

Thank you, but I'm far from being a saint... yet. Twisted Evil

Quote:

...blindly loyal and unquestioning.

Is this a guess, a belief, or a speculation? For in my oh so very limited Christian experience, theology is one of the most critical, rational and comprehensive disciplines in the history of Western culture. Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages. But hey, this can also be a lie.

Quote:

I would remind you, however, that you entered a thread discussing the biblical view of homosexual conduct...

Yes. And I rephrased the question to speak of the Christian view of homosexuality. And I did this because of a very simple reason: Quoting isolated Bible verses (as you're dying to do) is a futile excercise according to historic Judaism and Christianity. You know this, but that doesn't matter: You want the Church to read the Bible the way you do--so that you can say "Gotcha!" and proclaim victory.

If you really want to derive Bible teaching from a couple of verses, contact the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, or any other of the hundreds of nineteenth century U.S. sects (which, by the way, think the Catholic Church was too influenced by classical Greek philosophy).

Quote:

...specifically the command of the god of the Bible to kill people who engage in such activity -- and further discussing whether or not it is hypocritical of Christians not to kill them or, at very least, to lobby for laws making homosexual conduct a capital crime.

I already explained how the Church decides these issues. But, of course, if you're in a hurry to declare Christians "hypocrites", pay no attention to what I say and just indulge your urge.

Quote:

you are essentially saying: I don't care what this thread is about, I want to discuss what I want to discuss.

I'm essentially saying: There is a flaw in the way you're posing the issue. And the conclusion you're so eager to extract for the world to see is obviously flawed as well (since the Church does not read the Bible like that). But since you're almost savoring the victory you want to proclaim to the four winds, my objections are just "evasions" that frustrate your need.

Quote:

I am interested in whether or not the command of your god to do something specific when specific circumstances present themselves -- is binding -- or is something that can simply be disregarded.

It is binding if the Supreme Court declares it to be binding. It is not binding if the Supreme Court declares otherwise. And you know which is the "Supreme Court" that I'm talking about. Now, if you don't believe in "Supreme Courts", then it will be binding if it fits your sensibilities, and it won't be binding if it doesn't (the Protestant response).

Quote:

But why don't we discuss the actual subject of the thread for a bit?...You will not be placing yourself in an occasion of sin if you discuss it, will you?

I hope not. But the attentions of so many fine men are making me feel a little bit dizzy. Laughing

Quote:

Is the command of the god of the Bible -- which is to say, the command of the god of the Christians -- to kill people who engage in homosexual conduct -- in any way binding on Christians -- or are Christians allowed to disregard commands from their god if they don't particularly like the command?

I already explained that, from the beginning, Christians have related to the Gospel through the pastors of the Church. Whoever wants to get rid of the Church, ends up with the paradoxes you're trying to handle.

Quote:

I equate what they are doing there to something you said earlier to someone else in this thread.

You wrote:
Quote:
Believe me: Many people reject the Church's teachings not because they are not persuasive or false in their view, but because they are not convenient.

it is my opinion that the reason Jews and Catholics don't deal with individual passages is not because it makes no sense -- but because it allows them to avoid facing up to the many passages that show the god of the Bible to be a murderous, barbaric, petty monster.

The Church does not "avoid" passages that are inconvenient. If you went to mass every day, you would read the totality of the Bible in a year. If you went to mass every Sunday, you would read the totality of the Bible in three years. Furthermore, there are plenty of "inconvenient" doctrines that the Church does not simply brush aside (divorce, contraception, abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, celibacy, etc.). So I think you are wrong: all over the world Christians die for what they believe, convenient or not. They are not eager to be assimilated to the world and avoid scandal (well, maybe some are--especially in the U.S., but that's another story). But the Church does have the authority to teach the Gospel through the ages. And the Church grows in its understanding of the Gospel (cf. Cardinal Newman).

Quote:
I think there is almost as much rationalization and out-right denial in A2K as there is in those two books.

The Church has specific criteria to decide which "reinterpretations" of the Gospel pervert its meaning, and which are legitimate developments. See Newman's "Essay on the Development of Doctrine".

Quote:
Humans wrote those books...

Most certainly. And one of the key tasks of Biblical interpretation is to distinguish the purely human element from the divine element.

Quote:
...and humans, like you, are apt to gloss over the obvious in order to try to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

You think the meanings of the totality of the Bible are obvious? You think the meaning of the Leviticus passage on homosexuality is obvious? Maybe its human meaning is obvious to you. But you're not doing any attempt whatsoever to reconcile that verse with, for example, Christ's commandments to forgive those who offend us. Or to reconcile that passage of Leviticus with the Prodigal Son's story. It is like, for you, Leviticus alone is the Bible. [Talking about taking things out of context]

Quote:
But since you brought it up, I will quote item 2414 -- which is the only applicable paragraph in the Catechism regarding the Church's position on slavery:

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason -- selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian -- lead to the enslavement of human beings..."

...because it is wrong and false in at least two major areas.
First: the seventh commandment (Thou shall not steal) obviously does not forbid slavery. The interpretation of the seventh commandment to forbid such enterprise is a stretch of unacceptable proportions.

It forbids stealing from people. And you can steal their freedom, their human dignity. Frank, it is very dangerous to take upon yourself the task of Biblical interpretation. Do you have any idea of how many religions started this way? You seem to believe that whatever human meaning you can infer (with purely human means) from the Bible, that must be accepted as the Word of God. Wrong. You'll just get the human meaning of a specific verse or paragraph. And this is only interesting for historians or archaeologists. For the Church's guidelines on Biblical interpretation, read the Catechism, paragraphs 112-114 and 115-117.

I've said this before, and I repeat it: We wouldn't have a Bible if didn't have the Church. As St. Augustine (4th century) once said: "I wouldn't even believe in Scripture if the Catholic Church hadn't commanded me to do so."

Take care.

0 Replies

Well, I guess human meanings don't have much meaning after all. c.i.

0 Replies

This is perhaps the most jejune commentary I have seen on this forum.

0 Replies

On all of A2K. c.i.

0 Replies

Gosh, Maliagar, you sounded rather frazzled in that last post.

You asked me to check out the Catholic Catechism on a few questions -- and in the first one I did check on (the slavery issue) I was able to point out a serious error in the material presented -- and a lie. (A lie of omission.)

Now you seem to be annoyed that I have pointed those things out to you.

For what it is worth, that probably is how Chris Dardan felt when he succeeded in getting O. J. Simpson to try on that glove.

You should have checked what the Catholic Church was teaching about slavery -- and you would easily have seen for yourself that their "teaching" was very, very suspect. In fact, it is abysmal. And if the way they handled the slavery issue is any indication of the reliability of Catholic teaching -- one would probably be better advised to simply pass over their rationalizations in favor of personal interpretations, no matter how dangerous they want you to think that would be.

Quote:

You have me all figured out, eh? But I am a man of faith, and I'm still hoping for you to enlighten this poor soul about the depths of "the religion of no-religion". I could say that you have quietly brushed the subject under the carpet, but this would be uncharitable and presumptuous. It would be like saying that I have you all figured out, and that that's why I'm not going where you want to take me.

Everything in due time, Maliagar. I will talk with you about whatever issues you have with people who are not religious for as long as you want. It is a subject that interests me -- and I am delighted that I will have a worthy opponent in a debate on the merits of the issue. But we still have all this preliminary stuff to get through.

Quote:

I don't know. You're the expert. However, when I read Rahner or the Catechism, I don't see any evasions... But hey, that's just me. It may be the brainwashing I've been subjected to.

I think your guess is correct in this instance. Yep, that would be my guess.

Quote:

For in my oh so very limited Christian experience...

You seem to revel in sarcasm, Maliagar. Do you have any idea of why you use it so much?

Quote:

...theology is one of the most critical, rational and comprehensive disciplines in the history of Western culture.

Good grief, man, get a grip on yourself.

If anything, theology is one of the least critical and least rational disciplines ever to pollute the Earth. For the most part, theology -- or the theists who comprise theology, non-Christian as well as Christian -- simply pull stuff out of the air; express it as a "belief"; and then announce that they have faith in this bit of blind nonsense.

You consider that rational? You consider that critical? You consider that comprehensive???

Quote:

Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages[/b]. But hey, this can also be a lie.

What are you smoking?

Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years. The damage the Church has done to science -- and the damage it continues to do -- is appalling.

When the Church finally gained a foothold in the western world (which is to say, in the Roman world) -- two things happened.

One -- within 75 years, the 500 year old Roman empire went out of business. People -- especially Christians -- love to blame the fall of Rome on its debauchery, but the fact remains that when Rome was most debauched -- it was also the most powerful empire the world had ever seen.

When the Christians took over, it went kaput.

Two -- the progress that had been made in art, architecture, technology, science, law, and government under the Greeks and Romans came to an abrupt halt. In fact, the first 800 years of Christianity's ascendancy were so devoid of progress, they are known as the Dark Ages.

For you to make that absurd claim on behalf of your church is laughable. But I respect you for at least trying to make the most out of a very bad hand of cards that you've been dealt.

I'll leave you with these few thoughts to chew on, Maliagar. I'll get to the rest of your post at some point -- unless you post something equally preposterous in response to these few comments -- in which case, I'll handle the new stuff.

I hope you don't mangle this one though, because there is lots of really funny material in the remainder of your post - and I am looking forward to commenting on it.

LAST THOUGHT: You really ought to think over the implications of the slavery treatment in the Catholic catechism. It tells you a lot about the information you are using to run your life.

And none of it is good!

0 Replies

CHURCH OF FRANK! CHURCH OF FRANK!

0 Replies

All hail His Exalted Holiness, Cardinal Apisa.

(boy, this thread needed a digression like mal needs a high colonic... :wink: )

0 Replies

Hey PDiddie, speaking of digressions that are remotley on topic...

If Jesus needed some serious anal, which apostle would get the dirty duty?

0 Replies

Hey, guys, quit picking on Frank. There's a 'civil' discussion on Homosexuality and Christianity going on - to our amusement. c.i.

0 Replies

Couldn't delete the duplicate post, so you get to read this nonsense. ;(

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know