Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Yes. Some of them remind us of our weaknesses. Better not to think about them, and to feel the intellectual owners of the world.

Maliagar - with the Pope's recent fiat against homosexuals, and the ongoing Catholic refusal to ordain women, can Catholicism be only "considered" to be anti-gay and anti-feminist?

Note - I do not ask if you agree with its position, only whether you think the accusations unjustified.

Perhaps one reason the Catholic Church in particular annoys progressive people - other than for reasons of historical prejudice - is its huge effect in many poor countries in continuing to ban effective birth control.

It also seems to engender more of a fierce "anti" reaction in its ex-members than many less all-encompassing christian sects. Ex-catholics are rather like ex-smokers in their zeal, I note (from long association with many of them!).

maliagar,

cut the maudlin crap. You give yourself too much credit.

When I am unable to prosecute an argument I do not develop a messiah complex. I suggest you avoid it, it's as transparent as it is pathetic.

Woo hoo! The bunny checks in with an elbow to the chest followed by a finishing move, the Aussie power slam!

Craven actually does suffer from a Messiah complex, but it is harmless, as it relates more to his coding skills than religion Also, given how great A2K is, nobody minds.

Folks

This thread is falling apart. The name-calling -- and the sarcasm is something that should be put aside.

Maliagar, I understand and appreciate some of the things you are saying -- and quite honestly, the way you said some of them in the last post you directed to me, made me see that in many ways, we are speaking past each other.

I certainly am willing to concede that the church sponsored universities and institutions of learning throughout its history. But you must concede that in many instances -- probably most instances -- and perhaps all instances -- the sponsorship was contingent upon the academics not teaching nor even considering propositions that called into question the notions of reality the church defined as irrefutable truth.

So in a way, we can both be right -- you that the church did sponsor learning and we (Timber, Craven, Tartarin, I and the others) that the church was an enemy to scientific inquiry and advancement despite that sponsorship.

(I suspect you will not buy into what I just said -- and what follows will probably tend to alienate you more, but I intend to be as truthful about my feelings, and what I see the situation to be, as I can.)

I suspect my agnosticism plays a big part in how I view the situation. I suspect my education, not dominated by Catholic teaching during my later years, plays a part also. I suspect my antagonism toward religion -- and the mischief it foments -- plays a significant part also.


I suspect your Catholicism plays a big part in how you view the situation. I suspect your education, which I also suspect has been dominated by Catholic teaching, plays a part also. I suspect your love for the church and the rose colored glasses through which you view it -- a significant part also.

By now it has to be obvious that we will not see eye to eye on this -- and while I am sure you think you have provided backing for your position and I none for mine -- it is my view that your supposed evidence is not truly evidence of anything more than "some people can put the best face on things if the motivation is there."

Timber, especially, has refuted many of the contentions you made with regard to this issue, but you seem able to disregard anything that comes between the view you want to be true -- and other possible views. "Other possible views" that are made honestly, intelligently, and reasonably.

I think it is well you are going on to that other subject.

We will have much more to work with -- because we will have primary source material rather than the opinions of others upon which to base our arguments.

I suspect I will start a new thread devoted to whatever you raise -- just as I started a thread on the other things you prodded me for so long to engage -- the "religion of non-religion."

I notice, by the way, that you still have not come over to that thread to discuss the issue -- which is strange, since you made a fairly big deal out of your perceptions that I was trying to dodge the issue.

Stop by there and give your views.

And let's hear what you have on the new topic.

I certainly am willing to pursue this topic further -- and I'm sure all the other participants are also -- but this one is going nowhere - and the tone of the last few postings is not encouraging.

I do not agree that you have shown credible evidence that the early church was anything other than an implacable enemy of science -- despite the fact that universities existed and despite the fact that some modern scholars want to revisit the question of the church versus science.

And you certainly appear to be unable to agree that things are other than what you are saying.

The thought I had while writing those last two paragraphs was: There are people who credit Hitler and Mussolini for the administrative adjustments they made in their respective countries - but does that truly mitigate against the horrors they caused concurrently? And, there are learned scholars who are willing to revise the question of the holocaust - but does that mean the holocaust never occurred?

Go to the new thing. Let's see if a meeting of the minds can happen.

To everyone who has participated in this thread that I did not mention in that last post ...

...my apologies.

Hi, dlowan.



I don't think those particular accusations are justified. The Church is opposed to new ideologies ("isms", not people) that present homosexuality as natural and good, and ideologies that have an unbalanced view of the relationship between the sexes. As it opposed communism, nazism, etc.

Briefly, the Church "hates the sin, loves the sinner".

Now, some people don't see (or don't want to see) this distinction. But it's an important one. I'm a sinner as well. Furthermore, sometimes my sin may be greater ('cause I "see the point" and, supposedly, know what I'm doing). However, I don't feel hated by the Church. On the contrary. Every single devout Christian knows that he is a sinner. The difference is that we accept it, ask for forgiveness, and try to live a better life. These strange ideologies tell you: "No need for forgiveness, no need to try to change. Throw yourself into the arms of all your cravings..."



I'm part of the Church, and I hope there is not much distance between what the Church teaches and what I believe and live.



I agree that some people think this. I disagree that the Church is to blame for that problem.



That is absolutely true. The funny thing is: When you talk with former Protestants, Jews, and others who become Catholics, they never "hate" their former religion. They just fell fulfilled in the Church. My impression is that, usually (not always), people that leave the Church do it out of some unresolved emotional tension / rupture (a fight with a priest, the scandalous behaviour of someone, struggling with a particular moral teaching that appears too strict, the pressure of proselitist groups, etc.). Whereas those who come into the Church do it out of a more reasoned and lengthy process.

Take care.

It was meant to be. Sooner or later someone with special powers would "see through me", "read" my innermost being, and discover that, behind my arguments, there is an unresolved complex. Some people attempted this diagnosis before, but now its fully out.

Maybe you can recommend a psychotherapist? :wink:

Perhaps yours?

the problem with flogging dead horses is not so much the deed itself but more in the expecting to ride the horse in the parade afterwards.

I am definitely with Frank...a new thread might be in order. I apologize for my own sarcasm, although I truly do still support the Church of Frank regarding this discussion. I just still feel that the needs of humanity are far more important than the dictates of any 'official' church.

I don't think you need a 'psychotherapist' at all. Lots of people are unreasonable. The 'prophet in the wilderness' bit is more uncommon but hardly pathological.

Let's see, Frank:



I concede (never denied) the many, not the most, and certainly not the all.

By the way, the Church has defined as irrefutable truth very few things in the realm of faith, and nothing in the realm of science. Therefore, the Church has no problem with genuinely scientific theories (it took a while for both scientists and the Church to clarify the limits of their competencies). For example, the Catholic Church has no problem with the scientific theories trying to explain evolution.



This is undeniable despite your (and others) efforts to obscure that fact by way of broad generalizations.



Wrong. For this to be true, you would have to claim that there was no institutional and academic relationship between learning (which as you NOW accept, the Church sponsored) and scientific inquiry. I already proved that this is an exceedingly broad statement. The authors I mentioned explained how that institutional and academic relationship existed. You could say, for example, that the Vatican curia during the second half of the 17th century was an enemy of X and Y theories in Z field, and that it stiffled their development. But not that "the church was an enemy to scientific inquiry and advancement".



The best there can possibly be: Reputable academics from some of the best universities and publishing houses.



Perhaps. But this argument is just your reinterpretation of the evidence I presented. This is not a statement based on fresh evidence brought to this forum by you.



False. He gave a list of web sites on Medieval studies and stuff. No relevant quotes or book reviews (as I provided) And you gave nothing (but won't admit it).



Amazing. I just asked you to mention one book-length work supporting your view, by an author of comparable credentials. Either you didn't want to do your homework, or were unable to find such an author. Hence, you gave me nothing to "disregard".



True.



That's your right. Just show the evidence that justifies your disagreement. I'm already familiar with your "interpretations"...

Take care.

Yes, let's stay unofficial...

I thought I had an "unresolved complex". Nevermind.

Thank you. Now I feel better...

Get more boxer. Spread more cheer.

Maliagar - your position on ordination of women? You sort of vaguely covered the gay thing - but glancingly referred to my other point.

Would you agree that the catholic church IS anti-feminist, if we (for the sake of this thread - this is a whole other argument on the site as a whole) define feminism as a belief that genders should have equality of opportunity? And that this would include the opportunity to be ordained?

Er, Maliagar, can you expand re the birth control issue, and how the church is not involved, or somewhat responsible, for this as a problem for many?

Let's see, dlowan:



I personally don't have a position. However, I suspect that if women ordination were allowed, men would practically disappear from Catholic life (in many or most religions, women are far more enthusiastic participants than men, and when in mass I always notice that a majority of attendants is usually women. Basically, women would take over and it would become a religion of women. So from that practical point of view, I would see a problem.).

Now, I do have the following positions:
(1) the Church has the authority to define these issues;
(2) the ordination of women is not a central theme of the faith (certainly not a moral issue) - therefore, I'm not interested in making of it a big issue.



No. The Chuch is all for equal opportunity (which is not the same as homogeneization and the blurring of sexual differences).



No. The categories of the economic and social life do not define the priesthood. Its definition is religious, not occupational. Hence, the priesthood is not to be seen as a profession or an "opportunity". Nobody has a God-given "right" to the priesthood. Neither married men (in the Latin, Western Church) nor women nor anybody else can claim that they "deserve" an opportunity. The priesthood is a calling, which is discerned in the context of the Church.

What amuses me is that, oftentimes, non-Catholics seem to have strong feelings about the ordination of women, and try to push their non-religious sociological interpretations into a decidedly religious affair. They are outsiders that believe that have standing and are loud about it. They don't give their opinions on the internal affairs of Orthodox Judaism or Islam... But when it comes to the Church, everybody has an opinion... Strange, eh?

Hope I answered your concerns.

I need to get going, but let me mention something: To understand this you would have to take a look at the role of large families and of population in non-industrial economies lacking a welfare/social security safety net.

In most industrial nations economic growth would have been impossible without population growth brought by immigrants from the countryside or overseas.

Hope this helps.

But EQUALITY is a BIG ISSUE whether you deem it or not. Not providing equality of life experiences is DISCRIMINATORY. But one of the failings of bigots is their inability to see that all people are created equal. c.i.