Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Yeah...

Let's be unfocused, unspecific, and unofficial... Let's decide these issues without doing our homework, like some people I won't mention (who chose one set of books over the other, while acknowledging that they hadn't read either... :wink: ).

And then, let's go for a good, focused, specified, and officially sanctioned PAELLA!!!

"Anybody can be intelligent. The real thing is to do our homework. I've done it; you haven't." (!!!)


Actually, if there's anything I've learned from this discussion: intelligence is essential! One can do all the homework in the world, but without intelligence, without a spark of discernment, one's arguments are real snoozers.

I'd give Maliagar an A in contentiousness and tenacity. And an indulgent C- for his knowledge of something about as valuable to most of us as a multilingual manual for a Studebaker.

I suggest we settle over a huge plate of my fine paella...and a little Vinho Verde, or well chilled Fino sherry.

True. And one can be just intelligent, and play with words, without bringing the evidence provided by doing our homework.



How indulgent of you!!! One detail: If it's not valuable to you, and if you haven't done your homework on this particular issue, how could you possible give a grade???

It's as if I took upon myself the responsibility of grading an engineer or something...

Some people have some nerve!!!!

Deal! :wink:

Actually, I didn't choose one set of books over another, just one theory, one set of opinions, based on what I read right here in this thread, on a topic I was unfamiliar with. I don't know why you did not want to name me, as I posted publicly that I had not read any of the material listed (check page 53 if you need a reference). Call me an intellectual 'end-user' if you want, I'll still make paella. Diplomacy is part of my job.

Maliagar -- What homework have you done, and to what purpose?

You wouldn't understand...

Maybe one day...:wink:

Tartarin I would suspect maliagar has done quite a bit of homework in his time ... he's obviously studied The Church, and likely has graded a few engineering papers. In all respect, he's a relatively prepared apologist for The Catholic Church, shows a bit of formal philosophic education, probably a minor degree thoroughly unrelated to his livelihood, and likely not his only post-secondary academic achievement. There's a cockiness, an egoistic self-assuredness, that suggests perhaps continuing post-graduate work ... prolly in the sciences, with engineering a strong possibility. He expresses himself well ... though idiomatic clues and certain phraseology lead me to suspect he is not a native speaker of American English ... all the more to his credit. I would guess he grew up speaking a Romance language, Spanish or Portugese, most likely. His energy and tenacity lead me to expect he's not yet middle aged, though may be contemplating the prospect as more nearterm than makes him comfortable ... too young for a mid-life crisis, too old to go back and start over. He may even at one time have investigated taking the collar, and maybe has continuing conflict in that regard. Of course, this is the internet, and nobody can see anybody, so maliagar's web persona could be a front for a study group at a Catholic Girl's School, too, but I doubt it. One thing is for sure; he's convinced he's on the right path, and whatever critical thinking he does is carefully compartmented away from his devotion to his faith, its self-published image, and its cultish reinforcement of prejudice and superstition. What the heck, if it works for him, he's happy and that's fine ... for him. He's apparently bought the package. Some folks do, some folks don't.
Personally, I've never been much for guesses and gambles. Other folks are sure they've already bought the winning ticket, or cracked the secret code. I just see no reasonably-to-be-expected profit available in that particular game. The probability curve just doesn't favor it.
.

Can you (or anyone) give an example or examples of Paul putting a spin on the teachings of Jesus so I can better understand this comment.

Just a thought I had on the original bible passage concerning the contradiction between killing homosexuals and the commandment thou shall not kill: At the time the bible was written I believe Christians were a minority. To grow and become the majority Christians realized they needed to pro-create. Maybe the passage was meant to discourage homosexuality since it bear no fruit.

In defense of the bible I don't believe a loving God put us here to hate and kill each other, despite the many contradictory bible passages you can find on slavery,homosexuality,promiscuity,punishment, and hatred. IMO take from the bible what you will and what works for you. Is this selective Christianity ? Probably so, but it makes more sense than following the bible literally.

Great thread by the way. It really made me think.

Poor Maliagar

So many words -- so little content.

Let's do this one piece at a time -- so that perhaps Maliagar will not be able to weasel out of a real explanation with a deluge of verbiage.

Maliagar says the church should provide an interpretation for the Bible. I've said the church, when allowed to do that, simply disregards any passages that are troublesome. Maliagar says I am wrong -- the church does not disregard them, but simply puts them into context. Maliagar also says that the Catholic catechism is the vehicle for these explanations.

Let's examine the church doing this on the slavery issue -- and see who is closer to the truth on this.

At Leviticus 25:44ff, the god of the Bible tells Moses:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

At 1 Timothy 6:1ff, St. Paul says:

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."

At Colossians 3:22, St. Paul says:

"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the urpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for lthe Lord."

At Colossians 4:1, St. Paul says:

"You slaveowners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."

At Titus 2:9, St. Paul says:

"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constanat fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."

At 1 Corinthians 7:17ff, St. Paul says:

"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuting as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."

At Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he )Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.

NOW -- here is the Catholic Church's teachings about slavery from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The seventh commandment (Thou shall not steal) 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 degnity. 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 Chritian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother...both in the flesh and in the Lord."


Folks, there is absolutely no mention of the passage from Leviticus -- there is absolutely no mention of the several passages from St. Paul where he indicated that he had absolutely no difficulty with the notion of slavery -- there was no mention of Paul telling slaves that they should in fact try to increase their productive value -- and there was no mention of Paul telling slaves that they should not even seek freedom, because the Lord had decided they should be slaves and they should make the most of it.

And the mention of Paul that is made -- is presented in a way that directly contradicts what the Bible says. Paul did not direct Philemon to do anythign with regard to Onesimus -- and in fact, went out of his way to note that he was not directing or commanding Philemon in this matter.

I ask everyone participating in this thread:

Is Maliagar right that the church did not disregard any of the passages that were troublesome -- or did the church disregard them?

Did the Church "put them into context" or did it simply ignore them -- and distort what it did quote?

The problem as I see it Frank, is that The Church cannot submit to critical, objective, rational analysis and criticism, for to do so would be tacit abdication from her self-proclaimed Infallibility. Only The Church is qualified, in the eyes of The Church, to critically examine and comment on The Church and Scripture, as only The Church is Infallible. The Church and The Scriptures are what The Church says they are because The Church says so, by virtue of the exclusive and pre-emptive authority it says it has. I suspect too that only The Church fails to see that bit of circular, self-justifying, internally-validating psuedo-logical rhetoric for the absurd philosophic outrage it is. The Church does not so much "Ignore" inconsistencies and other inconveniences; The Church papers them over with Bulls, Encyclicals, Declarations, and the Decrees of Councils as it is forced to do so. The poppycock rationalization so revered by maliagar, "The Pastoral Tradition of Compassion", is precisely what has permitted, even engendered, a tradition of some millenia and a half's standing that clergy who are predatory pederasts be not subjected to lawful civil sanction but be shielded from the earthly approbation due their misbehavior and be provided fresh and unsuspecting hunting grounds in which they may continue their vile practice ... all to the purpose of avoiding drawin g scandal to The Church. Similarly, The Church must reserve to herself the exegisis of Scripture, specifically to ward off exposure of fraud, inconsistency, error, contradiction, and omission, for to allow other would be to expose The Church to scandal. Above all else, The Church must shield herself from scandal. Its the only Infallible thing to do, you know. The Church has no choice.

I like that line.

Although I respect Maliagar's intelligence and tenacity, I think it can apply to him also.

Frank's on target.

Being "infallible," by the way, has the same effect as being a bully. The Catholic Church (though not exclusively, for sure) has bullied its way to a position of power and wealth using intimidation and whatever else comes to hand to preserve or augment power.

This is what all institutions do eventually, even once-worthwhile social organizations, in order to survive. The purpose of the institution is forgotten; the longevity and power of the institution becomes its sole interest.

The god the Church assures you it worships would never condone the cruelties and sins committed by the Church. The irony of all this has been apparent even when I was a little kid. How could one ever, in a life of Sundays, believe in their god if that god condones that hypocritical institution? What intelligent human being would want to?!

Of course Maliagar disregards (and is churlish about) any challenges he can't handle. If you can stand to do it, go back and read his entire opus, post by post. No don't. You've got better things to do!

Tartarin


I'm not sure of why Maliagar is churlish so often -- but I can certainly make a guess.

Wouldn't you be a bit churlish yourself if you had to defend the positions he has chosen to defend?

Papal infallibility - like celibate clergy - appeared on the scene relatively later, did it not?

The Catholic Church was not initially supportive of the laity having direct access to the bible, also.

Bunny, while a "Tradition" (do a googlesearch for Divine Magisterium, and perhaps also on The Council of Trent - I haven't the energy at the moment), Papal Infallibility was codified by The First Vatican Council (1869-70, if I recall, during the reign of Pius IX). You can find the texts of the pronouncements of that council at: http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume1.htm . The Canons of that council pretty much reaffirmed The Church's Sole Authority in matters of faith, which authority derives clearly from the authority The Church says it has. The Catholic Enyclopedia has a fairly useful article addressing Papal Infallibility, to be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

In fairness, Papal Infallibility pertains only to Dogma, key issues of faith, and does not apply to any purely earthly matters, except as they may relate to issues of faith. Being confined to the purely metaphysical renders it untestable, therefore a moot point.

LOL! Ain't too goddamned metaphysical for the huddled masses who worry that condoms will send them to hell, or purgatory, or Absence From God, or whatever the heck is held to happen to bad people now!

Don't attack Christianity.
God bought your salvation with his blood. Who knows the ways of God but God? Do you really think you know more than God? I know I don't. So don't question God, don't let sin swallow you. Let God save you. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE(He gave not in obligation) HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON (one and only) SO THAT WHOSEVER SHALT BELIEVE ON THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED. Amen to God.