apparently Ree and Hobbs (and others) have committed a mortal sin

[infinitemonkies]

I think if you're going to argue that any part of the bible is valid, then you have to take the whole thing.

Other than it making a convenient lever to oppose all religion whatsoever, why?

If you pick and choose which parts of the bible are the actual will & word of god, but ignore the parts that you don't personally agree with or find inconvenient, it invalidates your whole premise. If you want to argue that action x is a sin, because the bible says so, then you have to also accept that every other action the bible calls a sin is also because god commanded thusly.

If you can make the claim that times have changed, and it's not really a sin to touch the skin of a dead pig, how can you refute the argument that times have changed, it's not really a sin to practice homosexuality?

If you want to lobby the government to disallow same-sex marriage because the bible describes it as a union of one man and one woman, shouldn't you also be lobbying for the right to bury your child up to the neck, and throw stones at his or her head until they die because they disrespected you? God says that's the appropriate course of action to take.

[Kheldarson]

My bad, I should have been more clear. Not only is the pope far from perfect, he is an immoral charlatan who has no basis for lecturing anyone on morality. If the head of any secular organization behaved as the pope has, they would be publicly burned in effigy. Yet somehow the pope gets a free pass...

He was voted on for his theological interpretations. I can't say I agree with his current social agenda, but his theological works are fairly brilliant. The unfortunate thing is that we needed another John Paul II, but they're rare indeed.

I am well aware of that. The book that got him in trouble featured a dialogue between a heliocentrist and a geocentrist, and the latter was made to look foolish. I am also well aware he wasn't actually burned, but kept under house arrest. Are you aware that the church burned his books? Plus what sort of chilling effect do you think Galileo's sham trail had on other scientists of the time? That's my problem: the church actively impeded the growth of the knowledge of humanity. So much for the church standing for truth.

Yes, they burned his books. But please recall that this was a fairly new idea at the time. And one that was going to cause a major upheaval in the entire medieval world. Mostly because the calendar was so off it wasn't even funny. And frankly, they didn't even have to actively impede knowledge. It just had to make its way through the ever-growing bureaucracy of the Church. How long does it take the US Government to make a decision? It takes longer for the Church. Plus they had to figure out how to address the questions of biblical interpretation. This takes time.

Your comparison doesn't work. I am not naive enough to think the American Civil War was only about freeing the slaves, but whatever the reasons the US took corrective action. Do you suppose the church hierarchy gladly embraced reforms that would have put an end to such horrors as the inquisition? I don't think so!

Actually, they did. Three separate religious groups were founded to address the issues coming from the Inquisition and the Reformation. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits. These men dedicated themselves to fixing the problems the Church bureaucracy was too big to correct itself.

Also, the church has been persecuting the jews for the alleged death of Christ for a lot longer than 400 years.

So has the rest of the world. It's not right, but when the foundation of the Church is her people, unfortunately bigotry occurs.

That's the best response you can come up with to the condom lie and the sex abuse coverup? Would you continue to do business with an unrepentant con artist because "nobody's perfect"?

No, so why are you? Nobody's asked you to become Catholic. Nobody's asked you to become Christian. So why are you attacking me for my Faith when out out of a 2000 year period we've had some blips in the organization thanks to imperfect people?

Don't forget that the pope has also come out blaming homosexuals for the sex abuse scandals. Yes humans are fallible, they make mistakes. But covering up those mistakes, and projecting blame onto innocent parties indicates an entirely different kind of human fallibility.

And using one argument to discredit an entire history indicates another.

I did no such thing.
What I was trying to say was the pope's lie about condom effectiveness in stopping AIDS transmission in the middle of an epidemic, was tantamount to lighting a match in a gas-filled room. How counter-productive is it when the pope lies about condom effectiveness? Given the church's track record, I imagine we'll have to wait another 500 years before some future pope apologizes for this debacle.

You don't know that. Hopefully we'll get another young pope in next go around.

So how do followers decide which religious ideas can be subjected to mere human scrutiny and logic, and which ideas must be believed on unquestioning faith, otherwise they're a sinner and bound for hell? I'll take godless logic-based morality over religious and/or faith-based morality any day. Infinitemonkies has already listed some reasons why religion fails as a moral guide. Here's one of mine: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Bye bye, Salem witches

First, Salem witches weren't done in by Catholics. So, I'm not even going there. Second, I'd like to introduce you to a type of studies called Apologetics. Apologetics is the study of faith and reason. Beyond the leap of faith it takes to come to the full belief of God, everything else can be explained logically from there. However, since we don't come from the same starting point (a belief in God), we're never going to come to the same logical conclusions.

Order yes, but reason? I don't think so. Reason is anathema to faith.

BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm picking on christianity, it's because that's the religion that was brought up in the OP. I could go on about the violence and misogyny of Islam, but not in this thread.

Again, apologetics. Nothing in Catholicism cannot be explained without reason. I'm still studying it, so I'll admit to not being the best, but I've yet to find something that can't be done "Because this, then that." That's basic logic, yes?

[Talon]

I think Kimmik actually specifically said that no one is perfect, and that this category of non-perfect people included the Pope.

My bad, I should have been more clear. Not only is the pope far from perfect, he is an immoral charlatan who has no basis for lecturing anyone on morality. If the head of any secular organization behaved as the pope has, they would be publicly burned in effigy. Yet somehow the pope gets a free pass...

Galileo's case is frequently exaggerated. He was actually aquitted of heresy, and simply had to agree to quit publicly promoting his theory. He agreed, but kept at it anyway. That's when he was retried and actually punished.

I am well aware of that. The book that got him in trouble featured a dialogue between a heliocentrist and a geocentrist, and the latter was made to look foolish. I am also well aware he wasn't actually burned, but kept under house arrest. Are you aware that the church burned his books? Plus what sort of chilling effect do you think Galileo's sham trail had on other scientists of the time? That's my problem: the church actively impeded the growth of the knowledge of humanity. So much for the church standing for truth.

The Inquisition occured nearly 400 years ago. Referring back to it constantly is a bit like saying "The United States supports freedom? Tell that to the black slaves!" After all, our government has been in continual existence since then.

Your comparison doesn't work. I am not naive enough to think the American Civil War was only about freeing the slaves, but whatever the reasons the US took corrective action. Do you suppose the church hierarchy gladly embraced reforms that would have put an end to such horrors as the inquisition? I don't think so!

Also, the church has been persecuting the jews for the alleged death of Christ for a lot longer than 400 years.

Again I'll say that the people who make up the church are fallible.

That's the best response you can come up with to the condom lie and the sex abuse coverup? Would you continue to do business with an unrepentant con artist because "nobody's perfect"?

Don't forget that the pope has also come out blaming homosexuals for the sex abuse scandals. Yes humans are fallible, they make mistakes. But covering up those mistakes, and projecting blame onto innocent parties indicates an entirely different kind of human fallibility.

And don't blame the church for the entire epidemic.

I did no such thing.
What I was trying to say was the pope's lie about condom effectiveness in stopping AIDS transmission in the middle of an epidemic, was tantamount to lighting a match in a gas-filled room.

Lack of education about the disease is what keeps the AIDS epidemic going. In some parts of Africa, there is a belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. You can imagine how counterproductive that is.

How counter-productive is it when the pope lies about condom effectiveness? Given the church's track record, I imagine we'll have to wait another 500 years before some future pope apologizes for this debacle.

However, not all followers of religion are unthinking slaves to it's ideas, despite that being an insult commonly flung their direction.

So how do followers decide which religious ideas can be subjected to mere human scrutiny and logic, and which ideas must be believed on unquestioning faith, otherwise they're a sinner and bound for hell?

Both religious people and atheists can be moral or immoral, the main difference being how they justify it. Neither one is really better than the other.

I'll take godless logic-based morality over religious and/or faith-based morality any day. Infinitemonkies has already listed some reasons why religion fails as a moral guide. Here's one of mine: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Bye bye, Salem witches

The point of religion is to provide order and reason...

Order yes, but reason? I don't think so. Reason is anathema to faith.

BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm picking on christianity, it's because that's the religion that was brought up in the OP. I could go on about the violence and misogyny of Islam, but not in this thread.

[Kheldarson]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

Also, I didn't think we were talking about the law, I thought we were talking about sin and/or right and wrong.

There's sin of action and sin of thought. Both are sinful, both are wrong. Here's the issue: Who besides God knows what you think and desire? The Church will counsel you on your thoughts, your desires, can even condemn some of your worst ones...if you share them. But ultimately, being made of human beings, she can only condemn your actions. You and God have to debate the thoughts. That's why the act of homosexuality is wrong. Just as the act of extramarital sex is wrong. It's unchaste.

Sure, I can imagine and outline what I want to do to Kabe once we're married. But we're not to do any of that until then otherwise I, being the Catholic, will be in poor standing with the Church. The Church still understands human desire in this area (current interpretation on original sin is that it twisted our sexuality, hence why the first thing Adam and Eve noticed was their nakedness) but believes that we cannot allow ourselves to be completely free to our desires without responsibility.

[HYHYBT]

I think if you're going to argue that any part of the bible is valid, then you have to take the whole thing

Other than it making a convenient lever to oppose all religion whatsoever, why?

[Hobbs]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

What's your point then, exactly? Your own words state, "it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?"

Unless I missed something, you weren't talking about doing something, but imagining something in your head. So in that sense, there is no "desire to carry it out" because it is a product of fantasy. Why would you think it would be punishable, by anyone, for having a fantasy?

[BigGiant]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

Also, I didn't think we were talking about the law, I thought we were talking about sin and/or right and wrong.

[KabeRinnaul]

By that logic, it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?

Sure. Well, I'd still consider you a sick, perverse person. But it's not a crime until you're actually out doing it.

[Kheldarson]

The Church can't control your thoughts. She doesn't even really try to anymore. So by technicality, yes. However, we still don't know what God judges by. So God may judge you on your sexual thoughts (or your thoughts of killing children). Or he may just judge you by your actions.

Church can only see actions, so can only judge actions.

[BigGiant]

I had typed this earlier, and because it takes the argument to extreme ends, I deleted it.

Sure. That doesn't seem like a big stretch to me. It's cool for me to consider other women sexually attractive. But Kheldarson might take offense to me acting on that interest.

By that logic, it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?

[KabeRinnaul]

Adultery? What, because you're not having sex with a woman?

Or if you are and you're not married to her.

But again, basically your argument is that, oh, it's cool to be homosexual, you just can't act it out, because that's bad....?

Think about that for a moment......Thinking about doing something is just fine. It is just the act that's bad?

Sure. That doesn't seem like a big stretch to me. It's cool for me to consider other women sexually attractive. But Kheldarson might take offense to me acting on that interest.

And really, what act is it that is bad in particular? Certainly it isn't the act of loving another person? That's still ok, right? And it isn't kissing another person, regardless of sex...that's still ok, right?

So it is basically that God is worried about where someone puts their privates? Really? God is worried about that? All the other stuff is fine, just watch where you put your thing, dammit!

I'd argue that there's a rather large gap between kisses and actually having sex.

But, to warp them into homosexuality=adultery (basically because man+man =/= children) is just plain wrong.

It's adultery because two people of the same sex can't be legitimately married in the eyes of the church. And if they're not married, having sex would be adulterous.

Well, the reason sex outside of marriage is considered wrong is because you don't want a bunch of children running around without a good means of support...i.e a single parent.

Being that men cannot produce offspring with other men....that's kinda moot, no?

Perhaps, but then you're looking at convincing the various churches to change their definition of marriage. And the only one that really has enough structure to actually do that is the Catholic. But even then you have to make it through the bureaucracy.

I mean really. Think about why these 'rules' came about in the first place.

(...cut down for length...)

So, thinking rationally for yourself, and knowing the intent behind the rule in the first place, do you still think in this day and age that sex between 2 men is a sin because they aren't married?

Something can be a sin without being wrong or evil. Look at the Commandments. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Going by the book, Hindus are sinful. Doesn't mean I think they're bad people. But that they'll be accounting for it in the afterlife. Or how about "Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy." I go to church maybe once a month, at best, and nine time out of ten, I work on Sundays. Doesn't make me a bad person.

And besides, isn't your argument kind of like a Jew saying, "I know it's not Kosher, but bacon is awesome. Logically, I know this bacon will be cooked better than my primitive ancestors who wrote Kosher law could make it. So that's fine then! One BLT footlong, please."

[Kheldarson]

I came across a term I really like a short while ago:

"Cafeteria Catholic" (or cafeteria christian, etc)

Someone who picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow, and which to ignore.

*Snip*

You're confusing things.

Not the term. That's right.

But Catholics do not believe all things in the Bible as law. We believe that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. We believe in the interpretation given to us via Faith, Tradition, and the Magesterium. So if the Magesterium tells us that eating shellfish is fine, but homosexuality is not, guess what? That's what we believe.

So Cafeteria Catholic does not refer to picking and choosing what out of the Bible to believe, but instead what out of Catholic dogma to believe.

[Hobbs]

Then why is it such a leap to say that due to inadequate birth control, sex outside of marriage was a sin. It has also carried on to this day (in most religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule. It has also been warped over the years to have all sorts of different meanings (such as any sex without the intent of reproducing is a sin).

This coincides with the Church's stance on the sanctity of life. Promiscuity (of any sexuality) without proper precautions leads not only to unwanted births and possible marital problems, but with the spread of disease (not just AIDS, but chlamydia[sic], syphilis, etc.). This spread of disease is contrary to Church doctrine about respecting the life of your loved ones and your surrounding community.

[BigGiant]

Knit-


Well, the reason sex outside of marriage is considered wrong is because you don't want a bunch of children running around without a good means of support...i.e a single parent.

Being that men cannot produce offspring with other men....that's kinda moot, no?

I mean really. Think about why these 'rules' came about in the first place.

Nobody has any problem when you explain that the reason that in the old testament you weren't allowed to eat meat from cloven hoofed animals is because at the time they were worried about parasites, and not being able to properly cook their meat as well as we can today. It has carried on to this day (in some religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule.

People seem to grasp that with no problem. It makes sense.

Then why is it such a leap to say that due to inadequate birth control, sex outside of marriage was a sin. It has also carried on to this day (in most religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule. It has also been warped over the years to have all sorts of different meanings (such as any sex without the intent of reproducing is a sin).

So, thinking rationally for yourself, and knowing the intent behind the rule in the first place, do you still think in this day and age that sex between 2 men is a sin because they aren't married?

We're talking about rules in a book that have been translated, interpreted and changed by hundreds, if not thousands of religious leaders over a span of 2,000+ years.

Isn't it time that we all use common sense in interpreting the bible (If the bible is what you are going to base your belief system on), instead of just listening to what man made institutions, (which are certainly affected by their own self interests), have to say on the matter?

[KnitShoni]

No, I think the reason it was equated with adultery is because, at present, gay people cannot get married, so it is considered the same as any other form of sex outside the bounds of marriage.