Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Throughout the history of Christianity, some Christians have had a problem with sex (of all kinds) and some have not. That continues to this day. I cannot myself foresee a time when the Catholic Church will accept that homosexual marriage is sacramental, i.e., religiously valid, or that extramarital sexual acts are morally acceptable.

Manchu wrote:Throughout the history of Christianity, some Christians have had a problem with sex (of all kinds) and some have not. That continues to this day. I cannot myself foresee a time when the Catholic Church will accept that homosexual marriage is sacramental, i.e., religiously valid, or that extramarital sexual acts are morally acceptable.

Oh You never know..I'd never say never.

The Church might evolve. I mean, when a catholic priest is raping a boy he is breaking both of them.

They must be coming around!

Christiany's issue with homosexuals may stem from the fact that a majority, around 2/3s of the NT was authored or at least attributed to Paul...who was a pretty huge homophobe. SOME of the apochrophal texts point to homoeroticism possibly among the disciples...of whom Paul was not while Jesus lived. In fact Judas identified Jesus with a passionate kiss...
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

AustonT wrote:
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

Not each other, that would be lewd.

Rent boys, however...

Phanatik wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God is self limiting by his decision to allow free will to exist. If everything were suddenly fixed free will would be gone. To do so justly would also involve correction/punishment. As we all contribute to the worlds woes it is in aggregate better that God does not intervene in this way or we would all be in trouble.

Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery. He doesn't want to be an overbearing master, so He abstains to a large extent from what happens in the world. Is this right? Ask God, but at least understand that from Gods perspective the timeless effects of the spiritual journey are worth more than the cost of lessons learned in the (comparatively) fleeting moment which is a human lifespan. I think a lot is taken with what to us is an overly long term perspective.

Phanatik wrote:
God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

We choose to be 'sick'.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

Not each other, that would be lewd.

Rent boys, however...

Hey I'm a pretty rough and tumble bloke and even I wouldn't kiss a rent boy, those guys put all sorts of gak in their mouths!

I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

feth that!

The Catholic tradition views marriage as an aspect of God's self-expression of grace, perfected in the definitionally sacramental physical realization of the spiritual, rather than as a mere social construct representing social approval. Homosexuality is therefore "intrinsically disordered" because it does not involve biological "complementarity," i.e., represents a non-reproductive union and can thus only be defective at best and parody at worst. It's tempting to equate extramarital heterosexual acts with homosexual ones, in terms of sin. But if you look at it in terms of what is closer to a moral and licit sexual relationship, it is apparent that whereas extramarital heterosexual intercourse is but "one step away" from the ideal, as it were, homosexual intercourse is two steps away. So while extramarital sex as between a man and a woman is certainly itself a perversion of a sacrament, homosexual sex is so much more the perversion in that not only is the context incorrect but also the actors.

Now that the thread is woefully Off topic...I forsee it lasting about 1 or 2 more pages(if that) before lock ensues. As topic starter I ask that the mods keep a close eye on this.

GG

I don't see why it needed to be put up, actually. I mean, I'm an Atheist, and I don't know why some Atheists go through so much length to take jabs against the bible. Really, why is it so hard to just mind your own business?

It's evangelical atheism. The salvation of ... something is at stake here. Society?

Manchu wrote:The Catholic tradition views marriage as an aspect of God's self-expression of grace, perfected in the definitionally sacramental physical realization of the spiritual, rather than as a mere social construct representing social approval. Homosexuality is therefore "intrinsically disordered" because it does not involve biological "complementarity," i.e., represents a non-reproductive union and can thus only be defective at best and parody at worst. It's tempting to equate extramarital heterosexual acts with homosexual ones, in terms of sin. But if you look at it in terms of what is closer to a moral and licit sexual relationship, it is apparent that whereas extramarital heterosexual intercourse is but "one step away" from the ideal, as it were, heterosexual intercourse is two steps away. So while extramarital sex as between a man and a woman is certainly itself a perversion of a sacrament, heterosexual sex is so much more the perversion in that not only is the context incorrect but also the actors.

I think you need to check for typos in the above?

GG

Thanks, I fixed it.

crunchym8 wrote:I don't see why it needed to be put up, actually. I mean, I'm an Atheist, and I don't know why some Atheists go through so much length to take jabs against the bible. Really, why is it so hard to just mind your own business?

Minding your own business is the ideal. But, when lawmakers start forcing their religious views on everyone, that's a problem.

This poster was a (poor) attempt to fight that.

Grakmar wrote:This poster was a (poor) attempt to fight that.

The proffered explanation is dubious. I mean, there must be some point where a plan is so obviously ineffective that one must have some other intentions than stated in putting it into action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery.

That's a wonderful point.

There was this documentary i watched. I think it was called
"Lord, Save us from your Followers. Why is the gospel of love destroying america" It said that bible literalists are recent. And until that time much of the bible was up for debate and scholary review. and how many encouraged to read it critically.

For Catholics, it's almost the opposite, in a sense. Not that Catholic exegists were ever necessarily literalists (which is considered grave error) or that there was no room for scholarly work. But until very recently, historical-critical methods were not allowed and even throughout much of the twentieth century, that approach was still tied up in the heresy called "Modernism."

It's funny that so many atheists are just as literalist-fundamentalist in their approach to the Bible as their Christian targets. This billboard crap is a great example.

Polonius wrote:Athiests have a shared faith

This is such epic fail...

I thought he made a pretty good point. I mean, how do you organize of the absence of belief in a particular thing? It's obviously more than that. I reckon it's a worldview, although not a particularly coherent one.

If just organizing is enough to be a religion than Fantasy Football is a religion.

Who's talking about what it takes to be a religion? Fantasy Football ain't a worldview and yes I would say that to their faces.

mattyrm wrote:
I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

Your Brit Card has been revoked.

You organize the absence of belief the same way you organize the belief in something: open bar.

I've heard the argument made that becuase atheists have some level of organization it is akin to a being a religion, and your argument seemed to be in the same vein as that.

Ahtman wrote:If just organizing is enough to be a religion than Fantasy Football is a religion.

There is also the fact that you are fething forcing everyone to be in this "Religion"!

I can accept the premise that someone who avows certainty could be accused of being in a Religion of some kind, because they would indeed need faith of a kind, someone who believes 100% that there definitely is nothing out there at all in any form, but how many non believers actually believe that? Most peoples issue with Religion comes from "people" trying to force their rules onto others, not the actual question of a god entity.

I care if Religious people want to stop me buying beer on a Sunday, I dont give a gak if there is a God or not! But under this premise, simply being utterly disinterested in the question "is there a God", or being ignorant of the big Religions or being agnostic (seems like the majority of citizens in Europe are this) are we all now being rounded up and forced into it?!

My lack of belief is the same as it always has been, I don't care enough about the answer to be bothered with the question! Maybe there is an afterlife and A God, maybe there isn't, I don't read scripture, I don't go to Churches, I don't pray, I reserve the right to change my mind if the evidence changes and I just want to spend my free time ignoring the whole premise, and go drinking in the pub, walking, working out and painting minis, does that mean I'm Religious?! I only get involved if they try to force rules upon me, not if they want to talk about what made everything.

And don't I get a say in the matter?!

This question has been brought up hundreds of times and it always annoys me because it always boils down to actual Religious people telling me that I am Religious and what I say or feel is irrelevant.

A lack of something can never ever BE something, no matter how much actual Religious people (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians etc etc etc) want it to be because they think it improves the validity of their argument.

Ahtman wrote:You organize the absence of belief the same way you organize the belief in something: open bar.

But only till 10, by that time everyone is too drunk to realize they're paying for the comped drinks in the form of inflated prices.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

Your Brit Card has been revoked.

Mate I actually like all that gak.. toss some ales into me and Ill eat anything!

I came out of Rock Bottom in Long Beach and troffed 3 of those nasty hot dogs and about 5 Taquitos while my (food snob) missus shook her head at me in utter disgust.

Then I went back to my room and washed a bag of gummi worms down with a can of Red Dog.

mattyrm wrote:
A lack of something can never ever BE something, no matter how much actual Religious people (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians etc etc etc) want it to be because they think it improves the validity of their argument.

Well, the absence of a belief can be a thing, an absence. Its fine the recognize that fact, and further point out that lots of people believe in the lack of that thing (distinct from the absence of a belief). The problem becomes that, when "atheism" is a religion, so is everything else, and that just turns the world into a UU paradise*; which no one wants.




*Disclaimer: I'm biased against UUs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Mate I actually like all that gak.. toss some ales into me and Ill eat anything!

I came out of Rock Bottom in Long Beach and troffed 3 of those nasty hot dogs and about 5 Taquitos while my (food snob) missus shook her head at me in utter disgust.

Then I went back to my room and washed a bag of gummi worms down with a can of Red Dog.

The Red Dog we can see eye to eye on, but anything that comes out of 7-Eleven that's warm by way of cooking is dreadful.

Then again, I'm from one of the two cities in the US that has its own "style" of hot dog, so I've been spoiled.

dogma wrote:
Well, the absence of a belief can be a thing, an absence. Its fine the recognize that fact, and further point out that lots of people believe in the lack of that thing (distinct from the absence of a belief). The problem becomes that, when "atheism" is a religion, so is everything else, and that just turns the world into a UU paradise*; which no one wants.

*Disclaimer: I'm biased against UUs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

I've not heard of Unitarian Universalism before so I had to google it.

Well, unless...

You weren't talking about the University of Ulster where you?

dogma wrote:

The Red Dog we can see eye to eye on, but anything that comes out of 7-Eleven that's warm by way of cooking is dreadful.

Then again, I'm from one of the two cities in the US that has its own "style" of hot dog, so I've been spoiled.

So the long haired colonel tells me, but there is nothing warm I wont eat from 7-eleven if im ten pints deep.

My missus loves Chicago Dogs, where's the other one from?

Ahtman wrote:... and your argument seemed to be in the same vein as that.

Nah, I just criticizing Melissia's dismissal of Polnius's point form earlier. Atheism is no religion.

mattyrm wrote:
So the long haired colonel tells me, but there is nothing warm I wont eat from 7-eleven if im ten pints deep.

If you haven't been to a White Castle, you're missing out on your long lost home.

mattyrm wrote:
My missus loves Chicago Dogs, where's the other one from?

New York, its not named after the city, but the style of the dog itself is pretty consistent; usually mustard and sauerkraut on top. Nathans is a good example.

Also, I found this abomination when I googled "hot dog":



The white stuff is mayonnaise.

Truly, Chile is an awful place.

Thread: Not all Christians believe all parts of it (they just blame the others for "misinterpreting"), but the Bible has a fair amount of currently irrelevant crap.