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.

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth:

The Church has existed for longer than the collection of texts known as the New Testament. (As has the Gospel, please keep in mind.) There can be no necessity to find a scriptural basis for theology and liturgy because these things predate scripture. It's not as if Christians put everything on hold until the Church Fathers got around to defining the canon.

Well its more or less concurrent as the foundation of the church is recorded in the Book of Acts, though I do see your point. However it was disagreed with by Paul, and possibly others from the earliest days.

Manchu wrote:In any case, the question is not authority to preach the gospel but rather authority to teach (interpret).

However there is no requirement for specific authority to teach or interpret as that is provided by the Holy Spirit and is not exclusive to ordained bishops.

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

Furrthermore this concept predates the New Covenant and thus was written Scripture before the Catholic Church was founded, raising question to the doctrine that Catholic authority predated authority from scripture.
From Psalm 25:

4-5 Show me your ways, LORD, teach me your paths. Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long......
8-9 Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in his ways. He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.

Manchu wrote:
The "Evangelical Alliance" is just an attempt to do what the Catholic Church has always done. Historically, definitively being a follower of Jesus Christ or not comes down to one thing: confession of the Nicene Creed. We don't need a council of Protestant sects to further clarify that issue.

Yes, however even the Nicene Creed is an extension of the basic message of salvation explained in Romans 10:9 -

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Ahtman wrote:Edit: I think I see the issue. We were talking about a subject (eastern/non-western religious movements) and referring to knowledge of those fields then you switched it up and used it to mean knowledge in general, thus throwing the conversation into a murky spot. I have no doubt you have a good amount of knowledge on a great many subjects.

I think this may well explain things - I didn't mean to be horrible

SilverMK2 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:How is it a strawman?

Because you are misrepresenting my position and ignoring most of what I am saying in favour of picking out your own informal fallacy.

I feel that is what you are doing, actually, so I imagine we are talking past each other. Not in malicious way, just that we are missing the point of eachother by a few degrees and if we were having this conversation it would probably be different.

Ahtman wrote:I feel that is what you are doing, actually, so I imagine we are talking past each other.

I posted before I saw your edit and feel that is indeed the case

Edit: Damn it, stop editing

*Agrees*

Orlanth wrote:Well its more or less concurrent as the foundation of the church is recorded in the Book of Acts, though I do see your point. However it was disagreed with by Paul, and possibly others from the earliest days.

No, Acts is generally thought to have been written about a generation (at the earliest) after the resurrection of Christ. The Church existed from the moment that it was founded by Jesus (I doubt I have to quote chapter and verse for you on that one). Paul did not take issue with the Church existing before the body of scripture. Note that Paul's epistles are to the churches in various parts of the world. How could he dispute that his letter to these communities came before the communities themselves?

Orlanth wrote:Furrthermore this concept predates the New Covenant and thus was written Scripture before the Catholic Church was founded, raising question to the doctrine that Catholic authority predated authority from scripture.

So you're basically saying that your personal interpretation of Pslam 25 authorizes you to personally interpret scripture? Bit of a tautology there.

Orlanth wrote:Yes, however even the Nicene Creed is an extension of the basic message of salvation explained in Romans 10:9

No, it is not. It is a very specific theological formulation that expressed the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers and, through them, all Christendom. And it continues to do so to this day.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Well its more or less concurrent as the foundation of the church is recorded in the Book of Acts, though I do see your point. However it was disagreed with by Paul, and possibly others from the earliest days.

No, Acts is generally thought to have been written about a generation (at the earliest) after the resurrection of Christ. The Church existed from the moment that it was founded by Jesus (I doubt I have to quote chapter and verse for you on that one). Paul did not take issue with the Church existing before the body of scripture. Note that Paul's epistles are to the churches in various parts of the world. How could he dispute that his letter to these communities came before the communities themselves?

I think you are missing the point, while the scriptures were written after the events they provide a historical record of the4 immediately preceding times. Secondly the communities mentioned are not 'Catholic church' either, formal Catholism came afterwards. Now in the early chruch might be the adopted ancenstry of Catholism, but certainly wasnt in reality. If you want evidence of that consider Priscilla and Aquilla, a married couple who ran a joint ministry, something that completely contradicts established Catholic doctrine from the outset.
If the early church as depicted in scripture is organised contrary to the doctrines of Catholicism then the early church is not orthodox Catholic. This puts paid to the idea that Catholcism predates scripture, instead we have the gospel times and early church, followed by the writing of Scripture and the formalisation of the Catholic church both, and most likely in that order.

Manchu wrote:Paul did not take issue with the Church existing before the body of scripture. Note that Paul's epistles are to the churches in various parts of the world. How could he dispute that his letter to these communities came before the communities themselves?

Now 'the church' existed before the publication of scripture, as you rightly say, but that now specifically means the body of Christ, as in accordance with the scriptural account and not the Roman Catholic church as an organisation. This is only confusing if one believes that the definition of Church means Roman Catholic church and that alone. Once that dogma is discarded the scroiipture immeidately makes a lot more sense. The Roman Catholic church is a part of 'the Church'/'the body of Christ', it would be unscriptural to consider otherwise, but the two are not directly synonymous.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Furthermore this concept predates the New Covenant and thus was written Scripture before the Catholic Church was founded, raising question to the doctrine that Catholic authority predated authority from scripture.

So you're basically saying that your personal interpretation of Pslam 25 authorizes you to personally interpret scripture? Bit of a tautology there.

Not just a 'personal interpretation' it is a promise written in plain text and echoed in the New and Old Testmanents. Some more examples

John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
John 16:13 – “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”
1 Corinthians 2:9-11 - “just as it is written, ‘Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.’ God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.”

Jesus' promise is that when He returns to the Father he will send the Holy Spirit, to be imparted on all believers. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is there to do many things including interpretation of scripture through personal revelation. Its quite wrong for a denomination to claim that interpretation should be through authorised priests alone when the Jesus himself says otherwise. Your position could only make sense if your beleive that the impartation of the Holy Spirit is for ordained Catholic priests alone; so far I have not heard recent Catholicism make that claim which is just as well.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes, however even the Nicene Creed is an extension of the basic message of salvation explained in Romans 10:9

No, it is not. It is a very specific theological formulation that expressed the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers and, through them, all Christendom. And it continues to do so to this day.

The book of Romans predates the Nicene creed by about two centuries. The council of Nicaea in 325AD was exceptionally important as it helped close out Arianism and was a symbol of cooperation between the western and eastern Church (Nicene Creed is as much Eastern Orthodox as Roman Catholic). However the Creed was not of itself needed to determine the methodology of salvation, scripture already did that and with a smaller subset of doctrines than the creed considered.
These scriptursds back up the methodology of salvation as described in in Romans 10:9

John 14:6 - "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Acts 4:12 - "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

and most of all:

Matthew 10:32 - "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven."

Now most Christians have no problem with the Nicene Creed or the Apostolic Creed, indeed the earliest version covered the above points neatly - salvation requires faith in the risen Christ, nothing more, nothing less. Later versions such as from the Council of Constantinople in 381 added stuff and while most Christians have little critique of the content untimately with regards to salvation much of it is extraneuos. For example later Creeds mention acknowledgement of the Virgin Mary, a belief in which is not a direct requirement for salvation according to the biblical account.

This is how groups like the Evangelical Alliance were helpful, as many denominations cannot agree which colour to paint a chair going back to the basics and acknowledging the common ground between all parts of the Church of Jesus Christ in order to enable people to clearly define those who are not.
This is important as some groups might share the same doctrine on Immaculate Conception as the Roman Catholic Church does, but may have deficient teaching in regards to salvation by grace via the ackowledgement of the dead and risen christ. Jehovahs Witnesses fall into this category. Meanwhile other groups might hold a different account of Marian theology yet preach a clear Gospel with regards to salvation by grace. This and methology of baptism are two core doctrines in later versions of the Nicene Creed where differing denominations hold differing views.

Orlanth wrote:I think you are missing the point, while the scriptures were written after the events they provide a historical record of the immediately preceding times.

No they don't. We do not know if they were intended by their authors to be literal accounts. We do know that the inclusion of four contradictory accounts in one canon means that the early Church did not take them as literal accounts any more than we currently do, which is to say not at all. Your assertion that the gospel narratives should be treated as historical records is a good example of why personal interpretation is silly.

Orlanth wrote:Secondly the communities mentioned are not 'Catholic church' either, formal Catholism came afterwards. Now in the early chruch might be the adopted ancenstry of Catholism, but certainly wasnt in reality.

Wrong yet again and just as obviously so. Just because an institution changes over time does not mean that it is not the same institution. The monarchy that reigns over your country, for example, is very different from the one that ruled over your country in years past. And yet there is also clearly continuity.

Orlanth wrote:If you want evidence of that consider Priscilla and Aquilla, a married couple who ran a joint ministry, something that completely contradicts established Catholic doctrine from the outset. If the early church as depicted in scripture is organised contrary to the doctrines of Catholicism then the early church is not orthodox Catholic. This puts paid to the idea that Catholcism predates scripture, instead we have the gospel times and early church, followed by the writing of Scripture and the formalisation of the Catholic church both, and most likely in that order.

To which doctrine are you referring? A married couple running a joint ministry is certainly not illicit as per any doctrine of the Catholic Church. If you had any actual experience of Catholicism, you would know that married couples are involved in running ministries all the time. Unfortunately, your argument relies upon misunderstanding and prejudice. In reality, the early Church was indeed the Catholic Church. Yes, bishops and basilicas (to say nothing of priests and pulpits) would come later, in the time of Peter's successors. (Yes, they are in fact an unbroken line: a man [Linus] was actually chosen by Peter, and that man chose another man [Cletus] to follow him, right down to Joseph Ratzinger today) Yes, the order of worship would change many times over the centuries, even as it continues to change today. But what you are reading about in Acts is a reflection on the early days of the Catholic Church all the same.

As for your further personal interpretation of scripture, no debate is necessary. You accept yourself as an exegetical authority and I do not.

Orlanth wrote:However the Creed was not of itself needed to determine the methodology of salvation, scripture already did that and with a smaller subset of doctrines than the creed considered.

By "methodology," I suppose you mean eschatology. Actually, the New Testament canon did not make this very clear. Many theologians debate the matter still. I think you'll be familiar with some of those arguments or at least their most furious debate -- which postdated the famous council at Nicea by over a thousand years.

I think that we can agree that Christianity is well enough identified by the Nicene Creed. Groups like the Church of Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses do not qualify, although they acknowledge an especially prominent role for Jesus in their teachings (which can of course also be said for Muslims). Catholics, who crafted and preserved the Creeed, certainly qualify -- but so do almost all Protestants.

Manchu wrote:We do know that the inclusion of four contradictory accounts in one canon means that the early Church did not take them as literal accounts any more than we currently do, which is to say not at all.

The four Gospels are not contradictory but complimentary.

We can ascertain this with an exercise. Put two actors on a stage and plant four people in the audience with notebooks and pens to record what happens honestly. The actors then perform a short sketch of words and actions.
If you compare the four accounts afterwards they will likely differ in some details, and may well do so without being false or contradictory.

It's certainly possible that various audience members would make notes which contradicted each other and the actual lines spoken. Things like names and dates are easily mixed up.

This would not make the original spoken lines false.

@Orlanth: In your example, the accounts are not necessarily false but they are in fact contradictory. That gets to the problem with how you're thinking about this. The question is not really "are they contradictory" because they are obviously contradictory. The question you're trying to answer is different. Your question is: do the contradictions matter?

It only matters if you want to claim that the gospels are literally true and form some kind of accurate historical record. If that's the case, then why did the Church Fathers -- who knew the scriptures as well as anyone since -- collect four accounts that differ so constantly as canonical? So if we say that Matthew is a literal account of what happened then we cannot also say that of Luke. One of them must be literally false to some extent.

If you believe, however, that the gospel narratives record a community's experience with the divine, then no -- of course the contradictions do not matter when it comes to the truth of the accounts. It doesn't matter that Jesus did X before Y in Mark and Y before X in Luke and neither of them at all in John but rather Z instead. It doesn't matter that Luke is full of geographical errors regarding the Holy Land or that the genologies differ. These things aren't the point.

@Kilkrazy: The issue is not with the "original spoken lines," or even the memory of their meaning preserved through the generations (Tradition), but rather a set of very specific accounts.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote: You can't be Catholic by yourself. There is no such thing as Christianity (in the Catholic sense) without the Church.

No? Can you not be Catholic by yourself in the jungle, or on a mountaintop, or in a prison surrounded by other people who don't share your religion (without access to a priest)? Can you not maintain the same beliefs and offer the same prayers? I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

I don't think you do understand given this comment:

Mannahnin wrote:It seems to me that there is a larger and more personal sacrifice, or "erasure of personal identity" asked of homosexuals by the Church.

Catholicism is a preservation of tradition by transmission throughout time via community, not only in terms of its "teachings" (which could be easily preserved by text alone) but of its "experience" of salvation. In a cosmological sense, we call this the "communion of saints." Communion is the key word. When one says "I am Catholic" one does not only express belief in certain dogmas but more importantly membership in a certain community by which we are all, all Christians in all times in unbroken succession from the days when Christ founded His Church, linked together. In Catholic theology, this isn't just a matter of ritual -- this is how salvation history proceeds. Disbanding the Church means no more Catholicism. From any religious point of view, whether or not you think people of your own sex are attractive is a rather petty consideration. (I don't know of any religion premised on sexual orientation.) The possibility of redemption, the relationship to the divine, the meaningfulness of suffering -- these, by contrast, are far more significant issues. I'd say it's at least as "large" and "personal" as asking people, both hetero- and homosexual, not to engage in illicit sex acts.

From my religious point of view (as well as my secular reasoning), a person's ability to express their sexuality, particularly within the context of a loving, adult, mutually-supportive relationship; is one of the most important things in life. One of the most precious gifts we are given as human beings. Not all people need it, but in general it is one of the central joys and cornerstones of our existence. If some religions refuse to acknowledge some people's right to that joy, and deem it "illicit" based on the genders involved, in my opinion that is a failing of those religions and a cruel injustice.

Returning to the concept of who is being asked to give up what, I think that the existence of the Nicene Creed and the common ground held between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches seems to indicate (at least to me as a non-Christian, who has often worshipped with pagans of other faiths which differed from mine) that Catholics would be able to continue worshipping in almost exactly the same way and living their lives in the same way if the Catholic Church as a monolithic institution were to be disbanded, its religious icons and relics distributed to other, like-minded churches, and its non-holy wealth distributed to the poor. So while I don't personally think that abolishing it is necessary or even would necessarily be a net good, I can allow how the people who think it would are not necessarily jerks.

Well, the Church is not monolithic -- except as it's presented in Hollywood. I don't know what else to say to communicate that the institution and the identity go together inextricably. I'd recommend reading up on the suppression of the Catholic Church in Britain and the resulting effect on the Catholic population, for example -- and you can see that the effects of that legal oppression are still being felt today in terms of prejudice as much as demographics. A Church is not some kind of club wherein the membership mingles but could do everything "important" in the privacy of their homes.

As to the idea of the teaching being cruel: if it's at all cruel then it's just as cruel to heterosexual couples who are not married. Their sexual relations are no less illicit than those of a homosexual couple. The main issue is the quality of the desire. Catholic teaching (as it currently stands) holds that sexual desire directed toward a member of the same sex as oneself is "disordered." This is an artifact of another teaching that the only purpose of sexual relations is procreation. But as of the last century, that teaching developed: sexual relations are not just procreative but also unitive. Who knows how, over the course of the next few centuries, this will affect the "official" view on homosexual desires. Remember, whether procreative or unitive, Catholicism holds that sex is only licit within the context of marriage. It is more than unlikely that the Church will ever, ineven a thousand years, acknowledge sacramental homosexual marriage. I don't see that as especially cruel.

Now we have to address how important these "official" positions are with regard to Catholics. Catholics are no more or less likely to be sexually active outside of marriage than any other group of people in their same society. And yet they still participate fully in their religious community. I think the same can be said of homosexual Catholics and know a fair few homosexual Catholics who go to mass regularly and are hopeful, as am I, that we will see development away from stigma just as we are hopeful for that same development in society more generally.

As for homosexuals who are not Catholic -- I'm not sure what the concern is. They don't care about the Church's teaching on any other issue. Why look for it's approval on this one? Finally, I think those who say the Church is a force for prejudice in the world are sadly ill-informed. As with any group, the loudest and most offensive Catholics are the ones invited to shoot their mouths off on TV. I can't stress enough how embarrassing this is for the rest of us.

Manchu wrote:A Church is not some kind of club wherein the membership mingles but could do everything "important" in the privacy of their homes.

Part of the original idea behind Ar nDraoicht Fein was that an organized religious and liturgical structure is a good thing, and that not everyone wants to be a priest/ess, which was the most common neopagan paradigm at the time, as in Wicca. So I definitely get the appeal and value of the larger structure and community. That being said, I can still worship and believe in my gods if and when I can't get to a Grove Meeting.

Manchu wrote:As to the idea of the teaching being cruel: if it's at all cruel then it's just as cruel to heterosexual couples who are not married.

Sort of. But not really, because of the points you make below about how lay Catholics practice their religion/live their lives, which has historically been with more acceptance of non-marital, non-procreative sex for heterosexuals. The Christian (or Abrahamic) opinion on homosexuality has led to things like what happened to Alan Turing. And that was in the 20th century; not the middle ages.

Manchu wrote:Their sexual relations are no less illicit than those of a homosexual couple. The main issue is the quality of the desire. Catholic teaching (as it currently stands) holds that sexual desire directed toward a member of the same sex as oneself is "disordered." This is an artifact of another teaching that the only purpose of sexual relations is procreation. But as of the last century, that teaching developed: sexual relations are not just procreative but also unitive. Who knows how, over the course of the next few centuries, this will affect the "official" view on homosexual desires. Remember, whether procreative or unitive, Catholicism holds that sex is only licit within the context of marriage. It is more than unlikely that the Church will ever, ineven a thousand years, acknowledge sacramental homosexual marriage. I don't see that as especially cruel.

I see it as significantly cruel. As you say, the Church has modified its teachings to recognize the unitive value of sex, within marriage, at least. Which is perhaps more than a little bit late to the party, IMO, but better late than never. Yet its teachings deny homosexuals the same unity, comfort, solace and joy with a spouse that you or I have with our wives. IMO this is unjust, and if I were gay and had grown up in that context (in a homophobic Catholic or Christian home) I would undoubtedly resent it and look with disfavor on the organization for perpetuating the injustice. Again, circling back the point about why the anger of someone like Stephen Fry might be understandable.

Manchu wrote:Now we have to address how important these "official" positions are with regard to Catholics. Catholics are no more or less likely to be sexually active outside of marriage than any other group of people in their same society. And yet they still participate fully in their religious community. I think the same can be said of homosexual Catholics and know a fair few homosexual Catholics who go to mass regularly and are hopeful, as am I, that we will see development away from stigma just as we are hopeful for that same development in society more generally.

Amen.

Manchu wrote:As for homosexuals who are not Catholic -- I'm not sure what the concern is. They don't care about the Church's teaching on any other issue. Why look for it's approval on this one?

They're not. Didn't you just do a whole bunch of talking about the massive weight of the Church's historical tradition and its unique place and authority in the history of Western civilization? If the Church (and its offshoots)'s teachings are the seeming progenitor, ongoing supporter, and authority by which people in one's culture hate or disdain or discriminate against you, I would think you might resent the Church for that.

The Catholic Church is not in a position deny homosexuals civil marriage. That is entirely up to the various states and nations. As to what the Church does deny: homosexuals cannot receive the sacrament of marriage. It is not possible, for any or all bishops including the bishop of Rome (the Pope), to redefine the concept of sacramental marriage as it is possible for a state to redefine what constitutes a civil marriage. To me, this cannot be considered cruel.

I don't begrudge any homosexual disdain for the Church's teachings regarding homosexual inclinations as "disorderd" or the shameful way that this can and has promoted prejudice -- despite the teaching. Please keep in mind that the teaching itself warns that prejudice in these cases is also gravely sinful What I do mourn is that a prominent gay person who feels oppressed by an institution can only respond by wanting to similarly oppress that same institution and all of its members. Arguments from vengeance don't get much traction with me -- but I am, after all, a Christian.

Manchu wrote:The Catholic Church is not in a position deny homosexuals civil marriage. That is entirely up to the various states and nations. As to what the Church does deny: homosexuals cannot receive the sacrament of marriage. It is not possible, for any or all bishops including the bishop of Rome (the Pope), to redefine the concept of sacramental marriage as it is possible for a state to redefine what constitutes a civil marriage. To me, this cannot be considered cruel.

I agree, assuming we ignore the history of the Church's past involvement in civil marriages, and the degree to which its concept of marriage still contributes to gay people not being able to get married in many places (including most of the US), or enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage in the US or other places. The way marriage has been limited and defined by the Christian concept of it in Western civilization has excluded and marginalized people. Again, I'm not saying the church is bad, but it has done bad things and been responsible for its direct or indirect followers doing more bad things.

Manchu wrote:I don't begrudge any homosexual disdain for the Church's teachings regarding homosexual inclinations as "disorderd" or the shameful way that this can and has promoted prejudice -- despite the teaching. Please keep in mind that the teaching itself warns that prejudice in these cases is also gravely sinful What I do mourn is that a prominent gay person who feels oppressed by an institution can only respond by wanting to similarly oppress that same institution and all of its members. Arguments from vengeance don't get much traction with me -- but I am, after all, a Christian.

Then forgive them when they err.

I still disagree that what he advocated can really be categorized as the same kind of oppression. The power relationship is utterly different.

You folks talk some pretty smart stuff. Normally I don't read through threads of this magnitude but as a Catholic... heck as a person in general I've taken an interest and will definitely have to subscribe/exalt to set aside for reading when I'm not so medicated.

djphranq wrote:You folks talk some pretty smart stuff. Normally I don't read through threads of this magnitude but as a Catholic... heck as a person in general I've taken an interest and will definitely have to subscribe/exalt to set aside for reading when I'm not so medicated.

The Catholic Church has resorted to drugging its members to stop them running away now?!?


Jokes

SilverMK2 wrote:

djphranq wrote:You folks talk some pretty smart stuff. Normally I don't read through threads of this magnitude but as a Catholic... heck as a person in general I've taken an interest and will definitely have to subscribe/exalt to set aside for reading when I'm not so medicated.

The Catholic Church has resorted to drugging its members to stop them running away now?!?


Jokes

Haha only if you've paid your membership dues of 23 Hail Mary's, 43 Our Father's, and 72 Nicene Creeds.

@Mannahnin: I think it's preposterous to add "failing to recognize homosexual marriage" to the list of alleged atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church. Marriage is not a social institution that anyone can freely participate in and it never has been. The idea that people who experience homosexual attraction should express that through marriage is pretty damn novel. It also makes absolutely no sense from any view of marriage conceived of before the late 20th century.

Manchu wrote:@Mannahnin: I think it's preposterous to add "failing to recognize homosexual marriage" to the list of alleged atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church.

I think it's preposterous to minimize the mistreatment of homosexuals by Christian and Abrahamic tradition and culture by just talking about the failure to recognize those people's right to get married and express their sexuality the same was as heterosexuals can. I just gave that example of one way in which they still treat homosexuals with injustice and discrimination.

Manchu wrote: Marriage is not a social institution that anyone can freely participate in and it never has been.

True. Different cultures and civiliations have defined it and restricted it in a lot of different ways. For example, pre-Christian Brehon law recognized nine different degrees of marriage, representing primarily varying levels of status and wealth between the partners, but also taking into account more than two people in the marriage and marriage between the mentally incompetent.

Manchu wrote:The idea that people who experience homosexual attraction should express that through marriage is pretty damn novel. It also makes absolutely no sense from any view of marriage conceived of before the late 20th century.

Both of those statements are demonstrably false, unless you are talking about only certain specific cultures.

Manchu wrote:Now we have to address how important these "official" positions are with regard to Catholics. Catholics are no more or less likely to be sexually active outside of marriage than any other group of people in their same society. And yet they still participate fully in their religious community. I think the same can be said of homosexual Catholics and know a fair few homosexual Catholics who go to mass regularly and are hopeful, as am I, that we will see development away from stigma just as we are hopeful for that same development in society more generally.

Then your not a Catholic surely? Im really not trolling you here, this my always the crux of my argument with regards to Religion. If you stop doing things that have always been the way things are, are you still a practitioner of said Religion?

I sat and read half the Koran while I was stuck in the sandbox. Some of the things in there are ridiculously offensive, you can find them easily.. hang on.

(Sura 4:34) If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them of the teaching of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Theres thousands like that, but anyways. The point is, if you dont agree with that stuff, are you really a Muslim?

I dont view the merry, friendly beer drinking, football shirt wearing British "Muslims" as Muslim. Who decides? Me or them? If all you have to do is decide, can I be a Muslim? Ill just say I am one, even if I dont pray ever, I drink booze and I eat bacon?

If the Catholic church has said for a thousand years "act like this" and then you just stop because the modern world is different, whats the point in being a Catholic? Are you really one? Why not just, believe whatever you like? When can I draw a line in the sand and say "your not one anymore"

What is a true Muslim? What is a true Christian? Cos as far as im concerned, if your a nice pleasant chap who likes gay people, treats women as equal and dont endlessly try to spread your holy book. Your neither a Muslim or a Catholic.

Fair assessment surely?

If not, from now on ive decided im a Muslim, and you cant say otherwise. And if you get ban happy because you dont like what ive said, its because your persecuting me as a Muslim and ill report you to the police.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:The idea that people who experience homosexual attraction should express that through marriage is pretty damn novel. It also makes absolutely no sense from any view of marriage conceived of before the late 20th century.

Both of those statements are demonstrably false, unless you are talking about only certain specific cultures.

Given my experience with Manchu, I imagine that he is using "marriage" in the strict, Western sense rather than the more general one which references a social union between two or more parties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Theres thousands like that, but anyways. The point is, if you dont agree with that stuff, are you really a Muslim?

That question is central to the internal controversies within nearly every religion in the world. Though its worth noting that the manner in which Islam maintains its traditions is not very much like the manner in which the Catholic Church does. Islam is much more open to dramatic, and sudden changes in what is considered orthodoxy because the division between Church and state has been, historically, less clear.

To simplify, there is no Islamic analogue to the Church, as an institution. When Islam has been institutionalized, it has generally done so as part of the state.

mattyrm wrote:
Who decides? Me or them? If all you have to do is decide, can I be a Muslim? Ill just say I am one, even if I dont pray ever, I drink booze and I eat bacon?

Both of you, and everyone else by extension. You are a Muslim if people treat you like a Muslim, and you behave in a manner which is consistent with what a Muslim would do.