NationStates Jolt Archive

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has criticised the Anglican Church and its leadership for its attitudes towards homosexuality.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4, he said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had failed to demonstrate that God is "welcoming".

He also repeated accusations that the Church was "obsessed" with the issue of gay priests.

He said it should rather be focusing on global problems such as Aids.

"Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict," said Archbishop Tutu, 76.

"God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

[...] He said the Anglican Church had seemed "extraordinarily homophobic" in its handling of the issue, and that he had felt "saddened" and "ashamed" of his church at the time.

Asked if he still felt ashamed, he said: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes.

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."


(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7100295.stm))

Good on Archbishop Tutu. Criticism from within will hopefully be most effective.

Unusual.
But the good kind of unusual :D

I sense another reformation coming on. The Anglican church is going to split.

Good on Archbishop Tutu. Criticism from within will hopefully be most effective.

He's a good man, is Tutu.

I like Desmond Tutu. He helps sustain my hope in christianity. *nod*
Edit: In fact, I''ll go one step further; He defies my opinion on organized religion, and for that, I thank him. :)

My hat is tipped to this man, excellent display of tolerance and a real understanding of what issues are more important.

What an idea! Focusing on issues that actually matter!

Archbishop Tutu is one of the few men of god I respect. I don't always agree with him, but I truly believe he is trying to make the world a better place.

Noble words, but it will lead to the end of the Anglican Communion's unity.

Now I'm just waiting for the epic duel between Tutu and the Anti-Tutu, Peter Akinola.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

Noble words, but it will lead to the end of the Anglican Communion's unity.

I seriously doubt Tutu is going to lose sleep over that.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

You finally found a clergyman you can't piss all over and it is upsetting you.

Shame on you for trying to pretend as if it isn't -you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

:)

My hat is tipped to this man, excellent display of tolerance and a real understanding of what issues are more important.

QFT!

but yeah, you couldn't really suspect the man with the gayest name ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballet_tutu) to be homophobic.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

Still playing at being the Mr. Blackwell of the Gay Rights Movement.

Still bitter and angry after all these years eh? Maybe you need to find a man so you can finally get that stick out of your ass.

;D

Take the one public Christian figure with significant public recognition who admits the Church has a problem with homophobia and is at least trying to shift the whole religion in a more progressive direction, then whine about how he's still part of the Conspiracy.

Seems you'd rather every Christian denomination stick to being raging homophobes like Fred Phelps and Peter Akinola, otherwise you wouldn't have one of your favorite scapegoats to moan and bitch about they oppress t3h g@yz.

Nietzche said something about hunting monsters long time ago. And the abyss has been eyeballing you for quite a while now.

You finally found a clergyman you can't piss all over and it is upsetting you.

I can piss all over him and his "Christians being douches against gay people - why, how extraordinary! We're otherwise known for being kindness incarnate when it comes to the fags!" blind ilk, and I just did so, as a matter of fact. Open your eyes, Mr. Tutu and the likes of him - there is nothing extraordinary about the Anglican Church being like this, at all. Your shame should have come a long, long time ago. Now it's just very, very little, very, very late.

Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't

No. Shame on the other Christians, whose homophobia or apathy about homophobia enables the reality to be as horrific as it is.

The fact that the efforts of people like Desmond Tutu are the real "extraordinary" element merely makes them more admirable, not less so. They have the basic human decency to recognize the grievous evil of condemning homosexuality... even if reconciling this recognition with the traditional and best-supported (in religious terms) stance of their religion requires some very questionable reasoning.

I can piss all over him and his "Christians being douches against gay people - why, how extraordinary! We're otherwise known for being kindness incarnate when it comes to the fags!" blind ilk, and I just did so, as a matter of fact. Open your eyes, Mr. Tutu and the likes of him - there is nothing extraordinary about the Anglican Church being like this, at all. Your shame should have come a long, long time ago. Now it's just very, very little, very, very late.

In the debate about Anglican views of homosexuality he has opposed Christian discrimination against homosexuals. Commenting days after the 5 August 2003 election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Desmond Tutu said, "In our Church here in South Africa, that doesn't make a difference. We just say that at the moment, we believe that they should remain celibate and we don't see what the fuss is about."

True, that was only 4 years ago, but from his choice of words, I wouldn't exactly call his position a recent revelation.

(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7100295.stm))

Good on Archbishop Tutu. Criticism from within will hopefully be most effective.

Props to him.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

There is no natural christian doctrine on homosexuality, the Bible is far too ambiguous on the subject. To say Christianity is inherently homophobic is rather... naive. I do admit though that there is a large portion of Christians, particularly in the USA, who are homophobic.

There is no natural christian doctrine on homosexuality, the Bible is far too ambiguous on the subject. To say Christianity is inherently homophobic is rather... naive. I do admit though that there is a large portion of Christians, particularly in the USA, who are homophobic.

An upsettingly large portion. :(

In the debate about Anglican views of homosexuality he has opposed Christian discrimination against homosexuals. Commenting days after the 5 August 2003 election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Desmond Tutu said, "In our Church here in South Africa, that doesn't make a difference. We just say that at the moment, we believe that they should remain celibate and we don't see what the fuss is about."

"Why, I'm so nice, I'm inclined to letting those fags among my midsts, as long as they, you know, don't actually do anything faggy like have sex with another man, while I'll be fucking my wife Leah's brains out every night and have four children as proof of it."

How kind and equal of you, Mr. Tutu.

True, that was only 4 years ago, but from his choice of words, I wouldn't exactly call his position a recent revelation.

All the more to make me resent his claim that this would be "extraordinarily homophobic" - he knows that it isn't, but yet would like to pretend that it is.

No. Shame on the other Christians, whose homophobia or apathy about homophobia enables the reality to be as horrific as it is.

The fact that the efforts of people like Desmond Tutu are the real "extraordinary" element merely makes them more admirable, not less so. They have the basic human decency to recognize the grievous evil of condemning homosexuality... even if reconciling this recognition with the traditional and best-supported (in religious terms) stance of their religion requires some very questionable reasoning.

I dunno. I think a loving attitude on the part of Christian religious authorities rather than a condemning one towards people who are homosexual is very well supported in religious terms.

"Love your neighbor..." -- That Jesus Guy

There is no natural christian doctrine on homosexuality, the Bible is far too ambiguous on the subject. To say Christianity is inherently homophobic is rather... naive.

To say that it isn't is rather ignorant of not only Christianity, but of history as well.

I do admit though that there is a large portion of Christians, particularly in the USA, who are homophobic.

It's very easy to be when their holy book tells them that fags are "abomination" whose "blood is upon them" and "are worthy of death" (the latter applies to lesbians as well - thank you Paul for not forgetting the carpet munchers as the book had been prone to do).

"Why, I'm so nice, I'm inclined to letting those fags among my midsts, as long as they, you know, don't actually do anything faggy like have sex with another man, while I'll be fucking my wife Leah's brains out every night and have four children as proof of it."

How kind and equal of you, Mr. Tutu.



All the more to make me resent his claim that this would be "extraordinarily homophobic" - he knows that it isn't, but yet would like to pretend that it is.

Keep in mind that he probably still is of the view that the purpose of sex is procreation. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it is one of many christian religion's defining views. So it would be natural from his perspective to expect homosexual clergymen to refrain from engaging in non-procreative sex. I'm not saying he's right, but it's not unreasonable from the perspective of his faith.

I think you're trying too hard. Relax and have a taco. :)

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/978/75028848.JPG

I dunno. I think a loving attitude on the part of Christian religious authorities rather than a condemning one towards people who are homosexual is very well supported in religious terms.

No, the best-supported one is pretty much the Catholic one... "We oppose, loudly and strongly, homosexuality and attempts to legitimate it, but homosexual people should be treated with love and kindness." (Non-celibate ones, too... but only the way all sinners are to be treated with love and kindness. Not so as to suggest that living in same-sex relationships is acceptable, because it's not.)

Desmond Tutu and the Episcopal Church in the US seem inclined to make the prohibition on same-sex intercourse a prohibition in name only... one that exists on the books, but only there, a "sin" that is ignored when it comes to actual action. That contradicts most honest interpretations of the Bible, not to mention centuries of tradition.

Not that I care. It doesn't really matter to me if the arguments against homophobia used every logical fallacy in the book, if they accomplish their objective.

To say that it isn't is rather ignorant of not only Christianity, but of history as well.


I'm sorry but the writings of Paul does not (or at least definitely shouldn't) define Christian doctrine, whether or not the vast majority of Christians insist on believing in this bullshit about the infallibility of the Bible. The early Church even rejected some of Paul's writings, and Paul contradicted himself multiple times. The whole point of his teachings, which the early Church was trying to get across, was this new enlightened way of thinking towards ethical issues, and a rejection of deontological legalism (which Jesus rejected, as well as Paul).

There is no natural christian doctrine on homosexuality, the Bible is far too ambiguous on the subject.

Leviticus is pretty explicit, so at the very least the God of the "old law" was rabidly homophobic (to the point of advocating the death penalty.) And aren't Biblical laws against sexual impropriety generally folded into Christian ethics through the Commandment against adultery?

Paul is pretty clear about it too... honestly I'm rather skeptical of all the ways gay-positive translators try to get around that. There's something to be said for accepting the interpretation of most mainstream translations today and throughout the history of the New Testament.

"Why, I'm so nice, I'm inclined to letting those fags among my midsts, as long as they, you know, don't actually do anything faggy like have sex with another man, while I'll be fucking my wife Leah's brains out every night and have four children as proof of it."

How kind and equal of you, Mr. Tutu.



All the more to make me resent his claim that this would be "extraordinarily homophobic" - he knows that it isn't, but yet would like to pretend that it is.

http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=owlfascinating9nu.jpg

Keep in mind that he probably still is of the view that the purpose of sex is procreation. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it is one of many christian religion's defining views. So it would be natural from his perspective to expect homosexual clergymen to refrain from engaging in non-procreative sex. I'm not saying he's right, but it's not unreasonable from the perspective of his faith.

How do you explain that he only has four children if he hasn't engaged in "non-procreative" sex? Leah's vagina would've been a clown car decades ago.

I think you're trying too hard. Relax and have a taco. :)

Kindly keep your bits and images of animal carcass to yourself, carnivore.

So it would be natural from his perspective to expect homosexual clergymen to refrain from engaging in non-procreative sex.

Except that he appears to have no problem with Gene Robinson's appointment.

I'm not saying he's right, but it's not unreasonable from the perspective of his faith.

That is not an excuse at all.

I can piss all over him and his "Christians being douches against gay people - why, how extraordinary! We're otherwise known for being kindness incarnate when it comes to the fags!" blind ilk, and I just did so, as a matter of fact. Open your eyes, Mr. Tutu and the likes of him - there is nothing extraordinary about the Anglican Church being like this, at all. Your shame should have come a long, long time ago. Now it's just very, very little, very, very late.

You remind me of an elephant my dad once knew. It always trampled its keeper when it was going to be fed.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.
"Anyone who matters?" Who's that, you? Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
QFT!

but yeah, you couldn't really suspect the man with the gayest name ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballet_tutu) to be homophobic.

I'd like to nominate you for the winning of this thread.
However, I contest your claim. I think this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Barbon)meets the criteria better.

((I'm not ducking out, but I have to fly. Take care, guys.))

I'm sorry but the writings of Paul does not (or at least definitely shouldn't) define Christian doctrine,

They do. Have you seen this place called the Vatican with this pleasant fellow called "Pope" whom most Christians adhere to? Big fans of Paul, not so much of Lennon.

whether or not the vast majority of Christians insist on believing in this bullshit about the infallibility of the Bible. The early Church even rejected some of Paul's writings, and Paul contradicted himself multiple times. The whole point of his teachings, which the early Church was trying to get across, was this new enlightened way of thinking towards ethical issues, and a rejection of deontological legalism (which Jesus rejected, as well as Paul).

Apologism. How novel.

No, the best-supported one is pretty much the Catholic one... "We oppose, loudly and strongly, homosexuality and attempts to legitimate it, but homosexual people should be treated with love and kindness." (Non-celibate ones, too... but only the way all sinners are to be treated with love and kindness. Not so as to suggest that living in same-sex relationships is acceptable, because it's not.)

Just so. Would you consider it loving for a person to be dishonest with you about their disapproval of your actions? It's hardly an act of hatred to honestly say, "Your actions are immoral of you do x or y," to a homosexual person any more than it would be an act of hatred to say that to a heterosexual person. And the Church tells heterosexuals that their actions are immoral if they do x or y quite frequently. For example, if they use contraception or have an abortion.

The problem comes in when Christians are malicious and hateful to people because of their views on the immorality of their actions, because then they're breaking a central commandment of Christ.

Desmond Tutu and the Episcopal Church in the US seem inclined to make the prohibition on same-sex intercourse a prohibition in name only... one that exists on the books, but only there, a "sin" that is ignored when it comes to actual action. That contradicts most honest interpretations of the Bible, not to mention centuries of tradition.

Nonetheless, the Catholic hierarchy has changed their traditional positions before. Historically, there were a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiments on the part of the Church, both in practice and on paper, and supported by scripture. Nowadays, there are Rabbis teaching at Catholic Universities and synagogues working together with parishes.

Not that I care. It doesn't really matter to me if the arguments against homophobia used every logical fallacy in the book, if they accomplish their objective.

Fair enough.

You remind me of an elephat my dad once knew. It always trampled its keeper when it was going to be fed.

You remind me of this person I saw on a forum once. He always used similes and metaphors incorrectly and that way never said anything of importance. His name was Johnny... oh, wait. Hello there!

They do. Have you seen this place called the Vatican with this pleasant fellow called "Pope" whom most Christians adhere to? Big fans of Paul, not so much of Lennon.


Yet the Catholics base their teachings much more on Aquinas' natural law then the Bible (where they derive their homosexuality being unnatural teaching from). The Bible plays little part in their ethical teachings (which is why the reformation happened).


Apologism. How novel.

Call it what you want, it's still the consensus amongst the vast majority of biblical scholars.

You remind me of this person I saw on a forum once. He always used similes incorrectly and that way never said anything of importance. His name was Johnny... oh, wait. Hello there!

Point being...?

Yet the Catholics base their teachings much more on Aquinas' natural law then the Bible (where they derive their homosexuality being unnatural teaching from). The Bible plays little part in their ethical teachings (which is why the reformation happened).wtf

wtf

What part exactly was so confusing? That the Catholics base their ethical teachings on Aquinas' natural law? Or that this caused a reformation (granted the latter could be perceived as being slightly more tenuous)?

Yet the Catholics base their teachings much more on Aquinas' natural law then the Bible (where they derive their homosexuality being unnatural teaching from). The Bible plays little part in their ethical teachings (which is why the reformation happened).

Hilarious.

Call it what you want, it's still the consensus amongst the vast majority of biblical scholars.

Yeah, right.

What part exactly was so confusing? That the Catholics base their ethical teachings on Aquinas' natural law? Or that this caused a reformation (granted the latter could be perceived as being slightly more tenuous)?

Don't you know? "WTF" stands for, "Well, that's factual."

Hilarious.


Even if this wasn't true (which it is), it doesn't mean anything. Why should anyone consider the vatican as the definers of Christian doctorine?

Even if this wasn't true (which it is), it doesn't mean anything.

Oh, I do love a good "those Catholics don't really care about the Bible" discussion. No, wait, what I meant to say is, I would have loved one, had I been a propagandist protestant and lived four centuries ago and thus been receptive to such nonsense.

Why should anyone consider the vatican as the definers of Christian doctorine?

I needn't confine myself to the Vatican - protestants have their fair share of gay bashers, too, and you mentioned those in the USA (quite numerous), and don't get me started on the socially antediluvian escapades of the Orthodox churches - but it is a fact that the majority of Christians are Catholics. Democratically speaking, they are representative of Christians and Christianity.

Just so. Would you consider it loving for a person to be dishonest with you about their disapproval of your actions?

Of course not. They should absolutely be honest about their bigotry. I have always maintained so.

I would prefer, of course, that they not be bigoted at all. But better truth than lies.

It's hardly an act of hatred to honestly say, "Your actions are immoral of you do x or y," to a homosexual person any more than it would be an act of hatred to say that to a heterosexual person.

Not necessarily of "hatred." But not all bigotry is hatred.

The problem is that the Catholic Church asserts that gays and bisexuals lack the moral right to live full, decent lives, simply because of the nature of same-sex relationships... and that is bigoted however many "love the sinner, hate the sin" evasions we want to go through.

And the Church tells heterosexuals that their actions are immoral if they do x or y quite frequently. For example, if they use contraception or have an abortion.

Yes, but opposite-sex relationships as such are not condemned. Nor is opposite-sex attraction attacked as intrinsically disordered.

The problem comes in when Christians are malicious and hateful to people because of their views on the immorality of their actions, because then they're breaking a central commandment of Christ.

Yes, but this problem applies just as much to being malicious and hateful towards murderers.

Nonetheless, the Catholic hierarchy has changed their traditional positions before.

Not openly. Not in so public and well-documented a case. And only insofar as the Catholic hierarchy violates its own rules.

Historically, there were a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiments on the part of the Church, both in practice and on paper,

More in practice than on paper. And the "paper" wasn't equivalent to the teaching on homosexuality, which is a moral teaching and technically infallible.

and supported by scripture.

I've made no real study of this question, but my impression is that the anti-Semitism of the New Testament is rather less clear-cut than its condemnations of homosexuality.

Fair enough.

Actually, what I said, on second thought, is not exactly true. I think truth is preferable to deception, of oneself or others.. so it bothers me, and on occasion when dealing with liberal Christians and Jews whose opinions of homosexuality I know won't change, I'll make the argument as I'm making it now. But not enough to oppose the efforts of people like Desmond Tutu.

Democratically speaking, they [Catholics] are representative of Christians and Christianity.
I'm going to ignore the rest, and pretend this is Fass's way of agreeing with things I believe.
Actually, why should I stop with Fass? Everything is so much happier this way.

Actually, what I said, on second thought, is not exactly true. I think truth is preferable to deception, of oneself or others.. so it bothers me, and on occasion when dealing with liberal Christians and Jews whose opinions of homosexuality I know won't change, I'll make the argument as I'm making it now. But not enough to oppose the efforts of people like Desmond Tutu.

I'm not opposing the efforts of Mr. Tutu, either, but I never forget that even if he is the lesser of an evil, he is still an adherent of a religion that says I deserve death. For some strange reason, I can't pretend that away (nor what it has led to time and time again in history) as easily as some Christians do to stomach their religion, which they absolutely must believe is "good" and "nice" and whatnot.

I'm not opposing the efforts of Mr. Tutu, either, but I never forget that even if he is the lesser of an evil, he is still an adherent of a religion that says I deserve death. For some strange reason, I can't pretend that away (nor what it has led to time and time again in history) as easily as some Christians do to stomach their religion, which they absolutely must believe is "good" and "nice" and whatnot.

Do you have as much hatred for the Jews and Muslims as you have for the Christians?

I have never heard of any Christian denomination that said homosexuals deserve to be put to death.

Oh, I do love a good "those Catholics don't really care about the Bible" discussion. No, wait, what I meant to say is, I would have loved one, had I been a propagandist protestant and lived four centuries ago and thus been receptive to such nonsense.


And I do hate it when you make absolutely absurd strawmen. I never said that Catholics don't care about the Bible, much of their philosophy is derived from that of course, as well as their fundamental principles. It is a well known fact that Catholics choose not to rely fully on the Bible on their ethical teachings however (since doing so would create a huge amount of problems due to all the contradictions), it is a well known fact that the natural law is where they derive their ethics from. If this isn't true then refute it, rather then using your same old rhetoric.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

"The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life"

Of course the Vatican place importance on biblical "laws", mainly the Golden rule. But it's difficult to apply the Golden rule to a lot of ethical dilemmas, which is why the natural law is used. All their teachings on sexual ethics is pretty much based completely on natural law.


I needn't confine myself to the Vatican - protestants have their fair share of gay bashers, too, and you mentioned those in the USA (quite numerous) - but it is a fact that the majority of Christians are Catholics. Democratically speaking, they are representative of Christians.

Yes, but doctrines change over time. The majority of Christians used to be massively anti semetic, not anymore. The majority of Christians used to still think women should cover their heads in Church, not anymore. Just because one particular doctrine is the most popular doctrine at the moment, doesn't make it THE doctrine.

Do you have as much hatred for the Jews and Muslims as you have for the Christians?

Oh, I don't hate the people, I hate their religions. Remember, "hate the sin, not the sinner".

I have never heard of any Christian denomination that said homosexuals deserve to be put to death.

Probably due to presbycusis. Or quite selective such. Or, for some reason pretending that what the Bible says isn't relevant to Christianity. As I said, I can't pretend their holy book away as easily as you can.

And I do hate it when you make absolutely absurd strawmen. I never said that Catholics don't care about the Bible, much of their philosophy is derived from that of course, as well as their fundamental principles.[..snip...]

And the Bible supports them in this case. That's all that needs to be said, really. You might have had a very, very slight point if the Bible didn't, but it does.

Yes, but doctrines change over time. The majority of Christians used to be massively anti semetic, not anymore. The majority of Christians used to still think women should cover their heads in Church, not anymore. Just because one particular doctrine is the most popular doctrine at the moment, doesn't make it THE doctrine.

But when the holy book says they're "abomination" and "kill them", I am not inclined to fooling myself that Christianity is pleasant. I need not apologise for it as you do through convoluted and laughable contortions. It says what it says, and you can't rubber it out.

That was nice of him.

Oh, I don't hate the people, I hate their religions. Remember, "hate the sin, not the sinner".

You know Fass, after reading your posts here, your posts Monday that got the Veterans Day thread locked, and other posts you have made, I do not believe you. Your posts reveal you are full of hate, bigotry, prejudice and loathing for Christians, Americans, and the military. I sometimes wonder if you even like yourself.

I sincerely hope you get over it and can accept people you may disagree with. You need to have respect for differing points of view even if you disagree with that view. You need to have compassion for others and understand that they hold different views of things than you do. I wish you the best Fass but you can't have the best if you are full of hate. Peace.

Oh, I don't hate the people, I hate their religions. Remember, "hate the sin, not the sinner".

Actually, you seem to do both.

And the Bible supports them in this case. That's all that needs to be said, really. You might have had a very, very slight point if the Bible didn't, but it does.


The Bible might support the idea that it's reasonable to use rationalism in making ethical decisions. But that doesn't mean that it supports

a) Aquinas' methods and
b) Any of the Vatican's explicit moral imperatives

Which was my point.


But when the holy book says they're "abomination" and "kill them", I am not inclined to fooling myself that Christianity is pleasant. I need not apologise for it as you do through convoluted and laughable contortions. It says what it says, and you can't rubber it out.

But you are inclined into fooling yourself that Christianity = biblical evangelicalism. There is no reason to believe this, the NT rejects the legalism of the OT. Even the OT contradicts itself constantly, there are two creation stories that even contradict each other.

But you are inclined into fooling yourself that Christianity = biblical evangelicalism. There is no reason to believe this, the NT rejects the legalism of the OT. Even the OT contradicts itself constantly, there are two creation stories that even contradict each other.
It's weird how fundamentalists and anti-Christians have the same concept of what the religion is.

It's weird how fundamentalists and anti-Christians have the same concept of what the religion is.
Le plus ça change, le plus c'est le même chose etc. etc.

*snip*
Goodbye, Mr. Kool-Aid Man. Come back anytime, and trounce us with your words of wisdom. (Don't forget to bring Kool-Aid, next time.)

*bursts in like the Kool-Aid man*

Okay...

First of all to the Archbishop: thank you sir. Not just for taking a positive stand for human rights, but also for having the balls to say "my religion was wrong". I applaud you sir; you win the internet today.

Second...

...I'm rather intrigued and at the same time disturbed at how quickly this thread has degenerated from a relevant and rather uplifting topic to a pain-inducing, done-to-death religious headbuttery bashfest. I must address Fass in this regard...

DUDE! He's friggin' on YOUR SIDE and you still bitch? A religious leader says the actions of his religion toward gays are wrong AND STILL you...I mean...for the love of all things reasonable! I can't even describe how much this kind of juvenile nonsense pisses me off...

*sigh*

I hate to exacerbate the problem but COME ON!

...

I'll stop now before I get upset, plus I have to study for a test tomorrow and genetics won't figure itself out...

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time.

Not necessarily of "hatred." But not all bigotry is hatred.

The problem is that the Catholic Church asserts that gays and bisexuals lack the moral right to live full, decent lives, simply because of the nature of same-sex relationships... and that is bigoted however many "love the sinner, hate the sin" evasions we want to go through.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with the typical "love the sinner, hate the sin" stance in this case.

I don't recall the Catholic Church asserting that gays and bisexuals lack the moral right to live a full, decent life. And I have the Catechism open to the relevant section, but still I can't find that statement.

Yes, but opposite-sex relationships as such are not condemned. Nor is opposite-sex attraction attacked as intrinsically disordered.

Quite true. Lust and masturbation are the only other sexual inclinations that I know of that are listed as being intrinsically disordered, both of which apply to people in general. So pretty much everyone has inclinations to certain kinds of acts that are attacked as intrinsically disordered by the Catholic Church.

Of course, theft is also immoral according to Catholic teaching. Wouldn't kleptomaniacs, people who have an unavoidable inclination to steal, also be the victims of bigotry on the part of the Church because they have that desire?

Yes, but this problem applies just as much to being malicious and hateful towards murderers.

Indeed. Or thieves. Or those who take advantage of the poor, etc.

Not openly. Not in so public and well-documented a case. And only insofar as the Catholic hierarchy violates its own rules.

So the Church's endorsement of evolution wasn't a public and well-documented case of it changing traditional views?

More in practice than on paper. And the "paper" wasn't equivalent to the teaching on homosexuality, which is a moral teaching and technically infallible.

Infallible because it was an ex cathedra teaching or because it was the simultaneous teaching of all the Bishops?

I've made no real study of this question, but my impression is that the anti-Semitism of the New Testament is rather less clear-cut than its condemnations of homosexuality.

I would agree with that assessment. And it makes sense, because the early Christians included a fair number of Jews.

Actually, what I said, on second thought, is not exactly true. I think truth is preferable to deception, of oneself or others.. so it bothers me, and on occasion when dealing with liberal Christians and Jews whose opinions of homosexuality I know won't change, I'll make the argument as I'm making it now. But not enough to oppose the efforts of people like Desmond Tutu.

Flip-flopper! ;)

But seriously, there's nothing wrong with honestly re-considering one's views. That's something the Catholic Church could use more of, IMO.

Second...

...I'm rather intrigued and at the same time disturbed at how quickly this thread has degenerated from a relevant and rather uplifting topic to a pain-inducing, done-to-death religious headbuttery bashfest. I must address Fass in this regard...

DUDE! He's friggin' on YOUR SIDE and you still bitch? A religious leader says the actions of his religion toward gays are wrong AND STILL you...I mean...for the love of all things reasonable! I can't even describe how much this kind of juvenile nonsense pisses me off...

To be fair, I'm not sure how the Bishop is on Fass' side.

The Bible might support the idea that it's reasonable to use rationalism in making ethical decisions. But that doesn't mean that it supports

a) Aquinas' methods and
b) Any of the Vatican's explicit moral imperatives

Which was my point.

Which is completely irrelevant, of course.

But you are inclined into fooling yourself that Christianity = biblical evangelicalism.

You needn't be an evangelical to see what is written in the Bible.

There is no reason to believe this, the NT rejects the legalism of the OT.

It doesn't, the Jesus figure says so himself (again, another bit some Christians like to pretend away - I am always amused by that kind of Christian who doesn't read the Bible to see what it actually says, but to find ways to ignore all inconvenient bits about the law and its unchanging jots and tittles and all the awfulness), but the NT does say that the fags and dykes deserve death, so you can't even use that false argument of "the OT doesn't apply to Christians, no matter how often they use it to justify their behaviour" to make it go away. *cue more apologism*

Even the OT contradicts itself constantly, there are two creation stories that even contradict each other.

I never said that the Bible wasn't a bunch of crock. It is. But if you're gonna be a Christian, you can't think so. It's supposed to be your holy book and your holy book says - both in the NT and the OT, so again don't give me that Jesus-denying crap that the OT doesn't apply - that I deserve death.

I have much more respect for the Christians that own up to the fact that it does that and they love their deity no matter how douchy and unlovable he is (or who end up leaving the religion as they should), than those wishy-washy ones who like to pretend it's all lovey-dovey goodness incarnate and that Christianity doesn't have some horribly distasteful parts to it. How difficult is it to worship pure goodness? Not very difficult, so I do understand the stance, but I also see it for the spineless act that it is.

*snip*

I'd never thought I'd say this, but...
Thank God you are not a Christian.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but...
Thank God you are not a Christian.

I don't think that will bother Fass much somehow

I don't think that will bother Fass much somehow

No, probably not. :D

To be fair, I'm not sure how the Bishop is on Fass' side.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. From what I gathered from the Archbishop...

Asked if he still felt ashamed, he said: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes."

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

...he sounds like he's for welcoming all people, regardless of sexual orientation, and that he's ashamed of what the Anglican church has done in regards to sexual orientation.

...I figured, as far as gay rights goes, he and Fass could agree on something.

Or am I completely missing the point and you meant something else (which, considering my level of attentiveness is completely...ooh a birdie!).

Le plus ça change, le plus c'est le même chose etc. etc.

It's: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Not "le plus" (which means "most" and not "more") and not "le chose".

but also for having the balls to say "my religion was wrong".

He doesn't say that.

DUDE! He's friggin' on YOUR SIDE and you still bitch?

He's not on my side. Just because he's an "enemy" of my worse "enemies" doesn't mean he's any friend of mine.

A religious leader says the actions of his religion toward gays are wrong AND STILL you...I mean...for the love of all things reasonable! I can't even describe how much this kind of juvenile nonsense pisses me off...

He doesn't say his religion is wrong. He says that he's willing to ignore his religion because there are "worse" things out there than homosexuality (gee, thank you Mr. Tutu - my sexuality isn't quite leprosy, it's more like a case of diarrhoea!), and he also pretends that it is somehow an "extraordinary" example of their homophobia they displayed, which it isn't. It isn't extraordinary in any sense.

It's: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Not "le plus" (which means "most" and not "more") and not "le chose".
Right. OK.
He's not on my side. Just because he's an "enemy" of my worse "enemies" doesn't mean he's any friend of mine.
I feel you're being pretty ingrateful about the issue, to be honest.

An archbishop tells his various deacons and the rest of it that they shouldn't be so homophobic, and what do you do?

Throw it in their face.

Nice one, Fass. Smoooth.

Which is completely irrelevant, of course.


Then why bring up the vatican in the first place.


You needn't be an evangelical to see what is written in the Bible.


But you need to be one to believe in all of it.


It doesn't, the Jesus figure says so himself

Nope. I know the verse you constantly refere to, and that certainly doesn't mean what you think it does.


(again, another bit some Christians like to pretend away - I am always amused by that kind of Christian who doesn't read the Bible to see what it actually says, but to find ways to ignore all inconvenient bits about the law and its unchanging jots and tittles and all the awfulness), but the NT does say that the fags and dykes deserve death

No, no it doesn't. Not even Paul says that, he just describes it as unnatural. But as I have explained to you already (and which you have failed to refute), Paul does not define christian doctorine.


I never said that the Bible wasn't a bunch of crock. It is. But if you're gonna be a Christian, you can't think so.

Yes you can. That is the whole point.


I have much more respect for the Christians that own up to the fact that it does that and they love their deity no matter how douchy and unlovable he is (or who end up leaving the religion as they should)

Any educated Christian will know what the Bible says. Yet I don't know a single Christian who has ever studied the Bible thoroughly and believes everything it says.


than those wishy-washy ones who like to pretend it's all lovey-dovey goodness incarnate and that Christianity doesn't have some horribly distasteful parts to it.

No one is denying that there are unpleasent parts of the Bible.


How difficult is it to worship pure goodness? Not very difficult, so I do understand the stance, but I also see it for the spineless act that it is.

(Accepting for the sake of argument) so what? This still doesn't mean that there is any natural Christian doctorine.

I feel you're being pretty ingrateful about the issue, to be honest.

I have nothing to be grateful for from that man. I benefit from his stances in no way whatsoever.

An archbishop tells his various deacons and the rest of it that they shouldn't be so homophobic, and what do you do?

Throw it in their face.

Nice one, Fass. Smoooth.

I'm not in the habit of circle jerking Johnny-come-latelies (not the same thing as Johnny-cum-latelies, mind you) who when they're supposed to be on "my side" still use the argument "there are worse things out there" (fuck you, Tutu!) and who in the same vein try to make it seem as if what they are objecting to is somehow unique and that just now should they have had their eyes opened to it.

He doesn't say his religion is wrong. He says that he's willing to ignore his religion because there are "worse" things out there than homosexuality (gee, thank you Mr. Tutu - my sexuality isn't quite leprosy, it's more like a case of diarrhoea!), and he also pretends that it is somehow an "extraordinary" example of their homophobia they displayed, which it isn't. It isn't extraordinary in any sense.

I shall re-read the article and determine this myself.

Goodbye, Mr. Kool-Aid Man. Come back anytime, and trounce us with your words of wisdom. (Don't forget to bring Kool-Aid, next time.)

Wisdom? Comrade, wisdom is for old hermits on mountain forts! I'm more like a one-man peanut gallery. ;)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. From what I gathered from the Archbishop...

...I figured, as far as gay rights goes, he and Fass could agree on something.

There's the crux of the point. The Bishop might agree with Fass on the issue of homophobia, but that hardly puts them on the same side.

Are Iran and the US on the same side because both countries have populaces that are widely homophobic?

I'm not in the habit of circle jerking Johnny-come-latelies (not the same thing as Johnny-cum-latelies, mind you) who when they're supposed to be on "my side" still use the argument "there are worse things out there" (fuck you, Tutu!)

To be honest Fass, given your personality, saying of you that "there are worse things out there" is being rather nice.

There's the crux of the point. The Bishop might agree with Fass on the issue of homophobia, but that hardly puts them on the same side.

Are Iran and the US on the same side because both countries have populaces that are widely homophobic?

I thought as much after Fass' reply. Nevertheless such a reaction is disheartening.

I have nothing to be grateful for from that man. I benefit from his stances in no way whatsoever.
Yet you lose out in no way whatsoever, and at least this guy is trying to be a shining beacon of mediocracy in a vast ocean of crapulence, in terms of gay rights.
I'm not in the habit of circle jerking Johnny-come-latelies (not the same thing as Johnny-cum-latelies, mind you) who when they're supposed to be on "my side" still use the argument "there are worse things out there" (fuck you, Tutu!) and who in the same vein try to make it seem as if what they are objecting to is somehow unique and that just now should they have had their eyes opened to it.
There's the focus. Come on, Fass, loosen up on the issue a bit. You hate religion. Yes. This guy is trying to make it something less worthy of hate. Give it a break for once.

To be honest Fass, given your personality, saying of you that "there are worse things out there" is being rather nice.

Did you seriously just jump into a thread for the purpose of making a personal attack?

Either way, don't do it again.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

"there are worse things out there" (fuck you, Tutu!)

He didn't say that in the article, where did he say that?

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.": Not a homophobe

"It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.": Homosexuality is a choice.

Then why bring up the vatican in the first place.

They represent the majority of Christians, they contend that homosexuality is yucky and abomination and all that crap, and the Bible supports them in it. Everything else you brought up is irrelevant to that.

But you need to be one to believe in all of it.

That's how they're the more honest and in a weird way respectable Christians because they actually adhere to Christianity instead of some lully, feel-good, easy to worship nonsense they concocted in their own heads instead of what the Bible actually says. If more Christians were willing to open their eyes to that, there'd be less Christians around, true, but I don't exactly mind that - that's what I want. That's what I want of all the religions.

Nope. I know the verse you constantly refere to, and that certainly doesn't mean what you think it does.

It means what it says. Exactly what you'd and many Christians like to pretend away. That the law hasn't changed. It's inconvenient to you that the law still applies, so you ignore it - hey, I don't blame you, it's crazy, but you're not being honest Christians when you cherry pick like that.

No, no it doesn't. Not even Paul says that, he just describes it as unnatural.

"Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Really, now - when are you going to start being honest about what the Bible says?

But as I have explained to you already (and which you have failed to refute), Paul does not define christian doctorine.

The Bible does, and it does say kill the fags. Looky there ^.

Yes you can. That is the whole point.

You certainly "can" in the sense of doing it despite it being intellectually dishonest, but then you're not much of a Christian if you have to ignore the holy book to stomach Christianity. Perhaps another religion would suit you more, or none.

Any educated Christian will know what the Bible says. Yet I don't know a single Christian who has ever studied the Bible thoroughly and believes everything it says.

Though I do know many who like to pretend and deceive that it doesn't say what it says.

No one is denying that there are unpleasent parts of the Bible.

You're just ignoring them and going "pay no attention to them" when most Christians actually do pay attention to them. The intellectually honest ones own up to paying attention, while the rest try to argue that they shouldn't because... it gives you a bad image nowadays. PR trickery, basically.

(Accepting for the sake of argument) so what? This still doesn't mean that there is any natural Christian doctorine.

Doctrine, please. And it means that the Bible and thus Christianity say certain things you can't deny that they say. Try to obfuscate as you do, in that PR goal of yours.

Yet you lose out in no way whatsoever, and at least this guy is trying to be a shining beacon of mediocracy in a vast ocean of crapulence, in terms of gay rights.

I don't lower my standards or expectations comparatively to some other "greater evil" or "not as bad as"-ness, like Mr. Tutu, if you hadn't noticed.

There's the focus. Come on, Fass, loosen up on the issue a bit. You hate religion. Yes. This guy is trying to make it something less worthy of hate.

A stillborn endeavour if ever there were one.

Give it a break for once.

Nope, and you do know you're free not to read what I write if it annoys you so, you know. At least, I hope you are.

He didn't say that in the article, where did he say that?

"Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict," said Archbishop Tutu, 76."

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

I don't lower my standards or expectations comparatively to some other "greater evil" or "not as bad as"-ness, like Mr. Tutu, if you hadn't noticed.
Perhaps you ought to.
A stillborn endeavour if ever there were one.
Then why the hell are you whining, instead of just accepting fate is it's predetermined to be, as you believe?
Nope, and you do know you're free not to read what I write if it annoys you so, you know. At least, I hope you are.
Well yes, you're just being a complete tit about the issue.

I see this as a theological issue and nothing more. No doubt Tutu will attract the praise and admiration of a great many of those who deem themselves Christian but cannot reconcile themselves to what is an ultimately anachronistic faith, however the simple fact is that Tutu is wrong to suggest that "God", as Christianity paints him, is anything other than homophobic. He is a construct designed to perpetuate social order that was inherited from ancient Judaism, and has little place in the modern world.

Perhaps you ought to.

Nah, my standards are low enough as they are by a Scandinavian perspective (I've given the CoS a pass over their blessings of gay unions, unequal and stop-gap as they are), and I'm not interested in lowering them further.

Then why the hell are you whining, instead of just accepting fate is it's predetermined to be, as you believe?

This is called a "discussion forum". I don't think Mr. Tutu is all that deserving of being circle-jerked, and voice my opinion thereto. That's discussed and argued over. Where are you getting lost in this?

Well yes, you're just being a complete tit about the issue.

And in my opinion you're being a bigger tit for bitching (ha!) about my bitching. Though, I do enjoy the irony.

They represent the majority of Christians, they contend that homosexuality is yucky and abomination and all that crap, and the Bible supports them in it. Everything else you brought up is irrelevant to that.


We are going around in circles. I have shown you that:

1) Their belief against homosexuality is based on the natural law, don't believe me then look it up.

2) Majority consensus changes.


That's how they're the more honest and in a weird way respectable Christians because they actually adhere to Christianity

Oh my fucking God. I am so sick of this shit Fass. You keep peddling the same crap over and over and over again.


instead of some lully, feel-good, easy to worship nonsense they concocted in their own heads instead of what the Bible actually says.

Or maybe (as the vast overwhelming majority of anyone who has ever studied the Bible properly would agree) they don't think the Bible is actually infallible.


It means what it says. Exactly what you'd and many Christians like to pretend away. That the law hasn't changed. It's inconvenient to you that the law still applies, so you ignore it - hey, I don't blame you, it's crazy, but you're not being honest Christians when you cherry pick like that.


And you don't know exactly what it says. But just to make sure we are thinking of the same verse, what verse are you actually referring to?


"Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."


This applies to all sinners, and in fact everyone, since everyone is supposedly born with original sin anyway according to the Bible.


The Bible does, and it does say kill the fags. Looky there ^.


The Bible is a collection of different writings, and they clash with each other all the time. There is no reason to believe everything each and every writer says, if you did you would constantly be contradicting yourself anyway.


You certainly "can" in the sense of doing it despite it being intellectually dishonest, but then you're not much of a Christian if you have to ignore the holy book to stomach Christianity.

No, it is not intellectually dishonest. Biblical scholars have shown that the early books of the OT is not written by Moses or David or whatever, but is written by various different sources (Priestly, Yahwistic etc...) which all clash with each other. They have shown that they are completely influenced by culture and their surroundings, and that believing that these writings are historical and scientific fact is just completely naive. But if you think that it is intellectually honest to believe the earth is flat, and that the sky is just a huge ocean above us simply because it says so in the Bible, then go ahead and be a moron. Anyone who studies the Bible will see that, at the very least, the creation stories are a load of shit, and not the other way round.

Perhaps another religion would suit you more, or none.


I'm an atheist.


Though I do know many who like to pretend and deceive that it doesn't say what it says.


Great.


You're just ignoring them and going "pay no attention to them" when most Christians actually do pay attention to them. The intellectually honest ones own up to paying attention, while the rest try to argue that they shouldn't because... it gives you a bad image nowadays. PR trickery, basically.


No one is ignoring them, they are simply debunking and illegitimising what they say so much that anyone who does believe in this crap is "intellectually dishonest."


Doctrine, please. And it means that the Bible and thus Christianity says certain things you can't deny that they say. Try to obfuscate as you do, in that PR goal of yours.

Flaw.

"Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict," said Archbishop Tutu, 76."

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

He is saying that there are more important issues out there. And yes, there are vastly more important issues then whether the Church should allow gay vicars. This doesn't mean he thinks that homosexuality itself is bad, quite the contrary, and the quotes I gave you show that.

But don't let me stop you from spinning what he says into something that fits your paranoid notion that anyone who is a Christian is homophobic.

Nah, my standards are low enough as they are by a Scandinavian perspective (I've given the CoS a pass over their blessings of gay unions, unequal and stop-gap as they are), and I'm not interested in lowering them further.
Right...
This is called a "discussion forum". I don't think Mr. Tutu is all that deserving of being circle-jerked, and voice my opinion thereto. That's discussed and argued over. Where are you getting lost in this?
I'm not getting lost, I'm just a bit annoyed over your anger about what the church is doing, followed by calling any kind of reform from the top a 'stillborn endeavour'.

Might as well not waste your breath if you think it'll acheive nothing anyway.
And in my opinion you're being a bigger tit for bitching (ha!) about my bitching. Though, I do enjoy the irony.
Gah, the irony, it burns :(

I don't recall the Catholic Church asserting that gays and bisexuals lack the moral right to live a full, decent life.

That's exactly what they assert--not explicitly, but in effect, by insisting that we avoid romantic and sexual relationships with people of the same sex.

Of course, theft is also immoral according to Catholic teaching. Wouldn't kleptomaniacs, people who have an unavoidable inclination to steal, also be the victims of bigotry on the part of the Church because they have that desire?

No, because the framework from which theft is condemned is "objective": it is founded in sound reasons that do not on principle privilege some people over others.

The arguments against homosexuality, on the other hand, have always been bound up with heteronormativity and homophobia.

So the Church's endorsement of evolution wasn't a public and well-documented case of it changing traditional views?

The Church's point with regard to evolution--and the Big Bang--was that there was no conflict between these scientific theories and Christian tradition properly understood.

Infallible because it was an ex cathedra teaching or because it was the simultaneous teaching of all the Bishops?

Isn't the moral teaching of the Church on matters like homosexuality and abortion a matter of infallibility?

All their teachings on sexual ethics is pretty much based completely on natural law.

And supported extensively by Scripture.

They're not Protestants--they don't say that the Bible is the be-all and end-all. But it's not like their ethics are coming out of nowhere either. Aquinas's opinion of homosexuality is not only supported by the Bible but by centuries of Christian tradition, both before and after him, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

And supported extensively by Scripture.


Debatable. They do agree, but for different reasons. From what I have seen and studied, the natural law is separate from the Bible (that was the point anyway, to provide an ethical system that does not rely on the Bible). The Bible doesn't say life forms at conception, but natural law does.


They're not Protestants--they don't say that the Bible is the be-all and end-all. But it's not like their ethics are coming out of nowhere either. Aquinas's opinion of homosexuality is not only supported by the Bible but by centuries of Christian tradition, both before and after him, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Yes but for different reasons.

Debatable. They do agree, but for different reasons. From what I have seen and studied, the natural law is separate from the Bible (that was the point anyway, to provide an ethical system that does not rely on the Bible). The Bible doesn't say life forms at conception, but natural law does.



Yes but for different reasons.

It would probably be helpful to see what the church says about homosexuality (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV), that being the topic of discussion:
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

So it clearly doesn't support homosexual practices, and there are a few Biblical sources at the bottom of the page. But wait, what's that below?
2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.
Hmm. So while "homosexual practices" are frowned upon, the divorce heterosexuals often participate in is a "grave offense."
In other words, to expect someone to live the way the Church says exactly is to assume they are the guy the Church worships. While not Catholic, I think this is what Tutu was saying, that homosexuality is not at all as bad as many clergy have said it is, and treating it as such is little more than homophobia.

We are going around in circles. I have shown you that:

1) Their belief against homosexuality is based on the natural law, don't believe me then look it up.

You can't prove that it is whence they got it since the Bible supports the same belief. It is thus also irrelevant because they do believe what the Bible says in the matter, albeit in a somewhat attenuated version.

2) Majority consensus changes.

But what the Bible says does not, and the majority Christian consensus is that homosexuality is yucky and abomination and all the rest. And even if the consensus were to change, what the Bible says does not.

Oh my fucking God. I am so sick of this shit Fass. You keep peddling the same crap over and over and over again.

And you fail to mount even the feeblest of arguments against it over and over again.

Or maybe (as the vast overwhelming majority of anyone who has ever studied the Bible properly would agree) they don't think the Bible is actually infallible.

Doesn't change what is says, and doesn't change that most of them do agree with it when it comes to homosexuality - some more honestly and others a bit more moderately (depending on how much they can stomach).

And you don't know exactly what it says.

Yes, I do. It's quite straightforward.

But just to make sure we are thinking of the same verse, what verse are you actually referring to?

"Sannerligen, innan himlen och jorden förgår skall inte en enda bokstav, inte minsta prick i lagen förgå; inte förrän allt har skett." The English version is:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

This applies to all sinners, and in fact everyone, since everyone is supposedly born with original sin anyway according to the Bible.

There you are being deceptive of what it says. He doesn't say it of all sinners - he says it thusly:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

He says it specifically on the issue of "men, leaving the natural use of the woman" burning "in their lust one toward another" and women that "did change the natural use into that which is against nature". You only need to read to understand what it says - you only need to be wilfully blind not to.

The Bible is a collection of different writings, and they clash with each other all the time. There is no reason to believe everything each and every writer says, if you did you would constantly be contradicting yourself anyway.

It doesn't contradict itself when it come to gay people. We deserve death.

No, it is not intellectually dishonest. Biblical scholars have shown that the early books of the OT is not written by Moses or David or whatever, but is written by various different sources (Priestly, Yahwistic etc...) which all clash with each other. They have shown that they are completely influenced by culture and their surroundings, and that believing that these writings are historical and scientific fact is just completely naive.

Well, duh. You do know that I don't actually think the Bible is divine in any way?

But if you think that it is intellectually honest to believe the earth is flat, and that the sky is just a huge ocean above us simply because it says so in the Bible, then go ahead and be a moron. Anyone who studies the Bible will see that, at the very least, the creation stories are a load of shit, and not the other way round.

I think it's a bigger act of idiocy to believe anything in that book in spite of all that crap - but it's intellectually dishonest to be a Christian and only believe the parts that you can stomach. That means you haven't accepted the religion - no matter how stupid it is and how much of a jerk its deity is - it means you've accepted a version of it that appeals to you and ignored the bits and pieces you don't like.

I'm an atheist.

Good for you.

No one is ignoring them, they are simply debunking and illegitimising what they say so much that anyone who does believe in this crap is "intellectually dishonest."

They haven't debunked the parts of homosexuality - all they've done is gone "ignore that, because I kind of think it's not nice, and I need for Christianity to be nice, otherwise I can't be a Christian, but I want to be a Christian, because I like thinking that it's nice." Never mind the fact that most of them do support the Bible when it comes to homosexuality and have nothing against treating gay people like shit.

Flaw.

Nope. Christianity is the Bible. Those who can't live by it should get a new religion or none.

That's exactly what they assert--not explicitly, but in effect, by insisting that we avoid romantic and sexual relationships with people of the same sex.

Couldn't the same be said of the prohibition on masturbation?

No, because the framework from which theft is condemned is "objective": it is founded in sound reasons that do not on principle privilege some people over others.

The arguments against homosexuality, on the other hand, have always been bound up with heteronormativity and homophobia.

Fair enough. It's certainly hard to separate the two (the two being natural law and homophobia), because they've gone hand in hand for so long.

The Church's point with regard to evolution--and the Big Bang--was that there was no conflict between these scientific theories and Christian tradition properly understood.

Which was a break from the traditional stance, no?

Isn't the moral teaching of the Church on matters like homosexuality and abortion a matter of infallibility?

I don't recall it being so. And I don't recall an ex cathedra statement by the Pope being made on the subject of homosexuality. Perhaps one could argue that the Bishops are unanimous in their teachings on this subject, so it's infallible, but I seriously doubt every Bishop would agree with those teachings.

Infallibility on a particular teaching is very hard to come by in Catholicism.

I'm not getting lost, I'm just a bit annoyed over your anger about what the church is doing, followed by calling any kind of reform from the top a 'stillborn endeavour'.

Might as well not waste your breath if you think it'll acheive nothing anyway.

I'm not interested in any reform of the churches or religions. I am interested in their demise.

No more time for this tonight, I've dinner I should have made more than an hour ago.

You can't prove that it is whence they got it since the Bible supports the same belief. It is thus also irrelevant because they do believe what the Bible says in the matter, albeit in a somewhat attenuated version.


But all their justifications for it are about it being unnatural and against the primary precepts (i.e. against the natural law).


But what the Bible says does not, and the majority Christian consensus is that homosexuality is yucky and abomination and all the rest. And even if the consensus were to change, what the Bible says does not.


So?


Doesn't change what is says, and doesn't change that most of them do agree with it when it comes to homosexuality - some more honestly and others a bit more moderately (depending on how much they can stomach).


Most of whom? Christians or Biblical scholars?


"Sannerligen, innan himlen och jorden förgår skall inte en enda bokstav, inte minsta prick i lagen förgå; inte förrän allt har skett." The English version is:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"


I thought I would respond to this by posting a link from a site by a bunch of apologists that you despise. But even they have a greater understanding then you:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/did_christ_abolish_the_law_of_moses


There you are being deceptive of what it says. He doesn't say it of all sinners - he says it thusly:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

He says it specifically on the issue of "men, leaving the natural use of the woman" burning "in their lust one toward another" and women that "did change the natural use into that which is against nature". You only need to read to understand what it says - you only need to be wilfully blind not to.


Of course all this is irrelevant, as I have said over and over again that Paul does not define Christianity, the early Church even rejected some of his teachings (which are mainly echoing Jewish traditions). His whole point was trying to apply this new Christian ethic, which was why he contradicted himself in his later books. Anyone who treats what Paul said as some form of law is intellectually dishonest.


It doesn't contradict itself when it come to gay people. We deserve death.


The point is, there is no Christian NT legal code. The only rule is the Golden rule, Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality.


Well, duh. You do know that I don't actually think the Bible is divine in any way?


Point being that such a belief isn't nessecerry to be a Christian, nor is it intellectually honest.


I think it's a bigger act of idiocy to believe anything in that book in spite of all that crap - but it's intellectually dishonest to be a Christian and only believe the parts that you can stomach.

What about believing only what Jesus said? But admittedly this is a bit of a problem since once you accept the Bible is not infallible, you have little to base your beliefs on. Luckily I'm not a christian.


That means you haven't accepted the religion - no matter how stupid it is and how much of a jerk its deity is - it means you've accepted a version of it that appeals to you and ignored the bits and pieces you don't like.


Again, just because you haven't accepted the Bible entirely, doesnt mean you then don't accept Christianity altogether.


They haven't debunked the parts of homosexuality - all they've done is gone "ignore that, because I kind of think it's not nice, and I need for Christianity to be nice, otherwise I can't be a Christian, but I want to be a Christian, because I like thinking that it's nice." Never mind the fact that most of them do support the Bible when it comes to homosexuality and have nothing against treating gay people like shit.


There is no NT law impart from the Golden Rule, thus any theory about sexual ethics that Paul may have made in an attempt to use this new style of thinking is irrelevant.


Nope. Christianity is the Bible. Those who can't live by it should get a new religion or none.

Christianity is merely a system of beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus.

Yet you lose out in no way whatsoever, and at least this guy is trying to be a shining beacon of mediocracy in a vast ocean of crapulence, in terms of gay rights.

There's the focus. Come on, Fass, loosen up on the issue a bit. You hate religion. Yes. This guy is trying to make it something less worthy of hate. Give it a break for once.

I think Fass' hate is standing in the way of his reason. :(

But all their justifications for it are about it being unnatural and against the primary precepts (i.e. against the natural law).

Their rationalisation of why the Bible says what it does in no way disputes that they got what the Bible says from the Bible and that it's because of the Bible that they believe it.

So?

So you can't escape what the Bible and thus Christianity say. You can only pretend that the "consensus" is what the Bible says, when it's not.

Most of whom? Christians or Biblical scholars?

Christians.

I thought I would respond to this by posting a link from a site by a bunch of apologists that you despise. But even they have a greater understanding then you:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/did_christ_abolish_the_law_of_moses

That's not even a refutation of what it says - it's a convoluted mess that seeks not to accept what is written but instead give arguments to ignore what is written, and I have already said I find that reasoning among Christians laughable. "It doesn't say what it says, it says what I want it to say after I've performed the following oratory acrobatics which sound fancy but are really for naught".

Of course all this is irrelevant, as I have said over and over again that Paul does not define Christianity,

The Bible does and Paul is part of it.

the early Church even rejected some of his teachings (which are mainly echoing Jewish traditions).

They didn't reject this one.

His whole point was trying to apply this new Christian ethic, which was why he contradicted himself in his later books. Anyone who treats what Paul said as some form of law is intellectually dishonest.

The only intellectually dishonest thing I see here is the claim that the NT doesn't say that gay people deserve death when it does. All you've retreated to doing now when your deception was revealed is to go "oh, ignore it, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

The point is, there is no Christian NT legal code.

There is no need for one since the OT still applies.

The only rule is the Golden rule, Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality.

He didn't say anything about Christianity either. The Bible however is what establishes it.

Point being that such a belief isn't nessecerry to be a Christian, nor is it intellectually honest.

As I said, it's not "necessary" for people to be able to call themselves Christians, but it is indeed intellectually dishonest to base a religion about the divinity of a person only supported by a book that one doesn't believe in. "Jesus is God. The Bible says so. But I don't really believe the Bible is the word of God or believable at all." That is intellectually dishonest.

What about believing only what Jesus said? But admittedly this is a bit of a problem since once you accept the Bible is not infallible, you have little to base your beliefs on. Luckily I'm not a christian.

You admit it yourself - if the Bible isn't all that, then how can one intellectually motivate believing in its many preposterous claim as that of a human god and a virgin birth?

Again, just because you haven't accepted the Bible entirely, doesnt mean you then don't accept Christianity altogether.

You're just cherry-picking and ignoring what you don't like. It's religion made easy! Just believe what you like! Goodness for all!

There is no NT law impart from the Golden Rule, thus any theory about sexual ethics that Paul may have made in an attempt to use this new style of thinking is irrelevant.

Only if one wishes to ignore what the Bible says.

Christianity is merely a system of beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus.

And Jesus just happens not to have endorsed the NT, as it didn't exist when he is to have existed, but very much did so of the OT and its law.

Thought you had dinner Fass. Anyway, I'm too tired to continue this now. I might bump this thread tommorow, but it looks doubtful since this has been done to death anyway and I wont be able to change your mind. (in b4 "chickened out, you lost, etc...")

I think Fass' hate is standing in the way of his reason. :(

Hence the comparison to an elephant trampling the man who feeds him.

Thought you had dinner Fass.

I do, but things that go in the oven need not be watched whilst in there.

I do, but things that go in the oven need not be watched whilst in there.

Yummy oven-made things, or pre-prepped oven-made things?

Yummy oven-made things, or pre-prepped oven-made things?

Yummy oven-made things. I'm making spinach, asparagus and quorn quiches.

What is "quorn?" It looks a little like "corn" spelled incorrectly, but that doesn't seem likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn

Yummy oven-made things. I'm making spinach, asparagus and quorn quiches.

What is "quorn?" It looks a little like "corn" spelled incorrectly, but that doesn't seem likely.

Mmm, Fungus! :)

As a mushroom lover, I'd give it a try. Assuming I can find it stateside.

Mmm, Fungus! :)

As a mushroom lover, I'd give it a try. Assuming I can find it stateside.

You can also try finding it on-line and ordering it. :p Here http://www.quorn.com/ click on the US ling then enter your zip code.

Yummy oven-made things. I'm making spinach, asparagus and quorn quiches.

Mmm Spinach Quiche. Been a while since I've had any quiche. We're having http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khichdi for dinner, and I am elated.

I've never really liked mushrooms, and it's always frustrated me that primarily non-vegetarian sandwich places, when faced with vegetarian clients, seem to think that we automatically want Portabello Mushrooms as a meat substitute in our food. It annoys me to no end.

Mmm, Fungus! :)

As a mushroom lover, I'd give it a try. Assuming I can find it stateside.

It's really tasty, but it doesn't taste like mushroom. It tastes a lot like the meat it's meant to replace (chicken or beef), but better. Some of my non-veggie friends have completely gone over to using it instead of meat because they like the taste and because it's healthier.

Mmm Spinach Quiche. Been a while since I've had any quiche. We're having http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khichdi for dinner, and I am elated.

Khichdi! Yum.

I've never really liked mushrooms, and it's always frustrated me that primarily non-vegetarian sandwich places, when faced with vegetarian clients, seem to think that we automatically want Portabello Mushrooms as a meat substitute in our food. It annoys me to no end.

I used to hate mushrooms when I was a kid, but nowadays I love them. My faves are chanterelles. Is it all mushrooms you don't like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn

It sounds a little like the Vegemite form of fungus. In a quiche, though, that could be quite delicious.

Oh right, back to the topic. Roar, trite slogan concerning homosexuality*, gaargh!



*Something like, "If we outlaw homosexual relations, only homosexuals will have them."

Couldn't the same be said of the prohibition on masturbation?

Not fairly, I don't think. Masturbation is fun, but I think the average person can live a full and happy life without it without too much trouble.

Even if we were inclined to assert that prohibition on masturbation does deny us full and happy lives, we could still not say it is "bigoted", because at least, unlike the prohibition on homosexuality, it has universal application.

Which was a break from the traditional stance, no?

Well, in a sense, but much less in terms of firm doctrine and much more in terms of behavior.

The Catholic Church has never really been as obsessed with literalism as many of its Protestant counterparts. The fact that it reacted negatively at first to the radical shifts in understanding brought about by the beginnings of modern science wasn't an innate, serious doctrinal difficulty, but simply the inertia of any such organization when it comes to revising its understanding of some concepts.

Its moral teaching is different on two levels. First, the moral teaching on homosexuality is very well supported, Biblically, traditionally, and otherwise. It's what has been taught on this subject for at least a millennium and a half, in clear and indisputable terms. To accept homosexuality would be to reject essential aspects of the Catholic teaching on sex. Second, moral teachings are intrinsically insusceptible to empirical demonstration otherwise. (Theoretically the only way for a human being to live a full life is to obey the dictates of natural law, but they have never bothered to find a shred of evidence for this, so I don't see why they would be concerned now.)

Khichdi! Yum.

It's delicious, especially with ghee (clarified butter) and some yogurt. We use the leftovers in another dish that also involves spinach, but which I don't know how to spell in English, and so can't pull up a wiki for. It's pronounced something like mutiya, and happens to be my favorite indian dish.

There's, incidentally, a recipe at the bottom of that wiki page, should you ever wish to try it.

I used to hate mushrooms when I was a kid, but nowadays I love them. My faves are chanterelles. Is it all mushrooms you don't like?

To be honest, I've only ever had portabello, which I can't stand. I'd like to try others, but never really get the opportunity.

*snip*
Get with the times, Soheran, we're talking about the appeal of mushrooms and mushroom-based products.
Geesh, some people...

It's delicious, especially with ghee (clarified butter) and some yogurt. We use the leftovers in another dish that also involves spinach, but which I don't know how to spell in English, and so can't pull up a wiki for. It's pronounced something like mutiya, and happens to be my favorite indian dish.

There's, incidentally, a recipe at the bottom of that wiki page, should you ever wish to try it.

They have it at this Indian place two blocks from where I live. You've just reminded me I need to dine there soon, because I haven't done it in a while.

To be honest, I've only ever had portabello, which I can't stand. I'd like to try others, but never really get the opportunity.

Only portobello? My dear, you've been missing out.

Only portobello? My dear, you’ve been missing out.
What Fass said.

I’ve recently become partial to the odd mushroom pakora.

Delish!

I used to think I hated mushrooms but then I tried one and I liked it (same thing happened to me with olives- I always thought I hate black olives and loved green olives, but it turns out I love both). I don't know what type of mushroom it was though. It was grey.

And I knew that a chanterelle was a mushroom! Yay! I feel proud of myself somehow. :) (Thank you Free Rice!)

Not fairly, I don't think. Masturbation is fun, but I think the average person can live a full and happy life without it without too much trouble.

If not being allowed to fulfill your basic sexual urges isn't what's keeping a person from the moral right to living a full, decent life, what is it?

I guess you could say that the lack of a relationship with the sex you're attracted to is the problem, but frankly I don't see how that would work either. I enjoy romantic relationships with women, but not being in one for almost two years now hasn't prevented me from living a full, decent life.

Well, in a sense, but much less in terms of firm doctrine and much more in terms of behavior.

The Catholic Church has never really been as obsessed with literalism as many of its Protestant counterparts. The fact that it reacted negatively at first to the radical shifts in understanding brought about by the beginnings of modern science wasn't an innate, serious doctrinal difficulty, but simply the inertia of any such organization when it comes to revising its understanding of some concepts.

Its moral teaching is different on two levels. First, the moral teaching on homosexuality is very well supported, Biblically, traditionally, and otherwise. It's what has been taught on this subject for at least a millennium and a half, in clear and indisputable terms. To accept homosexuality would be to reject essential aspects of the Catholic teaching on sex. Second, moral teachings are intrinsically insusceptible to empirical demonstration otherwise. (Theoretically the only way for a human being to live a full life is to obey the dictates of natural law, but they have never bothered to find a shred of evidence for this, so I don't see why they would be concerned now.)

What's interesting to me is that with the increasing acceptance of science as a valuable methodology by Catholics, we may be seeing a shift in the next few generations towards a new understanding of natural law, one based on Christian principles being applied to empirical evidence rather than classical logic as applied to Christian principles.

If not being allowed to fulfill your basic sexual urges isn't what's keeping a person from the moral right to living a full, decent life, what is it?

It's more holistic than that. The suppression of sexual urges, romantic attraction... and not temporarily, not for a few years, but forever.

As God notes in Genesis, human beings should not be alone.

I guess you could say that the lack of a relationship with the sex you're attracted to is the problem, but frankly I don't see how that would work either. I enjoy romantic relationships with women, but not being in one for almost two years now hasn't prevented me from living a full, decent life.

Would you say the same for not being in one for the rest of your life?

What's interesting to me is that with the increasing acceptance of science as a valuable methodology by Catholics, we may be seeing a shift in the next few generations towards a new understanding of natural law, one based on Christian principles being applied to empirical evidence rather than classical logic as applied to Christian principles.

But natural law is not an empirical doctrine... it masquerades as one, kinda-sorta, but that's never been the direction of its analysis.

What Fass said.

I’ve recently become partial to the odd mushroom pakora.

Delish!

Pakoras are good, I make my own potato pakoras at home when the mood hits me and I don't mind getting periodically splashed with boiling oil. That and spinach/methi (fenugreek for you white folks) pakoras.

Fass: I know, but I regrettably never get the opportunity. And wow, an Indian place in Sweden that serves khichdi? The Indian global takeover plot S.P.I.C.Y. is progressing smoothly, I see. MUAHAHAHAHA....

I used to think I hated mushrooms but then I tried one and I liked it (same thing happened to me with olives- I always thought I hate black olives and loved green olives, but it turns out I love both). I don't know what type of mushroom it was though. It was grey.

And I knew that a chanterelle was a mushroom! Yay! I feel proud of myself somehow. :) (Thank you Free Rice!)

I don't really like olives either, though my dad loves both kinds.

All around, I'm a shitty vegetarian, hehe.

What's interesting to me is that with the increasing acceptance of science as a valuable methodology by Catholics, we may be seeing a shift in the next few generations towards a new understanding of natural law, one based on Christian principles being applied to empirical evidence rather than classical logic as applied to Christian principles.
That would be interesting, and not entirely out of the question, either. The scholasticism we think of as conservative and slightly stuffy was actually revolutionary in the way it combined logic with Christianity. Combining it with empiricism wouldn't be that different.

Of course, one could also say that Christianity is already empirical: the Bible could be seen as hundreds of empirical accounts. As it so happens, Catholics don't, but it's not too large a step.

Pakoras are good, I make my own potato pakoras at home when the mood hits me and I don’t mind getting periodically splashed with boiling oil. That and spinach/methi (fenugreek for you white folks) pakoras.
I’ll have to try that sometime.

Never even heard of methi/fenugreek.

That would be interesting, and not entirely out of the question, either. The scholasticism we think of as conservative and slightly stuffy was actually revolutionary in the way it combined logic with Christianity. Combining it with empiricism wouldn't be that different.
Really?

I was under the impression that a number of Scholastic methods are almost anti-empirical.

I don't really like olives either, though my dad loves both kinds.

All around, I'm a shitty vegetarian, hehe.

I like both types of olives.

I'm not a vegetarian at all.

But my head feels really warm right now. Maybe I have a fever or something. I don't know. My temperature was just a little bit below average when I checked it a little while ago and I'm usually a couple degrees below average. So I don't know but I'm getting drowsy, and my brother was sick last week.

Hope you feel better. :)

I feel better now, kind of. Thank you. :)

But now I'm cold. :confused:

I like both types of olives.

I'm not a vegetarian at all.

But my head feels really warm right now. Maybe I have a fever or something. I don't know. My temperature was just a little bit below average when I checked it a little while ago and I'm usually a couple degrees below average. So I don't know but I'm getting drowsy, and my brother was sick last week.

Hope you feel better. :)

I’ll have to try that sometime.

Never even heard of methi/fenugreek.

It's often used either in conjunction with, or in place of spinach, but it's also used separately in seed form as a spice.

It’s often used either in conjunction with, or in place of spinach, but it’s also used separately in seed form as a spice.
Tasty!

And I was just discussing the practicalities of constructing a tandoor...

Really?

I was under the impression that a number of Scholastic methods are almost anti-empirical.
Yes, very. I didn't mean Scholasticism was empirical; on the contrary, it is very much based on formal logic. However, when that school of thought first began, the formal logic of Aristotle and other Greeks was seen almost as a competitor with Christianity, much like science is today. I was saying that just as Aquinas showed Aristotle and Jesus did not contradict, but, in fact, could go together, so I think it wouldn't be too far-fetched to see Christianity and science, or at least empirical observations, come together in some form.

It's more holistic than that. The suppression of sexual urges, romantic attraction... and not temporarily, not for a few years, but forever.

As God notes in Genesis, human beings should not be alone.

Indeed. But we don't have to be alone. I don't know about you, but I have very fulfilling friendships with both sexes.

Would you say the same for not being in one for the rest of your life?

Yes.

But natural law is not an empirical doctrine... it masquerades as one, kinda-sorta, but that's never been the direction of its analysis.

I'm well aware of that. As New Limacon noted, empiricism is a contemporary example of what logic was previously. A competing philosophy that ended up being incorporated into Catholicism.

Indeed. But we don't have to be alone.

Not completely alone, no... but human beings desire different kinds of relationships. Platonic friendships, and nothing else, generally aren't enough for us... just as losing all our friends for a romantic relationship wouldn't work in the long-term either.

Yes.

Then you're the exception to the trend, I think.

I'm well aware of that. As New Limacon noted, empiricism is a contemporary example of what logic was previously.

I don't see the Catholic Church undergoing a radical philosophical shift any time soon... or ever. Do you? Honestly?

I'm not even sure how we could go about revising natural law on empirical foundations... and even if we could, it would still be nonsense, only even more transparently a violation of the positive/normative distinction than it is now.

I don't see the Catholic Church undergoing a radical philosophical shift any time soon... or ever. Do you? Honestly?

Not now, no. But shifts have occurred. One of the things the Church is good at is remaining a distinct entity while absorbing itself into the culture of the time. Thus things such as Scholasticism, the date of Christmas, the Lady of Guadalupe, etc.

Not completely alone, no... but human beings desire different kinds of relationships. Platonic friendships, and nothing else, generally aren't enough for us... just as losing all our friends for a romantic relationship wouldn't work in the long-term either.

Then you're the exception to the trend, I think.

That's quite possible. I'm at the extreme edge of a lot of bell curves.

I don't see the Catholic Church undergoing a radical philosophical shift any time soon... or ever. Do you? Honestly?

Yes. Starting within the next few generations, as I mentioned. Currently, there's a bit of a backlash against what's perceived as the excessive modernism of Vatican II, but once that clears I expect we'll see some changes. There's just too many people who are remaining Catholic while disagreeing with the Church's sexual ethics. Either Catholicism will close itself off and start its own death, or it will make the necessary changes. Generally, it makes the necessary changes, so I'm expecting that to happen.

I'm not even sure how we could go about revising natural law on empirical foundations... and even if we could, it would still be nonsense, only even more transparently a violation of the positive/normative distinction than it is now.

That sounds like a pleasant discussion for another day, my friend. Have a good night.

There's just too many people who are remaining Catholic while disagreeing with the Church's sexual ethics.

Yeah, but this isn't a "problem" per se. It means a lot of people are not content with the Catholic hierarchy, but it isn't like they're storming the Vatican, or even leaving the Church (for the most part.)

Don't forget that, numerically speaking, more Catholics would probably object to a legitimization of homosexuality than would support it. And that won't change for at least several decades.

Edit: Not to mention the perversity of deciding matters of truth and falsity by majority vote.

Yes, very. I didn’t mean Scholasticism was empirical; on the contrary, it is very much based on formal logic. However, when that school of thought first began, the formal logic of Aristotle and other Greeks was seen almost as a competitor with Christianity, much like science is today. I was saying that just as Aquinas showed Aristotle and Jesus did not contradict, but, in fact, could go together, so I think it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to see Christianity and science, or at least empirical observations, come together in some form.
Ah, I see what you mean now.

Perhaps this has already happened? What’s to stop the believer from claiming that evolution, quantum mechanics, theoretical dark matter, etc., isn’t all in the big plan that God has devised?

Most of the Christians I know personally, the vast majority of them members of the Kirk (the Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland)), hold a faith-based view of the world that doesn’t contradict a scientific understanding of the universe.

This includes my parents and the woman who taught me chemistry in high school.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Perhaps this has already happened? What’s to stop the believer from claiming that evolution, quantum mechanics, theoretical dark matter, etc., isn’t all in the big plan that God has devised?

Most of the Christians I know personally, the vast majority of them members of the Kirk (the Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland)), hold a faith-based view of the world that doesn’t contradict a scientific understanding of the universe.

This includes my parents and the woman who taught me chemistry in high school.

Nothing, which is why there is no debate between the Old Earth Creationism and the Theory of Evolution.

I thought Tutu's apt comparison of the apartheid system he and many others suffered under, and the oppression and racial segregation of Israel against the Palestinians, was quite good.

Leviticus is pretty explicit, so at the very least the God of the "old law" was rabidly homophobic (to the point of advocating the death penalty.) And aren't Biblical laws against sexual impropriety generally folded into Christian ethics through the Commandment against adultery?

The biblical laws arent exactly clear.
Leviticus:19:20 .And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

In this case, its still wrong, but it apparently means that God advocates slavery, horrific scarring with a whip to women, but the man apparently pays a fine.

So, if we take this passage with a grain of salt these days, why do we not take this one, with that same grain?

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22, Leviticus

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13, leviticus.

Why?
Becuase homophobia is ingrained into our society.

Im not even gay, and I applaud Tutu for speaking out against the church for it.

Yeah, but this isn't a "problem" per se. It means a lot of people are not content with the Catholic hierarchy, but it isn't like they're storming the Vatican, or even leaving the Church (for the most part.)

Right. But that's precisely what leads to a change in the long run. If those people were all leaving the Church, including the priests and nuns who feel that way, it would never have reason to change. It would just continue to isolate itself and gradually die.

And if they started attacking the Vatican wholesale, it'd make the Vatican more inclined to squash them hard than work with them.

But when they stay, they set the stage for a critical mass of them to build up, and once that critical mass is reached, the Church is going to have a hard choice to make. On the other hand, perhaps the choice won't be so hard then.

Don't forget that, numerically speaking, more Catholics would probably object to a legitimization of homosexuality than would support it. And that won't change for at least several decades.

Sure. It's not as if I'm expecting this to happen overnight.

Edit: Not to mention the perversity of deciding matters of truth and falsity by majority vote.

Or having a man in a funny hat decide matters of truth and falsity by fiat.

Or deciding matters of truth and falsity based on a formal system left to us by an old Greek dude that has almost no basis in reality.

I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that perversity in efforts to find truth seem pretty endemic to humanity.

"extraordinarily homophobic"

It may be Anglican, but it's still Christianity so it's not extraordinary at all. On the contrary, it's very ordinary. Mr. Tutu, shame on you for trying to pretend as if it weren't - you're not fooling anyone. Well, anyone who matters anyway.

Christianity is not necessarily any more homophobic than the society in which it exists, as that society is merely using religion to incorrectly justify it's prejudices and fears. The homophobia does not spring from Christianity.

The biblical laws arent exactly clear.

They are actually quite explicit.

So, if we take this passage with a grain of salt these days, why do we not take this one, with that same grain?

That's a different question entirely, isn't it?

Becuase homophobia is ingrained into our society.

Indeed. Do not think for a second that I am defending homophobia.

I'm not interested in any reform of the churches or religions. I am interested in their demise.

And there in lies the point - you get angry at anyone that preaches a personal religion or the non-dogmatic teachings of Jesus because these things will cause a the religion to survive because it's reasonable. You're not angry because Tutu is being hateful. You're angry because he's religious and he's be reasonable and it's counter to your precious hope that religion disappears. Kind of like the guy who hates illegal immigrants but doesn't want them to become legal because it's not that they're illegal that he hates, but the people themselves. And like that guy, I'm not fooled.

Christianity is not necessarily any more homophobic than the society in which it exists, as that society is merely using religion to incorrectly justify it's prejudices and fears. The homophobia does not spring from Christianity.

DING! DING! DING! That's the problem. Much of what ended up encoded in the Bible is just remnants of past hatred. It's not more the result of my God than washing your hands before you eat or the idea of a 6000-year-old world.

Some people don't want to see Theists apply reason to their own beliefs, because then, dear God, the unreasonable Atheist would be all alone.

NOTE the qualifier, I am, by no means, suggesting all or most Atheists are unreasonable.

Christianity is not necessarily any more homophobic than the society in which it exists,

As a matter of empirical fact, I think it's pretty clear that religious Christians are more homophobic than the average person. I'll admit to not having a study on hand, but certainly political trends would suggest that.

as that society is merely using religion to incorrectly justify it's prejudices and fears.

That seems a pretty strong indictment of Christianity right there... "serves to justify irrational prejudice and fears."

The homophobia does not spring from Christianity.

Obviously the homophobia in Christianity springs from pre-existing homophobia. It did not come out of nowhere.

That does not change the fact that Christianity is laden with homophobia, and serves today to justify and defend it.

That seems a pretty strong indictment of Christianity right there... "serves to justify irrational prejudice and fears."

You equally substitute nearly any belief system. Nationalism. Socialism. Pretty much any majority belief system will be bastardized to justify prejudice.

It's a strong indictment of blindly following the masses.

You equally substitute nearly any belief system

...blindly and unquestionably followed by its adherents? Yes.

So?

...blindly and unquestionably followed by its adherents? Yes.

So?

You've answered your own question. It's an indictment of blindly and unquestionably following, not Christianity as a whole. Glad to see you've adjusted your position. Much more rational now.

It's an indictment of blindly and unquestionably following, not Christianity as a whole.

This distinction might be worthy of being made, were it not for the fact that Christianity as an institution has always been founded on more or less unquestioning faith... and indeed, to one degree or another has often acknowledged this tendency. Especially in modern times.

Even those who sought to rationally justify Christian doctrines sought to justify them--not to investigate the questions, but to support presupposed answers.

Edit: Like it or not, it is not so far a jump from baselessly accepting "God exists" because people tell you so to baselessly accepting "Homosexuality is evil" because people tell you so.

And there in lies the point - you get angry at anyone that preaches a personal religion or the non-dogmatic teachings of Jesus because these things will cause a the religion to survive because it's reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable about any religion, so your little "analysis" (and I insult the word in using it for this even with the quotes) is wrong yet again, as is so common with you, Jocabia. I don't even know why I bother replying, as I've grown so bored and weary of your habitual poppycock.

You're not angry because Tutu is being hateful. You're angry because he's religious and he's be reasonable and it's counter to your precious hope that religion disappears.

He isn't reasonable. He believes in magical beings in the sky and devotes his life to them. But, you were right about one thing: I am not angry. My affectations are nowhere near as easily roused as yours, so what some glorified voodoo man half a world away says riles me not in the least. I do however see through his bullshit and see that his cock isn't worthy of fellatio, but I guess some people are so starved for this what you deem "reason" in clerics that they would jump even at such little remarks - denialist and insulting as they still manage to be - to sate their thirst. And that says more about you and what you need to settle for than it ever will about me.

Kind of like the guy who hates illegal immigrants but doesn't want them to become legal because it's not that they're illegal that he hates, but the people themselves. And like that guy, I'm not fooled.

Oh, Jocabia, I could never attempt to fool you, what with such broken and flawed analogies and "analyses" that have become your trademark. I need not attempt something which you've already done so thoroughly to yourself. :)

There is nothing reasonable about any religion, so your little "analysis" (and I insult the word in using it for this even with the quotes) is wrong yet again, as is so common with you, Jocabia. I don't even know why I bother replying, as I've grown so bored and weary of your habitual poppycock.



He isn't reasonable. He believes in magical beings in the sky and devotes his life to them. But, you were right about one thing: I am not angry. My affectations are nowhere near as easily roused as yours, so what some glorified voodoo man half a world away says riles me not in the least. I do however see through his bullshit and see that his cock isn't worthy of fellatio, but I guess some people are so starved for this what you deem "reason" in clerics that they would jump even at such little remarks - denialist and insulting as they still manage to be - to sate their thirst. And that says more about you and what you need to settle for than it ever will about me.



Oh, Jocabia, I could never attempt to fool you, what with such broken and flawed analogies and "analyses" that have become your trademark. I need not attempt something which you've already done so thoroughly to yourself. :)


Ah, just the patient and rational reply we've all come to expect. Thanks for that.

Yes, I've seen your analysis where you make up how he "really meant" things he didn't say and explicitly said the opposite of. Apparently, when he said we should focus on real problems, he "really meant" homosexuality is a problem but not as big of a problem, despite saying the opposite. Yes, but you're not angry. Anyone can see that. This man is clearly not worth your time or a whole thread of you bitching about how he's too late and he really meant something else and blah, blah, blah. I sure am glad you aren't angry. Or bitter. Or just plain hateful. That would certainly look much different, my non-angry, non-bitter friend.

This distinction might be worthy of being made, were it not for the fact that Christianity as an institution has always been founded on more or less unquestioning faith... and indeed, to one degree or another has often acknowledged this tendency. Especially in modern times.

Even those who sought to rationally justify Christian doctrines sought to justify them--not to investigate the questions, but to support presupposed answers.

Edit: Like it or not, it is not so far a jump from baselessly accepting "God exists" because people tell you so to baselessly accepting "Homosexuality is evil" because people tell you so.

Jesus encouraged a personal relationship with God and encouraged people to apply reason and logic, often chastising them for being dense. You seem unable to seperate the people who violated the direction of Jesus and basically reversed the teachings of Jesus from the actual religion and those who seek a return to a personal and genuine relationship with God.

But, hey, it's not like there is any value to looking at individuals instead of broadly painting groups.

Speaking of presupposed answers.

I like Desmond Tutu. He helps sustain my hope in christianity. *nod*
Edit: In fact, I''ll go one step further; He defies my opinion on organized religion, and for that, I thank him. :)

There just aren't enough MLKs, Norman Thomases and Desmond Tutus in organized religion, are there?

You seem unable to seperate the people who violated the direction of Jesus and basically reversed the teachings of Jesus from the actual religion and those who seek a return to a personal and genuine relationship with God.

You seem unable to realize that I really don't care what Jesus did or didn't say. It's Christians who are so concerned with the exact words of their savior, not me... a telling indicator of the value they tend to place on logic and reason, for what it's worth.

My concern is, like I said, for Christianity as an institution, Christianity as it is, not what you think (or anyone else thinks) the "true" version of Christianity should be.

Who is "right" in Christian religious disputes matters much less to me than what people actually believe and do.

There just aren't enough MLKs, Norman Thomases and Desmond Tutus in organized religion, are there?

There are not enough of them, in general. Well, unless your hope is to disparage religion and you're upset that good people within the religion will thwart such efforts.

It's amusing to me how similar "Some people are good even though they're religious" and "some people are good even though they're homosexual." The fact is the faith was summarized by the subject of the faith as loving God and loving everyone else and as treating others as you'd like to be treated, and people are bad in spite of this, not because of it.

Ah, just the patient and rational reply we've all come to expect. Thanks for that.

I throw not "pearls before swine".

Yes, I've seen your analysis where you make up how he "really meant" things he didn't say and explicitly said the opposite of. Apparently, when he said we should focus on real problems, he "really meant" homosexuality is a problem but not as big of a problem, despite saying the opposite. Yes, but you're not angry. Anyone can see that. This man is clearly not worth your time or a whole thread of you bitching about how he's too late and he really meant something else and blah, blah, blah. I sure am glad you aren't angry. Or bitter. Or just plain hateful. That would certainly look much different, my non-angry, non-bitter friend.

I didn't say he wasn't worth my time - cock-blocking him for you desperate people was something I did take time to do, after all - I said you were. So, your fifteen mins in my regard are up. Toodles. I'm sure you'll find some newbies to bore with your "reason" (again, I keep abusing words).

I throw not "pearls before swine".



I didn't say he wasn't worth my time - cock-blocking him for you desperate people was something I did take time to do, after all - I said you were. So, your fifteen mins in my regard are up. Toodles. I'm sure you'll find some newbies to bore with your "reason" (again, I keep abusing words).

Ah, yes, the personal attacks that you substitute for arguments.

It's not coincidence that your bitter diatribes line up with your expressed goal. I find it amusing that you think you've actually accomplished anything here. The only kinds of people convinced by these bitter absurdities are equally convinced by arguments like the gays caused hurricanes. Your irrational opposite of the wild fundamentalist. You keep trying that tact.

More rational people will be sitting in the middle where reason resides and giggling. There's a reason why extremists are called such. They are on the extremes. No one ever uses that term and means "those rational extremists". So you remain proudly on the extreme, but you know where that places you in regards to reason, which of course explains your venom.

This distinction might be worthy of being made, were it not for the fact that Christianity as an institution has always been founded on more or less unquestioning faith... and indeed, to one degree or another has often acknowledged this tendency. Especially in modern times.

Even those who sought to rationally justify Christian doctrines sought to justify them--not to investigate the questions, but to support presupposed answers.
I wouldn't say "especially in modern times", since I think it's fair to say there is an increasing desire these days for "christians" to be more questioning, regardless of whether or not their organisation encourages this inquisitive approach to God.

But yes, I certainly see what you mean about Christianity as an institution. I had a rude reminder of that yesterday when my father's attempt to run an open discussion session at his church resulted in a degree of condemnation from its elders for "the promotion of unchristian ideas". I mean, come on! Is open and honest discussion inherently unchristian now?

Homosexuality is a bourgeois cult. We must exterminate them to ever rid ourselves of the bourgeoisie, then the Proletariat can live in peace. Desmond Tutu can go to hell, along with his god.

The biblical laws arent exactly clear.

They are actually quite explicit.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. For example, here are some fairly explicit directions I just made up:

Do not press the red button.
If you press the red button, you cannot press the blue button.
Do not press the blue button.
Press the red button.

Much of the Bible, when taken literally, is the same way. It's perfectly clear what I want, until you read the whole list.

They are actually quite explicit.

They are explicit on certain deeds, or actions, yes. Leviticus is rife with do's and dont's. But rather my point would be that they advocate many things that we, in the modern world, arent concerned with, or are no longer applicable. Since adultering unwed women are no longer scourged, why do we take the same biblical approach to the passage concerning homosexuality?




That's a different question entirely, isn't it?

See above.