A polite discussion of religion, sin and civil rights

[Old_alum]

I have been away from the boards for a while.

Like most old people I fear it will take me a while to retrain the "muscle-memory" of my brain to the new styles and procedures.


There have been multiple threads on the basketball board involving the addition of an openly gay player by SHU's basketball team and the dismissal/reassignment of a seemingly-beloved chaplain away from SHU by the Archbishop of the Diocese.


Many complained about these threads placement on a basketball board --- and not unjustifiably so --- so I thoiught I might reignite a logical and thoughtful discussion of the topics here, "Off the Ship".


Not being a moderator, I could not "move" those threads here, but I took parts of one thread and have reproduced it below --- as faithfully as I could --- to remind myself of various topics raise.


It is my hope that we might be able to clear-up seeming misimpressions on both sides, by being logical, reasonable and sensitive to others' points of view.


I truly grieve about the myriad of misunderstandings that abound and would love to clear up even a few of them.

One of my pet-peeves about any dialogue is when someone resorts to ad hominem attacks --- a topic itself which we might pursue.


Another peeve is when rhetorical hyperbole devolves into gross exaggeration and misrepresentation.


Still a third --- and to me most bothersome --- is the people who for lack of a better noun I shall simply refer to as hypocrites. The ones who simultaneously condemn the religious for intolerance and then themselves call for a witch-hunt to end the career of one with a different opinion on a message board.


That said, I would propose certain clarifications which many might slough off as mere "semantic" distinctions, but which proper debate mandates if the discussion is to be clear and conclusive. We need a definition of terms.


1. There is a very important distinction between the institution known as the "Catholic Church" and its members or clergy. The Church has always admitted that it is composed only of sinners. Not one of us is sinless. The first Pope, Peter, denied and abandoned Christ. But that did not cause the forfeiture of his Keys to God's Kingdom. So, please, ascribe to the Church only the official teachings of the Church, and ascribe to its members, its clergy and its popes their respective ACTIONS --- both personal and official.

2. The Church has always differentiated its doctrine (mostly matters of faith and morals) from its rules or its practices or its rituals. I am not a scholar, but I have read much Church history and I am not aware of even SINGLE instance in which the Church EVER changed doctrine one iota.

3. The Church has always preached to hate the sin but to love the sinner. The Church --- not its individual members or clergy --- does NOT judge people but leaves that to God. The Church, itself, DOES judge BEHAVIOR based on Christ's teachings. Jesus would not cast the first stone --- even though He was without sin --- BUT he ALSO told the adulterous woman to "sin no more".

4. We are only here to get to heaven. The Church's role is to shepherd Christ's flock in that direction. In the past some overly-mortal Christians confused the Church's moral responsibilities with temporal authority.

5. All humans have atavistic emotions and drives (e.g. fight or flight), but each is also made in God's image. This does not mean we look like Him, but that like God we have the conscious ability to choose our actions.

6. When one makes a statement of fact he should stand ready to back it up with statistical or empirical evidence. With humans behavior is almost never truly perfect so, as in quantum physics, the better course of analysis is probabilistic, not absolute. Meaningful statistical deviations are scientifically significant.

So, given the 10,000 character limit per post I shall hereafter attempt to replicate at least one of the "basketball" threads:

 

[Old_alum]

So, given the 10,000 character limit per post I shall hereafter attempt to replicate at least one of the "basketball" threads:

=============================================================


BOBBY SOLO the younger you go, the less they care about people being gay, even in the black community where it's less accepting than the larger population. Add in all the great descriptions of the kid & the fact that he's not some flamboyant stereotype that would be shoving his sexuality in the face of his teammates, and i see no problem whatsoever in the locker room b/c he's gay.

pirated said: ? Doesn't sound like the type of school I'd pick if I were in his situation

jcalz88 said: ? You really believe it's a behavior? Honestly can't wait till that generation is dead and gone, so these ideas die with them. world will be a better place.

HallLine69, Saturday at 6:34 AM . Jcalz, please know that not all of us in this generation feel the same. I'm with you on this. And shame on Seton Hall if we just fired someone for supporting LBGT rights.

batts I'm writing to explain why the older generation viewed homosexuality as something that should be shunned and avoided. Before you condemn our generation, you should understand that we are merely a product of the times we grew up in. We were raised in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when homosexuality was viewed as a deviant practice, a sin and in many instances a crime. We were taught by our parents, the schools, the Church and society at large that homosexuality was an evil and sinful practice. It wasn't until the 1980s or so that we first began to learn that there were other enlightened viewpoints out there, and that homosexuals were just like the rest of us except only that they had different sexual feelings. In recent years, I have become totally accepting of our gay citizens and would hope that they are not treated differently based on the old prejudices that were instilled in us during our upbringing. By the same token, however, I preach patience and tolerance for those who have not yet overcome the prejudices of their upbringing.. Hopefully, they will some day come around and develop total acceptance.

Piratz This is the essence of a progressive society, in general. Change is always generational.

Only 51 years ago our great country disenfranchised their fellow Americans from basic rights of liberty because of the color of our skin. It was 86 years ago that women couldn't vote. Heck, at one point people thought the Earth was flat!

catholicman, Tuesday at 8:36 AM . It amazes me that Judeo-Christian moral teachings are so easily dismissed. Countless posts can be made calling them bigotry, unenlightened, etc. As soon as any serious intellectual disagreement is mounted, the thread gets locked. That, my brothers, is intolerance.

I will pray for Derrick and wish him no ill-will. But the movement and lifestyle he has aligned himself with is evil. I hope that his time at Seton Hall will be good for his soul. But it seems more and more apparent that the school as an institution has lost its moorings.

SPK145, Tuesday at 8:45 AM . Being gay isn't like joining a club like the KKK or the Black Panthers.

lr591902, Tuesday at 8:51 AM . This is why I no longer call myself a catholic. Men made his lifestyle evil not God.

Halldan1, Tuesday at 9:02 AM Thank you for reminding me why I grow more and more intolerant of religious beliefs as I get older. Derrick Gordon and his lifestyle is none of anyone's business. And that includes the Catholic Church. Maybe if more young men grew up as he has it would be a far better world.

TheBluePirate, Tuesday at 9:03 AM . C-man - lepers were shunned as evil sinners but we finally figured out it was not a choice or a lifestyle. But the verses in the bible were not rewritten to reflect this evolved understanding. However, do you still teach rigidly that lepers are evil sinners and unclean?

In the matter of LGBT, science is consistently confirming the overwhelming genetic basis for a wide variation in gender (not to mention the obvious - that this occurs all across natural creation). This is not lifestyle or choice. It is rather sad - you see moral decay - I see a chance to remove falsely placed so-called moral supremacy (the tyranny of old incorrect words, making them far more important than the central message of love).

Piratz, Tuesday at 9:22 AM . This whole debate really boils down to this: So you're telling us Gordon is confused or choosing this, or is being persuaded by evil because of his sexual preference?

Belluno, Tuesday at 9:39 AM . Derrick Gordon chose to make an issue of his sexual lifestyle. Before he made a production of it, I doubt any of us knew or cared what he was up to. There's plenty of intolerance of religious beliefs being spewed on these boards. Yours is mild in comparison to others. The real hate is coming from those who scream the loudest for diversity and understanding. JCalz88 is looking forward to the day whole generations die. And that lovely Jimmyd36 wants to cost a man his job for holding an opposite view. He probably loves putting Mom and Pop bakeries out of business, too. So don't hand me any crap about intolerance. The traditionalists are the most tolerant people on these boards.

jcalz88, Tuesday at 9:49 AM . Belluno, Im looking forward to those idea dieing and going away. Derrick Gordon chose to stand up for other who are to afraid to do it themselves, I do not call this a production, he took the first step to open up a dialogue. Now, I respect the views of a Catholic or those that you have. I just know they are completely wrong and outdated. Hell, 20-30 years ago people believed blacks were inferior and should drink from different water fountains... How silly does that looks now? I say get ahead of the curve, a new train is coming into the station anyone with these old views looks stupid and foolish and should be called out for it.

I have a cousin of mine who runs a magazine for the Vatican and he is openly gay, his boy friend also works for the Vatican and is gay as could be. Many of their friends are priests and noone has any issue with it. Funny story his brother is a top Republican strategist fun Christmas eve dinners.

Even that guy who runs the church whats his name... O the Pope said to relax take a breath focus on other stuff.

SPK145 said: ? Being gay isn't like joining a club like the KKK or the Black Panthers.

Belluno, Tuesday at 9:50 AM . No, but heterosexual or homosexual we are called on to rise above our base instincts. Michaelangelo apparently was a homosexual but there is good reason to believe he led a chaste life.

jcalz88, Tuesday at 9:50 AM . Guys like Catholicman are a dieing breed, the times are changing and they do not know what to do so they call it evil and quote a sentence in some book that is thousands of years old. By all means be the last one fighting this you will look dumb and ignorant.

Belluno, Tuesday at 10:05 AM . There's nothing new about your train, JCalz. It's been around forever and it's been wrong for as long. I've plenty to answer for and sins of the flesh are at the top of the list, but I'm not so stupid as to deny the seriousness of my actions. Now I'm trying to walk with God and praying for His Divine mercy. I advise you to get off that train before it derails and takes you with it.

catholicman said: ? But the movement and lifestyle he has aligned himself with is evil.

Shuathelete, Tuesday at 10:06 AM . Yea it would be much better if his lifestyle was directed towards children against there will. Now thats something to be supportive of!

Belluno said: ? The traditionalists are the most tolerant people on these boards.

Halldan1, Tuesday at 10:09 AM Maybe we are all painting each other with too board a brush. But I stand by my point. sexual preference is no one's business but the individual's.

Belluno, Tuesday at 10:19 AM . Here we go again. Those children were teen aged boys and their oppressors were homosexual priests who were then moved from parish to parish by their soulmates. You persist in defaming pedophiles. At least take the time to look up the definition before you write.

Belluno said: ? There's nothing new about your train, JCalz. It's been around forever and it's been wrong for as long....I advise you to get off that train before it derails and takes you with it.

jcalz88, Tuesday at 10:26 AM Booked my first class seat on this train a while ago. If it derails then so be it, but many thought Rosa Parks train would derail as well... I have a few gay friends and family members, what kind of person would I be if I did not stand up for the injustice and prejudice they see day in and out...

Belluno, we may not agree on this topic but I am sure we would get along other wise. Thank you for having a respectable conversation with me on this.

 

[Old_alum]

jcalz88, Tuesday at 10:26 AM Booked my first class seat on this train a while ago. If it derails then so be it, but many thought Rosa Parks train would derail as well... I have a few gay friends and family members, what kind of person would I be if I did not stand up for the injustice and prejudice they see day in and out...

Belluno, we may not agree on this topic but I am sure we would get along other wise. Thank you for having a respectable conversation with me on this.

Halldan1, Tuesday at 10:29 AM Before he left the area I and many others in the Booster Club knew and respected belluno. You are correct when you note you would have gotten along well with him.

Section112, Tuesday at 10:38 AM I try to respect all opinions. I really think if you go back to the bible and see where Jesus treated the lepers well and spoke to the prostitute (which in their time speaking to women was very different but speaking to a prostitute openly was not looked at with approval at all) was an example that Jesus was making that we need to treat all people with respect. Is not Love they Neighbor and Thou Shalt Not Judge key foundations to Catholicism? I truly believe that with Jesus example and those commandments we should not judge and be more accepting. Hopefully with this current Pope some of the doctrines will be rewritten but I can't wait that long and in the end you have to feel good about your own actions. Life is short and there is only finite time to do what you think is right. Oh and Jcalz I'm old...

Halldan1 said: ? Thank you for reminding me why I grow more and more intolerant of religious beliefs as I get older. Derrick Gordon and his lifestyle is none of anyone's business. And that includes the Catholic Church.

bd98, Tuesday at 10:59 AM . The worst thing ever invented by man was God.

kniespolice, Tuesday at 11:05 AM . What's more annoying the religious zealots or the liberals who shove everything down our throat?

The liberals scream for people to be tolerant but they are intolerant of anybody who doesn't agree with their stance and will stop at nothing to ruin people's lives who don't share their views.

The religious zealots quote scripture that was meant for a completely different time in this world. Unfortunately for them society has gone so far off the rails that they are heavily outnumbered.

Seton75, Tuesday at 11:10 AM I too see this as a civil rights issue. The church and most large institutions are battleships with a guy at the end of the boat dipping his foot in the water to try make the boat turn. Belluno and I may never agree on this issue, but I am very happy to see him posting. We have never met, but I wish that wasn't so.

Belluno said: ? No, but heterosexual or homosexual we are called on to rise above our base instincts. Michaelangelo apparently was a homosexual but there is good reason to believe he led a chaste life.

cernjSHU, Tuesday at 11:21 AM . Did you just say there is reason to believe that Michelangelo led a chaste life? First, the man was a homosexual and a genius. His work has added so profoundly to what symbolizes the Catholic faith. Yet, you some how rationalize that believing he did not engage in homosexual acts. However, there is a love letter from the great master artist to the man he loved - Tomasso de Cavalieri. I am sure will say this was just a platonic relationship but it is clear that it was not. Just read the letter. I never addressed my buddies like that I can assure you. What I despise is hypocrisy. A man is not evil because he is gay. A man is evil because of the harm he does to another human being. I see what true evil is on a daily basis.

Some Christian types believe that gambling is evil it is this type of puritanical thinking that retards growth and stunts us as a society.

Just let people be who they are and do what they want -true freedom- as long as it does not harm another.

sami, Tuesday at 11:21 AM . Pretty ignorant to link pedophilia and homosexuality, though ignorance is the norm for some here.

bd98 said: ? The worst thing ever invented by man was God.

Piratz, Tuesday at 11:50 AM Few things have caused more pain and bloodshed than religion, that's for sure. That doesn't necessarily disprove God, but disproves man-controlled institutions are anything but "divinely inspired". They've merely been glorified governments; raking in cash, living lavishly, and controlling the populous through fear.

Now we're supposed to be treating someone as influenced by "evil" because their sexual preference is different? When does it end? And can we eat meat on Friday's yet? I don't think God minds.

catholicman said: ? It amazes me that Judeo-Christian moral teachings are so easily dismissed. Countless posts can be made calling them bigotry, unenlightened, etc. As soon as any serious intellectual disagreement is mounted, the thread gets locked. That, my brothers, is intolerance.

shu09, Tuesday at 12:12 PM . Then why did God create him as he is? He didn't choose to be who he is.

kniespolice said: ? What's more annoying the religious zealots or the liberals who shove everything down our throat?

shu09, Tuesday at 12:21 PM . This is a good point when it comes to society at large. Both sides are to blame. I cannot stand it when the politically correct crowd tries to work their way into other people's business. Nor can I stand it when ignorance and bigotry rears it head. Here's an idea. Stop being "offended" about what other people do and just live your life the way you see fit. Life is too short to be upset about trivial matters, which most of the "issues" in society today are. If more people just lived and stopped worrying, we'd be better off.

chickenbox, Tuesday at 12:32 PM People say they don't care about his sexuality, but I do, and the reason I care is because people like catholicman, Belluno, et al plus countless others elsewhere care so much to brand / treat him as evil, sinful, less than, etc because of his sexuality under the cowardly discriminator's most beloved catch-all defense for bigotry of, "it's my religious belief!" Their behavior is wrong, it's gross, and it's reprehensible. Thankfully, it is also slowly but surely fading, and hopefully someday gay people will be able to live in peace from these strangers who care so desperately about their love lives (kinda weird, if you ask me). But, since that day has not yet come, and I think it's awesome that The Hall has the opportunity to play a role in this latest small, historic step toward acceptance and understanding that gay people are just regular people, and I hope it plays it well.



Piratz said: ? Few things have caused more pain and bloodshed than religion, that's for sure.

Belluno, Tuesday at 1:15 PM . Really? How about Stalin and Hitler for modern starters. Or maybe you'd prefer Pol Pot. I believe religions do far more good in the world, physically and spiritually, than anything else that springs to mind. My mind, at least

And can we eat meat on Friday's yet? I don't think God minds.

Sure you can and God won't mind, but I believe our sacrifices on earth in His name do not go unnoticed and will ultimately serve us well. Blaise Pascal said that atheists hate religion because they fear it's true Maybe we should all read Pascal's Wager again.

Finally, Chickenbox, don't put words in my mouth. I'm very careful about what I say and how I say it and I don't need you to falsely attribute things to me or to call me a coward. I couldn't care less what homosexuals do and I certainly don't want to think about their intimate actions, but it has now reached a point where people are being forced to accept a a life style they know is contrary to their strongly held beliefs or lose their businesses or be branded as bigots or worse. So much for diversity.

 

[Old_alum]

Christ said the greatest commandment is that "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." And He then said the second greatest commandment is "like unto this. You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

The opposite of love is not hate; it is selfishness. In the 1960s the so-called "New Morality" said that no act per se is evil but only the context of the act, the rationalization of it. This was soon distilled down to "If an action does not hurt another person, then it's OK." Which soon devolved into "If it feels good, do it."

My understanding of the short-hand version of Christ's command is that if an action were to be only for selfish reasons, then do NOT do it.

Ask yourself --- and others if so inclined --- to name one moment in your life when you were truly happy. I shall bet that it centers around "other people": wife, son, daughter, grandchild, friend, parent. Fulton Sheen said that "a selfish person cannot be happy". He did not say "might not be happy". He said cannot. Because true happiness comes only from serving other people.


That said, when a coach knows that certain behavior will hurt her players, her team, their fans (say, for example, smoking), she coaches against such behavior. Most would "prohibit" such behavior. The Church as "coach" tries to guide its members away from counter-productive behavior. It condemns the behavior not the person.


Each must follow his or her own conscience, but everyone is responsible to have a "rightly formed" conscience.


Homosexual behavior is always selfish. Heterosexual behavior outside marriage is always selfish. And, to someone's earlier point, excessive gambling should always be considered selfish and therefore to be avoided.


That's all the time I have for now.


RSVP

 

[cernjSHU]

[QUOTE=" Heterosexual behavior outside marriage is always selfish. And, to someone's earlier point, excessive gambling should always be considered selfish and therefore to be avoided.


That's all the time I have for now.


RSVP[/QUOTE]

Oh well, call me selfish. However, riddle me this. How is pleasing one's lover outside marriage a selfish act? If one serves his lover's needs, isn't that serving another and is a selfless act even though it is outside marriage? If this sex is going on between two people who love each other, isn't that selfless?

 

[donnie_baseball]

I'm usually right there with you, old alum, but I'm with cern on this one, to an extent. Expound upon "selfish," in this context. Are heterosexual adulterers and homosexual adulterers equal in sin? Can only heterosexuals "fix" this by becoming married, in the sacramental sense?

As far as cern's question goes, "meeting needs" is very subjective. You can meet someone's physical needs without coming close to meeting their emotional needs.

 

[JIMSOULS]

Old alum, you're being awfully judgmental about a subject you know nothing about. Before commenting further, why don't you talk to some actual gay people about so they can tell you what it's like to live in their skin? One of my gay friends would be more than happy to chat with you, should you have trouble finding someone. At the very least, watch the Derrick Gordon video that was posted in the basketball forum. People are never too old to learn something new, so perhaps you might discover that you have these people you judge (and you are judging) as sinners all wrong. I'll understand if you decline, as some people are afraid of having to admit they might be wrong.

One last thing. Since you're not gay, then you cannot possibly understand what it's like to be gay. Truthfully, I can't either. I also can't understand what it's like to black, Hispanic, poor, or a woman. But over time, I've learned to accept and respect these people for who they are. Unlike what many Americans seem to believe, the entire country doesn't revolve around Conservative Christian, white, heterosexual males. If our country truly wants to be considered "great," then its citizens need to accept and respect people from all backgrounds. No one is better than anyone else because of their skin color, ethnic background, religion, gender, or economic status. The sooner people realize this, the better off we'll be as a nation.

 

[Turiddu]

It is easy for me to respect and value all of those who have shared their views especially when it is done without venom or name calling.I love the Church and despite strong differences I remain and will always be Catholic. However, that has a different meaning for me after many years of exploring the Scriptures and the history of the Roman church, There are many facets to what has been deemed matters of doctrine and if you do not understand things like how Papal infallibility came about in the 19th century then it appears that dissent is heretical. It is no longer the simple'if you don't adhere then leave. It is much more complex than tha,t and I have treasured Old Alum's learning and invaluable contributions to this board but on many of these issues we have a different prism and come to different conclusions.

 

[Seton75]

I believe humans are sexual beings. Most of us express our sexuality heterosexually, some homosexual and some go both ways. Some have little interest in sex. I am married and I limit my sexual expression to my wife. If a single man has sexual relationship (s), I believe that is natural. I think saying a man can be Homosexual as long as he does not express himself Homosexually is so far from understanding; it is asking him to live an unnatural life. Any religion's ideas on this are unimportant to me.

I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives.

As a kid, my friends and i made fun of a group of flamboyant gay men who went to the beach in my town. Our behavior was learned by simply being in society and will shame me forever. Noh8.

 

[Old_alum]

How is pleasing one's lover outside marriage a selfish act? If one serves his lover's needs, isn't that serving another and is a selfless act even though it is outside marriage? If this sex is going on between two people who love each other, isn't that selfless?

This gets back to the important differences among pleasure, joy and happiness. None of those is consistently defined in the lexicon, but let's say that pleasure is the anatomic feelings of titillation (e.g. sexual stimulation, hot fudge on ice cream, a warm car-seat on an icy morning). Let's define joy as 'pleasure shared' with another. Self-stimulation is pleasurable, but shared it is a joy. But to my way of thinking 'happiness' can be --- for the most part --- reserved for when one person does something for another person --- or experiences some 'good' for another person (e.g. relief from disease or sorrow) --- and the first gets no 'pleasure' per se from it himself or herself. It is virtually all 'other' focused. These are my definitions meant merely to facilitate discussion.


Virtually all pleasure is fleeting --- and as often as not regrettable. The beer tastes good going down, but as soon as the mug is empty, the 'feelings' one gets often reverse to regret rather than just subsiding. The person's "lower" feelings are NEVER satisfied. While some act might have "felt good", it is my non-conscious brain (I prefer non-conscious to "subconscious" or to "brain-one" as used in Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow") which compulsively drives me to infer that if some was 'good', then 'get more'. Why does a hamster run on a treadmill? Neuroscientists indicate it is out of compulsive habit solely: I did it, I got sensation, I'll do it again.


But the human's conscious brain is left unsated and hollow by mere 'pleasure'. Augustine said that "anticipation is the greater joy". In the 1950s song Peggy Lee asked "Is that all there is?" Pleasure is a 'lower' instinct. It does not satisfy the higher --- God-like ---- needs of humans. Read Lee Iacocca or Boris Becker.


Now when 'other' is added, then higher-man's social "feelings" percolate into the mix. The pleasure of masturbation morphs into the apparent joy of consensual sex. MUCH better ---BUT still not fulfilling humans' higher needs. When man's basest instinct of "dominance" (the pecking-order: it's not enough that I succeed in life, it is also important that my associates fail) drives behavior with a cutting-barb said to a coworker or --- far worse --- with a sensationally gratifying punch to the face of a malefactor (or the terrorizing of the "different", e.g. the homosexual whom one poster tormented on the beach in his youth), it is because it "feels" good; it drives "pleasure". When channeled into sports this "dominance" drive relishes the titillation of victory (or morphs it into "joy" when "shared" with his community of teammates and adoring fans). The "joy" feels lasting but I would postulate that such a feeling is merely faux happiness. But such a "sense" of "accomplishment" --- be it athletic, research, academic, professional --- is alluring only as promise of the real thing ---- helping others.


So almost all humans go through life grasping at the nebulous illusions of real happiness. And they think that is enough.


As requested, did you ask yourself to choose one or a couple of moments in your life when you felt most "happy"? Could they be characterized as "pleasure" (titillation); or as "joy" (shared pleasure); or as the true happiness imparted from "other's" benefiting? Are you open to the distinctions and implications therein?


All of that said, I cannot --- and shall not --- judge the "selfishness" or the "love" in the motives --- or the "hearts" --- of others. But I shall add that the most ubiquitous of all base-drives, "dominance", often imprisons one's opportunity to delve deeper into what really satisfies the human heart. This can express itself in the familiar "who are you to tell me what is best" drive which clouds the conscious reasoning more than any other. The smart man learns from his own mistakes; the wise man learns from the mistakes --- as well as the understandings --- of others.


Be back later for the other posts.

 

[Old_alum]

I'm usually right there with you, old alum, but I'm with cern on this one, to an extent. Expound upon "selfish," in this context. Are heterosexual adulterers and homosexual adulterers equal in sin? Can only heterosexuals "fix" this by becoming married, in the sacramental sense?

As far as cern's question goes, "meeting needs" is very subjective. You can meet someone's physical needs without coming close to meeting their emotional needs.

Emphasis added!

See my reply to Cern.

When I characterize --- in your words --- "heterosexual adulterers and homosexual adulterers" both as selfish, it was to avoid the secularly taboo word "sin".

My saying both are selfish or sinful does not imply the acts are "equal in sin". They are not. But when one's associates cannot even fathom the concept of "sin" might it not be more repulsive to them to introduce the refinement of "degree" ?

We did discuss that in an earlier thread, which --- when I have time --- I shall try to find and link for the economy of not reblazing that trail.

 

[Old_alum]

I love the Church and despite strong differences I remain and will always be Catholic. However, that has a different meaning for me after many years of exploring the Scriptures and the history of the Roman church, There are many facets to what has been deemed matters of doctrine and if you do not understand things like how Papal infallibility came about in the 19th century then it appears that dissent is heretical. It is no longer the simple'if you don't adhere then leave. It is much more complex than that and ...on many of these issues we have a different prism and come to different conclusions.

Emphasis added.

I would love to hear more details on your "prism", Turridu.

 

[Old_alum]

I believe humans are sexual beings. Most of us express our sexuality heterosexually, some homosexual and some go both ways. Some have little interest in sex. I am married and I limit my sexual expression to my wife. If a single man has sexual relationship (s), I believe that is natural. I think saying a man can be Homosexual as long as he does not express himself Homosexually is so far from understanding; it is asking him to live an unnatural life. Any religion's ideas on this are unimportant to me.

I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives.

As a kid, my friends and i made fun of a group of flamboyant gay men who went to the beach in my town. Our behavior was learned by simply being in society and will shame me forever. Noh8.

Humans --- like all living creatures ---- ARE sexual beings. But why? What is the "natural" purpose of sex?

Is sex merely a matter of "expression"?

Do you think your own adolescent behavior resulted more from religions' characterization of homosexual "behavior" as inappropriate or from the atavistic xenophobic venting of your "gang's" innate "dominance" drive? Did you approach that person and discuss his rationale and "feelings" or did your gang just vent their spleens on the "different" with expletives?

Please explain the following:
"I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives."

How does closing one's mind to any 'ideas' as "unimportant to me" help anyone in any way?

 

[Turiddu]

Emphasis added.

I would love to hear more details on your "prism", Turridu.

Much of the Christian message and tradition cannot be separated from the political and social context in which the message and life of Christ evolved. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses and the oral traditions were often used to support political situations. and had social implications.Through the centuries political realities of the church and the state being one had more than casual influences on doctrine and the moral dictates of the church. Even the infallibility of the pope when he speaks on matters of faith and morals is in the opinion of many church historians and scholars a political invention without sound theological roots.If you view the church as a living organism rather than a depository of do's and don'ts" then dialogue on the so called absolutes can be explored.Much of the church teaching on sexual matters is flimsy at best with very isolated Biblical texts and a great deal of the information comes out of historical periods which were biased regarding the role and value of women.The Christian message with regard to the Beatitudes is timeless, but on so many other issues it is not heresy or deviance to search for the human reasons that led to the dictates as they now stand.

 

[Old_alum]

The order of the following post-reference is not the original. I took the liberty of reordering it to emphasize the self-refutation it intrinsically contains:

Since you're not gay, then you cannot possibly understand what it's like to be gay. Truthfully, I can't either.

Wow! Then why should anyone read what your write??

Old alum, you're being awfully judgmental....

Please document specifics.

....about a subject you know nothing about.

Please document how you ascertained the extent of my knowledge.

Before commenting further, why don't you talk to some actual gay people about so they can tell you what it's like to live in their skin? One of my gay friends would be more than happy to chat with you, should you have trouble finding someone.

Please explain your omniscience, Jim!!! This is a horrifically prejudicial statement, is it not?

...perhaps you might discover that you have these people you judge (and you are judging) as sinners all wrong.

First, while I would be glad for you to show me any misperception I might have, to my knowledge the ONLY time herein that I have used the words "sin" and "sinner" were in relation to us Church members, ourselves, and to Jesus' admonition to the crowd and to the adulterer.

Second, I tried to be very explicit that neither the Church nor I espouse judging any person. What I said was that the Church judges only behavior. They --- and I --- try to love all people, sinners all.

So what is the grounds for this statement?

...why don't you talk to some actual gay people about [ed: this?] so they can tell you what it's like to live in their skin?

Again you are being totally presumptuous!

While it is neither any of your business nor cogent to the topic, as a matter of fact, not only do I have friends and acquaintances who are gay, I have a beloved family member who participates in single-sex "marriage". But how does that impact the logic of the arguments in any regard.

People are never too old to learn something new....

Physician heal thyself.

I'll understand if you decline, as some people are afraid of having to admit they might be wrong.

Not I, Jim!

I would be most happy for you to make a logical case to change my opinion! My mind is open! Is yours?

But over time, I've learned to accept and respect these people for who they are. Unlike what many Americans seem to believe, the entire country doesn't revolve around Conservative Christian, white, heterosexual males. If our country truly wants to be considered "great," then its citizens need to accept and respect people from all backgrounds. No one is better than anyone else because of their skin color, ethnic background, religion, gender, or economic status. The sooner people realize this, the better off we'll be as a nation.

I agree with and support this 100%!

I have tried to live this way for my entire life.

I respect all people and all opinions!

Do you?

BTW are you able to discern any differences between who a person is and how that person behaves?

 

[Old_alum]

Much of the Christian message and tradition cannot be separated from the political and social context in which the message and life of Christ evolved. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses and the oral traditions were often used to support political situations. and had social implications.

I could argue some of the finer points of this, but I accept your premise.

Through the centuries political realities of the church and the state being one had more than casual influences on doctrine and the moral dictates of the church.

I would avidly concur both that a culture with "the church and the state being one" is not good and that this did have "more than casual influences" on the behavior and judgments of clerics, but I am not aware of any true Church "doctrine" being impacted thereby. Can you please be specific?

Even the infallibility of the pope when he speaks on matters of faith and morals is in the opinion of many church historians and scholars a political invention without sound theological roots.

But it is my experience that "the opinion(s) of many church historians and scholars " very often err. Further, one might well argue that the following is very straight-forward:

"...And Jesus answered him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jona; it is not flesh and blood, it is my Father in heaven that has revealed this to thee. And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven....." ( Matthew 16:17-20 )

If you view the church as a living organism rather than a depository of do's and don'ts" then dialogue on the so called absolutes can be explored.

Whatever one's views, let's explore the "so called absolutes "!

Much of the church teaching on sexual matters is flimsy at best with very isolated Biblical texts ....

"Flimsy"? Come on, Turiddu, you aren't imitating Jim's rhetoric, are you?

Much of the church teaching on sexual matters ...comes out of historical periods which were biased regarding the role and value of women.

I agree 100%! But let's differentiate "teachings" from "doctrine".

The Christian message with regard to the Beatitudes is timeless, but on so many other issues it is not heresy or deviance to search for the human reasons that led to the dictates as they now stand.

Searching has NEVER been heresy. So search away! But would it not be at least as beneficial to "search for" the Divine reasons that led to the "doctrines"?

You see I discern very little difference between the beatitudes and the "Doctrines" of the Church.

I can guess what you are referring to, but wouldn't it be easier if you were to explain any issues you now have with Doctrine. We have no time limits, right?

BTW, my understanding of the etymology of "heresy" is that it means "to pull out a thread from a garment".

 

[Seton75]

Please explain the following:
"I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives."

I think it ruined countless lives of homosexuals who grew up in a world where they were outcasts. I also think sexual repression was a huge part of the sexual abuse scandal. I think sex is for fun, for intimacy, to show love, for procreation

Humans --- like all living creatures ---- ARE sexual beings. But why? What is the "natural" purpose of sex?

Is sex merely a matter of "expression"?

Do you think your own adolescent behavior resulted more from religions' characterization of homosexual "behavior" as inappropriate or from the atavistic xenophobic venting of your "gang's" innate "dominance" drive? Did you approach that person and discuss his rationale and "feelings" or did your gang just vent their spleens on the "different" with expletives?

Please explain the following:
"I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives."

How does closing one's mind to any 'ideas' as "unimportant to me" help anyone in any way?

Sex is fun, it is showing affection, expressing intimacy, and for procreation.

I think my adolescent behavior was learned in the white, Christian, suburban society I grew up in. I was in grammar school or early HS when this occurred, and talking to these men never occurred to me, and at the time, I had no interest in what they said and I am sure the feeling was mutual. We were a bunch of punks acting out how society treated them. I was still of the mind that they were sick weirdos. And kids still grow up that way.

I would guess most if not all homosexuals are injured by society's lack of acceptance to this day. A friend of mine in HS, a terrific athlete, popular with the girls (we got our tux for the Sr prom together I remember clearly), came out a while ago. His name cannot come up without "can you believe he is gay" following close by. It is not said with the same feelings as when we discuss a very successful girl and say "came you believe she became a millionaire". In the pre Stonewall Days, a man or woman not in one of the homosexual communities they cropped up in cities, like Greenwich Village, must have felt so isolated and riddled with self doubt. They did grow up with a condition that was considered a mental illness, society shunned and mocked them, like my friends and I in my example, they were peppered with the catcalls we all know. I cannot imagine how this did not ruin lives. Do you really think it did not cause great harm to fellow human beings? And I bet it ruined the lives of many spouses and children of such men and women who lived a charade of marriage to try to get by.

What Islam says about homosexuality has no import to me. What the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church says means the same. And the Church of Scientology (they still consider it a mental illness and they try to cure the afflicted...) People like Pat Robertson and other fundamentalists blame all wars and bad weather on society's acceptance of homosexuals. I just see them as men and women of the earth who were born with a condition that society has ridiculed for centuries, and finally they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. They are fellow human beings who I see as good or bad based on how they act in society, not based on the sexual preference they were born with.

Wonder how the vote goes in Ireland today, the first country to put gay marriage in the ballot. NOH8

 

[Turiddu]

Let me first address your quote on Peter being the "rock" on which I will build my church.There has been a constant argument that Christ was not referring to Peter. In the original language Peter is referred to in this passage only in the second person and rock being a neuter is referred to in the third person. The other reality is that this and many other passages are not eye witness accounts but are the result of years and years of oral transmissions and often they were changed to fit certain political needs. The Protestant scholarly world vehemently disagrees with the Catholic interpretation of this text and make a cogent argument that this is a use of a text to support a certain belief and philosophy.
Another interesting fact is that Pope Honorius in the seventh century was condemned for practicing heresy for his teaching on doctrinal issues. an interesting case of a pope being fallible while wearing the mantle off infallibility.

Is there a difference between church doctrine and infallibility?Could you please show me which doctrines are infallible and why did the church feel a need to promulgate this until the 19th century?

Show me the iron clad texts in scripture which point out and condemn homosexuality? All the texts that are available are open to various interpretations and we have to constantly be aware that tradition has value but through literally hundreds of years of oral transmission it is difficult to be absolute. What is the scientific proof that homosexual love is deviant?Do you believe that church teaching on sexuality has not been influenced by clerics to support their often puritanical views of sexuality?. Are other religious groups who define love and sexuality on a wider frame wrong? I think we differ on what is natural and I believe that homosexual love and the expression of that love is not unnatural. I believe that love can have value completely separate from the aspect of procreation.
I think your line about imitating Jim was a cheap shot and I choose not to engage at that level.


I totally respect your literal adherence to the teaching of the church and I am not about to debate that, but I have a very different view about infallibility,doctrine,tradition and believe that great deal of what we assume to be infallible is relative and open to thoughtful differences.

 

[Old_alum]

Let me first address your quote on Peter being the "rock" on which I will build my church. There has been a constant argument that Christ was not referring to Peter. In the original language Peter is referred to in this passage only in the second person and rock being a neuter is referred to in the third person.

I am aware of several arguments that Christ was not referring to Peter as the "rock". The most widely argued is that the Greek word used for rock is in the Feminine and Peter's name is in the masculine. The argument goes on that the masculine form indicates a "pebble" and the masculine form often indicates a "boulder". There are two issues with that. First, the "masculine" indicating a "pebble" was only used in ancient Greek like Homer's and was not the custom 2100 years ago. Second, while the Gospels were most likely first transcribed in Greek, it is almost universally espoused that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic there is only one word (popularly) used for rock: kephar which became Simon's "name". It has no person or gender. There is one person I am aware who has argued that Aramaic word "evna" was used for the foundation, but evna means "stone", which is generally smaller than a "rock". FYI in French the phrase reads : "You arepierre and on this pierre I will build my church".

The argument goes that it was Peter's Faith that represented the "foundation" rock, but that fails the rhetorical style of the whole phrase and it makes no sense as it was not unique.

That said, such an argument is irrelevant, compared to what IMHO is the more relevant phrase which uses the second person singular pronouns: " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.....". Who cares if Peter was the rock if Jesus gives him the keys (see ) to bind and unbind in heaven? And that is not the only scriptural support for the Pope, if you want to delve into it more.

But from a common sense perspective, if Jesus were, as reported to be, concerned that his followers would not be "one" and since he guaranteed that the Paraclete would lead the Apostles in "truth", why would He NOT give an infallible arbiter of Faith & Morals?

The other reality is that this and many other passages are not eye witness accounts but are the result of years and years of oral transmissions and often they were changed to fit certain political needs.

It is most likely true that the Gospel was first "preached" and not "transcribed" but there is no evidence one way or the other whether or not Aramaic versions ever existed. Further, there is vast sociological of the fidelity of oral records (I'll bet you know not only the words but also the intonations of the 'original' recordings of your favorite rock songs from high school, right?). But most importantly, it does not matter! Jesus sent the Paraclete to preserve the truth. So are you arguing that the Lord who made the heavens and the earth was incapable of getting his story right???

Also, please supply evidence of your last statement because it is news to me that the Church changed doctrinal interpretations to meet political needs.

The Protestant scholarly world vehemently disagrees with the Catholic interpretation of this text and make a cogent argument that this is a use of a text to support a certain belief and philosophy.

Well I guess you could say that! Except for one little problem. The interpretation is in almost every case well documented and unchanging from the time of the Patristic fathers. It was not the Catholics who deleted any text (even entire BOOKS) that did not fully support with one's own interpretation, was it?

And then again there's that annoying Paraclete!

Another interesting fact is that Pope Honorius in the seventh century was condemned for practicing heresy for his teaching on doctrinal issues. an interesting case of a pope being fallible while wearing the mantle off infallibility.

Boy, you have done some homework, haven't you?


Have you read his letters? Does that heresy resonate with you?


Look, the Catholic Church keeps EVERYTHING forever. You want data on the inquisition or the crusades or Galileo? The Church has all of the records! For 500 years Protestants apologists have been searching under every stone for a scintilla of evidence of Papal fallibility (sic). The best, no, the ONLY thing they could come up with was a letter from one pope 1400 years ago who had written a personal note to his buddy, the Bishop in Carthage (I think that's right), in which he mentioned that a guy he heard speak had made some sense to him. Oops! He found out it was heretical! And do you remember what that heresy was? Hint: it wasn't infallibility or the sanctity of marriage.


Infallibility is not disproven by Honorius' private opinions nor his failure to act decisively to stop a heresy that was raging during his pontificate.

Heck, there was even one Pope --- whose name I forget --- who had hand drafted a heresy ex cathedra but he went to bed before he signed it and the Paraclete took him in his sleep! Reportedly of totally unsuspicious causes because almost no one knew he had written it. Good ol' Paraclete!

Is there a difference between church doctrine and infallibility? Could you please show me which doctrines are infallible ....?

It is my understanding that all Church Doctrine is infallible. Somehwere on the Vatican website there is probably a list of infallible pronouncements made from the seat of Peter (ex cathedra) but I don't know where to find it easily. But it is also my understanding that all Papal pronouncements --- even those NOT ex cathedra --- are universally binding on all Catholics. So I never worried about such a list.

....why did the church (ed: not) feel a need to promulgate this until the 19th century?

Let's say a private investigator followed me around for a several months. Let's say that he saw me and a woman do everything a husband and wife are expected to do BUT in all those months he never heard me promulgate that this woman was my wife. The detective could make the case that the woman was not married to me. If I were only then to tell him that the woman was my wife would you expect him to say: "Sure! Now you claim that! Why did you wait so long?" But all of that wouldn't change our relationship!


As to infallibility, the Catholic Church makes specific promulgations at the times they deem appropriate. Heck, why do you think there has been a schism between the Orthodox and Roman churches in 1054? Is that long enough ago to satisfy your timeliness concerns? But if even that concerns you then why has the Orthodox Church not held a Council since then? It's because they readily say that they it would be illegal to have a council without the blessing of the Bishop of Rome.

to be continued

 

[Old_alum]

Continued from above.

Show me the iron clad texts in scripture which point out and condemn homosexuality? All the texts that are available are open to various interpretations and we have to constantly be aware that tradition (ed: does have) value but through literally hundreds of years of oral transmission it is difficult to be absolute.

I think we have covered this. But as you are well aware there are numerous scriptural passages that explicitly do just that (many from Paul and more from the Old Testament). But I am a Catholic and like almost all Catholics I cannot easily quote chapter and verse.


That said, there are even more verses that condemn adultery --- sex outside marriage, and both Genesis and Jesus make it abundantly clear that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a sacred union.


More importantly, the ONLY reason we have scripture, or what is commonly called the New Testament is that the Catholic Church promulgated the Canon! And it did so based on its Magisterium which includes a heck of a lot of oral tradition. John said that if everything Jesus had taught them were written down, there would not be enough books to hold it. And Jesus said the Paraclete would protect His Church in the Truth. And Peter said that even a learned man's interpretation of scripture done without Apostolic guidance can be damnable.


It all comes down to that Paraclete.

What is the scientific proof that homosexual love is deviant?

Deviant? If you mean different than normal, it is easy! The homosexual population is about 3 sigma from the norm. If you mean morally deviant and you don't accept Christian, Jewish or Muslim ideas of morality, then it would take some research. If you mean biologically, then I would merely look at Form, Function and Purpose. If there are body parts designed to fit together to perform a specific function with a particular purpose then I would argue that is a good definition of natural. Without that Form, Function and Purpose --- as well as the commitment to no other for life --- I would suggest the only other obvious reason left might be for entertainment, which I would be hard pressed to describe as "natural".

Do you believe that church teaching on sexuality has not been influenced by clerics to support their often puritanical views of sexuality?

Well, I think that teaching has been universally espoused by all Christians for centuries before there even were people called "clerics". That's back when believers were crucified or fed to beasts for espousing such things.

As for "Puritanical", I find that word choice religiously ironical. I do agree that there have been clerics and others who preached the fire and brimstone of the angry patriarch and not the beatitudes represented in Catholic doctrine.

Are other religious groups who define love and sexuality on a wider frame wrong?

IMHO when we talk "true" religion it is much like "True North". There is only one true north, and man's best compass will never "truly" point to it. IMHO God instilled a moral-compass in every human. It's just that some humans don't agree with the readings it usually gives them. To me, the philosophical "truths" of many non-Christian religions often seem to deal more with social ethics than theology. In the logical necessity of non-contradictory rules I have to say yes, the others are wrong.

I think we differ on what is natural and I believe that homosexual love and the expression of that love is not unnatural. I believe that love can have value completely separate from the aspect of procreation.

From whence do you derive that definition of "natural"?

Is it the anything like the source that now seems to define "marriage" as "any two or more mammals who feel good about cohabitating for a while and want to avoid estate taxes and reduce tax rates and health insurance premia"? (see Professor Robert George with a little SPK thrown in). Look in any biology book published before 1970-80 and I will bet you'll discover adjectives like deviant or abnormal applied thereto. But remember that those books all also say that a fetus is a human person, so what do they know?

I think your line about imitating Jim was a cheap shot and I choose not to engage at that level.

Have you read the delicacy and accuracy Jim uses when addressing me and my posts? I'll bet you will find no published reference to Catholic doctrine that describes it as "flimsy". Not "illogical". Not "inconsistent". Not "uncorroborated". But "flimsy." IMHO that rang with a air of flippancy (as I feel most of Jim's accusations of me do). No insult intended on my part---to you or him; just a reaction to those perceived characteristics.

I totally respect your literal adherence to the teaching of the church and I am not about to debate that, but I have a very different view about infallibility, doctrine, tradition and believe that great deal of what we assume to be infallible is relative and open to thoughtful differences.

Thanks for the respect but, first, I see no reason for you or any Catholic to have hold any doubt as to whether any teaching is an infallible doctrine or not. Just ask a priest! If one does not trust the Paraclete to do His job, then there are bigger problems than Pope Honorius or Gay Marriage. You remember what happened to the first guy who didn't take Him at his word. To the guy and and his wife, Eve --- ehh, if one may call her his wife. LOL


No, Turiddu, I have long valued your opinion, and still do. These are not easy issues.

It is my experience that it is the easy answers which often can get one into trouble.

Thanks for engaging in dialogue!

 

[Turiddu]

First of all you accept that this actually happened and that it is not merely the oral traditions that needed to substantiate the right to exist at a time when Christianity was merely one of Jewish groups looking to support their validity. Secondly there are some Church Theologians and Historians who are convinced that Christ was referring to himself and not Peter. The big chasm that separates you and I is that you take that these passages to substantiate events and I see them as allegorical at a time when there was a need to establish the validity of the organization.
Again you take literally and use it as your argument that Jesus sent the Paraclete to see that the work was carried on. Is this fact or again story?There are many parts of the Christian message which existed in other cultures, The Virgin birth is not the first historical notation to a virgin birth. We can go round and round on this but you accept tradition and history as literal where I see it as oral and cultural devices to tell a story to a world that was largely illiterate.

Are you aware of the political situation that occurred in the 19th century which was the foundation for he infallibility pronouncement?There were many Bishops and Cardinals in the community who vehemently opposed this and saw it as merely a political attempt to retain power.I find your analogy about the private investigator somewhat silly.

I will grant that the literal acceptance of your positions is comforting but I find all of your points plausible but not persuasive.For example your stand on sex .You state that all homosexual sex is selfish. I have great difficulty accepting that as well as the belief that the love between two gay men cannot be as profound as that which i share with my wife of over forty years. I do not subscribe to the belief that their emotional attachment and reflection of that love is not as profound in the sight of God.

I am not in any shape or form indicating that you posture this because you are prejudiced, and I understand the religious beliefs that give root to your stance, but I do not share them.Your kindness and many acts of concern in the past have indicated that you are a person to be respected and because I am leaving for a speaking tour tomorrow will be unable to continue this exchange.So I accept who you are, and what you have shared at face value, however it has not altered what I believe and I am sure that that is reciprocal on your part.

 

[chickenbox]

It doesn't matter to me why you are intolerant or if your intolerance matches up with the precepts of your religious doctrine or not because even if it does that doesn't make it right or acceptable. "Religious beliefs" is not a get out of jail free card for bigotry and discrimination, though so many seem to think it is (at least for their beliefs - I never see them taking that position to go to bat for ISIS's)

 

[Old_alum]

It doesn't matter to me why you are intolerant or if your intolerance matches up with the precepts of your religious doctrine or not because even if it does that doesn't make it right or acceptable. "Religious beliefs" is not a get out of jail free card for bigotry and discrimination, though so many seem to think it is (at least for their beliefs - I never see them taking that position to go to bat for ISIS's)

I guess that "intolerance", "bigotry" and "discrimination" are, like beauty, merely in the eye of the beholder, huh?

First I would like clarification of whether you are speaking of "intolerance" and "bigotry" toward people or of behavior?


If you're speaking of intolerance of "people" then I think you are misguided relative to me and my positions because I have never intentionally insulted --- other than friendly teasing of SPK --- another person let alone discriminated against another or acted like a "bigot".


If you're speaking of intolerance of "behavior", are you saying that if anyone "disapproves" of any behavior then that person is intolerant and a bigot? If one disapproves of, in the extreme, murder, does that brand her as "intolerant"? If one opposes abortion does that make him a bigot? If one disapproves of another violating NCAA recruiting rules is she discriminating?


Please clarify.

 

[donnie_baseball]

These recent posts highlight the problem I have with this LGBT rights movement, which is that it has significantly swung public opinion (for better or worse) using a slick campaign of rhetoric, labelling those in opposition, particularly the religious, as "haters," "bigots," "intolerant," and of course ignorant/anachronistic. Now that Ireland, a largely Catholic country, has voted in favor of same-sex "marriage," will the vitriol towards Catholics subside? Doubtful.

Few are aware of the trickery that the LGBT movement used in getting the homosexual activists into the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade -- why they would want to be involved with a patron saint's feast day is another thing. NBC and it's LGBT activist wing brokered a deal with the parade committee that if LGBT were allowed to march under a political banner -- not in general, as all were welcome to march, since it's inception -- they would allow a Pro-life constituency to fly their flag. It's important to note that THEY were never allowed to have a political marching group, either. Of course, NBC and their cronies pulled a bait-and-switch, and the Pro-Life crowd was not granted a permit, causing the Catholic League to pull out of the parade -- again, a celebration of a Catholic feast day.

...and the comparison to ISIS isn't worth commenting on.

I'm still reeling from Turiduu's statement that he believes the New Testament is, in any part, allegorical.

 

[Old_alum]

...

Love ya, Donnie, but at least in this thread I would appreciate it if no one would make statements (or categorical judgments) about another poster, but only about the content of his posts. It is always tough to discuss matters as personal as religion and beliefs.

As a favor I would like you to delete much of your last post, at least the last paragraph, to ease other's comfort in this dialogue.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Love ya, Donnie, but at least in this thread I would appreciate it if no one would make statements (or categorical judgments) about another poster, but only about the content of his posts. It is always tough to discuss matters as personal as religion and beliefs.

As a favor I would like you to delete much of your last post, at least the last paragraph, to ease other's comfort in this dialogue.

Done. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[Seton75]

I hear so much about the power and stacking the decks for their issues of the "elites" and the LGBT lobby. I have to admit, I do not follow the news lately as closely as I should. But I never heard that the vote in Ireland was going to happen until I read of it the day of the vote. Maybe it was splashed on the media and I missed it. I would have thought that the liberal media would have flooded the airwaves with news of this event and made it hard.

 

[HALL85]

I hear so much about the power and stacking the decks for their issues of the "elites" and the LGBT lobby. I have to admit, I do not follow the news lately as closely as I should. But I never heard that the vote in Ireland was going to happen until I read of it the day of the vote. Maybe it was splashed on the media and I missed it. I would have thought that the liberal media would have flooded the airwaves with news of this event and made it hard.

Probably because they were preoccupied with covering the last of Letterman's shows...lol.
I do flip around and check out various news programs and it seems like they all stick to 3 or 4 issues for the day or week and beat the living tar out of them. Maybe the vote in Ireland wasn't as important in the eyes of the editors as the weather in the SW, following Hillary, or Deflate-gate, especially given the over-the-top coverage in Indiana back in February.

 

[Seton75]

Probably because they were preoccupied with covering the last of Letterman's shows...lol.
I do flip around and check out various news programs and it seems like they all stick to 3 or 4 issues for the day or week and beat the living tar out of them. Maybe the vote in Ireland wasn't as important in the eyes of the editors as the weather in the SW, following Hillary, or Deflate-gate, especially given the over-the-top coverage in Indiana back in February.

Yes, exactly. But the LGBT group is so tight and powerful. How could that be, such an important moment completely ignored.

Or maybe that this is all a bunch of rubbish.

 

[Old_alum]

First of all you accept that this actually happened and that it is not merely the oral traditions that needed to substantiate the right to exist at a time when Christianity was merely one of Jewish groups looking to support their validity.

I am not sure what the indefinite article "this" exactly refers to, but I shall assume it is the "keys to the Kingdom" and the Paraclete.


If so, then YES, I believe these are not just unsubstantiated oral traditions which might have been politically or fiscally expeditious in the first century.


IMHO the bible has been far and away the most highly scrutinized writing in history. If there were any errors I am 99.99% confident someone would have high-lighted them. I am aware of hundreds of similar highlights but to date have seen none that significantly shake my position. To me it distills down to certain true "fundamentals" which I personally have scrutinized, and the rest I am comfortable accepting the Magisterium's interpretation.


Your question goes to truth, evidence and fiduciary accountability.


First, the "truth" of the New Testament is to me a function of many things, not the least of which is the coherence with reason and the old testament.


On evidence, the Canon writings which have been preserved are both voluminous and corroborated, more so than virtually any other historical fact, at least since say prior to the printing press.


If I were a "crack investigative reporter" at that time, I would expect less than congruent testimony from first-hand witnesses. I am also sure that I would be impressed by the willingness of so many witnesses to forfeit their lives based on what each personally saw and heard and corroborated. (The original Apostles and disciples, not their later flocks who had to take the earlier disciples' "word" for it. The latter could have been suffering from "too much credulity".)


From everything I have read it seems that virtually all notable historians accept that:

1. Jesus lived

2. He did things that writers in the Talmud claimed were "sorcery" (the pejorative form of miracles"

2. He died on the cross

3. His disciples claimed firsthand knowledge that He rose from the dead

4. His tomb was empty and no one could find His crucified body, and

5. His disciples were also crucified for their beliefs.


On the Church's fiduciary performance I use the Dead Sea Scrolls' which --- after being "lost" in earthen vessels for 2000 years --- match virtually word-for-word the documents the Church presented as the "Old Testament".

Secondly there are some Church Theologians and Historians who are convinced that Christ was referring to himself and not Peter.

Again I am grammatically uncertain on the antecedent but assuming it is the "rock" as foundation, I would first argue the point based on grammar and rhetoric, but more importantly would move to the "keys to the kingdom" and "loosening" and "binding" verses in which it seems patently clear to me that Jesus was giving them to Peter. I have never heard anyone refute that. Although many will argue whether these keys were ex officio to Peter's successors --- whoever they are --- or restricted solely to Peter, personally, and so the powers died with Peter, upside down on a cross in Rome.


Reputedly one of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the 20th century --- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew --- speaks about the keys of the kingdom by saying, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying". The keys are the symbol of authority and many see it as the same "sharing" of authority as that vested in a modern prime minister or in the chamberlain of a royal household in ancient Israel. The recipient can act fully in the grantor's stead.

The big chasm that separates you and I is that you take that these passages to substantiate events and I see them as allegorical at a time when there was a need to establish the validity of the organization.

Allegorical vs. substantial: Since I see no "miracle" here I see no reason to argue whether this can be true in "substance". That said, it is certainly possible that Jesus intended it to be merely a figurative gesture. That is just another reason that "faith" requires a "leap". But as I a mere parishioner while I see the "rock" as metaphor, what specific allegorical justification can one draw from the simple declarative statement: "whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven"? I'm afraid I see no rhetorical reason to construe it as anything but a declarative sentence.


If the early Church had merely been seeking fabricated means to expand its popular acceptance, to my mind they probably would have cut other corners, such as Jesus physically rising from the dead instead of the more palatable spiritual rising, or the Holy Spirit will settle ALL disagreements via lottery. But, again, it MIGHT have been fabricated.

Again you take literally and use it as your argument that Jesus sent the Paraclete to see that the work was carried on. Is this fact or again story?

I have three co-dependent explanations here:

First the logical one:

1. If I were God and went through what Jesus had gone through, I would want my disciples to get my story (the "good news" or "Gospel") exactly right.


2. I would tell them what I want them to say specifically.


3. If it were I who created a universe (or a multiverse) from nothing (at least nothing natural) as Science has proven was done, I suspect it would be a lot easier for me to give all necessary guidance to protect my good news, albeit divinely.


4. I would do so.


Second:

The grammatical one:

IMHO Jesus makes numerous declarative sentences without metaphor or allegory that are self-sufficient on their face.


Third:

The Historical ones:

1. There is only one piece of shall-we-say "flimsy" and non-complying evidence that even suggests that Catholic "doctrine" has EVER been changed. AND there are scores if not 100s of documents preserved from each and every one of the 20 centuries to demonstrate that.

2. Whenever a topic not addressed by Jesus (such as reincarnation) comes up, the Church will NOT make a judgment, although it might suggest a preferred interpretation.


None is empirical proof. But IMHO it would win an NCAA debating championship on the proposition.

There are many parts of the Christian message which existed in other cultures, The Virgin birth is not the first historical notation to a virgin birth.

This is true, but IMHO such stories are either supportive or --- at worst --- irrelevant.


Supportive because the Chinese written record predicted something to the effect that the king of the world would come from Palestine and be foretold by a star.


If others looked to a virgin-birth miracle, that could be supportive of human's "internal compass" theories (not doctrine). Now, if there were substantial (as opposed to empirical) evidence that supported that it did transpire then I would want to know a lot more. Then it would not appear so miraculous, but it would still seem to be an incredibly phenomenal entrance, wouldn't it?


If there were a vast flood, I would hope that all affected cultures would record it.


Etc.

We can go round and round on this but you accept tradition and history as literal where I see it as oral and cultural devices to tell a story to a world that was largely illiterate.

OK, but IMHO using such devices on the key tenants --- like's Jesus' divinity and the Paraclete's protection ---- would seem incoherent to most believers' faith.

Are you aware of the political situation that occurred in the 19th century which was the foundation for he infallibility pronouncement? There were many Bishops and Cardinals in the community who vehemently opposed this and saw it as merely a political attempt to retain power.

I am aware of the furor around it, but of little more. But there was furor around the causes the schism. As there was in Augustine's and Honorius' times. As there was for Luther and Calvin. As there is now on same-sex marriage.


Furor like the poor will always be with us, I fear.

I find your analogy about the private investigator somewhat silly.

Yes it is. But it seems to resonate with some who have trouble with just the conceptual argument.

I will grant that the literal acceptance of your positions is comforting but I find all of your points plausible but not persuasive.

That's what makes horse races. I am not looking to proselytize. I am just seeking understanding rather than vitriol from the "Pirate Crew" arbiters.

For example your stand on sex .You state that all homosexual sex is selfish. I have great difficulty accepting that....

I also believe that eating any dessert is selfish. That hitting the snooze button is selfish. And that bullying another is done simply for the selfish titillation engendered by submission to the "dominance" gene in the non-conscious part of the brain.


And I believe that --- like with all violations of self-discipline --- ALL selfish actions are counter-productive to being the most loving person one can.




to be continued

 

[Old_alum]

Continued:

I have great difficulty accepting... the belief that the love between two gay men cannot be as profound as that which i share with my wife of over forty years. I do not subscribe to the belief that their emotional attachment and reflection of that love is not as profound in the sight of God.

I agree 100%. Augustine said so in his Confession.


Now, sex is a different matter, and I guess that is what you really meant.


I shall not judge anyone, but it seems to me when one does something to "entertain" another (i.e. to trigger their "pleasure" responses --- see my definition above) that stands alone as being "mutually" selfish.


A more obvious example is that my granddaughter likes onion-dip and potato chips. If I give her one chip with dip, it is selfish of me as a way to get her to smile --- which I love. But that chip-n-dip only hurts her. If I were to give her a pint of dip and bag of chips, I think that would be a form of child-abuse.


But, wait, there's more!


Here's the rub.


Is pleasure for pleasure's sake conducive for "love"? I would argue it is not.


Is intimacy part of love? Yes intimacy in some form is almost always a part of love. BUT sex as intimacy is not always so.


Humans associate intimacy with sex. Certainly sex is intimate, but the two are not identical.


One can and should be "intimate" for love's sake. But almost EVERYONE associates their sexual relations with a beloved partner as "loving" intimacy. IMHO it is not --- unless those two (not more) beloved partners are of the opposite sex, have committed themselves to each other only until death do they part, and they are open to children therefrom. I know this puts me seven sigma away from the norm. So be it.

I am not in any shape or form indicating that you posture this because you are prejudiced, and I understand the religious beliefs that give root to your stance, but I do not share them.

Understood! And for that I am grateful!

 

[donnie_baseball]

Yes, exactly. But the LGBT group is so tight and powerful. How could that be, such an important moment completely ignored.

Or maybe that this is all a bunch of rubbish.

Maybe. Maybe just because you didn't see it (the news), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fits in nicely with the conversation about faith!

 

[knowknow456]

I can't speak well to the topics here one way or the other but I will say that Jesus encourages me to have dessert (within reason) and does not mind when I hit the snooze button so long as I am still on time for Sunday Mass.

 

[Old_alum]

I can't speak well to the topics here one way or the other but I will say that Jesus encourages me to have dessert (within reason) and does not mind when I hit the snooze button so long as I am still on time for Sunday Mass.

Me, too!
Lol

 

[Old_alum]

Then how does one draw the line?

When we say the "Our Father" as Jesus taught us we say "forgive us AS we forgive". Might that mean that each of us will judge himself at death? That we will choose between what we have always chosen for self and what we have consistently chosen for love of others? Sort of our own olympiad?

If so then how we train every hour, with every personal encounter here could very well determine how we perform then.

I believe that God will not condemn anyone. But I would suggest that our own choices might well do just that.

Well that's one way to evaluate the impact of the choices we make. God gives everyone a moral compass. He gave us the New Testament as a road map. He gave us a personal guide in Christ. And he gave us the Church's doctrine to coach us.

Pride is selfish, too. Ask Adam and Judas and the Good Thief.

So think hard about what gives you pleasure, what gives you joy and what has brought you happiness.

Choose well!

 

[Old_alum]

Please explain the following:

"I think the banning of Homosexual behavior has done great harm to so many people and to society in general and has ruined countless lives."

I think it ruined countless lives of homosexuals who grew up in a world where they were outcasts. I also think sexual repression was a huge part of the sexual abuse scandal.

So this is just your general opinion and not based on scientific data or some authoritative source. You undoubtedly are on the right track, but what do you think triggers the abusive social norms and behavior which might have caused this damage? Could it be genetics?

Sex is fun, it is showing affection, expressing intimacy, and for procreation.

In that order? LOL

I think my adolescent behavior was learned in the white, Christian, suburban society I grew up in. I was in grammar school or early HS when this occurred, and talking to these men never occurred to me, and at the time, I had no interest in what they said and I am sure the feeling was mutual. We were a bunch of punks acting out how society treated them. I was still of the mind that they were sick weirdos. And kids still grow up that way.

And you seem to feel that what "causes" some people to bully anyone who is "different" is probably social norms which grew out of prejudiced religious principles?


Could it be that such bullying results from, say, human "pecking-order" gene? Dominance? That atavistic bully tendency?

Are you ready to dismiss the chance that abusive behavior is better attributed to these socially-reinforced yet visceral reactions? Could it be that such abusive "pecking" on weaker folks would be just as common elsewhere under any other "religious" heritage?

I think that mistreating or shaming or abusing any person for any reason is wrong. I agree that homosexuals have been more victimized than almost any other subgroup. That said, I also believe that most of the Catholics and other Christians who I grew up with or have met over the years are and have been far more tolerant and far less abusive than anything you describe.

I guess the worst treatment I can remember second hand is hearing otherwise good guys call a friend one of the several common homophobic pejoratives.

What Islam says about homosexuality has no import to me. What the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church says means the same. And the Church of Scientology ... (on) homosexuals. I just see them as men and women of the earth who were born with a condition that society has ridiculed for centuries, and finally they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. They are fellow human beings who I see as good or bad based on how they act in society, not based on the sexual preference they were born with.

I think my original point here was based on my misunderstanding of your original comment. You seemed be saying that you choose to ignore what religions say as "unimportant', rather than that you listen, filter and then often little-value what you hear.

That said, to my knowledge there is virtually no evidence, at least of the scientific variety, that attributes same-sex attraction to genes. (In another thread we discussed this at length). There had been one report of a "gay gene" but that was totally repudiated by science and by the gay community.

I do totally support your comment that "They are fellow human beings who I see as good or bad based on how they act in society "

 

[Pirata]

First, I commend Old Alum for his intellect and patience in facilitatinga discussion that seeks to join and not divide. I also commend all those who have joined in a respectful manner.

For those who are inclined to read, here is a link to an online version of St Francis DeSales seminal work, "Introduction to the Devout Life".

http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/

First published in 1609 it remains as some of the best Christian "how to" books for those seeking the faith.

A companion read is "Authentic Devotion" which is a short, modern day interpretation of Devout Life which can help to explain the original text given that it was written 400 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Devotion-Interpretation-Introduction-Francis/dp/087788000X

(I believe Seton Hall has some affinity to St. John (Don) Bosco who formed one of the orders that follow St. Francis DeSales)

I posted the links above after weeks of reading the original Father Hall thread started by Jcalz and now this one. I have avoided jumping in because as I read all the back and forth, I kept reminding myself of St. Thomas Aquinas' words, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

For those who take the time to read St. Francis DeSales' work, there is a fundamental premise about faith. It starts with realizing (perhaps simply believing) that as a humans we were given life by a supreme being we refer to as God. God plucked us from the ether and gave us life and also gave use some talents and gifts. One who seeks faith asks God the question, "God, how can I thank you for the gift of life and the talents you have given me?"

The response is that we should develop those talents as best we can and use them to lead a good life. Help ourselves, our families, our friends, and our society, including our enemies. In doing so we thank and praise God in return for what He gave us. According to our faith, the big bonus is that when we die, we will have eternal life in a paradise far more beautiful and joyous than the earthly life we know.

For me, everything else flows from there. If we have no belief of anything beyond this world, then any discussion of the Catholic Church or any religion seems pointless to me.

At times when I talk about this to others I say, "I do not believe that the earth and human life was formed by two rocks banging together. I think the concepts of time and the universe being infinite and life itself is something way beyond the human brain's capacity to understand fully. Although we think we are real smart, Einstein and Hawking included, I do not believe we truly know how we got here or what is out there. I am OK to humble myself before God and trust that someday I will find out.

I did not write the previous paragraph to recreate the pot smoking scene in Animal House. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUOGxePBs50 I wrote it because I believe in order to have any reasonable discussion about religion and spirituality, you have to start with the fundamentals of faith. The Catholic Church is an earthly organization of men and woman who are admitted fallible and sinners. A friend once said to me, "We should not let the Catholic Church interfere with our relationship with God." Said another way, I know many people who use the Church's shortcomings as an excuse to not pursue their faith. I feel sad for them. The Church is not perfect but is is wholly suitable to proving a path for us.

If you look back on the Church fundamentals, twelve men witnessed what they believed to be true and to be the answer of life and creation. The saw a way to spread a message of hope to everyone. They did their best to spread the word and chronicle it. If you look a the progression of the Unites States Government, formed from a band of pioneers and now bloated into a complex and convoluted mess, you can see an analogy. The Church has grown and expanded into an extremely large and complex organization, perhaps the largest on earth. Like the US where we try to come back to the basic principles of the constitution, the Church is also trying to come back to the basic message of Jesus Christ and all the hope and freedom it provides. My point is that we need not wait for the Church to get everything right. We can discover the fundamentals ourselves and then decide how we want to live.

Perhaps we can help the Church instead of fighting it.

Go Pirates!

 

[Old_alum]

So, given the 10,000 character limit per post I shall hereafter attempt to replicate at least one of the "basketball" threads:

=============================================================

BOBBY SOLO the younger you go, the less they care about people being gay, even in the black community where it's less accepting than the larger population. Add in all the great descriptions of the kid & the fact that he's not some flamboyant stereotype that would be shoving his sexuality in the face of his teammates, and i see no problem whatsoever in the locker room b/c he's gay.

There is an obvious difference in social mores between Boomers and Millennials. But IMHO it seems to be tied more to one being "judgmental", especially regarding third-parties.

 

[Old_alum]

jcalz88 said: ? You really believe it's a behavior? Honestly can't wait till that generation is dead and gone, so these ideas die with them. world will be a better place.

Yes, IMHO it is all about behavior. I concede readily and gladly that "same sex attraction" is not a "choice". However, I am aware of absolutely NO scientific research that indicates that "same sex attraction" is genetic. (There is a whole different thread which delved deeply into this). Everyone has different proclivities. Everyone has different "reactions" to external stimulus. For example, Journals have reported that there is a gene which almost always drives some drinkers to alcoholism. People with that gene should abstain. It is not "fair". It is not "easy". It is not "good". But IMHO those with such afflictions should valiantly seek to follow their "conscious" brain and not their "non-conscious" brain.

 

[Old_alum]

HallLine69, Saturday at 6:34 AM . Jcalz, please know that not all of us in this generation feel the same. I'm with you on this. And shame on Seton Hall if we just fired someone for supporting LBGT rights.

Would the National Organization of Women keep an employee who publicly decried the horrors of abortion? Would the Democrats support a first-term congressman who consistently voted Republican? Would Ford keep a salesman who waxed positively about the comparative advantages of a Toyota?