All this gay marriage/gay rights stuff will end very soon. The American majority is tired of gays, Obama, Pelosi, and banksters looting the Treasury. The end is VERY near for all of this.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
What happens if someone in a Catholic Church get legally divorced then legally remarries? Is their divorce and new marriage not recognized? Are Christians technically allowed to get divorced according to the Bible?[/quote]
They are excommunicated. Until they can prove that their first marriage was in fact not a marriage, they are considered married to the first person. There are certain cases for divorce, like if there is domestic abuse.
[quote]I’m no Bible scholar, but there are laws set out by the Bible Christians are supposed to follow but most Christian churches don’t bother enforcing right?
What about this one:
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Is it a sin to marry a non believer?[/quote]
A sin? Haha, Marriage is never a sin, however you would be correct in saying that Catholics shouldn’t marry heathens or nonbelievers. Makes for an unequal marriage.
[quote]Point is, if you’re going to run around calling other churches ignorant liars for not following a law written in the Bible, you damn well better follow EVERY law applicable to Christians at the Church you attend.
[/quote]
This is the Catholic Church, the one that gets accused of believing in salvation by works every other time someone talks about us in these forums.
We know there are things we have to do and though we don’t always do everything (after all we are not perfect) we do try to hold to all of God’s commands as best we can. 
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, don’t argue with me. Argue with the Episcopalians and Lutherans. I personally couldn’t care less what your holy book says, because I believe it was written by men, just like every other holy book on the planet.
Let’s cut to the chase. In your opinion:
How is it possible for Episcopalians and Lutherans to accept gays, including gay clergy, when they worship the same bible, have the same faith, and believe in the same Jesus as you?
Are they idiots?
Are they charlatans?
[/quote]
Liars, ignorant, or a mix of both. If their own holy scripture condemns it, and there’s not one example of condoning it, they’re either not honest, or grossly ignorant of what is supposed to be their own holy text. In fact, it would be better for them to have never claimed to be a way to Christ. They’ve now compounded the sin. I’ll explain.
- Homosexuality is a sin in scripture. Never condoned. Sin number 1.
- Sex is moral between man and wife, marriage. Whatever the state may or may not say in the future, Christianity has been given no authority to include man and man, or wife and wife. So, homosexuality is necessarily always sex outside of marriage, too.
- Relates to 1., homosexuality being condemned and never condoned within Christianity’s holy text. Saying otherwise, and finding followers, makes them guilty of leading others astray with false teachings. These are worse off than before they knew Christ. Check out 2 Peter 2 on false teachers and destruction.
[/quote]
Do you wear cotton?
Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sect out there that takes this passage literally and forbids its followers from wearing mixed-fibre clothing. They probably think you are also compounding sin.
My point? There’s a good chance there are Christian sects out there who see you as an ignorant liar just as much as you see Churches that accept homosexual marriage as ignorant liars.[/quote]
I won’t bother schooling you on scripture (the hebrew laws of custom and cleanliness didn’t carry over to the gentiles. You might try reading the epistles and acts). Show that I’m a liar on this topic we’ve been discussing. One verse from either new, or old, or both with homosexuality condoned. Heck, even in a semi-positive light. Just one. Don’t come back here without it. I can give you verses from old to new testament. From old to new covenant. Applying to the hebrew people AND the gentiles. One verse. Sometimes it best to keep silent and not risk looking like a fool. Remember, one verse.
[/quote]
Do these apply to gentiles?
Does your church allow you to divorce?
Mark 10:8, you �¢??are no longer two, but one flesh.�¢?? And, Mark 10:9 reads, �¢??What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.�¢??
Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, �¢??And He said to them, �¢??Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.�¢??�¢??
What about allowing men who have been castrated into church?
Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God�¢??s Word translation, which spells it out better), �¢??A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.�¢??
My point is not that the Bible condones homosexuality. My point is you and your church do things the bible condemns that would cause other sects to see you as a liar[/quote]
Ho hum another 20 something who doesn’t understand or believe in what the Bible says but is not afraid to quote it.
(shaking head) I really have to stop posting here.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You said earlier that you didn’t question their sincerity. Now you believe Lutherans and Episcopalians are outright dishonest?
[/quote]
I don’t question their sincerity…because it could be that that one is simply ignorant of his own holy scripture (doesn’t make him/her less culpable in this case) OR the individual is dishonest. I’m not here to discern between either the ignorant sincerity, or sincerely advanced dishonesty, of an anonymous individual. I’m not concerned with their sincerity as it doesn’t make the verses vanish. [/quote]
But what about those that have studied the bible for many years, yet have a different interpretation?
Take Tiribulus, for example.
He’s clearly intelligent, educated, and knows his bible.
Yet his opinion on certain core doctrines is diametrically opposite to yours.
Since he’s not ignorant, is the only option for him to be dishonest? I think he’s sincere in his beliefs, and don’t question his integrity. Do you?
He’s intelligent, he’s sincere, he’s educated, and yet his beliefs are different than yours. I happen to agree with your interpretation rather than his on several doctrines, but that doesn’t make him objectively wrong. His interpretation is just different.
I hope no one allows forlife to shake their faith in any way. He’s just doing the work of his father. As for the Bible, it is a huge book in fact 66 complete books. There are many different, and yet sincere interpretations, as man is flawed and will sometimes see what he wants and not what is written. This does not reflect poorly on God, but on man. As I’ve said repeatedly the most important thing is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Everything else is just window dressing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You said earlier that you didn’t question their sincerity. Now you believe Lutherans and Episcopalians are outright dishonest?
[/quote]
I don’t question their sincerity…because it could be that that one is simply ignorant of his own holy scripture (doesn’t make him/her less culpable in this case) OR the individual is dishonest. I’m not here to discern between either the ignorant sincerity, or sincerely advanced dishonesty, of an anonymous individual. I’m not concerned with their sincerity as it doesn’t make the verses vanish. [/quote]
But what about those that have studied the bible for many years, yet have a different interpretation?
Take Tiribulus, for example.
He’s clearly intelligent, educated, and knows his bible.
Yet his opinion on certain core doctrines is diametrically opposite to yours.
Since he’s not ignorant, is the only option for him to be dishonest? I think he’s sincere in his beliefs, and don’t question his integrity. Do you?
He’s intelligent, he’s sincere, he’s educated, and yet his beliefs are different than yours. I happen to agree with your interpretation rather than his on several doctrines, but that doesn’t make him objectively wrong. His interpretation is just different.[/quote]
Forlife, what else is there for me to say about the actual issue? There’s nothing to interpret, man. There’s no seemingly contradictory verses, making things a bit ambiguous. Plain language literally describing man with man, woman with woman. If you’re really unable to draw a conclusion–forget the churches–from what is plain reading, you’re unable to. Nothing else I can do here. Time to move on. Everything I want/need to say is said.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You said earlier that you didn’t question their sincerity. Now you believe Lutherans and Episcopalians are outright dishonest?
[/quote]
I don’t question their sincerity…because it could be that that one is simply ignorant of his own holy scripture (doesn’t make him/her less culpable in this case) OR the individual is dishonest. I’m not here to discern between either the ignorant sincerity, or sincerely advanced dishonesty, of an anonymous individual. I’m not concerned with their sincerity as it doesn’t make the verses vanish. [/quote]
But what about those that have studied the bible for many years, yet have a different interpretation?
Take Tiribulus, for example.
He’s clearly intelligent, educated, and knows his bible.
Yet his opinion on certain core doctrines is diametrically opposite to yours.
Since he’s not ignorant, is the only option for him to be dishonest? I think he’s sincere in his beliefs, and don’t question his integrity. Do you?
He’s intelligent, he’s sincere, he’s educated, and yet his beliefs are different than yours. I happen to agree with your interpretation rather than his on several doctrines, but that doesn’t make him objectively wrong. His interpretation is just different.[/quote]
Forlife, what else is there for me to say about the actual issue? There’s nothing to interpret, man. There’s no seemingly contradictory verses, making things a bit ambiguous. Plain language literally describing man with man, woman with woman. If you’re really unable to draw a conclusion–forget the churches–from what is plain reading, you’re unable to. Nothing else I can do here. Time to move on. Everything I want/need to say is said.[/quote]
That’s cool, I know where you stand on the issue of homosexuality and the bible.
What about my broader question, though?
I’m interested in your opinion about people like Tiribulus. He is intelligent, he knows the bible, and he is 100% sincere in his beliefs.
Yet his interpretation of several core doctrines of Christianity completely contradicts your own interpretation.
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
Do you agree that on at least some core Christian doctrines, it is possible for people to fundamentally disagree, despite all being intelligent, educated, honest, and sincere?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?
A Religion is not only a set of interpretations of the scriptures.
It provides a set of rules to interpret said scriptures (hermeneutics)
AND, last but not least, a set of rules to establish the truth when interpretative conflicts arose.
In the Christian religion, interpretative conflicts are meant to be solved by Synods and Councils.
And the vast majority of these conflicts have been resolved in the first centuries of Chrstianity, once for all, by the Fathers of the Church.
so yes, there is simply no room for divergent interpretation on these solved topics, except by ignorance or dishonesty.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?[/quote]
Room for disagreement? Sure, I guess. Will heaven have water-slides and fishing holes? Nothing I’ve ever seen deals with them. Feel free to theorize, I guess. Besides, there’s always room for disagreement, technically. After all, there’s no suicide vests in my future.
[quote]kamui wrote:
A Religion is not only a set of interpretations of the scriptures.
It provides a set of rules to interpret said scriptures (hermeneutics)
AND, last but not least, a set of rules to establish the truth when interpretative conflicts arose.
In the Christian religion, interpretative conflicts are meant to be solved by Synods and Councils.
And the vast majority of these conflicts have been resolved in the first centuries of Chrstianity, once for all, by the Fathers of the Church.
so yes, there is simply no room for divergent interpretation on these solved topics, except by ignorance or dishonesty.
[/quote]
If we could draft people into the Church against their will, you’d be the first in line at RCIA bootcamp. Pesky laws =(
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?[/quote]
Room for disagreement? Sure, I guess. Will heaven have water-slides and fishing holes? Nothing I’ve ever seen deals with them. Feel free to theorize, I guess. Besides, there’s always room for disagreement, technically. After all, there’s no suicide vests in my future. [/quote]
Ok, sounds like you accept the possibility of honest, educated disagreement on relatively trivial issues, but not on core doctrines. It wasn’t a trick question, I was just curious what you thought
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?[/quote]
Room for disagreement? Sure, I guess. Will heaven have water-slides and fishing holes? Nothing I’ve ever seen deals with them. Feel free to theorize, I guess. Besides, there’s always room for disagreement, technically. After all, there’s no suicide vests in my future. [/quote]
Ok, sounds like you accept the possibility of honest, educated disagreement on relatively trivial issues, but not on core doctrines. It wasn’t a trick question, I was just curious what you thought :)[/quote]
I sincerely believe you honestly believed you were simply being sincerely curious.
That’s as good as my jokes get.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?[/quote]
Room for disagreement? Sure, I guess. Will heaven have water-slides and fishing holes? Nothing I’ve ever seen deals with them. Feel free to theorize, I guess. Besides, there’s always room for disagreement, technically. After all, there’s no suicide vests in my future. [/quote]
Ok, sounds like you accept the possibility of honest, educated disagreement on relatively trivial issues, but not on core doctrines. It wasn’t a trick question, I was just curious what you thought :)[/quote]
I sincerely believe you honestly believed you were simply being sincerely curious.
That’s as good as my jokes get.[/quote]
Lol, not bad but this one was better:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A Religion is not only a set of interpretations of the scriptures.
It provides a set of rules to interpret said scriptures (hermeneutics)
AND, last but not least, a set of rules to establish the truth when interpretative conflicts arose.
In the Christian religion, interpretative conflicts are meant to be solved by Synods and Councils.
And the vast majority of these conflicts have been resolved in the first centuries of Chrstianity, once for all, by the Fathers of the Church.
so yes, there is simply no room for divergent interpretation on these solved topics, except by ignorance or dishonesty.
[/quote]
If we could draft people into the Church against their will, you’d be the first in line at RCIA bootcamp. Pesky laws =([/quote]
Not sure the RCIA bootcamp would work.
i lived two years in a presbytery when i was 18 (my godfathe is a catholic priest) and i spent dozens of hours in a dominican library. It was not enough.
that being said, i’m definitely not a “postmodern mind” and, more often than not, i feel closer to catholics than to my fellow unbelievers.
Back to the topic of the thread, I just learned that on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold their first ever hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act since it was enacted 15 years ago. Now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gone, hopefully this will be the next discriminatory federal policy to see the axe.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A Religion is not only a set of interpretations of the scriptures.
It provides a set of rules to interpret said scriptures (hermeneutics)
AND, last but not least, a set of rules to establish the truth when interpretative conflicts arose.
In the Christian religion, interpretative conflicts are meant to be solved by Synods and Councils.
And the vast majority of these conflicts have been resolved in the first centuries of Chrstianity, once for all, by the Fathers of the Church.
so yes, there is simply no room for divergent interpretation on these solved topics, except by ignorance or dishonesty.
[/quote]
If we could draft people into the Church against their will, you’d be the first in line at RCIA bootcamp. Pesky laws =([/quote]
Not sure the RCIA bootcamp would work.
i lived two years in a presbytery when i was 18 (my godfathe is a catholic priest) and i spent dozens of hours in a dominican library. It was not enough.
that being said, i’m definitely not a “postmodern mind” and, more often than not, i feel closer to catholics than to my fellow unbelievers.
[/quote]
Shucks. Well, it’s always interesting to see what you have to say next.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Honestly, what is your explanation for this?
[/quote]
That he’s wrong. Dishonesty or ignorance? Don’t know.[/quote]
So it’s always dishonesty or ignorance, in every case of doctrinal disagreement? There’s no room for sincere differences in interpretation between equally intelligent, informed believers?
If that’s what you genuinely believe, that’s fine. I was just curious if you allowed for honest differences in opinion on matters of doctrine. I’m guessing you do allow for such differences on minor points, since even within the Catholic church there are disagreements? Just not on major doctrinal issues?[/quote]
Room for disagreement? Sure, I guess. Will heaven have water-slides and fishing holes? Nothing I’ve ever seen deals with them. Feel free to theorize, I guess. Besides, there’s always room for disagreement, technically. After all, there’s no suicide vests in my future. [/quote]
Ok, sounds like you accept the possibility of honest, educated disagreement on relatively trivial issues, but not on core doctrines. It wasn’t a trick question, I was just curious what you thought :)[/quote]
I sincerely believe you honestly believed you were simply being sincerely curious.
That’s as good as my jokes get.[/quote]
Lol, not bad but this one was better:
I was trying to start one of those irritatingly stupid chain posts, that one can’t help but add on to. It failed, but no one can say I didn’t try.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A Religion is not only a set of interpretations of the scriptures.
It provides a set of rules to interpret said scriptures (hermeneutics)
AND, last but not least, a set of rules to establish the truth when interpretative conflicts arose.
In the Christian religion, interpretative conflicts are meant to be solved by Synods and Councils.
And the vast majority of these conflicts have been resolved in the first centuries of Chrstianity, once for all, by the Fathers of the Church.
so yes, there is simply no room for divergent interpretation on these solved topics, except by ignorance or dishonesty.
[/quote]
If we could draft people into the Church against their will, you’d be the first in line at RCIA bootcamp. Pesky laws =([/quote]
Haha! I was just about to write that kamui is most Catholic atheist I have ever known. Kamui you make a better Catholic than many Catholics I know!