[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
And genocides would be less of a problem if we eliminated religion.[/quote]
Of course, then you wouldn’t have anyone to commit genocide against. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
And genocides would be less of a problem if we eliminated religion.[/quote]
Of course, then you wouldn’t have anyone to commit genocide against. ;)[/quote]
Eliminating religion =/= eliminating people
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
All I meant about the condoms is that if the law followed religion - condoms would be illegal, abortion would be illegal, and birth control would be illegal… DISASTER!
Sometimes its okay for the state avoid following the churches guidelines. I mean the bible also says its an abomination to eat shrimp right before it says its an abomination for two man to lay together… so does that mean we shouldn’t eat shrimp?
[/quote]
I’m sure the Pope eats shrimp. If you have read the Bible, you’d know that it doesn’t say eating shrimp is an abomination.
[quote]
Interpreting the important messages of religion is important while also realizing that some of what religion teaches is incredibly archaic and can’t be applied to modern society.[/quote]
Not eating shrimp is a Jewish thing, I suspect because of the health concerns of eating unpreserved shell fish. However, condoms are a different situation. Obvious the Catholic Church is the biggest care taker for HIV/AIDS victims in Africa, and condoms aren’t helping because the numbers still growing. So…I suspect that condoms might not be what everything people say they are.[/quote]
From Leviticus
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)
“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)
“Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:12)
Leviticus is the book where religious homophobic cherry pickers justify their discrimination:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
What else is an abomination?
“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
… and much much more
Now of course we can’t take everything in the bible literally… but then why do we take the anti-gay verse literally? seems like cherry picking to me.[/quote]
The shellfish from Leviticus is understood to be part of the Mosaic Ritual/Kosher Laws, not Moral Law. Jesus fulfiled the Mosaic Ritual and basically got rid of it. We can get a feeling that is the case (that they are Mosaic Ritual Law) because it is an abomination to you, to you, you shall regard as an abomination. It is an abomination to the Jews, not to God.
I’m not a homophobic cherry picker, I’m not a homophobe, I don’t think. However, I don’t pull any punches either. To practice homosexuality is wrong.
However, Leviticus 18:22 isn’t needed to prove homosexuality is wrong. I’m not one for extensive Biblical Exegesis. However, I’ll make the case, sans-Leviticus. Sex has two components that are to be fulfiled, openess to life or reproductive (carnal) and the unity of two people or love (human). The only time that is even possible is in the marital union. And, a marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.
I’m not denying that homosexuals may love each other, but it may be a corrupted love if it evolves to a sexual relationship, however good willed it maybe.
Yes, honor your mother and father, what is wrong with that?
And, Mary the mother of Jesus called herself the slave of God, the handmaiden of God. Slaves back in the day were servants/maidens/butlers/whatever, not necessarily slaves as we have known them today.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Education>Abortion[/quote]
Agreed. Proper sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and the ability to provide for children > abortion.
However, the answer of the right is to not tell young people about sex at all, preach only abstinence, denounce condoms and allow only those who can afford it birth control, and, when (as a result of these practices) unwanted pregnancies happen, tell the woman “tough shit, deal with it”.[/quote]
Contraceptives like the pill are abortifacient.
[/quote]
No they are not-
They fake a pregnancy just enough so that no new fertile ova are produced. just as they would not be produced in the case of a real pregnancy.[/quote]
Okay, the Pill doesn’t prevent conception, it prevents implantation (most of the time, 4 out of a 100 still report pregnancy on the Pill). That’s called abortifacient
[/quote]
This is flat out wrong.
An abortifacient induces an abortion in mammals.
The pill prevents any ova to be produced that could be aborted.
No ova → nothing to fertilize → nothing to abort.
Now in those cases where this does not happen it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but to call this an abortion is a bit fishy because a pregnancy starts when it does exactly that, and for very good reasons, because most ferilized eggs do not.
So to call a drug that does suppress ovulation and then prevents any fertilized ova to nest in the uterus which in all likelyhood they would not have done anyway an abortion is a stretch.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s the medical definition. At contraception a woman will show she is pregnant, it takes 7-8 days to implant.
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
And not that I don’t believe you but where in the new testament does it say homosexuality is a sin? I only ever hear the religious right quote Leviticus.
[/quote]
Lol…no the OT is not dropped. You’re making sweeping statements. The Ritual Law does not need to be followed, because Jesus fulfilled it. The creation story is still in, Moses is still in, Noah is still in. Leviticus is still in, just fulfilled and does not need to be followed.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
And not that I don’t believe you but where in the new testament does it say homosexuality is a sin? I only ever hear the religious right quote Leviticus.
[/quote]
You know, somehow I think they’ll just quote anything.
There’s mention of homosexuality in Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7:7-8.[/quote]
This. I’ve heard actual Christians quote me Leviticus, Duet, &c. when I’ve been doing stuff like eating lobsters or shaving.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
And genocides would be less of a problem if we eliminated religion.[/quote]
Of course, then you wouldn’t have anyone to commit genocide against. ;)[/quote]
Eliminating religion =/= eliminating people[/quote]
I’m sure the Jews would disagree with you, I would disagree with you. You’re not getting rid of my religion unless you kill my first.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Interesting, because if I remember people were being infect with AIDs before condoms, and since condoms have been introduced it hasn’t gotten better.[/quote]
Might have something to do with a senile old man telling people not to use condoms…[/quote]
And in what situation did this senile old man tell people not to use condoms?[/quote]
The Catholic church opposes artificial means of contraception on the grounds that they’re immoral, however recently condoms have been declared a lesser of two evils of sorts in relation to the spread of disease.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Education>Abortion[/quote]
Agreed. Proper sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and the ability to provide for children > abortion.
However, the answer of the right is to not tell young people about sex at all, preach only abstinence, denounce condoms and allow only those who can afford it birth control, and, when (as a result of these practices) unwanted pregnancies happen, tell the woman “tough shit, deal with it”.[/quote]
Contraceptives like the pill are abortifacient.
[/quote]
No they are not-
They fake a pregnancy just enough so that no new fertile ova are produced. just as they would not be produced in the case of a real pregnancy.[/quote]
Okay, the Pill doesn’t prevent conception, it prevents implantation (most of the time, 4 out of a 100 still report pregnancy on the Pill). That’s called abortifacient
[/quote]
This is flat out wrong.
An abortifacient induces an abortion in mammals.
The pill prevents any ova to be produced that could be aborted.
No ova → nothing to fertilize → nothing to abort.
Now in those cases where this does not happen it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but to call this an abortion is a bit fishy because a pregnancy starts when it does exactly that, and for very good reasons, because most ferilized eggs do not.
So to call a drug that does suppress ovulation and then prevents any fertilized ova to nest in the uterus which in all likelyhood they would not have done anyway an abortion is a stretch.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s the medical definition. At contraception a woman will show she is pregnant, it takes 7-8 days to implant.
http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html[/quote]
When Does Pregnancy Begin?
Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical expertsâ??notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)â??agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman’s uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term “conception” properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
So AMA and ACOG beg to differ, ACOG claims that conception is only completed after the cell is implanted in the uterus.
“Pharmacists for life” might disagree but they are not exactly an unbiased source.
From a Catholic point of view it does not matter anyway, but from a technical point of view you cannot abort what does not exist.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Education>Abortion[/quote]
Agreed. Proper sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and the ability to provide for children > abortion.
However, the answer of the right is to not tell young people about sex at all, preach only abstinence, denounce condoms and allow only those who can afford it birth control, and, when (as a result of these practices) unwanted pregnancies happen, tell the woman “tough shit, deal with it”.[/quote]
Contraceptives like the pill are abortifacient.
[/quote]
No they are not-
They fake a pregnancy just enough so that no new fertile ova are produced. just as they would not be produced in the case of a real pregnancy.[/quote]
Okay, the Pill doesn’t prevent conception, it prevents implantation (most of the time, 4 out of a 100 still report pregnancy on the Pill). That’s called abortifacient
[/quote]
This is flat out wrong.
An abortifacient induces an abortion in mammals.
The pill prevents any ova to be produced that could be aborted.
No ova → nothing to fertilize → nothing to abort.
Now in those cases where this does not happen it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but to call this an abortion is a bit fishy because a pregnancy starts when it does exactly that, and for very good reasons, because most ferilized eggs do not.
So to call a drug that does suppress ovulation and then prevents any fertilized ova to nest in the uterus which in all likelyhood they would not have done anyway an abortion is a stretch.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s the medical definition. At contraception a woman will show she is pregnant, it takes 7-8 days to implant.
http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html[/quote]
When Does Pregnancy Begin?
Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical expertsâ??notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)â??agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman’s uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term “conception” properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
So AMA and ACOG beg to differ, ACOG claims that conception is only completed after the cell is implanted in the uterus.
“Pharmacists for life” might disagree but they are not exactly an unbiased source.
From a Catholic point of view it does not matter anyway, but from a technical point of view you cannot abort what does not exist.
[/quote]
So, it’s not a human until it attaches to a mother. I don’t remember that description in defining a human.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made that you have to believe the story word for word literally*. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, I am the latter.
And, Jesus literally walked on water and turned water into wine. I don’t understand your statement, “hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.” Are you saying that only if you believe them when you first hear them will you ever believe that they are true and literal stories?
*The story is to be understood by the literal meaning; however, understanding the story by the literal word is not necessarily.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]If I thought you actually cared I might take the time to straighten out this deplorable misrepresentation of orthodox hermeneutics. Dixie dude is actually incorrect here. Nothing you’ve said even approximates at least any of my views for sure.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?