Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Catholics vs. Gays in Prom Squabble

Page: 1(2)

pointless and uncalled for

19:27 / 16.05.02

Yeah, there's a very odd breach of contract war going on there.

19:33 / 16.05.02

To broaden the discussion a little: how can one be gay & Christian when the bible rejects homosexuality as immoral? I think the only way around this is to remove religon from the public sphere (i.e education, the state etc).

grant

20:12 / 16.05.02

That's Sacramento, CA, not FL.

How can one be a Bible believing Christian and accumulate worldly goods?

How can one be a Bible-believing Christian and wear cotton-poly blends?

Picking and choosing the prohibitions....

lentil

01:38 / 17.05.02

Well, this is a thread about the Catholic Church’s attitude toward homosexuality. Do you mean that MM is “Picking and choosing the prohibitions”, or that the Catholic Church is?
Your example of the accumulation of worldly goods is pertinent: the specific use of “accumulation” implies an ongoing process and therefore a ‘lifestyle’ contravention of doctrine, rather than an isolated incidence of sin, in much the same way that homosexuality is an ongoing process of sinful acts and desires. The Bible contains an immensely greater number of admonishments against the accumulation of material possessions than against homosexuality, but I think we can be certain that none of the het kids who had chosen their expensive prom outfits from an extensive wardrobe were turned away. Surely this “Couldn't have anything at all to do with the Catholic church's rather obsessively repressive attitude towards sex and sexuality” (c/o Cherry Bomb)?

pointless and uncalled for

12:14 / 17.05.02

MM, on how someone can be a homosexual and a christian.

This, at the end of the day, is a fairly simple argument. The bible was written by men, not God. It may be the word of God but God did not provide the written pages. It can therefore be reasonably argued that certain parts of the bible, especially rules, were added because the writer believed that they would be God's will and also were relative to socio-economic status of the times.

In addition to that, if you take the "homosexuality as a product of genetics" theory and combine it with in depth creationism and the "sin is a product of temptation" theory, then you can reasonably argue that God created homosexuality as a part of human genetic structure.

That's a very rough outline of the argument but that's kind of where it goes.

Rev. Orr

12:56 / 17.05.02

It can be a good deal simpler. Mosaic law (very roughly all old Testament strictures) is superceded by Christ's teaching and later revelation. Prohibition of 'homosexual activity' as found in Deuteronomy is no more binding to a Catholic than Kosher eating, not planting two crops side by side or not having a bank account. Irrespective of what you think, not believe, the two are not mutually exclusive and any repression is based on the church not their scripture.

grant

13:55 / 17.05.02

Well, St. Paul has some pretty down things to say about men lying with other men in the New Testament.
It ain't Christ, but it's definitely in the foundation of the religion.

Rev. Orr

14:49 / 17.05.02

Yeah, he had some pretty fucked up things to say on a lot of subjects, but no-one is claiming that he was divine. All I'm saying is that is possible to have an internally logical acceptance both of Christianity and homosexuality. Not everyone does, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

alas

03:59 / 22.05.02

There's an article here (did I do that right?) that addresses this issue (and it's a Canadian [a group called "Integrity" episcopal/c of e] link, so it must be good for you . . . ) which addresses this issue. Basically, the argument against Paul is not just that he was some kind of uptight wanker who'd also sinned and fallen short of the glory of our more right-thinking times, but that when he said the words that are translated as "homosexual" by many translators today, he couldn't have meant what we typically mean by loving, gay relationships (because those didn't exist in the cultures of the day in the way that we conceive them today), and/or that the words he used were, in addition, vague in terms of their actual reference.

Here's another argument on those lines at this FAQ from "Evangelicals Concerned" who say "Evangelical and Gay is not an Oxymoron.": http://www.ecwr.org/faqbible.htm

cheers.

Mystery Gypt

05:53 / 22.05.02

[theology]This, at the end of the day, is a fairly simple argument. The bible was written by men, not God. It may be the word of God but God did not provide the written pages.

actually, according to the tenets of the religion, the torah was manifested directly from god -- abhorent inconsistency and all.
[/theology]

Naked Flame

07:43 / 22.05.02

Yes, but Catholicism is supposed to take the new testament as its central text, no? all that forgiveness stuff. Gotta love it.

I had lots and lots to contribute to this thread but I'm too late and you've all said it much better than I could. So I leave you with this.

Page: 1(2)

Add Your Reply