Religion vs Homosexuality

[Phatscotty]

i'm sorry... i don't understand the premise of the thread... as a recovering catholic, i was under the impression that both were one in the same...-Jésus noir

exactly...

Still, some religious individuals do feel their faith takes opposition to homosexuality, though even then, what that means varies a great deal.

Living with a Catholic, I'm starting to observe a few things. I won't get into them, but having explored most of these encyclicals introduced upon me I have started to actually learn and see what Catholicism is about. Which is to also say I am learning a few things about many anti-Catholics who don't even seem to understand and probably could not explain why they are anti-Catholic. All these little things keep pointing me to the probability that Catholicism has all kinds of specific rules that probably don't make any sense to most other people, but the rules do have purpose. I think it's just that the purpose benefits the goals more of the church and less of the individual. And I'm sure many are okay with that too as they know and love and have been saved by Jesus Christ, and that is their right to worship that way and live that way

[jimboston]

All these little things keep pointing me to the probability that Catholicism has all kinds of specific rules that probably don't make any sense to most other people, but the rules do have purpose.

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

Though there are plenty of rules that have serve no real purpose whatsoever in a modern world.

[tzor]

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

It is rather humorous and ironic that those who pushed the perpetuation of the bureaucracy of the Church were the ones who often perverted the complex relationship between the Bishop's see and the Parish Pastor, turning it into a simple hierarchy where the Bishop effectively owned all parish property and could move Pastors and Priests around at will within his own see. Bishops who wanted to consolidate power often attempted to drive out Priests of an order who had set up their own parishes independent of the direct influence of the Bishop and replace them with diocesan parishes.

[PLAYER57832]

All these little things keep pointing me to the probability that Catholicism has all kinds of specific rules that probably don't make any sense to most other people, but the rules do have purpose.

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

Though there are plenty of rules that have serve no real purpose whatsoever in a modern world.

I come back to something my grandmother once said -- "the reason we have so many churches is because so many men want to lead". I think there is more than a little truth to that, along with the saying "power corrupts". It takes a very strong person, indeed to not accrue power when given the idea that they are for any reason better than others. This occurs in church, but it also occurs in many other formats. I think the irony just appears more when it happens in church.

[Symmetry]

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

It is rather humorous and ironic that those who pushed the perpetuation of the bureaucracy of the Church were the ones who often perverted the complex relationship between the Bishop's see and the Parish Pastor, turning it into a simple hierarchy where the Bishop effectively owned all parish property and could move Pastors and Priests around at will within his own see. Bishops who wanted to consolidate power often attempted to drive out Priests of an order who had set up their own parishes independent of the direct influence of the Bishop and replace them with diocesan parishes.

Church bureaucracy is rooted in the Bible. Paul's epistles are directions and replies for clarification of conduct on how the church should conduct its business, no?

[Symmetry]

All these little things keep pointing me to the probability that Catholicism has all kinds of specific rules that probably don't make any sense to most other people, but the rules do have purpose.

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

Though there are plenty of rules that have serve no real purpose whatsoever in a modern world.

I come back to something my grandmother once said -- "the reason we have so many churches is because so many men want to lead". I think there is more than a little truth to that, along with the saying "power corrupts". It takes a very strong person, indeed to not accrue power when given the idea that they are for any reason better than others. This occurs in church, but it also occurs in many other formats. I think the irony just appears more when it happens in church.

Indeed, imagine if there was a charismatic rabbi who gathered a bunch of followers back in the middle east a few thousand years ago. With a dedicated enough set of handpicked chosen fanatics He could claim to be the son of God, or even God Himself, maybe even both, and chances are if they targetted poor people, the downtrodden, the mentally I'll (rephrased as demonic influences), outcasts, lepers, starving people, et al. Then you've got yourself a religious leader.

[Symmetry]

When I think about gay people I get a disgusted feeling in my gut, as if I was watching cockroaches or smelling rotten eggs. It's instinctual, not societal

That's a remarlkably strong reaction to thinking about, say Queen, or Elton John. That degree of revulsion suggests that you might need to see a mental health professional. If you smell sulphur whenever you think of Ellen DeGeneres, or you're reminded of your cockroach watching habits when you hear YMCA, there are probably deeper issues at play

[PLAYER57832]

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

It is rather humorous and ironic that those who pushed the perpetuation of the bureaucracy of the Church were the ones who often perverted the complex relationship between the Bishop's see and the Parish Pastor, turning it into a simple hierarchy where the Bishop effectively owned all parish property and could move Pastors and Priests around at will within his own see. Bishops who wanted to consolidate power often attempted to drive out Priests of an order who had set up their own parishes independent of the direct influence of the Bishop and replace them with diocesan parishes.

Church bureaucracy is rooted in the Bible. Paul's epistles are directions and replies for clarification of conduct on how the church should conduct its business, no?

Yes.. and no.

The "no" is both because individuals can read the same words and hear different things because we pair what we read and hear with our own experiences and feelings and because Roman Catholicism (and much of Judaism, for that matter) is not based solely on the Bible, but is also based upon church tradition.

Protestants emphasize that each of the Apostles had a slightly different take on Christ's words and teachings, that each of the Bible books brings out different things -- not in conflict, per say, but like viewing a statue from different directions gives you a different idea of what it is. Also, while Roman Catholics tend to emphasize the unity of the original church under Peter (Popes are considered spiritual descendants of Peter/ inheritors of Peter's authority), Protestants speak often of 7 ancient churches.

[PLAYER57832]

Some rules have the purpose of perpetuating the bureaucracy of the Church.

It is rather humorous and ironic that those who pushed the perpetuation of the bureaucracy of the Church were the ones who often perverted the complex relationship between the Bishop's see and the Parish Pastor, turning it into a simple hierarchy where the Bishop effectively owned all parish property and could move Pastors and Priests around at will within his own see. Bishops who wanted to consolidate power often attempted to drive out Priests of an order who had set up their own parishes independent of the direct influence of the Bishop and replace them with diocesan parishes.

You could argue that is a big part of why we had the Reformation. (argue not saying its the whole truth)

[tzor]

Church bureaucracy is rooted in the Bible. Paul's epistles are directions and replies for clarification of conduct on how the church should conduct its business, no?

Church "bureaucracy" is mentioned in the letters of the Apostles, especially that of Paul. But Church "politics" is not. Sadly it mostly about internal politics these days.

[tzor]

You could argue that is a big part of why we had the Reformation. (argue not saying its the whole truth)

A significant portion of the Reformation in many areas (especially England) was the secular monarch or local secular governing authority taking over parish lands. You can even argue that this was happening long before the reformation, so it was just business as abnormal and not a unique result of the reformation.

[Symmetry]

You could argue that is a big part of why we had the Reformation. (argue not saying its the whole truth)

A significant portion of the Reformation in many areas (especially England) was the secular monarch or local secular governing authority taking over parish lands. You can even argue that this was happening long before the reformation, so it was just business as abnormal and not a unique result of the reformation.

The monarchy in England was not secular. If you're talking about Henry VIII, he appointed himself head of church. It's pretty pointless divorcing church and state in the period though. It tends to be a fallacy of imposing modern divisions on to the past.

[MagnusGreeol]

Re: Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are
Unread postby mrswdk on Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:50 am
I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.
Image
User avatar
Captain mrswdk

- How would this go as far as religion?

[PLAYER57832]

You could argue that is a big part of why we had the Reformation. (argue not saying its the whole truth)

A significant portion of the Reformation in many areas (especially England) was the secular monarch or local secular governing authority taking over parish lands. You can even argue that this was happening long before the reformation, so it was just business as abnormal and not a unique result of the reformation.

The monarchy in England was not secular. If you're talking about Henry VIII, he appointed himself head of church. It's pretty pointless divorcing church and state in the period though. It tends to be a fallacy of imposing modern divisions on to the past.

I am referring to a more broad application.

The basis of the reformation was that it is OK to question what "the church"... aka the church leaders proclaimed. In some cases, yes, that meant monarchs putting forward their own definitions, in other places it meant other things. That was my point, though it came along with a few other issues such as "by the bible alone", "faith along"... etc. and note, I am saying this is what happened. Getting into whether these were correct, etc, is another debate entirely.

And neither I nor historians mark the reformation based on England alone. You might remember Martin Luther was German...

[Symmetry]

Church bureaucracy is rooted in the Bible. Paul's epistles are directions and replies for clarification of conduct on how the church should conduct its business, no?

Church "bureaucracy" is mentioned in the letters of the Apostles, especially that of Paul. But Church "politics" is not. Sadly it mostly about internal politics these days.

I don't know, I would think that it depends on how you define the word "political". If you were to define the word, what would it mean in your argument?

[DoomYoshi]

To this day, the Monarch must be Anglican.

[tzor]

I don't know, I would think that it depends on how you define the word "political". If you were to define the word, what would it mean in your argument?

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people. Politics involves the making of a common decision for a group of people, that is, a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group. It also involves the use of power by one person to affect the behavior of another person. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state.

So when a person starts to look towards those in a leadership position and starts to deliberately please those people in order to be promoted to positions of higher authority, rank, and remuneration, he (or she) is in effect playing "politics" within the organization. This is true in climbing the "corporate" ladder, or the "diocesan" ladder. I've even seen this in terms of fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus ... "If we get our guy elected to the state office, he will be able to appoint more of our people to high state positions." In any organization, you will always find "politics."

[Symmetry]

I don't know, I would think that it depends on how you define the word "political". If you were to define the word, what would it mean in your argument?

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people. Politics involves the making of a common decision for a group of people, that is, a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group. It also involves the use of power by one person to affect the behavior of another person. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state.

So when a person starts to look towards those in a leadership position and starts to deliberately please those people in order to be promoted to positions of higher authority, rank, and remuneration, he (or she) is in effect playing "politics" within the organization. This is true in climbing the "corporate" ladder, or the "diocesan" ladder. I've even seen this in terms of fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus ... "If we get our guy elected to the state office, he will be able to appoint more of our people to high state positions." In any organization, you will always find "politics."

Do you consider the Disciples to be political figures? Or, say Jesus to be a politician?

[PLAYER57832]

Do you consider the Disciples to be political figures? Or, say Jesus to be a politician?

I know you addressed this to tzor, but this is an area where a Roman Catholic and a Protestant will differ significantly. I am Protestant, Tzor is of course Roman Catholic.

We would argue that part of why Christ came was to do away with the politics of the ancient Jews. Protestant churches vary significantly, though. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians have Bishops that lead the churches, though I am given to understand the position is more administrative than in the Roman Catholic Church. On the other side you have churches like the Amish that so abhor structure, they don't even have a church structure, instead meeting in people's homes on a rotating basis.

But, the key point is that Protestants rely on their own personal faith, reading the Bible and prayer, not so much on the church structure itself. They see a community of Christians as ideally helping one another in faith, but also recognize that any human structure is going to fail. A Protestant who is unhappy in one church can go to another church (though some of the protestant churches are far more strict than the Roman Catholics... Mennonites, Pentecostals are good examples of that) or found a new church. For most Roman Catholics, though there is some variation among denominations, they all stay under a single head.. the Pope. (but I will let Tzor explain his side)

Anyway, its not that Protestants lack politics, not at all. In fact, you can easily argue there is more of it in many Protestant churches, but we definitely see the politics as independent of faith.

[Symmetry]

Do you consider the Disciples to be political figures? Or, say Jesus to be a politician?

I know you addressed this to tzor, but this is an area where a Roman Catholic and a Protestant will differ significantly. I am Protestant, Tzor is of course Roman Catholic.

We would argue that part of why Christ came was to do away with the politics of the ancient Jews. Protestant churches vary significantly, though. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians have Bishops that lead the churches, though I am given to understand the position is more administrative than in the Roman Catholic Church. On the other side you have churches like the Amish that so abhor structure, they don't even have a church structure, instead meeting in people's homes on a rotating basis.

But, the key point is that Protestants rely on their own personal faith, reading the Bible and prayer, not so much on the church structure itself. They see a community of Christians as ideally helping one another in faith, but also recognize that any human structure is going to fail. A Protestant who is unhappy in one church can go to another church (though some of the protestant churches are far more strict than the Roman Catholics... Mennonites, Pentecostals are good examples of that) or found a new church. For most Roman Catholics, though there is some variation among denominations, they all stay under a single head.. the Pope. (but I will let Tzor explain his side)

Anyway, its not that Protestants lack politics, not at all. In fact, you can easily argue there is more of it in many Protestant churches, but we definitely see the politics as independent of faith.

This is all familiar territory for me. I personally, as someone who identifies as neither of the political branches of Christianity you mention, nor any of the others, will always find many of the divisions to be about politics. As an insider, I get that you feel that your version is purer than others, after all where would your faith be otherwise?

I do think you should chat with more Catholics though. They tend to have a more pragmatic approach toward church politics than Protestants, who tend to think they're more pure and divorced from the reality of religion. Just my two pence.

[PLAYER57832]

I do think you should chat with more Catholics though. They tend to have a more pragmatic approach toward church politics than Protestants, who tend to think they're more pure and divorced from the reality of religion. Just my two pence.

lol In fact, I am currently doing just that, because my son is in a Roman Catholic elementary school, and am actively studying up on the church as a result. (we put him there because it was a better environment for him, but I don't just dismiss the religious aspect, either).

That said, the thing about Protestants is that there is no real "thing about Protestants". Its sort of like the difference between insects and mammals. They are all animals, but while there is variety within mammals, you can find within insects just about any life cycle, way of living imaginable.

[Symmetry]

I do think you should chat with more Catholics though. They tend to have a more pragmatic approach toward church politics than Protestants, who tend to think they're more pure and divorced from the reality of religion. Just my two pence.

lol In fact, I am currently doing just that, because my son is in a Roman Catholic elementary school, and am actively studying up on the church as a result. (we put him there because it was a better environment for him, but I don't just dismiss the religious aspect, either).

That said, the thing about Protestants is that there is no real "thing about Protestants". Its sort of like the difference between insects and mammals. They are all animals, but while there is variety within mammals, you can find within insects just about any life cycle, way of living imaginable.

I'm glad that talking to people has broadened your horizons. I remember a conversation I had with you a while ago where you used a phrase along the lines of " whether Christian or Catholic", with you arguing that that was a distinction you grew up with. Antu-Catholicism is often a foundational point in Protestantism, even as an atheist it can be cultural

[DoomYoshi]

In my church, we have sworn off pupation completely and we just emerge from our former exoskeleton on the run.

[tzor]

Do you consider the Disciples to be political figures? Or, say Jesus to be a politician?

Well, Jesus and the disciples are an interesting figures. We can see in the gospels that many of the disciples were jostling for positions within the organization, Mark 10:37 / Matthew 20:21. So politics did come into play, but Jesus was always reminding them that if they want positions of power they had to be the most humblest and hard working of them all. He was constantly tipping their expectations upside down.

[Symmetry]

Do you consider the Disciples to be political figures? Or, say Jesus to be a politician?

Well, Jesus and the disciples are an interesting figures. We can see in the gospels that many of the disciples were jostling for positions within the organization, Mark 10:37 / Matthew 20:21. So politics did come into play, but Jesus was always reminding them that if they want positions of power they had to be the most humblest and hard working of them all. He was constantly tipping their expectations upside down.

At least that's what they say he did.