Standing against bonds
Your opinions simply astound me. Our governor may not say or do what everyone thinks he ought to. He is the first person I know in the political arena that will take a stand against bonds, and I, for one, commend him for this. Bonds are killing the state of Maine.
His timing was established by the circumstances, which was not of his doing. And, yes, I am the noisy constituent.
I don’t see any damage to our state’s culture. In fact I believe just the opposite. Your paper says it doesn’t make him right, but he has made a stand that probably some of the people you know are trying to promote so that they can purchase these bonds for the good dividends or interest, which is tax free both at the federal and state levels.
Most of these bonds are sold in segments of $25,000 or greater. The average citizen who might make an investment in bonds cannot because it is big money.
I challenge you for the second time. Why don’t you publish a list of just who is purchasing these bonds? My motto is: Don’t put today’s responsibilities on to the future, which will make my children and yours pay for this burden.
Richard Eaton
Fairfield
The climate change cause
Carolyn Bower’s letter ( BDN July 28-29) calls for us to rise up and stifle ridiculous voices. As one of those ridiculous voices with no dog in the hunt, I would like to ask her some questions, since she is “one of those who understand the truth.”
Over the past 400,000 years, there have been five major glaciations. I haven’t read about any evidence of coal-fired power plants, oil-heated caves or SUV’s during those glaciations. What caused the global warming then?
In 1000 AD, the Greenland Viking societies numbered some 3,000 inhabitants on 300 to 400 farms for some 500 years without SUV’s, coal-fired power plants or oil-heated huts. What caused the Medieval Climatic Anomaly from 950 to 1250? What caused the Little Ice Age in 1350 to about 1850?
There is global warming. Since man is but one of three to 30 million species inhabiting this earth, I believe there are a multitude of reasons for it: sunspot activity, earth wobble, cloud cover, etc.
The real reason for “man-made climate change” is money. Which doomsday cause has the most appeal, “save the snail darter” or “save the world?” No, “man-made climate change” is not a theory; it is a cause. Have you not seen the hundreds of concerned people who make a very good living in the name of this cause?
Jim Miller
Pittsfield
Farming funds
For years I’ve driven past the open fields of Rokes Farm, struck by their timeless beauty and concerned about what might happen if those acres were put on the real estate market. Well, they’re now on the market. The good news is, Maine Farmland Trust and Maine Coast Heritage Trust are handling it.
Here’s a remarkable opportunity to preserve two pieces of Camden’s farmland. The scenic expanse of Rokes Farm on upper Mechanic Street and the equally beautiful fields of the Spear Farm on Simonton Road may finally be safe from residential development through the assistance of MFT and MCHT. They need our financial help for it to remain farmland.
By summer’s end, $303,000 must be raised. Checks may be made out to “Saving Camden Farmland” and sent to Saving Camden Farmland, c/o Maine Farmland Trust, 97 Main St., Belfast, ME 04915. Or, perhaps you have other ideas for raising these critical funds. Send your ideas to Cate Cronin at MFT, email ccronin@mainefarmlandtrust.org or call 338-6575.
We must be proactive and set aside suitable farmland for farmers. Young people are being drawn to this historical way of life, and today’s farmers have many new options. Let’s give them a chance by providing affordable agricultural land.
MFT Executive Director John Piotti is giving a talk 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 7, at the Rockport Public Library. I can assure that you will be energized and informed by his discussion about Maine farmland.
Please support future farming by donating today.
Karin K. Rector
Camden
Allow all marriage
As Christians, we rely on the Bible to guide us. But we must keep in mind that the Bible, although inspired by God, was written by man. God gave men free will. As a result, men’s prejudice and the customs of the times impacted their writings. Scholars still search for accurate meanings of Biblical passages. If we were to practice every law in the Bible, we would not eat lobster, shrimp, or clams. Nor would we eat pork (so much for ham on Easter.)
In respect to Romans 1:26-27, not all biblical scholars see this passage in black and white. Many believe that it refers to the fact that heterosexual pagans who had converted to Christianity were perverse when they converted back to paganism and their former behaviors — worshipping Aphrodite, orgies, homosexuality and child molestation of slaves. Many scholars believe that this passage is meant to teach tolerance, as Paul goes on to say in Romans 2:1 that we should not judge others, for those that judge others do the same thing. Still others believe that the Bible was condemning indiscriminate homosexual behavior, not monogamous loving relationships.
As a Christian, I am disappointed in the hate that we Christians pass off as acceptable by quoting scripture. Gay individuals don’t choose to be gay; they are born gay. Since God doesn’t make mistakes, gays are a gift from God. I urge Maine citizens to help eliminate discrimination by voting to allow same sex marriage.
Susan Edwards
Bangor
Ferrell support
I am also a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, as well as a lifetime hunter, reloader and shooter. And I concur wholeheartedly with the observations of Larry Ferrell of Newport. Perhaps my thoughts are more stringent, as I see no need for assault/military-style weapons to be used in either hunting activities or unstructured recreational shooting. I would support a banning of these weapons entirely. Oh, blasphemy, methinks the gun makers and civil righters doth protest too much!
Finally, as a result of extensive firsthand field experience, I would support restricting every hunting firearm to single-shot status.
I, too, am appalled at the destruction of lives resulting from the ready availability of weaponry not needed by J.Q. Public.
Hank Hosking
Sullivan
Mr. Miller, we know from ice core samples that the pace and spread of warming in past interglacial periods was far slower and more localized than the measured warming now. We also can see how the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is exactly mirrored by the rise in global temperature. Big Oil has spent a lot of money to confuse you and it has far more money to make in denying global warming than the 99% of the scientific community that endorses global warming has in warning of its consequences. You have been duped.
Mr. Miller’s comments echo many others that I’m hearing lately – and I don’t see any evidence that Petrobras or Statoil are influencing the dialogue. My oil delivery guy advised that AGW was a hoax last winter but I guess that would be considered Small Oil, wouldn’t it?
And your oil delivery guy trumps 97% of scientists?
Another disparaging and elitist put-down of the working class.
Surely you can do better than “and your oil delivery guy trumps 97% of scientists?”.
I wouldn’t claim to know more about oil burners than my oil guy. Nor would I claim to know more about the results of the scientific community when, in a peer reviewed process, it concludes that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic.
If knowledge is “elite,” then we have a real problem.
I have learned that peer-reviewed is no longer much of a qualifier in the arena of debate when it comes to the grant-driven ballyhoo of global warming aficionados. Blaming Big Oil is disingenuous; assuming that a mostly hairless hominid with a proclivity for combustion is wrecking the thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet is ridiculous.
7 Billion hairless hominids have a big influence. I suggest that you learn more about atmospheric spectroscopy and thermodynamics.
I think that once one joins the cult of AGW, it’s very difficult to break the shackles of indoctrination and group-think:
“We are the AGW Borg. Lower your standards and surrender your arguments. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile”
Human activity is putting almost 100 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere annually than all of the volcanoes on the planet.
“…the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at
26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that
of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value…”
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
So yes, Human activity does and is affecting our climate.
Certainly the elitists at “Big Oil” have a financial reason to get their minions at Faux News to play down the scientific evidence. Follow the money. The big money is not in the scientific community, it’s with the oil, gas and coal producers, the power generating plants, the fossil-fuel burning auto manufacturers and dealers, etc., etc. They all have a financial motive to ignore the much smaller, much less wealthy scientific community.
Big money tells us to ignore the evidence, and keep buying the fossil fuel bill of goods. You think that “mostly hairless hominids” (talk about elitism!) are too dumb to be able to pollute the planet. But simple common sense tells us we can’t keep pumping pollution into the atmosphere without any consequences.
Facts aren’t the tools of the elite. Asking an expert isn’t disparaging everyone else.
Quit screeching “victim!” every time someone says something you don’t like.
But you do yhat too.
Oh good one, the “I know you are but what am I” routine.
Excuse me I forgot that it OK when you do it but not for those that disagree. I’ll go whip myself now.
If that’s what turns you on…
You really are a tool, aren’t you?
Who would you ask for information about Climate Change?
A person who qualification for his job is he can drive the truck or thousands of Climatologists who job it is to study the Climate?
I suppose you would favor the opinion of the ambulance driver over the opinion of a cardiologist if you were to have a heart attack?
The 97% claim is not at all accurate. Here’s a couple of paragraphs from an interesting article that explains how the AGW supporters came up with the 97%:
“So how about the “97% of scientists” who purportedly support global warming? What proposition do they support? Let’s forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Pauline Kael that she couldn’t understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him). Let’s look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois. Here they are:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions. But depending on how one defines “significant” (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers.”
Want to read the entire article; go to http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
EJ, I see Friday’s comments closed before I found out what you said — You claimed, without explanation, that “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” are science.
Both of those doctrines postulate God as the Creator or Intelligent Designer.
You obviously must have a repeatable and verifiable test for God. Will you please tell us what that test consists of?
Without such a test, you have to take God out of the equation. If you do that, it’s neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design. If you don’t, it isn’t science.
EJ, I believe that God created the universe. That’s religion. It’s taught in my church. But I don’t claim that it’s science just because that would be convenient. The Bible never claims to be a mere science textbook, and those who think it is misunderstand it and downgrade it.
To be science requires using the scientific method — just saying “it’s science” isn’t good enough. Science uses the scientific method — a repeatable, verifiable test.
So please tell us how to test (and verify and repeat the test) for God?
The recent study by Dr. Richard Muller, a talented physicist and climate change denier for over 20 years, ought to be telling for you.
With money from Charles Koch (who makes millions from the use of oil), he performed the most exhaustive study of earth temperatures for the prior 250 years that had ever been done, then ran those temperature changes against solar cycle activity, volcanic activity, and increasing CO2 levels.
He had to reluctantly conclude that he was wrong, that global warming was real and that it was caused by man’s activity.
Koch is likely quite unhappy, but Dr. Muller said that he had to draw his conclusions from the exhaustive evidence before him. If you google Richard Muller, you will have a chance to read his results and I hope that you will let the evidence convert you as well.
If you love this planet, if you love your grandchildren, then it is time to set ideology aside.
Milo, you remind me of my Uncle Jake, who had a lesion on his scalp that his dermatologist said was cancerous and should be removed. He didn’t believe his doctor and was comforted to know that his waitress at the local diner, his auto mechanic, and his accountant all thought the lesion looked harmless. Jake died of skin cancer within the year.
Google Dr. Richard Muller and read the sobering confession of a physicist who was once America’s pre-eminent climate change denier. He actually looked at the evidence, looked for alternative explanations, and had to reluctantly conclude that climate change was real and was man-made. He did this all with money from Charles Koch, who really hoped to get the opposite result, since Koch’s income is so dependent on burning oil. Muller had to be true to the scientific method and admit that he had been wrong all of these years.
Canard, you remind me of my Aunt Mildred – she thinks the world is going to end in December.
Our descendants (those not drowned by the 1000 meter increase in sea level or incinerated by global forest fires or inundated by planetary hurricanes or killed by malarial mosquitoes at the North Pole) will look back at the AGW panic and laugh at the hubris and stupidity.
Thank you Hank!
Hank I’m betting you own hunting arms that aren’t single shot. AR style firearms (I’m not partial to them) are becoming a legitimate hunting arm. If you look at the evolution of firearms through the years, most were military arms at one point in time. I hear a lot about the assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse, and if you think about it logically if it was effective why was it allowed to fade away. It would of been pretty numb of any politician to oppose it if it worked while it was in effect, but no one came forward with a convincing argument that it was worth re-instating. Firearms are so ingrained in our culture that I don’t see them being taken away, and there should absolutely be some regulation. But legal ownership should not be hampered.
Hank, Hank, Hank. We’ve been down this rosey path too many times already.
I’ve said it before and apparently I must say it again. Where do we draw the line? We know for a fact that if we (citizens) give up an inch of ground where rights are concerned “they” will be sure to go for another slice soon after. Then another, then another until we have nothing left but the string on the end of the Rights salami.
As for capacity limits, the law already places limits on hunting firearms capacity. Target shooting and self defense firearms neither need nor should have limits. The guns the bad guys get (and will continue to get no matter how many laws there are) will continue to be hi capacity killing machines in the hands of unlawful, uncaring criminals.
This is why the pro gun groups are so adamant about not having more laws against guns. Laws only disarm Law Abiding Citizens and have no effect on changing criminal actions. We only want the freedom defend ourselves and our families. How do we do that with single shot firearms against the high capacity semi auto weapons the bad guys will come at us with?
When seconds count the police are MINUTES away.
Jim Miller – You’re correct; the man-made global warming alarm is nothing more than an attempt to grab money and set us all up for a global government. It is being perpetrated by the world’s wealthy and powerful, and we, the common man, will be the ones that will suffer. They know it’s a hoax, and they’re relying on the uneducated and ignorant masses to keep them in power until they have their plan in place to the point where there will be no turning back. Of course, some will think I’m a conspiracy nut, but I’m not. I have my eyes wide open.
Again, no hoax. And the only ones making money on fighting remedies for AGW are big energy and big ag. They have been for decades since in the case of big energy, their products haven’t been priced high enough (you can pay me now or you can pay me later). I on’t see anybody making real money off of alleviating AGW.
The 97% claim is not at all accurate. Here’s a couple of paragraphs from an interesting article that explains how the AGW supporters came up with the 97%:
“So how about the “97% of scientists” who purportedly support global warming? What proposition do they support? Let’s forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Pauline Kael that she couldn’t understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him). Let’s look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois. Here they are:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions. But depending on how one defines “significant” (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers.”
Want to read the entire article; go to http://www.forbes.com/sites/wa…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html
If you want to know the truth, not what Big Oil, Coal and Agribusiness want you to know.
Looks like this “perfect” poll was inadequate (and probably not the only source of the 97%). For such a complicated issue, significance must be evaluated (and eventually backed by data). I think that has happened. As for quoting Forbes, even more of a bastion of conservative capitalism then the Wall Street Journal, I wonder as to the validity.
No mention of Prof. Miller’s recently being convinced that AGW is real? He was a prominent skeptic (not a denialist as some branded him) but upon further study was convinced that AGW is correct.
Even if the “97%” is inaccurate, I’ll bet the percentage of credible scientists who think tht AGW is real/significant is still quit high (I’ll guess 90% +).
GW is no hoax…the A certainly is.
The A does contribute extensively to GW but is not the only cause. That is certain.
That is my point. Anthropogenic means it’s caused by humans, which it is not. Do we as humans contribute? Sure. Would the planet not warm without us? No.
It is a politically clever selection of a word which makes it what it is not. It’s like calling people who, for whatever reason, disagree with homosexuality “homophobes.” I doubt they are all somehow *afraid* of gays.
Some people think billions and billions of people can keep pumping tons and tons pollutants into the atmosphere, and we will somehow be free from all consequences. They listen to what the elites at big oil and the coal and agribusiness industry tell them, because after all they’ve got the money to control the dialogue, and they don’t want to spend any of that money to make the world a safer place for human life. That might cut into their profits. Follow the money.
And what do scientists know anyway? What’s knowledge got to do with anything?
So yes, I understand where you’re coming from.
P.S. Prejudice is generally based on fear of those who are different, but I agree that “bigot” is a better descriptive term than “homophobe.”
I was merely allowing for the fact that humans are not the only contributors to GW. However, we contribute a sizable portion of the observed warming over and above “natural” cycles. And that is the portion we can do something about.
Susan Edwards – I trust that God guided the minds and hands of those that He chose to write His scriptures. God only used them to write His Words. He was the author; they were his instruments.
As a Christian, I cannot stand by and support things that the Bible clearly points out to be wrong. Also, you should read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It clearly points out that sinful lifestyles can be turned away from. And if they can be turned away from, than that means they were chosen. No one is born gay.
The Bible was wrongfully used to legitimize slavery and repress women. You’re wrongfully using it now against gays. History will treat you the same way it has treated others who actively engaged in and supported discrimination.
Love one another.
EJ: I’m not a Bible scholar at all, but I have to wonder why God–knowing where we’d be today–would prompt men to subjugate women and enslave their fellow man. Unless you’re telling me this is how it should be now, and we’ve (wrongly) turned our backs on this.
God gave us all the power to choose. Not all choices are right.
Truly. So the “right” choices are the subjugation of women and slavery?
In the New Testament, slavery is acknowledged as something that happened in the days the books were written; it does not support or promote slavery. Also, in the New Testament, women are glorified, not enslaved by their husbands. The subjugation argument has been dredged up by those that detest Christianity.
The Word is to treat your slaves humanely, not to free them. And women are indeed glorified, as they are in the Kuran…which is why they need to be “protected.” They are not equals in the Bible.
In the New Testament, women are very often placed above men in importance, respect, and love. The should be protected in every way, as should every unborn life.
Often, but they are not meant to partner with or lead men. A gilded cage comes to mind.
Nor be priests, etc.
I notice you’re avoiding my question. No answer?
Which is why Paul taught that they were be silent in church, or teach or have authority over men?
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be submissive, as also
says the law”
It doesn’t matter what you think it says now. People used the Bible as justification for it then. They used it as justification for repressing women. They used it as justification for banning interracial marriage. These examples aren’t being dredged up due to hatred towards Christianity.
You’re screaming “victim!” in order to derail the conversation. The point is that the Bible has been used as justification for wrong and evil in the past. It’s very obvious that using the Bible against gays is another example of that same behavior.
Correct. Just as many “Christians” misused the Bible in the past to justify their prejudice against “coloreds,” they now misuse it to justify their prejudice against gays. EJ would rather change the subject, however.
So when Paul said, “Slaves obey your masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ” (Ephesians 6:5) he didn’t really mean it? He was just acknowledging that slavery is something that exists?
Gee, that’s sure not how it looks. It actually looks as though Paul meant what he said, that slaves should obey their masters with fear and trembling. They should obey their masters in the same way they would obey Christ. He was telling them that their master’s authority was just like Christ’s authority.
That’s a lot more than saying, “Slavery is something that exists, and I acknowledge that it exists, but I really don’t support it.”
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul tells us that we should all live the life that the Lord has assigned us. Were you a slave when called? Never mind. You should remain “in whatever state you were called” (1 Corinthians 7:24). So if you were born a slave, stay a slave.
Titus 2:9-10 says, “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and give satisfaction in every respect.”
Of course, EJ, I know that you are never swayed by the facts. You can see what the Bible actually says about slavery, but you will not believe the words on the page.
Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. The New Testament and Old both support the institution of slavery. The New Testament specifically tells slaves to obey their masters, and to be submissive and obedient in fear and trembling.
That’s a whole lot more than “acknowledging it as something that happened.” But don’t believe the words on the page. Put some spin on it so that it says something else that you would rather have it say.
I bow down to you, oh great Spinner.
Nothing will ever satisfy you. You will take anything that I say and twist it into something you can argue with. My comment was correct as written.
You don’t answer, you just spin. Did Paul say what he meant, or not? Did he really mean to condemn slavery, but just said the opposite by mistake?
Paul meant every word that he said, because he was acting as the voice of Christ. Trouble is, people like you hear his words in a completely different context than the way he wrote them.
So he said that slaves should obey their masters in fear and trembling, and obey their masters just as they would obey Christ, and give their masters all satisfaction, and remain slave if they were born slave.
How does that translate to “I’m against slavery”?
You say that now, but the majority used it as an excuse. It’s exactly the same thing you’re doing to gay people now. History won’t treat you kindly.
I dislike saying it, EJP, but these comments of ours have not been spin. If you don’t acknowledge that, your the one guilty of “spinning” (as has been done a lot in the canonical books of the Bible and their translations).
Not really related to the current topic, but I wanted to make you aware. In a previous post, you stated ”
I just Googled “texas critical thinking”. Every liberal paper and blog is carrying the story. That debunks that one.” – If you don’t believe the “liberal paper” then believe it from the Texas Republican Party itself.
“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” – Page 20, http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
I’m opposed to Outcome Based Education, too. I don’t believe that children should be steered into certain career paths based on skills tests or the needs of the government.
Actually, Christians and others have promoted downgrading of women. Such subjugation has not been confined to “those who detest Christianity”. And we Christians didn’t have to “dredge’ very far to come up with this conclusion.
A good share of the Epistles are attributed to Paul but were actually written by others who were walking the fine line between the real Christian message and not offending the Roman Empire who was giving them a lot of flack anyway. Advocating freeing the slaves and equality of women, definitely not Roman mores, would have led to their probably annihilation.
Carefully reading the short book of Philemon (truly Pauline) is very illuminating on the subject.
I’m still waiting for churches to protest female teachers.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” – 1 Timothy 2:12
EJ, being gay refers to a person’s sexual orientation. How does one choose who he or she is attracted to? Do you? Or is it a natural reaction? It’s a simple answer.
How you deal with your sexual attractions becomes a choice. But don’t say that no one is born gay…you’re not qualified. As a gay person, I can tell you that I’ve had these attractions as far back as I can remember and I certainly didn’t choose them.
You have many peoples sympthathy!
For being gay or for being discriminated against?
Another insightful comment from EJ Parsons, who of course knows what no gay or lesbian ever concedes: that he or she has chosen his or her gender orientation and happily puts up with the hatred from Parsons and his selective Bible quotes. And Parsons, of course, has no respect for any other religion or any Christian views save his own fundamentalism. Susan Edwards’ letter shows how decent Christians can accept other Christians–and non-Christians–who, as decent folks acknowledge–became gay through no choice of their own. Parsons’ demonization of those who are not like him is, as always, more about him than about the objects of his hatred.
To say that homosexual acts are sinful is not hatred. It is merely speaking the truth about God.
Yes, God did make people who are homosexual. But he commands them to not have sex with a member of the same sex. Homosexuals may be thought of as victim souls, because they carry a struggle that the majority of us don’t. What most people either don’t realize, or don’t accept, these days is that God allows suffering for the purification of our souls.
We can’t reach heaven without a pure soul. The way we make up for our sins is by suffering. That’s why Jesus suffered so badly, to set an example of what we must go through to reach heaven. Homosexuals may go through a life of suffering if they deny themselves homosexual acts, but that suffering may be what begets the grace of God which allows them to go to heaven.
The teachings of the Catholic Church have all the answers to suffering and all the other problems of the world. The problem is, most people these days totally reject those teachings in favor of living how they desire, instead of living the way God desires us to live. We have to remember that our 0-95 years on earth are a dress rehearsal to a lifetime that never ends. The suffering we go through in our lifetimes is nothing compared to an eternity spent in heaven or hell. God gives us graces continually to deal with that suffering. We just have to be open to accept his graces, because we can’t make it on our own volition or merits.
Prejudice is not “the truth of God.”
I have great respect for the Catholic laypeople and Catholic priests I know and have known. Not all Catholics agree with the Catholic hierarchy, and not all Christians believe that the Bishop of Rome speaks for them. He may be a good man, but he is wrong about many things.
Those who oppose fairness and equal treatment of gays and lesbians are mis-using the Bible as a tool to support prejudice, just as they mis-used the Bible to support slavery and oppose interracial marriage. Were were told that it was God’s will that black people were slaves, that slaves couldn’t marry each other, and — later — it was God’s will that the races should be kept separate, “coloreds” couldn’t use the “white only” toilets and drinking fountains and schools and hospitals because the Bible said so.
Now many of those same churches are taking six verses out of the Bible — out of more than 31,000 — and are quoting that handful of verses out of context, and are saying that is proof that God wants us to be prejudiced against God’s gay children.
Meanwhile, the purveyors of prejudice are ignoring the core teachings of Scripture, that we should welcome the stranger, seek justice for the outsider and the oppressed person, love our neighbor, judge not so that we should not be judged, take the log out of our own eye before trying to take the speck out of our neighbor’s eye, and not throw stones unless we ourselves are without sin.
Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table. The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, show concern for the outsider and the oppressed person and those who are perceived to be different.
Go ahead and misquote a small handful of verses that seem at first glance to support prejudice. I will stand with Jesus and with the Bible in seeking justice for the oppressed, and welcoming the outsider and the stranger.
Jesus welcomed everyone, but he welcomed them to join his way of life and thinking. He said that those who believed in him would be saved, but that those who refused to believe in him were already condemned. So yes, all are welcome as far as Jesus is concerned, but they are to put away every form of sinful life and try to obey his commandments and live without sin.
To say that the pope is a good man, but is wrong about many things, is quite a contradiction. Jesus told Peter, the first pope, that whatsoever he declared loosed or bound on earth would be considered the same in heaven. Since only perfection can be allowed in heaven, it is not possible for a pope to teach error in matters of faith and morals. And Jesus also told Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church.
If the Catholic Church can teach error, then, it would mean that Jesus lied. The Catholic faith can be, and is vociferously, argued against by means of emotions. But an argument against the Catholic faith can never be won by using logical means.
Perhaps when Jesus told Peter “you are a small stone (“petros”), and on this rock I will build my church” he was saying that a small stone and a big rock are the same thing.
Or maybe he was making a contrast between Peter, the small stone, and the rock of truth that the church would be built on.
But, even in the unlikely event that he meant for Peter to be the first head of the church, there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, only a legend that has been encouraged almost singly by the Bishop of Rome and his followers.
We know from the Bible that Peter and Paul both went to Antioch, and so the Patriarch of Antioch has a much better claim than the Bishop of Rome has. And we know for a fact that Peter spent much time in Jerusalem, and so the Patriarch of Jerusalem probably has an even better claim than the Patriarch of Antioch.
But there is no evidence in history or in the Bible that Peter ever set foot in Italy.
I certainly disagree with Martin Luther’s assertion that the Pope is the antichrist. I think the Bishop of Rome is a decent and well-meaning man, who, like other men, is often right and often wrong. There are no perfect people today, if there ever were any.
The Catholic Church taught error when they tortured and burned people who disagreed with Catholic doctrine; they taught error when they tried to ban thinking by banning books; they taught error when they encouraged the persecution and murder of European Jews, and called for Crusades to murder and slaughter in the Holy Land; they taught error when they condemned the writings of Copernicus and silenced Galileo. They taught error during the Great Schism when all three Popes excommunicated each other. They teach error today when they tell poverty-stricken women in poor nations that they must not use birth control even to save their own lives; they teach error when they ask people to lie in order to annul real marriages and declare their own children to be illegitimate; they teach error when they teach prejudice against God’s gay children.
But, yes, John Paul II was right to condemn Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and the Bishops of Rome have been right about many other things as well. Nobody’s perfect this side of Heaven.
I have been sick and disabled for 22 years, and right now I don’t have the energy to address all your points. The Catholic Church has been wrong about science in the past, but that is not an issue of faith and morals. Infallibility is valid only on those grounds. With the science issues, however, there were matters related to faith mixed in, so the Church was trying to protect the faith on those counts.
As far as Peter being a “small stone:” Petros is the Greek masculine name for Peter. Peter could not be a Petra (large stone), because as a man, he could not have a feminine name. Matthew’s gospel was in Greek in its final 1st century form. It was originally written in Hebrew.
However, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic, a derivative of Hebrew. In Aramaic, Peter is Kepha (in English, we know it as Cephas). In the language Jesus spoke, Kepha means “large foundation stone.”
As far as the popes’ being perfect, we can agree on that. No human being is perfect. But the teachings of the Catholic Church (which Ephesians 5 says is “without blemish”) can’t be anything but perfect. God is sinless and perfect. God, just by pure logic, cannot allow his church to be able to teach anything that would lead souls to sin. That’s why a pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. They can make sinful mistakes in other ways, but church teachings are not one of the ways.
So the Pope got a phone call, long distance, from God.
Being the very first Pope to ever get a direct phone call from God, he was extremely pleased. God said, “I want you to tell everyone that there is only one true church.”
The Pope said, “Of course, Lord, I’ll tell everyone right away that you have declared that there is only one true church.”
God said, “But first you should know that I’m calling from Salt Lake City.”
(No, I’m not Mormon).
Do you know that there are about 40 separate denominations in the United States that are called “Church of God” (five unrelated denominations called simply “Church of God”) or have “Church of God” in their name (such as the “Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas”)?
How can they all be the one and only true Church of God? They can’t be. Neither is the Roman Catholic Church. Neither is the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
Every church that claims to be the only true church is suffering under the sin of pride.
Yes, the Catholic Church has one piece of the truth. The Quakers have another piece, the Lutherans have another piece, and the Buddhists have another piece.
The Catholic Church is sinning whenever it declares the Pope to be infallible (under any circumstances).
Oh, and, although you did very well in your answer above, there is no evidence that there was an original of Matthew in Hebrew (a language not spoken by Jesus or his 12 Disciples). Since much of Matthew’s Gospel was copied word-for-word from Mark’s Gospel (written in Greek), a Hebrew Matthew would not have made any sense anyway.
I think Peter was named the first Pope retroactively. And the “Office of the Keys” has been misinterpreted. More likely it involves personal forgiveness. Unless any follower of Christ forgives his fwllow man/neighbor, his lack of forgiveness will catch up with him in the afterlife (which may well be here on earth). It does not mean that only Peter and the disciples can dispense Godly forgiveness. For myself, only one person on earth comes between me and God and he left 2000 years ago.
You’ve just excluded your current allies on many conservative Christian missions or crusades: the Protestant conservatives. I’ve predicted for some time that this alliance (unholy?) would come to and end PDQ.
There are no perfect human beings, we can strive for it but we all will fall short. The pope is not perfect, he is human. If only perfection is allowed in heaven then it is empty saving God and Christ.
The grace of God makes all souls perfect before they are allowed in heaven (see Hebrews 12:27). No human is perfect on earth, but all souls in heaven are perfect, courtesy of our Creator.
All the answers? And only they have all the answers? Only because they say so (and you’d better believe it or you’re outta here).
Religion is a drug of sorts that gets you through this life.
I have respect for all humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, or choice of lifestyle. I hate no one (and never even use that word unless responding to being falsely accused), and cringe at the thought of anyone spending eternity separated from God. That is why I am not afraid to stand my ground, whether or not it is popular. As for “decent Christians”, how can a Christian stand by and allow or promote actions that are clearly against the Word of God. I would contend that any “decent Christian” that does so actually hates his or her fellow man.
One day, when we all stand in Judgment, many will look back in a mad attempt to find out where they went wrong, as Jesus looks at them and says, “Depart from Me, for I never knew you.”
And yet you try to use the law against only some “sinners.” I don’t see the decency in that.
Context: Yes, in Matthew 25, the only time Jesus speaks about what will happen on the Last Day, those who did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, visit those in prison, and welcome the stranger, are told “Depart from me, for I never knew you.”
There’s nothing there about being gay.
But you seemed to have missed the command to welcome the stranger.
” decent Christian” mind their business
exactly !
Susan Edwards, Hank Hoskins; good letters.
Richard Eaton: ever hear of Muni funds? Great investments, especially for the little guy, since they’re tax exempt.
Jim Miller: as posted elsewhere, I don’t see anyone making any real money off of alleviating AGW.
Hank
I happen to like military style weapons for my “unstructured recreational shooting”. They are reliable, safe, easy to use, and ammunition is less expensive. And if the time comes that I ever have to protect myself in my own home I want more than a single shot.
“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that. Why is gay marriage any different?” Megyn Kelly
Hank,in America you have your opinion and you can express freely.Guns whether good or bad is one of the reasons you have that right.The problem with guns aren’t limiting them.Its the laws that protect the guilty,that are guilty.The insane that are insane.
“Its the laws that protect the guilty,that are guilty.The insane that are insane.”
When were laws written that protect the guilty? The laws are written, or are supposed to b written to protect the innocent. I was brought up with the understanding that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
In the last 60 years protections for the insane have gone down hill. The tax payers have little or no sympathy for the mentally ill.
There should be no insanity ruling’s out there.If you commit a heinous crime,you should be held accountable for your actions.You as the person that committed that crime,not your alter ego.
I don’t think you understand how criminal law works. In order to be guilty of, for example, murder, one of the elements the prosecutors have to prove is intent to commit the crime. That’s why when there is an unfortunate accident all the people involved don’t get charged with murder. If a person is too crazy to understand what they’re doing, how can a prosecutor prove that person intended to kill?
What do qualify as an”unfortunate accident”? We are talking guns here,you pull the trigger to harm you are responsible.
There are gun accidents every year. Former Vice President Cheney wasn’t immune from commiting an accident.
Openmindedmainer apparently would have him in jail if he had his way.
Learn how to read!
Intentional harm!
There are gun accidents all the time. A child somehow gets ahold of his parents’ gun, drops it or accidentally fires it and kills his sibling. We don’t charge him with murder, do we?
Intentional harm!
That was exactly the point of my comment. The prosecutors can’t prove “Intentional harm!” if the person is crazy and acting unintentionally. They have to prove intent. I said that. Don’t tell me I need to learn to read when that was in my initial comment. Your personal attacks prove that you have a weak point/argument.
Are you serious?Your telling me it is hard to prove insane,insanity over accidental shootings.If that’s the case,my original statement stands on it’s own.
That’s not what I said at all. Looks like you’re the one who needs to “Learn how to read!”
With the mentally ill making up 30% of the inmate population nation wide, I believe that their prosecution and conviction rate isn’t being protected by their insanity.
Susan Edwards- nice letter but sorry, it- “ain’t happening”
How do you know? Are you an oracle?
Thank You Susan Edwards. If to be a Christian is to be Christ like then you certainly are a true example. God Bless You!
We know that Christ condemned the practice of homosexual sex. How do we know? His apostles taught everything that he commanded them, and the apostles taught that homosexual acts are seriously sinful. To be tempted by same sex attraction is just that, a temptation, not a sin. It’s the act that is sinful. And to say that Christ approved of homosexual acts would be to portray Christ falsely, and those false attributions about Christ can lead gullible people away from the salvation of their souls. Nothing is more important to us than our salvation.
I honor and respect your devotion to your Faith, but you’ll understand that many of us are glad that we do not legislate according to the Bible.
Worse yet, legislate according to his interpretation of the Bible.
Absolutely. I can assure you that no one wants to live under my interpretation of the Bible.
My interpretation of the Bible is not my own. It is the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible in the first place. Since Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and gave it full authority to teach all souls the way to salvation, the Catholic interpretation is the only rightful interpretation.
Over 40,000 Christian denominations have hijacked the Catholic Bible and have tried to call it their own. That huge number of denominations is a joke and scandal to non-believers. It is also a huge insult to Jesus Christ, who suffered terribly to redeem our souls from hell, and who prayed at the last supper that all who believed in him would be perfectly one, as Jesus and the Father are one (see John, chapter 17).
There are thousands of religions in this world. Of all of them, only 2 have been authorized by God. The first, the Jewish religion, was supplanted by the Catholic religion, which was founded by Jesus Christ, and to which he gave all the teaching authority which was his as God.
So please don’t say that I am making up my own religion. I am merely repeating what Jesus Christ taught his apostles, and he commanded them to take his teachings to the whole world. I am a puny, insignificant human being, and I have no business saying anything about religion other than what God has wanted to be said about it for the past 2000 years.
Yes, the Christian Bible was assembled by the Orthodox/Catholic Church — the “proto-Catholic” faction that won control of the Early Christian Church and took control of the Roman Empire, thus crushing all of the other Christian groups with the might of Empire. Eventually the Orthodox/Catholic Church split into East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic) factions, and their respective leaders excommunicated each other.
But it is not true that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. It is also not true to say that the rich and powerful Roman Catholic Church — headed by Popes who lived in luxury, led armies into battle and sired illegitimate children — has always been the faithful heir of the religion of Jesus, that penniless Jewish rabbi.
The Protestant Reformation was necessary because corruption, a corruption that began at the Council of Nicaea, had led the Catholic Church astray. The Protestants also engaged in torturing and murdering “heretics,” just as the Catholics had taught them.
As individuals, and in religious community, we look to the Bible (the Good Book, not the Perfect Book), and to the traditions of the various imperfect denominations (including the imperfect Catholic denomination as one among many) and to our own imperfect human understanding — to do the best we can to be followers of Jesus.
The process of reforming the Church continues, and every individual Christian must seek God for him/herself to the best humanly possible, because there never was one true church, at least not since the 1st century C.E., and there isn’t one today. All of our human religious communities are flawed and imperfect — yet I still believe in the value of the church.
More Protestant old wives tales passed down from the 16th century. If the Catholic Church is not the true church, why is it the archenemy of Satan worshipers? Why is a Catholic priest the only type of person on earth who can exorcise a demon? Catholic priests can do that, because they are the only people who Jesus Christ invested with the same power and authority over Satan that he has.
If you are a Protestant who opposes the Catholic Church, you are in the same bed with Satanists, who consider the epitome of their worship to be the Black Mass, which is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Satan will do anything he can to attack God’s truth in the Catholic faith, including trying to dupe Protestants into believing all the hollow lies that have been made up about Catholicism over the past 2000 years, and especially over the past 500 years. Satan is the great deceiver, the father of lies. He has many, many people in his corner, whether they know it or not.
I, for one, do not oppose the Catholic Church or those who choose to practice the Catholic faith. However I do disagree with some of the teachings and the manner the Popes, Cardinals and Bishops have put their “doctrine” above the laws of society, loving thy neighbor as thyself, and protecting those among them who committed crimes against children from parishioners, who trusted them, and civil authorities. I cannot fathom how God guided them to do that.
God does not guide those who enable and protect pedophiles. The TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church are perfect, because they come from God, who is perfect. Catholic human beings, however, are not perfect. They are sinners like everyone else, and some of them commit some very heinous sins, priests included.
I don’t oppose the Catholic Church. I merely oppose the idolatry and hubris of anyone who claims to have the one and only capital T Truth, or to be the “only true Church.”
Yes, tiny (miniscule) groups of “Satanists” find the Catholic liturgy a big target (the Catholic Church is the largest single Christian denomination), and big targets are easy to hit. So what?
People mock Scientology, too. Does that make Scientology the One True Church? No. People mock the Mormons. Does that make them the One True Church? No. Just because people mock you doesn’t mean you have the One and Only Truth. It might just mean you are an easy target, or that you already look silly.
Can Catholic Priests drive out demons? That’s a medieval Catholic old-wives’ tale if I’ve ever heard one.
I know a lot of good Catholics. I know some priests who I respect a great deal. The Catholic Church isn’t all bad, and in fact it sometimes does good. I have recently contributed to a Catholic-run orphanage in Haiti. It’s a great cause run by compassionate and dedicated Catholics.
What I object to is certain wrong-headed pronouncements by the Catholic hierarchy; and I especially object to the idolatry of right-wing Catholic extremists who practice the sin of pride by claiming that theirs is the only true church.
You may know and respect certain Catholics, but you know very, very little about the Catholic faith that you knock.
Catholic priests around the world exorcise demons every day in the year 2012. There are way more demons taking people over now than there were in medieval times. The greater number of sins and a profound lack of faith in Christ in 2012 make fertile ground for the father of lies and his minions.
It’s easy to say that now, but if you look back in history, people made similar arguments you’re making now. They used the bible to justify slavery, repressing women, etc. It’s pretty obvious this will be just another addition to that list.
Nowhere in the words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible does Jesus ever preach against sexual acts or behaviors.
Nowhere in the words of the Twelve Disciples in the Bible do any of them preach against sexual acts or behaviors.
The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is sometimes misquoted as being a condemnation of same-sex love. It is not. It clearly is about attempted rape. Rape is not an act of love — it is an act of violence and control, and is always wrong whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex.
“Homosexuality” is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the Psalms, the books of the Prophets, the Wisdom Books (such as Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs, etc.,), the Four Gospels, the non-Pauline Epistles, or Revelation.
There are 31,102 verses in the Bible. Only six verses out of more than 31,000 appear to have anything to do with “homosexuality,” and then only when taken out of context.
The core teachings of the Bible tell us to welcome the stranger and the outsider, seek justice for the oppressed person, be compassionate, not judge so that we will not be judged, not cast the first stone unless we ourselves are without sin, love our neighbor, and even love our enemies.
We are taught the Golden Rule, to treat others as we would wish to be treated. We are taught to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).
In Matthew 25 Jesus tells us that on the Last Day we will be judged on whether we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, comforted the sick, visited those in prison, and welcomed the stranger. Nothing there about being gay — but notice “welcome the stranger.”
Some people who claim to be “Christians” take six verses from the Bible out of context in order to justify their prejudice, and claim that is what the Bible is about. They are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they like, and ignoring the greater context of fairness, compassion, justice, mercy, and welcome.
And so I will join with Jesus, who welcomed everyone to the banquet table, especially the outsiders. And I will vote “Yes on 1” for fairness and equal treatment — and to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
You make the mistake of believing that everything Jesus said and taught during his three years of public teaching is recorded in the Bible. There is no way the four little gospels could contain everything that he said.
Jesus told his apostles to preach the gospel to the whole world, and to teach all to obey every commandment that he gave to the apostles. The Bible does not say what those commandments were. In the Bible, it says that Jesus taught large crowds for days at a time, but it doesn’t say what he taught them. In Acts 1, it says that Jesus spent much time with his apostles after his resurrection, giving them commandments. It doesn’t say what those commandments were. Jesus also told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth, but the Bible doesn’t say what all truth is.
The apostles taught from day one that homosexual acts are seriously sinful. The only way they would have learned that is from Jesus and the Holy Spirit (who is one with Jesus). You can spin it all you want, but that is Christian truth.
You also say that none of the 12 apostles wrote in the Bible against homosexuality. Then you missed what Jude and 2 Peter 2 say about Sodom and Gomorrah. Those are 2 of the 12 apostles.
But again, the Bible is not a catechism. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been delivered to them by the written word and by word of mouth. There was no Bible for 400 after Christ. The Christian faith was taught by preaching. If you want to know the fullness of Christian teaching, then you need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Bible is important, but it contains only a portion of Christian teaching. Word of mouth from the apostles is the remaining, and largest, portion.
And if you vote yes on question 1, you do not “love your neighbor as thyself.” For if you would truly love your neighbor, you would discourage him from sinning and encourage him to love and obey God, not the other way around.
Ah, so the Catechism of the Catholic church is now the authority over and above the Bible? Are you quoting and citing those sources that were for whatever reasons (probably biased) into the Bible as we know it? Looks like more of the same on the Catholic Church “has all the answers” and THE keys to the Kingdom. Strange that EJP and others haven’t commented on these posts of yours.
Yes, the Catholic Church says that only the Church can interpret the Bible.
Because the Church chose which books to include in, and exclude from the Bible, only the Catholic Church can interpret it.
There are three main authorities recognized by the Catholic Church: the Bible, the Bishops (the Episcopacy), and sacred tradition.
Probably not what EJ believes.
You are EXACTLY RIGHT. The Catholic Church does have all the answers, and it does have THE keys to heaven. Most people think of the Catholic Church as one religion among many, and we can either like it or leave it. The Catholic religion is not just any other religion, however. It was founded by Jesus Christ himself. All other religions in the world, except Judaism, were founded by human beings. Judaism was founded by God, also, but God supplanted it with Catholicism.
Human beings are prideful, and sinful in many other ways. That’s why we have so many religions, because human pride leads people to believe that they know better than God what is best for us. Jesus intended for all people in the world who lived after him to be Catholic, and to be led to salvation through his Holy Church. We have let Jesus down in a very big way.
You are exactly wrong.
No human institution, and especially not the very flawed Roman Catholic Church, has all of the answers.
Those who teach that their human church is the only true church are committing the sin of idolatry, not to mention pride and hubris.
You’re right, no human institution has all the answers. The Catholic Church has all the answers, because it is the ONLY divine institution. All other religions were founded by human beings, so we know that they don’t have all the answers. There is a true Church, and it’s Catholic.
So now the Catholic Church is divine? With all of those fallible human leaders? Oh, come on, please try to make sense!
The TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church come from God. I guess you don’t think God is divine.
The Bible comes from the Catholic Church. The Church did not come from the Bible. The Catholic Church has complete authority of the Bible, an authority that comes from Jesus Christ himself.
The Bible came from the early Christian communities. The books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) were written by Jewish authors hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, and hundreds more before the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the New Testament were written 20 to 100 years after the death of Jesus, more than 200 years before the birth of the Orthodox/Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea.
The books of the Bible were collected to create the Bible by the Orthodox/Catholic Church about 375 years after the birth of Jesus.
Early Christianity was never united — there were the Ebionites (probably the Jerusalem church of the 12 Disciples), the Marcionites (who understood Paul to be the greatest Apostle), the Donatists, the Sabellians, the Adoptionists, the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Arians, and the proto-Catholics, among other early Christian sects vying for leadership.
The Orthodox/Catholic Church was put in charge of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I at the Council of Nicea in 325, and the church gained strength at later Councils at Constantinople and Chalcedon (although the Councils of Rimini and Selucia in the mid-300s almost replaced the proto-Catholics with the Arian Christian Church).
The Orthodox/Catholic Church as we know it reached maturity during the time of Bishop of Rome Leo I (Pope 440-461) and Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria (the ancient Patriarchs, including the Pope, were equals), and later split in two parts, East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic) around 1100.
The Bible thus precedes the Catholic Church, although the Orthodox/Catholic Church assembled it from books that were written before the advent of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church precedes the Bible by almost 400 years. Some say it was founded when Jesus declared Peter to be the Rock, others say it was Pentecost. Either way, it was founded at about the time Jesus rose from the dead. To say that the Catholic Church started around 1100 is another absurd argument by Protestants. There are almost as many “dates” for the start of the Catholic Church as there are Protestant denominations, and we know those are many. Who do you believe? How about the truth, that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and the apostles?
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, was the first writer to mention the term “Catholic Church.” It was in his letter to the Smyrneans, dated 107 A.D. (300 years before the Bible, and 1000 years before the “1100” proposition mentioned above). Ignatius wrote, “…wherever the bishop is, there is Jesus Christ, and where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Please re-read what I said. You must be aware that the Old Testament, the largest portion of the Bible, was written before the birth of Christ. How does the Catholic Church pre-date the birth of Christ by 400 years?
The New Testament was written between 20 and 100 years after the death of Christ. How can the Catholic Church pre-date that by 400 years?
Yes, the Church collected those books around 375, but they were written much earlier.
At a minimum, the Roman Catholic Church is both 1) Roman and 2) Trinitarian.
1) Jesus never went to Rome, and Pentecost did not take place in Rome. Peter never went to Rome, or if he did, we have neither biblical nor historical evidence of it.
The Bishop of Rome was, for centuries, one among equals — until Pope Leo I proclaimed himself above the other Patriarchs in the 5th century. The other Patriarchs did not accept Leo’s self-promoting claim, however. The Pope got to be the undisputed head of the Western Church by splitting off from the Eastern Orthodox Church around 1100.
2) The word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible, and the Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. Jesus and the 12 Disciples, monotheistic Jews all of them, never even heard of the Doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine first mentioned by Tertullian, who lived 160-225. Tertullian was the head of the Montanists, a Christian sect that was in competition with the proto-Catholics, and which the proto-Catholics declared to be heretical.
Later, at the Councils of Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 380, and Chalcedon in 452, the Catholic Church adopted and further developed Tertullian’s trinitarian doctrine.
If it isn’t Roman, and isn’t Trinitarian, it isn’t Roman Catholic. So the earliest date for the Roman Catholic Church is 325.
Before that time there were many Christian denominations, including the Ebionites, the Adoptionists, the Marcionites, the Gnostics, the Donatists, the Sabellians, the Arians, and others. The Roman Emperor gave the Catholics/Orthodox the power to suppress all other Christian churches, to outlaw their worship and destroy their buildings. That’s how the Catholics took over Christianity and emerged the winners in the 4th Century.
Keep twisting. You’ll be able to keep a few readers fooled, I’m sure.
You make the mistake of imaging whatever you want to be the words of Jesus — that if you are prejudiced, he must have said something like that, but nobody remembered to write it down. Yes, I believe that if it isn’t in the Bible, then we have no way to claim that Jesus said something we don’t have any record of.
It’s true that, although the Four Gospels were written forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus, they were not collected into the New Testament until the 400s. But we cannot assume Jesus said anything that is not in the New Testament — even if we wish he had said something that would help us win an argument!
To your point about the 12 Disciples, specifically Peter and Jude:
Jude says that Sodom “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust.” No specific unnatural sexual immoralities are mentioned. The immorality Jude had in mind, however, is probably the one described in Genesis 19 — attempted rape.
Nowhere does the Bible ever say the sin of Sodom was homosexual love. That’s a modern and inaccurate spin.
2nd Peter? Are you referring to 2 Peter 2:6-8? I’ll use a Roman Catholic translation, the Jerusalem Bible: “The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, those too he condemned and reduced to ashes; he destroyed them completely, as a warning to anybody lacking reverence in the future; he rescued Lot, however, a holy man who had been sickened by the crimes he saw and heard of every day.”
Not one word there about homosexuality. Yes, the Bible condemns whatever it was that happened in Sodom.
We know from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom tried to commit acts of physical violence — the attempted rape of Lot’s guests.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 says that Sodom’s sins were “pride, gluttony, prosperous ease, and failure to aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and committed abominations.” Specific abominations (eating shellfish? working on the Sabbath? cutting their beards? attempted rape more likely) are not mentioned.
Deuteronomy 29:22-28 suggests the sin of Sodom was idolatry.
But nowhere does the Bible ever say that the sin of Sodom was same-sex love.
And the 12 Disciples did not condemn same-sex love in anything they say in the New Testament. Neither did Jesus.
Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, listed “abusers of themselves with mankind” and in the letter to Timothy listed “them that defile themselves with mankind” …….. you interpret those passages as prohibiting homosexuality. If those passages had instead been “abusers of themselves with womankind” and “them that defile themselves with womankind” … how would you interpret them?
If intolerant believers like EJ Parsons and Heistheone had their way, America would have a 21st-century Inquisition, with folks like them joyously sending those who don’t agree with their particular theology and biblical interpretations to the stake. Obviously Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Xians would be executed or exiled. The certainty with which they would impose their views–in a society with some degree of separation of church and state–is at once revealing and frightening. They have no knowledge of American history in this area and seek none. Nothing, of course, would ever convince them that gays and lesbians should have any sexual relations with other “perverts.” No, but I suspect they’re silent about heterosexual abusers of others.
You surely infer quite a bit about others when reading their posts. You do get one thing right, though. EJ and I are very intolerant – of sin. God is the same way. God is very patient with us, as he wants us all to come to know him, to repent, and to be saved by his graces. Our patient God is also a just God, however, and he has given us more than fair warning that those who intentionally disobey him will be punished for all eternity. I frankly don’t want to be among that group. I’m working out my salvation with fear and trembling, as St. Paul told the Philippians to do. A big part of being a disciple of Christ is to teach others about the truth he has left us. I would be sinning myself if I kept my mouth shut in the face of others’ approving of sin.
And being American has nothing to do with it. I am Catholic before I am an American. Americans have become brainwashed with regard to religion, because we have a democracy. The problem with a democracy is that a majority can vote to legalize sin, even supremely evil sin like abortion (from the SCOTUS majority vote in 1973). The kingdom of God is a theocracy, with Christ as King, and the pope as his regent on earth. The kingdom of God is a far more important entity than the USA. In the USA, a majority of people can say that evil is good, but what God has declared to be evil is still evil, no matter what humans think. But all Americans will die, and will be judged by Jesus Christ according to how we have lived our lives. At that point, our past life of democracy will have been rendered meaningless, as we will all then be a member of a theocracy for eternity.
I’m intolerant of hypocrisy and what I see if people like you using the law against some “sinners” and now others. Why simply fight and advocate for a legal ban on gay marriage? Why not a ban on divorce as well?
I’d love to see a ban on divorce. Jesus said that what God has joined, let no man put asunder.
See my other comment on the irrational dealings of the Catholic Church on divorce.
All divorce? Or just those for a reason other than adultery? Would there be any other situations that Christ did not speak directly of?
Jesus meant all divorce. Protestants have mistranslated the Bible to try to get it to mean that Jesus gave adultery as an excuse for divorce.
In the gospel in question, Jesus said divorce was acceptable in cases of “porneia” (the word which pornography is derived from). At the time the gospel was written, “porneia” meant “close blood relationship.” What Jesus was saying that if you married incestuously, or nearly so, it wasn’t a true marriage, so divorce was acceptable in that case.
When the Greek gospels were translated into English, the English language did not have a word that neatly translated from “porneia,” so English translations used the word “fornication” instead.
Fornication is sex between 2 unmarried people, of whom neither have been married before. Protestants have taken free liberty to use the word adultery (sex between 2 unmarried people, at least one of whom was, or is, married to someone else) in place of the word fornication. That is how Protestants can justify getting divorced and re-married over and over, without limits.
okay – so divorcing because your spouse had sex outside the marriage is forbidden…… breaking the vows of Holy Matrimony by one spouse is not a reason for divorce. Physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse within the marriage is also not a reason for divorce… there is no reason unless the couple is closely related by blood (ie incestuous). Thanks for clearing that up.
Jesus did not say that separation was forbidden. In Corinthians chapter 7, Paul, to whom Jesus appeared and taught Christianity, said that husbands and wives may separate. If they did so, they could remain that way, or they could eventually reconcile. Divorce was not an option.
If your husband beats you, many priests still say, “You have to suffer because Christ suffered.” But some are more merciful — they’ll tell you “You can separate from this monster, but you aren’t allowed to have happiness in a second marriage, because divorce and remarriage are forbidden.”
Why don’t you take that argument up with Jesus? Do you have the nads for it? I don’t!
I don’t take everything in the Bible completely literally. It is “the Good Book,” not the perfect book. I look at the broader themes and the core values. I think you are taking this one verse out of context, and you are interpreting it in the harshest way possible.
Well I am certain that many people who have lived in abusive married relationships are relieved and thankful that civil law allows them to legally sever the contract that binds them to their abusive spouse in all matters.
If your church forbids divorce, but promotes lying to get an annulment (to say that the previous marriage never happened and that any children produced by that marriage are illegitimate), that’s up to the hierarchy of your church.
But we do not make it a state law.
You’re not sure of how the Catholic Church views an annulment.
A marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament, through which God works grace in the marriage to help the husband and wife lead each other, and their children, to salvation. A marriage cannot be sacramental, however, if the couple cut themselves off from the grace of God by not living according to the teachings of the Church.
An annulment merely declares that a marriage was not a sacramental marriage. It is very easy to get an annulment in the USA these days. Using artificial birth control or sterilization to contracept pregnancy is a very serious sin (thought to be so by all Christians until the year 1930). Serious sin cuts us off from the grace of God. A contracepting marriage cannot possibly be a sacramental marriage. It is estimated that at least 87% of American Catholics persist in serious sin in their marriages by contracepting artificially. Conceivably then, almost any American Catholic marriage is a candidate for annulment, just on those grounds.
And where the idea about children from annulled marriages being illegitimate comes from, I’ll never know. It’s probably just another Protestant old wives tale that has been passed down to us from the 16th century.
Yes, I understand completely. Pay the Roman Catholic Church a fee and they will find a theological loophole to say that your very real marriage was not real, and your children, born in that marriage, were born out of wedlock.
After all, if your marriage is annulled, it didn’t take place. So your children who were born in that marriage that didn’t take place (because it has been annulled) were born out of wedlock.
My sister-in-law went through this process, thus making her children illegitimate. She asked us to sign to false statements so that the Church could declare her very real marriage to have been invalid.
It has always been thus with the Roman Church — make a big enough contribution and they’ll make you a bishop (oh, that particular practice stopped in recent centuries, but they still honor the principle).
You obviously still don’t understand what an annulment is, but I don’t expect you to try, either.
Annulment, like the word “null,” means to make a marriage invalid or void. If it is invalid, the children born under that invalid marriage were, by definition, born out of wedlock.
That’s why Katherine of Aragon refused to agree to Henry VIII’s request for an annulment of their marriage — it would have made her daughter Mary (later Queen Mary I of England, also known as “Bloody Mary”) illegitimate.
Henry claimed his marriage to Katherine had been null because Katherine had earlier been betrothed to Arthur, Henry’s (late) older brother. If Arthur and Katherine had consummated the relationship, as Henry claimed, then Henry’s marriage to Katherine had never been legitimate, and was null.
So Henry VIII wanted the Pope to annul his first marriage so he could marry Anne Boleyn.
Henry couldn’t get the Pope to annul the marriage (the Pope did the bidding of the Holy Roman Emperor, Katherine’s relative).
So Henry got Parilament to pass a law making the king head of the Church of England. Then the Archbishop of Canterbury, now under Henry’s authority, annulled the marriage, and Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn.
Of course, things didn’t turn out well for Anne Boleyn, either.
But that illustrates how declaring a marriage “null” works. If the marriage is annulled it is considered to have never been legitimate, and the children produced by that marriage were born illegitimately.
If an annulment declares that the marriage was not sacramental then it was not recognized in the eyes of God from the date it was entered into therefore it did not happen … if the marriage was not recognized (null and void) then how can any children be recognized as legitimate by the church? They were not conceived or born within a marriage because the marriage never happened, they were conceived and born in a sinful “lifestyle”; an unmarried cohabiting couple.
And yet you aren’t attempting to get a law like that in place. Are you lazy and it’s just that keeping gays down is easier or what?
Actually, the Catholic Church has tried that for years. Their cop out is to grudgingly acknowledge “annulment”. Those Cathloics who are divorced are “shunned” by The Church in many aspects of their church life. I have friends who been through that wringer and somehow consider themselves good Catholics regardless of their rejection. More power to them, faith is indeed personal.
Several points. Protestants not only do not believe that the Pope is not “regent” or keeper of the keys, but that Grace is a gift, whether we accept it or not (not something to be “dispensed” by the Pope, Mary, or whomever here on earth).
Sin has no direct meaning in the legal world we live in.
Interesting that you use “brainwashed”. In extreme cases (like you often exhibit) I would say that you have been brainwashed on many issues.
600 years ago, 98% of the people in Europe were “brainwashed” like I am. You apparently have been brainwashed by Martin Luther, as most of the Christian and post-Christian world has been today.
Yes, it’s true as you say, in the 1400s most people in Europe were pretty ignorant — and Roman Catholic.
Now Europeans, and it appears to be that you, also, have been “enlightened” by Martin Luther. Luther’s premise – “believe as each one sees fit to believe.” Now there’s a recipe to form the one-ness among believers that Jesus prayed for in John 17! This madly dysfunctional world is the offspring of Luther’s successful implementation of his human belief (certainly not inspired by Christ). The logical end result of a society which believes in anything, is a society which believes in nothing. We’re pretty close to that end result today, after 500 years of “religious” lunacy.
I would rather have free will to think for myself, then be told that I have to march lock-step in line behind a church that will burn me at the stake if I dare to ask questions or think for myself.
The Catholic Church, when it had a monopoly on power, was as madly dysfunctional as any institution could be. Their actions were most often, “certainly not inspired by Christ” as you put it, but most often inspired by greed and lust. The logical result of the rampant corruption of the Roman Church was the Reformation.
Was the Reformation perfect? Far from it. But it was a big improvement over the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
It also prompted the Roman Church to make some reforms of its own. They stopped selling the offices of bishop and archbishop to the highest bidder, for one thing. That was a good start.
So I’ll stick with free will and freedom of thought, thank you. I am responsible for my own faith, tempered by participation in religious community (the church of my choosing).
Susan Edwards – Jesus told us to be wary of false prophets, who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Please don’t let yourself be duped by them. Christians have been confronted with false prophets since the 1st century, and the number of such prophets have exploded in the past 500 years, since Martin Luther revolted from the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ. The basis for most false prophecy is that a man or a woman tries to legitimize a sin as being a good thing, and gay marriage falls under that category. Gay marriage gives legal legitimacy to homosexual acts, of which a true Christian cannot partake of, or approve of.
I have a close relative who has a same-sex attraction. It tore him up at first when he realized he had it. Now, however, he has accepted it, and is dealing with it in a way that is right in the eyes of God. He realizes that God does not want him to sexually act on that attraction, and he is leaning on God’s graces that he receives through his practice of the Catholic faith in order to resist temptation. He has told me that he can endure his suffering with the help of God’s grace. He knows that the suffering he experiences in this short life on earth will be nothing compared to what awaits him in eternity – either incredible happiness in heaven, or absolute horror in hell. His goal is what should be everyone’s goal, to partake of heaven and to miss out on hell.
Many homosexuals are concerned with only the physical gratification they can get out of this life, without thinking about the implications of their actions as they relate to eternity. And a big part of their earthly-only focus is that false prophets encourage and mislead them. Please Susan, do not encourage people to lead a life of sin. And please do not say that it is a Christian thing to do so, as that is entirely antithetical to the teachings that Jesus Christ left to his Catholic Church – the Church which he intended would lead all mankind to salvation. Unfortunately, however, the pride of men and women have spawned many false prophets who have led people astray.
“Many homosexuals are concerned with only the physical gratification they can get out of this life”. Are you for real?? You truly are a poor excuse for a Christian.
How many homosexuals do you know who are truly concerned with obeying God and obtaining salvation? Is that the primary goal of every homosexual you know? Most homosexuals who post on the BDN couldn’t care less about obedience to God. They just want to be able to indulge in their passions of the flesh, and many openly profess their hatred of Christians. If you can show me that reality is drastically different from what I’ve observed, I would like to see what you have to say.
Have you ever heard of the Rev. Mel White, a “born-again” Christian and a ghost writer for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oliver North? He was always gay, but tried to “become” straight through prayer and marriage. Finally he decided to tell the truth, that he had always been gay, and couldn’t change his natural God-given gay orientation. He came out, and is still a Christian. He just couldn’t pretend to be straight anymore. When he was willing to lie and pretend to be straight, the Evangelicals loved him. When he told the truth, they rejected him. He was the stranger at the gate.
There are many gay Christians, and many gays who are uninterested in Christianity, a religion that they feel has condemned and persecuted them. Likewise, there are straight Christians (like myself) and non-religious straight people.
Being Christian doesn’t depend on your sexual orientation. Jesus said that at the Last Judgment (Matthew 25) the issue will be whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, comforted the sick, visited those in prison and welcomed the stranger.
Nothing about being gay, straight, Catholic or Protestant. Nothing even about being Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or even believing in God. Just whether we fed the hungry, etc. What a wonderful welcome God gives us!
God does not condemn people for having an attraction the same sex. That is a temptation, not a sin. The sin is when a homosexual acts to fulfill the temptation. People live without sex. I did it until I was married, and I didn’t die. If my wife becomes incapable of having sex, I won’t be happy about the situation, but I will try to rely on God’s grace like I did when I was single. This sex-crazed world tries to pound home the idea that you can’t live without sex. It’s not easy to do it, but it can be done with a life of prayer, and a dependence on the grace of God. That’s what God wants us to do, to depend on him in every matter of our lives. So you can easily be a homosexual Christian. You can’t be a Christian if you’re an unrepentant gay, however.
Matthew 25 is not the sole portion of Christ’s teaching, either. He told people that they could go to hell for merely insulting someone by calling them a fool, for example. The Christian faith is way bigger than a few lines in the Bible. We need to turn ourselves completely to Christ, try to live as he wishes us to live at all times, and to sincerely repent when we fail and commit sin. We can do all the good deeds we want, but if we die without being completely sorry toward Jesus for our sins, hell awaits us.
I think you are referring to Matthew 5:22-23, and I’ll use a Roman Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible: “But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court; if a man calls his brother ‘Fool’ he will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; if a man calls him ‘Renegade’ he will answer for it in hell fire.” Is this the passage you are referring to?
So it isn’t saying “Fool.” That just gets you into court; it is “Renegade” according to the (Catholic translation) Jerusalem Bible.
Jesus says that if you call someone “Renegade,” you go to Gehenna. He did not speak English as you know; the word he used here was Gehenna. That was literally the trash heap or city dump for Jerusalem, where people burned unwanted goods.
Don’t confuse this with the medieval concept of Hell (we have Dante and Milton to thank for that), a concept that developed long after the lifetime of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t actually teach the modern concept of Hell that we got from writers in the Middle Ages. Biblical “Hell” was much more like the Greek Underworld, where the spirits of everyone went, good or bad, although the good were treated better (in the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man is being punished in “Hell” and good Lazarus and Jesus himself were also in “Hell” — they just weren’t being punished. But I digress).
Likewise, in the Bible no one goes to the Heavens to be with God (Paul and others, however, had visions). You don’t go to the Heavens when you die. Only God and the angels are in the Heavens. Jesus spoke of creating the Kingdom of Heaven right here on earth, as in “thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
What the Bible means by Heaven and Hell are not what we imagine about Heaven and Hell. Our popular ideas about Heaven and Hell come from the Middle Ages and from Hollywood, not from the Bible. Again I digress.
So did Jesus literally mean, “If you call someone ‘Renegade’ you will get sent to the trash heap”? Or was he using a strong metaphor? My best guess is that it was the latter. He was commanding us to not be insulting to one another, still good advice.
By the way, the word we translate as “Fool,” (“Raca” in Greek) is obscure. Some translators think Jesus was actually saying “Call no man ‘queer’,” as in “Call no man ‘homosexual’.”
Wow! That has to be the most creative twisting of Scripture I’ve ever read. You leave little doubt who is whispering in your ear.
Very well spoken. Penzance is a master Scripture-twister. And yes, we do know who is the source of information for those who bend the Bible to support a totally humanistic point of view.
The Jerusalem Bible is “a” Catholic Bible, but it is not one that is often used by the Catholic Church. The official English Bible of the Catholic Church is the Douay-Rheims Bible, from the 16th century. The modern American English Catholic Bible used by many scholars is the Ignatius Bible, or Revised Standard Version. The Bible used at Catholic Mass in the United States is the New American Bible. They all say that Jesus said “Thou fool” puts you in danger of hell fire. “Renegade” doesn’t exist in those translations. You can use the Jerusalem Bible (published in England, 1966) all you want, but it doesn’t get much play or respect from serious Catholics, including church officials.
Well, I used the Jerusalem Bible because you are Catholic and it is approved by the Catholic Church — and because I don’t have a Douay-Rhiems Bible (a beautiful translation, by the way). I was trying to relate to you and use a translation you would approve of, since it is approved by the Roman Catholic Church.
You can claim I twist Scripture, but I’m just telling what is says. I can also say you twist Scripture, because you do (as do EJ and cp444).
I will confess that I misquoted above by accident. In the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), good Lazarus and the bad rich man are indeed both in Hades, but it is Abraham, not Jesus, who is with Lazarus. I misspoke (misremembered, in fact). Lazarus had begged at the rich man’s door, but the rich man ignored him.
Then both good Lazarus and bad Dives (the rich man) died and went to Hades (like the Greek Underworld, where all dead people went, good or bad).
But while Lazarus is comforted in Abraham’s bosom, the rich man (who, perhaps being a good Republican, ignored the plight of the poor) was tormented.
Seeing Abraham far off, the rich man called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.”
How did the rich man, in Hades, see Abraham? Abraham was also in Hades, just in a different and better part of the Underworld. And Lazarus was with Abraham.
But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.”
So there is a great gulf separating one part of Hades from the other, and good Lazarus cannot cross over it to help the sinful rich man.
I know that’s not the image of Hell we get from Hollywood, or even from “Dante’s Inferno.” But in the Bible, there is no Hollywood Hell. The words that are used in the Bible are either Gehenna (the city dump where things get burned) or Hades (like the Greek Underworld, which was ruled over by the Greek god Hades).
The ancient Jew had almost no belief in life after death. They thought that when you die, you are dead. Most of the Old Testament reflects that Jewish view, but the idea of the Greek Underworld began influencing Jewish thought near the end of the Old Testament period. As we get into the New Testament, we get a Greek-influenced view of the afterlife, and in the biblical afterlife people went to Hades.
But Jesus promised hope of the Kingdom of Heaven, both a “here and now” concept and a future kingdom of God where the dead would be resurrected and God’s kingdom would be established on earth.
Still, nobody but God and the angels are in “the Heavens” in the Bible. You don’t go to the Heavens when you die. You sleep until the Resurrection Day, or go to Hades until the Resurrection (the Bible seems to have both of those concepts — it isn’t always consistent, because it has so many different authors).
The Bible’s concept of Gehenna/Hades is not like our concept of Hell. You may want to put a Hollywood spin on it, but such an interpretation is not biblical.
You lived without having sex until you got married. Was it she that caused you to not be able to control your lust or was it uncontrollable lust that caused to to marry? I married my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. The happiness we each feel in being married is not dependent on our intimate life.. Our happiness is based or our love, respect and support of each other. Really sorry your happiness is partly based on your wife’s ability to have sex – does hers depend on your ability?
Jack
I married my wife for the same reasons you married yours. I would be a liar if I said I didn’t enjoy the sex (and the 5 kids who resulted from it). Most men do, you know. I would still love my wife just as much if we didn’t have sex, but it would be disappointing if we were married and could not have conjugal relations. And with that, I think most husbands would agree. You play the hand that God allows to be dealt to you. You don’t break his laws to satisfy your lust, like Terry Schiavo’s murdering husband did.
Terry Schiavo’s husband did not murder her. She would have died, naturally, if the doctors had not kept live unnaturally. Her husband allowed her to died, with grace, and god took her home.
Intentionally starving someone to death is murder. And it’s even worse, because he did it to get rid of her, so he could marry someone else. I suppose you think abortion is not murder, too, but that would not be a surprise, coming from someone as liberal as you. Liberals believe legal means it’s OK. But what is evil in the eyes of God always remains evil, even if humans have the audacity to legalize the evil.
Your comment is uncalled for and completely inappropriate.
Many GLTBs couldn’t care less about obedience to God because they’ve been rejected by rigid dogmas. There are churches who do accept them. Once again, the RC does not have all the answers.
The RC does not have all the answers, but it has all the RIGHT answers.
Hubris and idolatry.
Please forgive me for getting off-topic, but let me guess: You’re a gay former Catholic who now attends a U-U church. How close am I? Thanks.
Marriage is meant for those who who are unable to control their lust…… according to Paul in the New Testament.
And some heteros are concerned with only physical gratification. What about them?
And it was Paul who said that it was good for the unmarried to remain unmarried and widows should not re-marry. ” But if they cannot control themselves, they should go ahead and marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with lust.” (NLT) Do you think Heistheone is single or married?
Can’t answer the question? What makes you so different from those that used the Bible to justify slavery? To repress women? To oppose interracial marriage?
Seems a bit to convenient to dismiss those as “false prophets” and simply say you’re the righteous one.
I am not the righteous one, but God is. God took human form as Jesus Christ, and established the Catholic Church as the earthly guide to salvation. So I don’t concern myself with using the Bible to justify any belief that I want. I am interested in believing only what God has taught us through his Catholic Church. The Bible is a Catholic book, assembled by the Catholic Church, and declared by the Catholic Church to be God’s word.
If someone uses the Bible to justify something that conflicts with Catholic teaching, then that “justification” is purely empty and meaningless. All of God’s truth is contained in the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I try to teach something that is not Catholic, then I would be just a pretender, like all those who use the Bible to twist something to their own beliefs. But if I promote only Catholic teaching, I can never be wrong in matters of faith and morals, because it is impossible for God (who established Catholic teaching) to be wrong. So please don’t label me as a false prophet, when I am merely repeating what God wants all of mankind to know.
Answer the question and quit changing the subject.
The Bible has been used as justification for bad in things in the past. The examples I cited were the norm — similar to what you’re doing now with gay people. I want to know why you believe this instance is different.
The only legitimate interpreter of the Bible is the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible in the first place. Catholicism is the only religion currently in the world which has been authorized by God. If people use the Bible to justify something that is apart from Catholic teaching, their justification is hollow. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, because that’s what God taught the apostles. That’s where the difference lies. If the Catholic Church says it’s wrong, it’s because God has said it was wrong. No other religion has that authority to say so, although they will be correct if they agree with Catholic teaching.
You’re not answering the question. Catholics used the Bible to justify repressing women and banning interracial marriage. That was the norm for Catholics at a certain point in time. What makes you think your working against gays right now isn’t just history repeating itself?
Comment in response to Gopher40:
I will say this; both you and penzance are very intelligent. But, you both consistently pick and choose what you want out of the Bible in order to support your skewed interpretation of the Word.
– Salvation is a must. There is no way around it.
– Homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice that can be turned away from.
– All life is precious.
– God is love.
– Jesus is the only Way to get to God and an eternity in Heaven.
– The world is full of false prophets.
– There will be a Judgment Day.
Do you support women teaching in schools?
Why are you refusing to answer my legitimate question? Is it because you don’t have an answer? Because you don’t want to admit there is a chance you’re wrong? What is it?
EJ’s trick is to change the subject so he won’t have to answer your question. He hopes youwill forget that you asked.
You constantly pick and choose what you want in the Bible — you either don’t read the Bible, or you haven’t been paying attention.
You read what Paul has to say in support of slavery, and you still assert that despite what he clearly said, he was somehow against it.
You pick six verses out of the more than 31,000 in the Bible, and you deliberately take them out of context in order to support your anti-gay prejudice.
You ignore the core teachings of Scripture time and time again!
God is love — yes, I believe that literally.
All life is precious — yes, but I eat beef, and I’m not thrilled with the lives of mosquitoes.
Salvation — related to the word “salve” a balm for healing — yes, we and our world need healing.
Jesus is the way, yes, we are called to follow his teachings, not believe in impossible things. He never said “Believe that the Bible is a science textbook.”
False prophets? Can’t decide if you just follow them, or aspire to be one.
Judgement Day? Yes. In Matthew 25 Jesus gives the criteria (the one and only time he talks about it) — feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, comfort the sick, visit those who are in prison, and welcome the stranger.
Nothing about being a Republican or straight.
But don’t forget to welcome the stranger!
I find it interesting that you do question Hisistheone’s interpretations of specific passages. But not really surprising that you do not.
Speaking of picking and choosing: The bible clearly supports the following:
-Marriages Must be in the same faith-Not only must the wife be subordinate (Eph 5:22) but she MUST prove her virginity lest she be stoned to death (Deu 22:20-21)-Marriages should be arranged-If a woman’s husband dies without having had a son, she MUST marry her husband’s brother and have sex with him until they have a son (Mark 12:18-27)-Many of the ‘men of god’ were not only married but had at LEAST one concubine (Abraham, Caleb, Solomon)-god frequently ‘blessed’ polygamists (Esau, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, Belshazzarr)-King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines
And then we have the all the CONTRADICTIONS:-God is love…..did you forget about “I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.” (JER 13:14) “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
-Can god be seen?EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9 “And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.” (EXO 33:23) “And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” (EXO 33:11) “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen: “No man hath seen God at any time.” (JOH 1:18) “And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” (EXO 33:20) “Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” (1TIM 6:16)
Righteous live?PSA 92:12: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.”ISA 57:1: “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.”
Judas died how?”And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” (MAT 27:5)”And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” (ACT 1:18)
Does everyman sin?1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
AND these are but a few contradictions- so let’s talk about who picks and chooses what…you’re no different than anyone else who ‘pick’s and chooses’ you just pick and choose to be hateful toward your fellow man and that is about as ‘ungodly’ as it comes.
Hey Hank, thank’s for trying to restrict what I can and cannot own based on what YOU think I need. Do us all a favor and read up on our founding fathers. You’ll find that hunting and sport shooting were not the reason they wanted us to be armed. Remember the North Hollywood bank robbery of 1997? Two convicted felons bought automatic rifles and body armor off the black market and proceeded to rob a bank and die in a shootout with police. This occurred, by the way, in California during the Clinton “assault weapons” ban.
Glaciation is a cooling process, not a warming process.
Disciples of Martin Luther, a human being like us, believe as they want to believe. Catholics, who are disciples of Jesus Christ, believe as Jesus wants us to believe.
I prefer to think the way God wants me to think. I think it’s a little safer regarding my eternal destination, as opposed to thinking for myself. I know I’m a sinner, and I’m not guaranteed to go to heaven, but I hope I please Jesus well enough so that he lets me in.