Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?

Perhaps fear of sexuality which stems from a lack of education and understanding. Maybe there are christian 'strong holds' in these countries(which is very likely) that are continuing their 'cause' to make gay = bad. It's odd that it is seen as a 'Christian' thing, as christians should be one of the few groups pro-gay marriage in the legal sense. They should know and understand that their beliefs are of a religious base and should be kept within the church, not forced upon others by legal means.
Regardless of the reason why, a 'because everyone else is doing it' mind set has no place in such a discussion.
Why are you against it (assuming you are, of course)?

[F'losrix]

Opposition in "today's Russia" is an opposition based in religion, the newly revived orthodox church being its primary authors.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?

Perhaps fear of sexuality which stems from a lack of education and understanding. Regardless of the reason why, a 'because everyone else is doing it' mind set has no place in such a discussion.
Why are you against it (assuming you are, of course)?

I am not against civil unions which accomplish all of the legal and civil rights goals as stated by Gay Activists.

Marriage within the context of my Catholic faith is a sacrament defined specifically.

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron within that religious context as would be "open" marriage", polygamy or any suggested alternative.

If two people want to share their lives and belongings they should have ALL of the same protections anyone can expect.

But that does not make such a contract religious marriage.

[Gilbert1908]

F'losrix wrote: Opposition in "today's Russia" is an opposition based in religion, the newly revived orthodox church being its primary authors.

You do not contend that the Russian institutions have automatically turned Christian?

Russian governement institutions are hardly a bastion of either democracy OR Christianity, nor do they follow polls to determine the next action to take.

What then has been the motivation NOT to make same sex marriage legal if NOT the influence of Christianity.

[F'losrix]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I am not against civil unions which accomplish all of the legal and civil rights goals as stated by Gay Activists.

Marriage within the context of my Catholic faith is a sacrament defined specifically.

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron within that religious context as would be "open" marriage", polygamy or any suggested alternative.

If two people want to share their lives and belongings they should have ALL of the same protections anyone can expect.

But that does not make such a contract religious marriage.
It does if the religion of the people involved views it as such. Catholicism isn't the only religion, you know.

The insitution of civil marriage as it exists today is not beholden to the sacramental boundaries placed on religious marriage by those of the Catholic faith.

All you've done is make a very clear case (in my opinion) for why we need to get religion out of government and keep it out.

What do you think a 'civil union' really is, anyway? It's a CIVIL recognition of a MARITAL UNION.

Civil unions are two things:

- An attempt to fool religious people into thinking we aren't talking about marriage, in hopes they won't get what I said above about it being a civil recognition of a marital union. Some of them do - and hence their opposition to both gay marriage and same-sex civil unions.

- A wedge issue used by those who aren't sincere about implementing them to distract fence-sitters who might otherwise come down on the side of extending marriage recognition to same sex couples.

If you give me a civil union, I'll take it - I don't really care what the government calls my marriage. That doesn't mean I think it's a good ideal to introduce further inefficiency into government by creating parallel institutions for essentially identical purposes just to appease religious people over the use of a single word.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?

Perhaps fear of sexuality which stems from a lack of education and understanding. Regardless of the reason why, a 'because everyone else is doing it' mind set has no place in such a discussion.
Why are you against it (assuming you are, of course)?

I am not against civil unions which accomplish all of the legal and civil rights goals as stated by Gay Activists.

Marriage within the context of my Catholic faith is a sacrament defined specifically.

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron within that religious context as would be "open" marriage", polygamy or any suggested alternative.

If two people want to share their lives and belongings they should have ALL of the same protections anyone can expect.

But that does not make such a contract religious marriage.

I agree the term 'marriage' is a religious term. However, there are some christian churches that will marry a same sex couple - doesn't seem to be a problem with them....
The problem is that many people can't (or won't) make differentiation between the legal and religious aspect of it. Many "Christian" people are in favor of not only making same sex married illegal, but civil unions as well. Why is that? Because of hate that is bred from fear.
If the gov't can't (or won't) make a distinction between the legal and religious aspect of marriage, then the church should be allowed to make any union they wish with their blessing, all the while not interfering with the legal aspect of it.
Perhaps, being the gov't can separate the religious and legal aspects of it all, christians should be mad at the gov't for this whole issue, not gay people? Why can't everyone get married and then the 'church' can sanctify it or not?

[F'losrix]

Gilbert1908 wrote: F'losrix wrote: Opposition in "today's Russia" is an opposition based in religion, the newly revived orthodox church being its primary authors.

You do not contend that the Russian institutions have automatically turned Christian?

Russian governement institutions are hardly a bastion of either democracy OR Christianity, nor do they follow polls to determine the next action to take.

What then has been the motivation NOT to make same sex marriage legal if NOT the influence of Christianity.
Who says it wasn't an influence, even under the communism that failed to kill people's faith? Communism as implemented in places like Russia and China has historically been oppressive of diversity. Hardly surprising that they would view homosexuality as a threat, then. Now, if you want me to explain why it was implemented in this way, I won't pretend to try, because I'm not that up on the related philosophy.

What's your explanation for why they resist the recognition of same-sex marriage? Do you even have one?

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?

Perhaps fear of sexuality which stems from a lack of education and understanding. Maybe there are christian 'strong holds' in these countries(which is very likely) that are continuing their 'cause' to make gay = bad. It's odd that it is seen as a 'Christian' thing, as christians should be one of the few groups pro-gay marriage in the legal sense. They should know and understand that their beliefs are of a religious base and should be kept within the church, not forced upon others by legal means.
Regardless of the reason why, a 'because everyone else is doing it' mind set has no place in such a discussion.
Why are you against it (assuming you are, of course)?

You will not find any significant political "strong holds" of Christians in China and Japan. And to contend that somehow Christian influence in such cultures could have ANY impact on the view of Gay marriage is beyond a strecth.

For all of time until the last 50 or so years, homosexuality has in virtually every culture been viewed as at best aberrant behavior and at worst a mental illness to be "treated" or punished.

The universal nature of this view from culture to culture by varying degrees is irrefutable(despite the obscure exceptions of some ancient tribe or sub group that someone will no doubt attempt to assert proves otherwise). This does not make the oppression or abuse of homosexuals correct or acceptable, but it does make it clear that Christianity is hardly the source of such views.

Again I am not asserting that the historical record makes the corresponding bad treatment acceptable, simply that the factual historical record does not depend on the existence of Christianity for the opposition to homosexuality as either acceptable or mainstream.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?

Perhaps fear of sexuality which stems from a lack of education and understanding. Maybe there are christian 'strong holds' in these countries(which is very likely) that are continuing their 'cause' to make gay = bad. It's odd that it is seen as a 'Christian' thing, as christians should be one of the few groups pro-gay marriage in the legal sense. They should know and understand that their beliefs are of a religious base and should be kept within the church, not forced upon others by legal means.
Regardless of the reason why, a 'because everyone else is doing it' mind set has no place in such a discussion.
Why are you against it (assuming you are, of course)?

You will not find any significant political "strong holds" of Christians in China and Japan. And to contend that somehow Christian influence in such cultures could have ANY impact on the view of Gay marriage is beyond a strecth.

For all of time until the last 50 or so years, homosexuality has in virtually every culture been viewed as at best aberrant behavior and at worst a mental illness to be "treated" or punished.

The universal nature of this view from culture to culture by varying degrees is irrefutable(despite the obscure exceptions of some ancient tribe or sub group that someone will no doubt attempt to assert proves otherwise). This does not make the oppression or abuse of homosexuals correct or acceptable, but it does make it clear that Christianity is hardly the source of such views.

Again I am not asserting that the historical record makes the corresponding bad treatment acceptable, simply that the factual historical record does not depend on the existence of Christianity for the opposition to homosexuality as either acceptable or mainstream.

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different. It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason.

Why are you against it?

[F'losrix]

Gilbert1908 wrote: You will not find any significant political "strong holds" of Christians in China and Japan. And to contend that somehow Christian influence in such cultures could have ANY impact on the view of Gay marriage is beyond a strecth.

For all of time until the last 50 or so years, homosexuality has in virtually every culture been viewed as at best aberrant behavior and at worst a mental illness to be "treated" or punished.

The universal nature of this view from culture to culture by varying degrees is irrefutable(despite the obscure exceptions of some ancient tribe or sub group that someone will no doubt attempt to assert proves otherwise). This does not make the oppression or abuse of homosexuals correct or acceptable
The quality of universality doesn't make the view right, unless you're going to argue with us from a position of moral relativism. You may take its existence as evidence of some absolute truth, but the rest of us are under no obligation to join you.

Quote: but it does make it clear that Christianity is hardly the source of such views.
It does NOT, however make it clear that RELIGION isn't the source in MOST such views.

Quote: Again I am not asserting that the historical record makes the corresponding bad treatment acceptable, simply that the factual historical record does not depend on the existence of Christianity for the opposition to homosexuality as either acceptable or mainstream.
Worldwide, historically speaking, you're correct. Nationwide, in a country that has 80% of its population professing Christianity at the current time, is another matter entirely.

[mODULAR mAN]

I'm not sure if we can blanketly say "marriage" is a religious term. It has been usurped by the religious, but it has been a financial agreement long before a religious one.

However, in modern terms, we can say it has shed almost all meaning OTHER THAN the religous connotation - esp. in the US.

I agree with the gay guy (:wink:), I think renaming it is OK, but not very enlightened, since it is just another euphemism, and still carries the "soft bigotry" of the Christian position on homosexuality.

It still says "hey, you can't marry as far as our formal, secular institutions go (the State), you're gay!" Which begs the question, why is the State involved?

So, I am all for religious institutions being the only place to marry (this will seem in contradition to my point), because eventually, a liberal church will Marry homosexuals, and the Conservative churches will have to struggle to find another term in which to distance themselves from the sinners. "Wedlock" or some other term.

So,

1. CU = the official, legal union of two people (gay or straight)
2. Marriage = A ceremony performed by your religious instituion or "club"
3. Wedlock (or something) = A specifically religious ceremony to describe the union of a man and a woman. (which, will of course, be the next semantics battle... :lol: )

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm not sure if we can blanketly say "marriage" is a religious term. It has been usurped by the religious, but it has been a financial agreement long before a religious one.

However, in modern terms, we can say it has shed almost all meaning OTHER THAN the religous connotation - esp. in the US.

I agree with the gay guy (:wink:), I think renaming it is OK, but not very enlightened, since it is just another euphemism, and still carries the "soft bigotry" of the Christian position on homosexuality.

It still says "hey, you can't marry as far as our formal, secular institutions go (the State), you're gay!" Which begs the question, why is the State involved?

So, I am all for religious institutions being the only place to marry (this will seem in contradition to my point), because eventually, a liberal church will Marry homosexuals, and the Conservative churches will have to struggle to find another term in which to distance themselves from the sinners. "Wedlock" or some other term.

So,

1. CU = the official, legal union of two people (gay or straight)
2. Marriage = A ceremony performed by your religious instituion or "club"
3. Wedlock (or something) = A specifically religious ceremony to describe the union of a man and a woman. (which, will of course, be the next semantics battle... :lol: )

Quite interesting point. Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Which is why I wonder if one church thinks it's OK, and another one doesn't, they worship the same God, how can the church dictate to everyone what they think is right when they can't even agree on it themselves?

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different.

The issue of marriage is completely different.

Take a look back as see that Copernicus did not reserve the publishing of his THEORY about the earth revolving around the sun to avoid the response of the religious institutions. He simply, as Galileo after him, could not definitively prove the theory and was far more concerned about how his fellow scientists would view him. It is easy today to think it was so simple to figure out but 500 years ago this was not just the prevailing theological view it was also the prevailing science.

Cardinal Ballermine (One of the most influential members of the council of inquisition dealing with Galileo) makes it perfectly clear that the Church CAN NOT question the science or fact of what is demonstrated to be true and MUST then reinterpret the scriptures rather than deny science. Galileo (and Copernicus prior) could not PROVE the theory to be fact even to fellow scientists.

The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves.

toddytodd wrote: It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible.

Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.


toddytodd wrote: Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason. Again your representation of the fear of "knowledge" is simply not anything real to me or the Catholic tradition as I know it, but is it consistent with the erroneous perception I hear from people who simply make assumptions. One can see the great universities of the Europe and not understand where and how they originatied. Or look at the United States today or indeed the rest of the world and see the Catholic Universities, Hospitals, clinics and research centers and conclude there is a "fear" of knowldge.

toddytodd wrote: Why are you against it?

What is it that you think I am against? And what religious ideal am i "hiding" behind?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different.

The issue of marriage is completely different.

Take a look back as see that Copernicus did not reserve the publishing of his THEORY about the earth revolving around the sun to avoid the response of the religious institutions. He simply, as Galileo after him, could not definitively prove the theory and was far more concerned about how his fellow scientists would view him. It is easy today to think it was so simple to figure out but 500 years ago this was not just the prevailing theological view it was also the prevailing science.

Cardinal Ballermine (One of the most influential members of the council of inquisition dealing with Galileo) makes it perfectly clear that the Church CAN NOT question the science or fact of what is demonstrated to be true and MUST then reinterpret the scriptures rather than deny science. Galileo (and Copernicus prior) could not PROVE the theory to be fact even to fellow scientists.

The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves.

toddytodd wrote: It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible.

Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.


toddytodd wrote: Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason. Again your representation of the fear of "knowledge" is simply not anything real to me or the Catholic tradition as I know it, but is it consistent with the erroneous perception I hear from people who simply make assumptions. One can see the great universities of the Europe and not understand where and how they originatied. Or look at the United States today or indeed the rest of the world and see the Catholic Universities, Hospitals, clinics and research centers and conclude there is a "fear" of knowldge.

toddytodd wrote: Why are you against it?

What is it that you think I am against? And what religious ideal am i "hiding" behind?

It is not different. It is a held belief that holds no facts what-so-ever. Regardless of the evidence that shows there is no way a gay couple getting married will harm a straight couple's marriage in any way, people still hold fast to their idea. It is demonstrated highly in the 'fear of gay marriage' and even stem cell research. You may like to deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. The fact is that christianity has feared and even thumbed their collective noses at knowledge. Why? I have several ideas, but I am not sure anyone knows for sure, nor would they admit it truthfully if they did know. But the fact remains - christians don't like change and things that might appear to go against the grain of their beliefs.

Earlier, I asked why you are against it (assuming you are against it).

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different.

The issue of marriage is completely different.

Take a look back as see that Copernicus did not reserve the publishing of his THEORY about the earth revolving around the sun to avoid the response of the religious institutions. He simply, as Galileo after him, could not definitively prove the theory and was far more concerned about how his fellow scientists would view him. It is easy today to think it was so simple to figure out but 500 years ago this was not just the prevailing theological view it was also the prevailing science.

Cardinal Ballermine (One of the most influential members of the council of inquisition dealing with Galileo) makes it perfectly clear that the Church CAN NOT question the science or fact of what is demonstrated to be true and MUST then reinterpret the scriptures rather than deny science. Galileo (and Copernicus prior) could not PROVE the theory to be fact even to fellow scientists.

The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves.

toddytodd wrote: It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible.

Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.


toddytodd wrote: Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason. Again your representation of the fear of "knowledge" is simply not anything real to me or the Catholic tradition as I know it, but is it consistent with the erroneous perception I hear from people who simply make assumptions. One can see the great universities of the Europe and not understand where and how they originatied. Or look at the United States today or indeed the rest of the world and see the Catholic Universities, Hospitals, clinics and research centers and conclude there is a "fear" of knowldge.

toddytodd wrote: Why are you against it?

What is it that you think I am against? And what religious ideal am i "hiding" behind?

The church rebuked and even laughed at the thought of the sun not revolving around the earth. It took a while before that was proven to them enough to accept it. How did the church know the sun revovled around the earth? Probably an assumption based upon a religious belief....not sure if there is an actual answer to that question.
Quote: The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners. What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?
Some people believe that having sex constitutes a marriage. If that's the case, seems like you have sex first, then marriage. Which means pre-marital sex doesn't exist.
Gay sex is only seen as sin because it is outside of marriage, which christians don't want to grant to gay people. That is circular hate if I ever saw it: tell them they are sinners because of what they do, they are going to hell, etc, but don't give a way to do it without sin.
Quote: The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. That's right. This happened because these books taught a different view of Jesus which spoke of 'knowledge' of ones self, of Jesus and the knowledge to live a good life.
Quote: Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM You know of Christ's message from the current Gospels. Again, circular reasoning: the gospels are right because they are all we have that fits with my beliefs that I learned from the gospels that are right because they are all we have that fits...(etc etc etc).

But let's not digress:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves. Interesting point.

Obviously, if homosexuals are 10% of the pop (and some are Christian), and atheists, or other religions are 15% of the population.

All crimes aren't being committed by these sinners.

It seems that a lot of people have a lot of motes to take out of their own eyes before they start a frenzy over the minority.

Quote: This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible. I'd be interested in the stats. This may be particular to different countries and different Era's. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For the first few hundres years of Christian rule, there were no hospitals, orphanages or any Instiutiution that would have helped the "least among us". Perhaps I am being overly harsh, but Islam had a wonderful tradition of scholarship - for a while, anyhow...

It took a build up of power and money for the Catholic church to acquire its vast wealth (partly, we will remember in selling penances, and pieces of the "Cross", and by military invasion (i.e., looting/pillaging).

Robert Ingersoll (a favorite of mine):
Quote: One hundred years after Christ had died suppose some one had asked a Christian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums have you founded? They would have said "None." Suppose three hundred years after the death of Christ the same questions had been asked the Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two hundred years more and the answer would have been the same. And at that time the Christian could have told the questioner that the Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians. He could also have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China for hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and hospitals for the sick at Athens.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/inginfid.htm


Quote: Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.

I have seen this argument. If you can't trust your head, how do you know God is talking to you and not Satan? It is one of the big failings of most religions from the get-go.

It seems wise, though I don't agree with it, for the Catholic Church to maintain the power in their clergy and have the laity follow their authority.
It works much better, in terms of religion.

One still has to wonder what authority they have in interpreting the Bible correctly, but then, it is a theocracy and they Presume the Bible is true, and work from there.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different.

The issue of marriage is completely different.

Take a look back as see that Copernicus did not reserve the publishing of his THEORY about the earth revolving around the sun to avoid the response of the religious institutions. He simply, as Galileo after him, could not definitively prove the theory and was far more concerned about how his fellow scientists would view him. It is easy today to think it was so simple to figure out but 500 years ago this was not just the prevailing theological view it was also the prevailing science.

Cardinal Ballermine (One of the most influential members of the council of inquisition dealing with Galileo) makes it perfectly clear that the Church CAN NOT question the science or fact of what is demonstrated to be true and MUST then reinterpret the scriptures rather than deny science. Galileo (and Copernicus prior) could not PROVE the theory to be fact even to fellow scientists.

The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves.

toddytodd wrote: It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible.

Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.


toddytodd wrote: Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason. Again your representation of the fear of "knowledge" is simply not anything real to me or the Catholic tradition as I know it, but is it consistent with the erroneous perception I hear from people who simply make assumptions. One can see the great universities of the Europe and not understand where and how they originatied. Or look at the United States today or indeed the rest of the world and see the Catholic Universities, Hospitals, clinics and research centers and conclude there is a "fear" of knowldge.

toddytodd wrote: Why are you against it?

What is it that you think I am against? And what religious ideal am i "hiding" behind?

It is not different. It is a held belief that holds no facts what-so-ever. Regardless of the evidence that shows there is no way a gay couple getting married will harm a straight couple's marriage in any way, people still hold fast to their idea. It is demonstrated highly in the 'fear of gay marriage' and even stem cell research. You may like to deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. The fact is that christianity has feared and even thumbed their collective noses at knowledge. Why? I have several ideas, but I am not sure anyone knows for sure, nor would they admit it truthfully if they did know. But the fact remains - christians don't like change and things that might appear to go against the grain of their beliefs.

Earlier, I asked why you are against it (assuming you are against it.

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: ...

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

As much as I wish you did, in this case, you unfortunately do not speak for Christians en masse (get it? :lol: ). Many Christians ARE opposed to gay marriage.

However, i believe they are mostly Evangelicals (~23% of the US Pop). And considering they hold the power (much like the Catholic Church once did), they are the predominant reference point.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

And I agree that it isn't Christianity only group that looks at being gay as wrong or bad. However, it is Christianity that seems to refuse all the evidence that points to the contrary. As society evolves, ideas change as does our knowledge about ourselves and our universe. Christianity at one time didn't want to accept the fact the the world wasn't flat and the the sun didn't revolve around the earth as well. Eventually, they had to accept it as proof. Christianity has a history or not wanting to change and not wanting to grow (although it does change and grow, with much kicking and screaming). This issue is no different.

The issue of marriage is completely different.

Take a look back as see that Copernicus did not reserve the publishing of his THEORY about the earth revolving around the sun to avoid the response of the religious institutions. He simply, as Galileo after him, could not definitively prove the theory and was far more concerned about how his fellow scientists would view him. It is easy today to think it was so simple to figure out but 500 years ago this was not just the prevailing theological view it was also the prevailing science.

Cardinal Ballermine (One of the most influential members of the council of inquisition dealing with Galileo) makes it perfectly clear that the Church CAN NOT question the science or fact of what is demonstrated to be true and MUST then reinterpret the scriptures rather than deny science. Galileo (and Copernicus prior) could not PROVE the theory to be fact even to fellow scientists.

The issue of gay marriage is really not that significant within a religious context, the larger far more pervasivi issue is irresponsible sex outside of marriage and its relationship to the devaluation of human life in general. I am always amused at the concentration put on the sin of homosexuality (lets say 10% of human population) which is only a subset of the overall sin of sex outside of marriage which I would guess adds a heck of alot more sinners to the list. Or the entire subject of sin as percieved by nonbelievers who somehow seem to think that sin is something Christians attach to everyone BUT THEMSELVES. This is simply not true, one of the many beliefs shared by ALL Christians is that WE ALL OF US are sinners.

I suppose if people are talking about the sins of others or lack thereof they need not consider themselves.

toddytodd wrote: It almost seems like some christians are afraid of knowledge (which makes sense considering the church didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels that focused on individual knowledge). This is another silly assertion. Again find any religious entity on earth that has educated more human beings on a higher level that the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has funded established and runs more schools, colleges, universities in more countries than all other religious organizations combined. And these schools are open to ANY person regardless of religion. Look in any city in the United States and see how many of the kids are Catholic whose parents send them to "Catholic" school in order for them to get the BEST education possible.

Asserting that the Gnostic Gospels (which Dr. Elaine Pagels who coined the phrase and literally wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels" now says are NOT gnostic at all) were rejected to avoid knowledge is like saying the Gospels of the New Testament were not included in the Torah because the Jews wanted to avoid the comgination of bread and wine. The so called gnostic gospels simply were too far removed from Christian belief in every way to be acceptable. Had Christ's message had ANYTHING to do with SELF REVELATION and seeking all answers from some internal "god" then bingo, but Christianity proposes the opposite premise, that self centered thought is actually THE PROBLEM.


toddytodd wrote: Is it the thought that the more knowledge we gain, the more we become like God? Is that why some are afraid on knowledge? Perhaps it is a way for people to justify their hatred and fear, hiding behind a (some people think mis-understood) religious ideal, and a way to 'hold onto the past' like christianity likes to do (when it fits into their preconceived nothing of what is or isn't right) for some reason. Again your representation of the fear of "knowledge" is simply not anything real to me or the Catholic tradition as I know it, but is it consistent with the erroneous perception I hear from people who simply make assumptions. One can see the great universities of the Europe and not understand where and how they originatied. Or look at the United States today or indeed the rest of the world and see the Catholic Universities, Hospitals, clinics and research centers and conclude there is a "fear" of knowldge.

toddytodd wrote: Why are you against it?

What is it that you think I am against? And what religious ideal am i "hiding" behind?

It is not different. It is a held belief that holds no facts what-so-ever. Regardless of the evidence that shows there is no way a gay couple getting married will harm a straight couple's marriage in any way, people still hold fast to their idea. It is demonstrated highly in the 'fear of gay marriage' and even stem cell research. You may like to deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. The fact is that christianity has feared and even thumbed their collective noses at knowledge. Why? I have several ideas, but I am not sure anyone knows for sure, nor would they admit it truthfully if they did know. But the fact remains - christians don't like change and things that might appear to go against the grain of their beliefs.

Earlier, I asked why you are against it (assuming you are against it.

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote:
You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?


plus, the thread says "Does being a Christian inherently make you a bigot?"

Taking a due from another thread, it seems we have a problem with a definition!

What is a Christian? What is a REAL Christian?

Isn't it a bit bigotted that some Christians call other Christians "not REAL Christians"? :wink:


Anyhow, carry on.