Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

Sure. If I post on here what my wife and I like to do, and the position of the Roman Catholic Church is that it's a sin, then they are perfectly entitled to say so. No-one's stopping them.But why should their opinions be enshrined into law over the opinions of (for example) the Episcopalians? No, but you are confusing sexuality with marriage. It's already legal for gay people to fuck each other all they want. But whether they do so or have a totally non-sexual relationship, many of them can't get married. Marriage and sex are two different things.

I agree with you except the other way round. Marriage should be entirely up to churches or other groups such as humanist associations, which should be able to declare people married or unmarried according as they see fit, as indeed they already can and do. The government should recognize legal contracts --- which they can, to save the feelings of the butthurt, call something else, such as "union". The problem here is that the government is being asked to decide that some religious ceremonies are legal and some are not.

HUH?Did you actually read all of what you quoted?The Biblical proscription for homosexuality is among the same set of proscriptions as not eating shellfish, not working on the Sabbath, not cutting your sideburns, not wearing WoolRich clothes. It is certainly less Biblical than the prescription that all males must be circumcised. The latter was a direct contract with God, yet Paul taught that that obligation could be set aside.Jesus never taught that.No where in the Bible does it say that God said circumcision wasn't necessary; only the religion that Paul was creating said that.But again, even all that is irrelevant. Of course Paul had an agenda; to create Paul's religion. Whether or not it was a sin is also irrelevant. Sins are only relevant to what we do as individuals and how God will judge those behaviors.There is NEVER any reason for anyone to worry about whether or not someone other than themselves behavior is a sin.

Again, God showed a distressing lack of punctuality, since the Civil War was rather some time after the first slave was brought to American soil. Really, if God's mills grind that slowly, it hardly seems worthwhile being virtuous at all --- we could establish the perfect nation and then he'll smite us for something our ancestors did in 1794. When he gets around to it.

And in fairness, God wouldn;t have been smiting anyone for owning slaves precisely. He'd be smiting us for how we treated slaves. He gave us rules about that, remember. Rules for how to do it, not at all rules about not owning slaves.

Punctuality is a concept of your own, not a Biblical concept. The Bible refers over and over to "the fullness of time" when it comes to God's judgments, meaning God judges a nation when it has accumulated a certain level of sin. God wouldn't send the Israelites into Canaan until the Canaanites' sins had reached the right critical mass as it were, which took the whole 400 years from Abraham to the exodus. Likewise God sent prophets warning the people of judgment to come for hundreds of years before the Assyrian dispersion of the Northern Kingdom and the Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom. It should also be noted that the prophecy of the Messiah in Daniel gave over 400 from Daniel's time to His coming. God does not work on our timetable.And to answer Rahvin: Yes, the OT only gives laws regulating slavery, but after the NT the whole thrust of scripture was ultimately understood to be against slavery as such, and that's what motivated the Christian Abolitionists in America, and Wilberforce in England. It also appears that God's judgments take into account the amount of light, or understanding, that the people have.While I'm at it I'll note that I said the attitude on this thread is a "FORM" of persecution. I do think the opinions on this thread in support of gay marriage and calling Christians bigots for opposing it as sin represent a trend that is fairly new but growing, and already strident and hate-filled to my ears.====================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten line of "=".

Cry me a river you bigot but don't worry. I don't hate you I just hate what you stand for.

quote:

---

bigot (n.) Look up bigot at Dictionary.com
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), of unknown origin. Earliest French use of the word is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul, which led to the now-doubtful, on phonetic grounds, theory that the word comes from Visigothus. The typical use in Old French seems to have been as a derogatory nickname for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of the Germanic oath bi God. But OED dismisses in a three-exclamation-mark fury one fanciful version of the "by god" theory as "absurdly incongruous with facts." At the end, not much is left standing except Spanish bigote "mustache," which also has been proposed but not explained, and the chief virtue of which as a source seems to be there is no evidence for or against it.

​

In support of the "by God" theory, as a surname Bigott, Bygott are attested in Normandy and in England from the 11c., and French name etymology sources (e.g. Dauzat) explain it as a derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans and representing "by god." The English were known as goddamns 200 years later in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the sense development in bigot is difficult to explain. According to Donkin, the modern use first appears in French 16c. This and the earliest English sense, "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, might have been influenced by beguine and the words that cluster around it. Sense extended 1680s to other than religious opinions.

---

A hypocrite in that you would take for yourself what you would deny to others.

By that standard of "persecution," you "persecute" every non-Christian in virtually every post you make.Seriously. "Strong disagreement" equates to persecution now? That's the most absurd example of privilege I've ever seen.

quote:

---

While I'm at it I'll note that I said the attitude on this thread is a "FORM" of persecution. I do think the opinions on this thread in support of gay marriage and calling Christians bigots for opposing it as sin represent a trend that is fairly new but growing, and already strident and hate-filled to my ears.

---

I guess that Muslims can certainly claim to be persecuted in America. And your attitude to Catholicism is clearly "persecution" by your definition and ruled by much worse hate. Denying gay marriage - and the consequences of denying it - is still worse persecution than truthful criticism. Indeed your bullying rants on this forum must be considered a "FORM of persecution" in your eyes. If, that is, you apply your criteria consistently. And let's be honest - who expects you to have enough integrity to do that ?

How interesting, the last few posters have continued to use the strident ugly tone in denouncing me while of course accusing me of what they are doing in that strident hate-filled language. Typical.

So what's the difference, that makes what you do acceptable ?

Exactly how was my post "strident hate-filled language?"Again it would seem that your qualification for such negative labels is simply being strongly disagreed with. If someone calls you a bigot, you're being "persecuted." If someone mentions that that is, in fact, not in any way persecution, you call it "strident hate-filled language."I think you're just further proving my point.

You don't have the tone, OK, but it's still interesting how I suggested that, well let's say the dropping of the BIGOT bomb on this thread, in some cases with a fury that could kill, is a form of persecution of the historically traditional beliefs of Christianity, and got back more of the same. It depends on how widespread such an attitude is whether it might come to real persecution or not, but it's certainly popular around here. Looks to me like more than strong disagreement with me personally, more like an ideological position that has been taking root for some time and could very well blossom into violence. The language of some here sounds pretty violent/angry/strident to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I've said against Catholicism or gay marriage and etc has never been said with the violent tone that's been directed against Christians on this thread, and elsewhere at EvC. My war is completely a war of words, to expose the evils of Catholicism in the hope that some might understand that their power is dangerous, and I've always said it's not Catholics, it's the Vatican that's dangerous. Or to prevent the enactment of gay marriage which would destroy the society. And besides, I'm only me, it's not as if I have half a dozen others here agreeing with me and escalating the tone as is being done by my opponents. The tone really does sound vicious to me. In the case of Catholicism I'm trying to expose a PERSECUTOR. Yes, I know you'll just turn it around against me because you have no ability to judge these things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I've said against Catholicism or gay marriage and etc has never been said with the violent tone that's been directed against Christians on this thread, and elsewhere at EvC.

---

I'd say that it sounds MORE violent to me. Certainly it is more hateful.

quote:

---

My war is completely a war of words, to expose the evils of Catholicism in the hope that some might understand that their power is dangerous, and I've always said it's not Catholics, it's the Vatican that's dangerous.

---

And yet you attack Catholic doctrine, often without understanding what it actually says. I think that ordinary Catholics are entitled to take offence and feel concerned about that.

quote:

---

Or to prevent the enactment of gay marriage which would destroy the society.

---

And we find that to be hysterical nonsense - and have the justified suspicion that it's backed up by nothing more than the desire to continue to discriminate against gays.

quote:

---

And besides, I'm only me, it's not as if I have half a dozen others here agreeing with me and escalating the tone as is being done by my opponents. The tone really does sound vicious to me.

---

I would have to say that it was not so long ago that you said that you wanted to strangle me - and the only reason was that I disagreed with your opinion - an opinion that made no sense to me and that you could not support. Now THAT sounds far more violent than anything said here.

quote:

---

In the case of Catholicism I'm trying to expose a PERSECUTOR.

---

Except that you aren't, are you ? You post conspiracy theories but no real evidence. It looks more to me like you are trying to BE a "PERSECUTOR"

quote:

---

Yes, I know you'll just turn it around against me because you have no ability to judge these things.

---

Yawn. The evidence is to the contrary.