Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 123

Thread: Self-Composed-Questionaire

  1. #26
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default What is the greatest enemy of families in this society?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWolfman99 View Post
    Because it is an unnatural act that goes against the way God intended things. Not to mention the Bible expressly condemns it.
    You do realize you are sharing a 'belief', and not that is an absolute for all to live by? I don't see where being ****sexual (possessing a ****sexual-orientation) is somehow "unnatural".

    With all honor and respect to God, I can see where people have more than a few questions about human sexuality overall.

    Sins are an act against God.
    Right, "sins" (our very existence without grace), are against God... not ****sexual people in-particular.

    Although Christians will sin, knowingly and openly sinning, or defying God shows that a person is not saved.
    Yes, there are a LOT of unsaved "Christians" then.

    The unsaved will perish.
    So it seems.

    A Christian will not continually sin against God.
    I beg to differ with you, but I can sense the ideal you're after. People (not even "Christians") are THAT good.

    ****sexuality is a overt sin against God.
    And DIVORCE wrecks families, like nothing else.

    Nowhere in the Bible are we told ****sexuality is fine or unsinful.
    Even so, the amount of vilification and focus upon that ONE human 'condition'... is simply ludicrous and leads many into HYPOCRISY.

    ****sexuality can have several negative effects on a person. Aids, hemmorhoids, etc.. to name but a few.
    Heterosexuality has been ***ociated with the same; so what are you really saying here?

    I am sternly against ****sexuality as it is a sin against God.
    Ok, your conviction is noted.

    I do not, however, hate or even dislike ****sexuals themselves.
    Personally that might matter to you. Effectively, what matters are the human rights (by law) ****sexual people are afforded. The way you feel or handle it within yourself, isn't all there is to consider in reality.

    I love them as Christ commanded me, but I will not ever waiver in that it's not okay.
    And I can guarantee you that most ****sexual people who accept themselves... are waiting around to hear words of 'approval' from various "Christians".

    I'm not aware that it does.
    But ****sexuality gets FAR MORE ATTENTION THAN DIVORCE... why is that?

  2. #27
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default Actual? (What are you talking about?)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWolfman99 View Post
    ...I'm talking about blatant lies by ACTUAL CHRISTIANS...
    If you can show/prove what an "ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" is, and produce a foolproof method of detecting them... I'd be very interested.

  3. #28
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Canes View Post
    If you can show/prove what an "ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" is, and produce a foolproof method of detecting them... I'd be very interested.
    Romans 10.9 "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

    Since we cannot see the heart, but only God. The first outward act upon seeing a person is their confession that Jesus is Lord. The moment that you dig deeper and find out which Jesus is he confessing, i.e. the LDS Jesus, the JW Jesus, or Jesus other than the one present in the Scriptures and consistently held by the Church throughout history, is only one divergence that the person is not a Christian. If they have the right Jesus, then what comes next is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as it was written in Sacred Scripture and maintained historically constant. I.e. a "Christian" professing that ****sexual acts are now acceptable when it has never been acceptable is a sure sign that they are apostate. The mere fact that a person struggles with temptation and falls is not necessarily a sign that negates him from being a Christian, but if he fails in his confession both the fact that he has the wrong Jesus or approves of a lifestyle inconsistent with the Lord's teachings is therefore not truly confessing Jesus as Lord in their life since he is not lording over their rebellious endorsement of such immoral lifestyles.

  4. #29
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default Life is far too short.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Romans 10.9 "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."...
    The reality is that people don't all interpret and believe the same things from the Bible.

    This can all be argued in a virtually perpetual sense; I think that life is too short for that.

    And certainly, ****sexual people need not and do not deserve being so singled-out as many Christian people have done to them; that needs to change, and likely will over time.

    Peace and grace to you.

    -Austin-
    Last edited by Austin Canes; 11-16-2009 at 04:58 AM.

  5. #30
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Canes View Post
    The reality is that people don't all interpret and believe the same things from the Bible.

    This can all be argued in a virtually perpetual sense; I think that life is too short for that.

    And certainly, ****sexual people need not and do not deserve being so singled-out as many Christian people have done to them; that needs to change, and likely will over time.

    Peace and grace to you.

    -Austin-
    Exactly, which is why Protestantism is considered a heresy due to its inclination to split because everyone wants to interpret without the continuity to the history nor the authority vested in the office of bishop of which Christ established to and through the apostles as Acts 1.20 can literally translate "office" as "bishopric" as also demonstrated by the KJV "bisho*****" and Strong's #1984 "episkope."

    ****sexuals deserve to be welcomed into the Church, but they would have to remain celibate and live a life of penance as does all the laity. One cannot support ****sexual acts and be in good standing with Christ. Just as any heterosexual Christian who may have fallen into adultery cannot support adultery as being acceptable and remain in good standing with Christ. If you want to support ****sexual unions approved of by God, you will have to scripturally demonstrate it and also show its consistency through Church history as acceptable. But you cannot, because the office of bishop as taught in the various councils, within the ECF writings, and all evidences do not substantiate your claim. Even if you are not a Christian, you have no distinct authority regarding Christianity, and if you are a professing Christian, you are apostate.
    Last edited by Columcille; 11-16-2009 at 08:10 AM.

  6. #31
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default We disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    ...****sexuals deserve to be welcomed into the Church, but they would have to remain celibate and live a life of penance as does all the laity...
    Sorry, but that will likely never be realistic.

    ...One cannot support ****sexual acts and be in good standing with Christ...
    I disagree.

  7. #32
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Canes View Post
    Sorry, but that will likely never be realistic.



    I disagree.
    I haven't written for awhile on this forum topic, but disagreement does not put you as an authority for historical Christian teaching. Your disagreement with historic positioning of the Church throughout history is your drawback. If you could substantiate that ****sexuality has always been acceptable by God, that ****sexuals unions are approved, you would have come up with something more than just a mere statement of your disagreement.

  8. #33
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I haven't written for awhile on this forum topic, but disagreement does not put you as an authority for historical Christian teaching. Your disagreement with historic positioning of the Church throughout history is your drawback. If you could substantiate that ****sexuality has always been acceptable by God, that ****sexuals unions are approved, you would have come up with something more than just a mere statement of your disagreement.
    The Church has the authority to interpret scripture for those who believe in the Church. There are other authorities and other interpretations.
    It was only after much disagreement, editing, and probably some re-writing that the Church was able to settle on what Scripture is. What it means is still debated, even among authorities.
    The problem for you is the failure of authorities to substantiate that ****sexuality is unacceptable.
    Not that any of this has any bearing. Fortunately, the Church is no longer in charge. The issues of slavery, civil rights, abortion, and same-sex marriage are matters for secular courts to decide, and those decisions are made without consulting religious authorities.
    We can not legally own slaves, no matter what the bible says. Civil rights are protected, even those of the decendents of Ham. Christians use birth control and abortion services. Soon same-sex marriage will recognized in every state. All of this is accomplished without religious sanction. That your god approves or disapproves is relevent only inside the walls of your church. When the service is over, members will return to a free society where they are protected by secular laws.

  9. #34
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    The Church has the authority to interpret scripture for those who believe in the Church. There are other authorities and other interpretations.
    It was only after much disagreement, editing, and probably some re-writing that the Church was able to settle on what Scripture is. What it means is still debated, even among authorities.
    The problem for you is the failure of authorities to substantiate that ****sexuality is unacceptable.
    Not that any of this has any bearing. Fortunately, the Church is no longer in charge. The issues of slavery, civil rights, abortion, and same-sex marriage are matters for secular courts to decide, and those decisions are made without consulting religious authorities.
    We can not legally own slaves, no matter what the bible says. Civil rights are protected, even those of the decendents of Ham. Christians use birth control and abortion services. Soon same-sex marriage will recognized in every state. All of this is accomplished without religious sanction. That your god approves or disapproves is relevent only inside the walls of your church. When the service is over, members will return to a free society where they are protected by secular laws.
    Unfortunately, I am not a Protestant. Your competing authorities are your problem, the Catholic and Orthodox Church has established positions, despite rogue priests who have to be corrected by canon law.

    Secular authorities are not always in keeping with God's authority, and so it is not my concern to consult popular opinion since it is like a reed shaken every which way it ****s. It is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. While I am a citizen and vote my conscience, the realm I am focusing on is the orthodoxy of Christianity and not the secular governance. What the Church is in charge of, that is what is important to reflect on. A professing Christian who rationalizes their position as though God is alright with something with no precidence is a person whose claims are based on an idealization of the gospel being a social advancement of the secular society. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so the Gospel is not about social advancement of the kingdom of Man.

    As such, I can give you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can quote the p***ages in Scripture as it was determined by Sacred Tradition from the influential council of Carthage that was reviewed at Trullo and ratified at an ecumenical council, and later restipulated at the Council of Trent. If you want to appeal to the number of Christians in the world, the Catholic faith is the largest and the Eastern Orthodox right behind it. However, I am not appealing to numbers... but to that which all Christians from every denomination rooted in historical continuity--as most Reformers would understand a continuation of its own "traditions" being consistent with Christian historicity. They would quote Augustine of Hippo to substantiate a continuity of Christian doctrine and morals because there was no other Church from which they started their reforms in their own time.

  10. #35
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Unfortunately, I am not a Protestant. Your competing authorities are your problem, the Catholic and Orthodox Church has established positions, despite rogue priests who have to be corrected by canon law.

    Secular authorities are not always in keeping with God's authority, and so it is not my concern to consult popular opinion since it is like a reed shaken every which way it ****s. It is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. While I am a citizen and vote my conscience, the realm I am focusing on is the orthodoxy of Christianity and not the secular governance. What the Church is in charge of, that is what is important to reflect on. A professing Christian who rationalizes their position as though God is alright with something with no precidence is a person whose claims are based on an idealization of the gospel being a social advancement of the secular society. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so the Gospel is not about social advancement of the kingdom of Man.

    As such, I can give you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can quote the p***ages in Scripture as it was determined by Sacred Tradition from the influential council of Carthage that was reviewed at Trullo and ratified at an ecumenical council, and later restipulated at the Council of Trent. If you want to appeal to the number of Christians in the world, the Catholic faith is the largest and the Eastern Orthodox right behind it. However, I am not appealing to numbers... but to that which all Christians from every denomination rooted in historical continuity--as most Reformers would understand a continuation of its own "traditions" being consistent with Christian historicity. They would quote Augustine of Hippo to substantiate a continuity of Christian doctrine and morals because there was no other Church from which they started their reforms in their own time.
    Whether or not protestantism is fortuitous is hardly a problem for me. I will not be punished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed because I refused to submit the religious authorities.
    These self-appointed interpreters of scripture regularly reinterpret the text (albeit slowly) to reinvent itself in a way that allows it to survive in a modern world. The text they interpret has been doctored, and they know it.
    Christianity has a pretty ugly history. Nearly all of it, and it's morality, has been discarded.
    You can thank secularity, not God or Church, for the freedoms you enjoy. These freedoms have been extended to all races, religions, creeds, both men and women. It will soon protect ****sexuals in the same way.
    You say what's important to you are the things the Church is in charge of. Well, that ain't much anymore. It's a good thing, imho.

  11. #36
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Whether or not protestantism is fortuitous is hardly a problem for me. I will not be punished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed because I refused to submit the religious authorities.
    These self-appointed interpreters of scripture regularly reinterpret the text (albeit slowly) to reinvent itself in a way that allows it to survive in a modern world. The text they interpret has been doctored, and they know it.
    Christianity has a pretty ugly history. Nearly all of it, and it's morality, has been discarded.
    You can thank secularity, not God or Church, for the freedoms you enjoy. These freedoms have been extended to all races, religions, creeds, both men and women. It will soon protect ****sexuals in the same way.
    You say what's important to you are the things the Church is in charge of. Well, that ain't much anymore. It's a good thing, imho.
    I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.

  12. #37
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.
    This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
    Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
    That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.

  13. #38
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
    Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
    That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.
    If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.

  14. #39
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.
    ****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
    Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.

  15. #40
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    ****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
    Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.
    Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.

  16. #41
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.
    I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
    I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.

  17. #42
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
    I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.
    Well, the only real positions I think you are referring to are position of the Episcopalian, Lutheran, and other Churches.

    Let me think this out for you a little better:
    Catholic Church teaches:

    ****sexual acts are sinful and defective... in the Catechism, has not changed its opinion.

    Woman ordination... is not allowable... code of canon law sets out proceedings of excommunication toward the priests who attempt to give holy orders to woman and also to the woman themselves... =Catholic Church is in the stone age by current en vogue secular opinion.

    Birth Control, media still gives us a lot of trouble with this one. We have not come around yet. Also there is an automatic excommunication to Catholics who procure an abortion per Code of Canon Law.

    Slavery? Catholic Church has existed and tolerated with its reality with Pagan Rome, but has been against the notion of ownership as can be seen by Paul's letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus being treated as a brother and not a slave and as the Church has maintained throughout history condemning it during its heights of ins***ution in Europe and America, again tolerating its reality when the secular governments support it. You will be hard pressed to find an encyclical by a pope or patriarch of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches that specifically endorses it. In fact, here is a papal encyclical notworthy in its universal address and condemnation of slavery by Pope Paul III en***led "Sublimus Dei"
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
    Also by Pope Eugene IV en***led "Sicut Dudum" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Euge...ene04sicut.htm. Also "In Supremo Apostlatus" by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839 and read in Baltimore no less. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm

    In matter unrelated to doctrine but of science, the Church's authority is not concerned. Its authority is on doctrine and morals, so I am sure you would probably make reference to Galileo or perhaps quote Aquinas' crackpot scientific notions about the movement of heavenly bodies in his Summa Theologia; of which there is nothing related to the formation of preexisting doctrine and morals.
    Last edited by Columcille; 09-16-2010 at 02:20 PM.

  18. #43
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
    The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
    Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
    In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
    A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
    It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
    Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.

  19. #44
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
    The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
    Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
    In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
    A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
    It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
    Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.
    Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?

  20. #45
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?
    Did I say Jesus endorsed slavery? The papal encycicals you gave were wishy-washy, vague, and worthless. I understand that Pope Gregory XVI opposed only slavery that he believed was unjust.
    The Vatican finally issued a statement in 1965 - The Pastoral Cons***ution on the Church in the Modern World - that made its anti-slavery position more clear.
    We can agree that was a good thing, however, it was too little, too late. It was also, in my own opinion, the begining of the end of Christianity. Rejection, by the Church, of p***ages in the bible that prescribe and regulate slavery cast doubt on the inerrant Word of God.
    African slaves, and African Americans were enslaved, discriminated against, and marginalized while the Church endorsed, was silent, or failed to strongly oppose this - just like in the bible.
    ****sexuals are prosecuted, imprisoned, victimized, marginalized, and denied basic human rights - while the Church spouts scriptural support, is silent, or fails to strongly oppose it - just like in the bible
    .
    There's your comparison. Take it or leave it. Only time will tell, and I expect you and I will be long gone before the Church re-writes history in its favor. Again.

  21. #46
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.

  22. #47
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.
    I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
    Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
    Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?

  23. #48
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
    Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
    Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?
    I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?

  24. #49
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?
    First of all, this thread is about ****sexuality, not slavery, but since I compared the controversy around slavery, and the slow, but eventual change in the Church's position, I will make one last post on the subject. With any luck, we can simply agree that there's more than one way to view this.
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages...ts/slavery.pdf
    Lest we forget, Pope Gregory IX support for the slave trade was incorporated into cannon law and Pope Gregory XI ordered that the Florentines be enslaved if captured.
    Pope Martin V sanctioned the trade in African slaves (Bull 1441). 1454 Nicolos V wrote:
    We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...[78]

    Look. We can go on like this forever. Fact is some abhored slavery (Pius II), others approved, still more remained neutral.

    Now for women, ****sexuals, and other yucky folk:
    http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/

  25. #50
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
    The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
    If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

    Pope Nicolas V states:
    Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •