Conclave

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
You'd have to prove such case for Jesus or St Paul...
Until then...

Personally, I can't find good arguments against the use of condoms in the bible.
And as you should know yourself, there's this funny little thing called tradition in the Catholic church, and hating the body is pretty much a product of neoplatonic influenced theologians, like St. Augustine.

[Spiffor]

I personally think that the Catholic Church should recognize gay couples as loving couples. From a spiritual point of view, Jesus greatest teaching is that love is above all. If you drop the idea that homosexuality is sin, and adopt the idea that sexual orientation is one element of human diversity, then the Christian thing to do is to make it easier for the people to love and commit to each other

[alva]

Not to mention that jezus way gay too.

All he did was steal married men from their wives, give them different names (Petrus, hard like a rock!!! ) and then start up a male only club...you do the math.

[Spiffor]

Lies! Jesus was bi, as my sig attests.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Personally, I can't find good arguments against the use of condoms in the bible.
And as you should know yourself, there's this funny little thing called tradition in the Catholic church, and hating the body is pretty much a product of neoplatonic influenced theologians, like St. Augustine.

Jesus and Fathers of the Church did not say everything. We should expand their teachings.

Originally posted by Spiffor
I personally think that the Catholic Church should recognize gay couples as loving couples. From a spiritual point of view, Jesus greatest teaching is that love is above all. If you drop the idea that homosexuality is sin, and adopt the idea that sexual orientation is one element of human diversity, then the Christian thing to do is to make it easier for the people to love and commit to each other

Sexual orientation is just a name, and a misleading one.
Even if homosexuality is not a disease but it's determined before our birth, and it's not proven beyond any doubt - at least some of homosexuals become them due to circumstances- it has no biological purpouse and it is not "natural". "Orientation" name suggests that it's just a matter of opinion or individual preferences, of which all are the same. It is not. Homosexuality is a "deviation" (by which i do not mean anything wrong, just I don't know a better word), but not very harmful to society, so it should not be banned, and homosexuals should not be persecuted in any way.
However, You can't put a "=" sign between homosexual and heterosexual relationship.

Originally posted by alva
Not to mention that jezus way gay too.

All he did was steal married men from their wives, give them different names (Petrus, hard like a rock!!! ) and then start up a male only club...you do the math.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Lies! Jesus was bi, as my sig attests.

You're both pathetic

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
However, You can't put a "=" sign between homosexual and heterosexual relationship.

Yes, but on the "love" side of things, a homosexual couple can feel just as much love and commitment as a heterosexual one. Even thoughhomosexual couples can be less beneficial to society than heterosexual ones (in that they can't reproduce), why should such a relatively trifle matter like that prevent the Catholic Church from celebrating what it is about: love?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Heresson
at least some of homosexuals become them due to circumstances

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin

I don't understand why you roll your eyes... Are you that keen of genetic behavioural theories that you forget that behaviour can come from nurture as well?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I personally think that the Catholic Church should recognize gay couples as loving couples. From a spiritual point of view, Jesus greatest teaching is that love is above all. If you drop the idea that homosexuality is sin, and adopt the idea that sexual orientation is one element of human diversity, then the Christian thing to do is to make it easier for the people to love and commit to each other

God himself said no to homosexuality.

[Alexander's Horse]

did not

[alva]

You're both pathetic

That thruth really isn't working out for you, is it.

and it's not proven beyond any doubt

Ah, but god is?? or even jezus for that matter.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Odin

What?

Originally posted by alva

You're both pathetic

That thruth really isn't working out for you, is it.

"Don't believe the devil, even if He says truth"
I could say, but simpler answer is that You don't know what the truth is.

and it's not proven beyond any doubt

Ah, but god is?? or even jezus for that matter. [/QUOTE]

Jesus is more proven then many other historical figures.
And God is not a scientific theory that You can prove or disprove. He IS for the believers.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, but on the "love" side of things, a homosexual couple can feel just as much love and commitment as a heterosexual one. Even thoughhomosexual couples can be less beneficial to society than heterosexual ones (in that they can't reproduce), why should such a relatively trifle matter like that prevent the Catholic Church from celebrating what it is about: love?

But catholic marriage is not, or rather was not originally, about love. It was about procreation, which was the only excuse for it.
If a pair of males can't reproduce, it's a sign from God it is not good. "You will recognise the tree by its fruit" said Jesus. He also said that a tree giving no fruit will be destroyed.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson

If a pair of males can't reproduce, it's a sign from God it is not good. "You will recognise the tree by its fruit" said Jesus. He also said that a tree giving no fruit will be destroyed.

Thre parable about the trees bearing fruit had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it was Christ's explanation of why he was starting a "new covenant" to replace the old. In this parable the Hebrew faith of that era was comparable to the fruitless tree, but his new faith, and by extension it's disciples, would "bear fruit".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Thre parable about the trees bearing fruit had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it was Christ's explanation of why he was starting a "new covenant" to replace the old. In this parable the Hebrew faith of that era was comparable to the fruitless tree, but his new faith, and by extension it's disciples, would "bear fruit".

By the way, what Herreson is doing, taking a phrase out of context to make a point, is called Midrash and certain Jesus would have been familiar with such technique, in fact his followers use it often to establish proof texts for Christianity.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
If a pair of males can't reproduce, it's a sign from God it is not good.

And couples that are sterile I suppose are also abominations?

Homosexuality is certainly "natural" by any honest definition of the word. Every mammal species and quite a few bird species have been proven to exhibit homosexual behavior, including life-long same sex coupling. You can attempt to redefine natural all you want, but it's just disingenuous goal post moving.

And knowing what I know of you, perhaps you should be very careful on this topic.