Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Sava]

I think he reads just fine, he just struggles with the honesty part.

He reminds me a lot of my aunt and cousins from my mom's side. The whole family just lies lies lies.

[Bereta_Eder]

When plato was with his students by a river, the students noticed that he didn't throw pebbles in the water to honor the gods.
They became concerned by it and asked him if he didn't believe in them.
Plato then threw some pebbles and said something like honor the gods but think for yourself.

Which I think it's a good advice.

So many things have to do with interpratations of the holy scriptures.
Where are the original texts? it's in greek and aramaic IIRC (or maybe not only)
How many additions were there? Or ommissions?

Love one another is a prime teaching.
Don't do on to others... is another one.
he without sin throw the first rock...

why choose that one teaching carries more weight than another?
because one wants to "Save" the other?
but christ clearly said let he who wants FREELY follow me
maybe he's free to interpret certain things too

[Lorizael]

When plato was with his students by a river...

You're such a Greek.

[Sava]

Was Plato in a van down by the river?

[C0ckney]

Once again - your position is incompatible with any version of atheism. It is, however, fully compatible with cults. You aren't an atheist, you're a member of a cult.

again i reject your assertion and repost what i said earlier.

it is certainly possible to view god as man, and man as god. he might be seen as the highest of man's ideals; or the various aspects of god (holiness, power, presence etc.) can be seen as projections of human self-consciousness.

on the subject of marriage i gave a definition of it in post 98. perhaps you'd care to read it again

a state sanctioned contract between two people to live together and share their lives and possessions in some way, and that confers certain rights and responsibilities to the parties.

or if you prefer, here's the oxford english dictionary's definition.

NOUN

The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

or here's a definition from wikipedia

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged.

[Marriage is] not a societal construct.

of course it is. it is your rejection of this obvious truth, which leads you to write guff like this.

If people, legally, were to redefine the term "car" to include what we call trucks, would that mean that trucks no longer exist?

If people, legally, were to redefine the term "man" to include "women", would that change the reality of "man" and "woman".

You can rewrite things all you want legally, but it won't change the reality.

It predates all of the present societies today and it will last long after they've turned out the lights here.

And again - trucks are still trucks and cars are still cars. It doesn't change the reality and for those who work on trucks and cars, they still have to know what the thing actually is to fix it. It's simple legal fiction and word games.

It doesn't change the reality of marriage.

hopefully once you accept that marriage is a social construct, which varies and has varied according to time, place and context, you'll stop writing this intellectually dishonest rubbish and using terrible analogies*.

You have been beating the drum that the bible is irrelevant because they do not understand the modern world. I am arguing that nothing on this subject has changed to indicate that things have changed since biblical times. The bible talks about homosexuality and explicitly rejects it.

then you are simply wrong, and blind to the world that you inhabit.

As opposed to Roman society? Again, Christianity rejects homosexuality for the same reasons it did in the first century as it does today. None of the 'changes' are anything new, it's just the same old things being polished up as 'progress', when the reality is the exact opposite.

There's a reason society works the way it does, changing things in this matter isn't going to make society work differently. We'll get lip service and then it will die out and we'll wonder why we cared so much at the time. I suspect that we'll get the aging hippies clinging to gay marriage long after the world has moved on.

it matters not the reasons for christianity rejecting homosexuality; the point is that society no longer rejects it/them and the legal, cultural and social position of homosexuals reflects this. thus christianity (though of course many christians have come to accept homosexuals, reflecting wider social trends - one of christianity's great strengths is its adaptability) is out of step with society. this should not be difficult to understand.

It's an artifact of Christianity that the union of a man and a man will not produce children?

how is the fact that two men, or two women for that matter, can't produce children an example of prejudice against homosexuals? oh that's right, it isn't; it's just you trying, and failing, to deflect.

*ok so you won't, but hope springs eternal!

[molly bloom]

Nikolai, (who isn't even Catholic!), has yet to receive an on topic post that doesn't exude hatred towards Catholicism. It speaks volumes as to the depth of prejudice here on Apolyton.

I'm sorry, but could you point to the hatred against Roman Catholicism or Roman Catholics in my post ?

There's a certain amount of cynicism, but that's because the church hierarchy instead of directing its ire towards say, gay men and lesbians, could have concentrated on one of the greatest blots on Italian political and social life. As I recall, both the Catholic church and the U.S. Government of the time were quite happy to enlist the aid of the various criminal organisations in Italy to thwart the possibility of a Communist or Socialist win in the post-WWII elections.

What strange morality.

[molly bloom]

I am member of the Catholic church - I was confirmed at Easter in 2005 in the parish in Kitsilano, BC.

Golly, never heard that before....


So the good news then folks, is that by Sister Bendy's definition of what it takes to be a Catholic, I'm apparently still one too- having been confirmed quite some time before him.

What a trendsetter.

[Sava]

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The thing about this passage is... God wasn't shy about telling people not to do stuff. Don't wear mixed fibers. Don't eat shellfish. Don't shave your face. Don't build a deck on your roof unless you built a railing... etc.

So... why was God being all cryptic about gay marriage? Seems to me, if I was God and wanted people to not do something, I'd explicitly say so. Like... in the form of a commandment or something. I know, it sounds crazy. Something like... thou shalt not.

BTW, have you ever shaved your face BK? That's worse than gaysex. You should flail yourself to death and then ask God's forgiveness when you meet him.

Also, go protest the Gillette and Shick companies. Be sure to bring graphic photos of men who cut themselves shaving. The shock value will make your case stronger.

[Lorizael]

Was Plato in a van down by the river?

Don't know why, but you're making me think of The Dam at Otter Creek.

[molly bloom]

'Try not to be dicks to each other'?

So you're interested in taking away Sister Bendy's main motivation for living and converting. Why do you hate him so ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Where are the original texts? it's in greek and aramaic IIRC (or maybe not only)

NT is in Greek, OT in Hebrew. Earliest texts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls (for the OT), that date back to the first century BC.

The earliest NT full manuscript we have is the Codex Vaticanus, which dates to early 4th century AD. We have fragments dating to the mid 2nd AD.

How many additions were there? Or ommissions?

You can read Greek, I encourage you to look up Codex Vaticanus and read for yourself. Compare with more recent editions.

Love one another is a prime teaching.
Don't do on to others... is another one.
he without sin throw the first rock...

And so is the first commandment, "Love the Lord God".

why choose that one teaching carries more weight than another?

Why ignore the first commandment?

but christ clearly said let he who wants FREELY follow me
maybe he's free to interpret certain things too

Indeed, people are free to accept or reject him.

[C0ckney]

Also, go protest the Gillette and Shick companies. Be sure to bring graphic photos of men who cut themselves shaving. The shock value will make your case stronger.

[Ben Kenobi]

C0ckney already explained the concept to you in a very short paragraph just a couple of pages ago. Here it is again.

Sure. It's just not compatible with atheism. That's my point. You can't make a statement like that and then turn around and say, "I'm an atheist". No, you're a cultist.

[molly bloom]

The Bible is very clear that there is a transcendent model for marriage.

Yeah.

1 Kings 11

King James Version (KJV)


11 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away
8

¶ And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.

9
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking.

10

Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. Gal. 4.29, 30

11

And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.

12

And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called

Verily, thou sucketh at religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please show me again where it says marriage is only between one man and one woman.

Again. "He Made them male and female".

Ie, God made men and women to be complementary with one another. IF men and men could get married and have children, then he wouldn't have had to make women. Same with women and women. Instead, God made men and women, for each other.

This is the basic argument from Natural Law, and it's right there in Matthew 19.

Now, you gonna obey God or men, rah?

Your's is just your bias take on it.

Given that I'm a convert, you really believe this argument is my invention? Really rah. Are you just that dense? Seriously.

Think about it, come back to me and we can discuss this further.