Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, it does. If we are all truly equal in the eyes of God, how can one justify owning another person? The master has no right to own the slave as the slave his master.

And in God's eyes, that is what our true value is, not in the eyes of men. Our true master and not our earthly masters.

It confirms that our value is equal.

The Catholic church predates the feudal system which it did not invent.

Every single church father cites the passage as an affirmation of the true equality among men. So you're alone in this.

Again, this passage confirms our fundamental equality. On the question as to whether slaves should immediately free themselves from their masters, Paul is clear enough to say, "if you can earn your freedom, do so".

I don't see how a fair reading of the bible can come to the conclusion that slavery is justified.

I am clearly not alone.
From a Master thesis about christianity and slavery in Antebellum Louisiana

Catholic leaders in Rome and in New Orleans simultaneously emphasized slaves’ religious rights as well as their necessary obedience to their owners in all religious matters. Slaves were property and people; while their souls belonged to God, their bodies belonged to their owners

After the Louisiana Purchase, and through the 1850s, New Orleans Church officials continued to administer sacraments to free and enslaved blacks within their congregations even as they increasingly endorsed the institution of slavery and the right of parishioners to hold slaves.

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04042005-172526/unrestricted/Pastor_thesis.pdf

So to sum it up:
The catholic church solved it by making a distinction between a slaves body (which belonged to the slaves owner) and the soul (which belonged to god and iks the one thing that is seen as equal by god ... not the mortal body)

[ZEE]

Answer the damn question!

[Ming]

LOL, Ming, butthurt as usual. I don't see how waving your arms around saying 'straw man' constitutes an argument.

First, interesting attempt at an insult... shows what a bigot you are for using it.
And second, you need to actually post something about the topic so that a real response can be made.
Straw mans just don't cut it. As usual, just trying to change the subject because you have nothing valid to say

So, now that 2000 years of tradition have been swept away, what next? Curbstomping the bigots who refuse to comply?

Just like slavery and women's rights... those "grand" traditions got swept away as well. Do you support slavery and limited women's rights?
And yes, bigots should be fined when they break the law and discriminate against people.

Conjugality is not the same as fertility. It's important to marriage given the ability of a partner to get out of a marriage that is unconsummated. No consummation = no marriage. Arguing that marriage is all about 'love' is not the same, and misses this important distinction.

Gee... in Benland, marriage isn't about love. Classic.
Handicapped people can't get married if they can't consummate the wedding? Gee, tell that to a quadriplegic... tell him or her that they can't get married.

And you call yourself a Christian?

I follow the teachings of love as taught by Jesus... do you?

The bible is quite clear that slavery is wrong. What does the bible teach about homosexuality?

And what does the bible say about stoning people... or forcing a rapist to marry their victim... oh, and paying off the father.
Again... you pick and choose from the bible only what you want... how nice.

I said that morality is not determined by what a majority vote on. Never has, never will.

And who's morality is the right morality. In Benland, it's yours.
I'd rather go with what most people think then what a bigot like you thinks.

And some religions practice clitorectomy. Some religions are evil.

And some religions have their priests rape children... by the way, are you circumcised... all my Catholic friends were circumcised.

Who are you to do the same? The argument isn't over, "should morality be determined, but rather "what is morality". You're arguing that homosexuality is no different I am arguing that it is.

It's a good thing most people disagree with you... and that number is going up and not down. Every day more people see the light.

Answer the question, Ming. What's the last time a homosexual man was fined 125k for practicing his homosexuality in public.

Gee... practicing homosexuality in public isn't against the law (unless it violates public decency standards), just like for non gays.

Indeed. Now answer the question.

Homosexual acts in private were against the law in the past (and is still probably on the books in some states), and if convicted, they actually went to prison. The bakers got off far easier.

Interesting. So you support shutting down public crowdfunding for Christians. Why is that, Ming?

I support following the law...
The response by the fund raising website.
“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions. The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal. Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

If they can find a legal way to fund raise, I have no problem with that.

It's true. Catholics are generally treated like **** in America.

You can say that about every minority... your point.

When's the last time a man has been fined 125k for his homosexuality? Bueller? Bueller?

Nahhh... they only got thrown in jail for practicing sex in private.
But I've already answered that question.

You made a claim saying that homosexuals have it worse. Now, please answer my question.

First, fines are better than prison. Also, gays have been dragged behind cars... (wasn't that in Texas)
When was the last time that happened to a Catholic (well, a white Catholic)
So again, asked and answered.

So why are you supporting Catholic adoption agencies shutting down? They place many, many kids. If it's the welfare of the child that is paramount then surely they should be able to stay open.

Please quote where I have ever claimed to support the shutting down of Catholic adoption agencies. (and don't use some twisted ben logic) Actually quote where I said it. Oh that's right, you can't.

Hmm, so you can't answer that. Funny. And you say that Catholics have it easier in America. I think not.

Asked and answered already... try again.

Catholic families are heartless institutions?

Need a quote on that one... where did I ever say that. I said " keep the children in heartless institutions instead of placing them in loving homes"
Now, where do I say that Catholic families... Oh, that's right, I didn't. My point stands... loving home vs orphanage. I know what I think is the better option for the sake of the child. If a Catholic family wants to provide a loving home for a child, fine by me.

Then why am I the one arguing for Catholic agencies to stay open?

Again... please quote where I specify that Catholic agencies should be closed. I have no problem with them staying open. As long as they follow the laws, fine by me.

Answer the question, Ming.

I don't run family services... If family services is doing their job, they are protecting the best interests of the child. I don't always agree with their decision, but who else is qualified to make it. They are trying their best. And they do make mistakes, just like Catholics or me.

So why then are Catholic adoption agencies being shut down?

I'm not the one shutting them down. You will have to provide examples in the proper context so I can answer properly. Heck, I may even agree with you, but all you have provided is your typical overblown sweeping generalizations.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I was stating my opinion. I strongly feel that two parents are better than one. But again, MY OPINION.
And stating opinions without any facts is something you should know a lot about.

Gee. Answer the question Ming. You tell them the truth when they are old enough to understand it that their father has passed on. Now, what do you tell the child who asks, "where is my mother/ where is my father?"

The same thing you tell them when their father has passed... I'll go with the truth. But, I've never been in that situation before, so I really don't know what I would say. But I'm leaning toward the truth.

I don't know, what do you tell them? I'm not defending that, you are.

I'm defending the legal right of divorce. That's the LAW. But then again, I've been married over 30 years, so I've never had to address that situation with my children. In my opinion, in many cases, it's too easy to get a divorce. I wish it would be harder, but with all the different state laws, I don't know how to do that fairly.

Absolutely, and it starts by putting the welfare of the child above social experiments.

Not a social experiment at all. As noted before, the problem is with the bigots, not the social institution.

You've dodged every question, Ming. Well done. Would be nice to get a straight answer.

It's not my problem if you think my answers are dodging the question. I've given you straight answers. And then, you either read your own interpretation into what I said, make up some response you think I made, or change the question.

I will continue to answer the questions, even if you can't see the answers.

[ZEE]

I will continue to monitor this thrade to see if all questions are being answered.

[Berzerker]

Reynolds argues that the constitution stems from the English Common Law and that Marriage can no more be changed by the constitution than the constitution can discard things like Habeaus Corpus (which Lincoln tried to do away with), or trial by Jury.

Read up on the case. It's a fascinating argument.



That's a pretty facile dismissal. Religious freedom is not unfettered. There are restrictions and limitations on it.

the Constitution doesn't mention marriage but it does allow for suspending habeas corpus... religious freedom is limited to actions falling under the definition of freedom - the absence of coercion or constraint

gay marriage is not coercion or constraint, burning widows is

[Berzerker]

It's up to Congress if your kid can carry a gun or smoke crack. You've lost your mind.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to punish your kid for having a gun or smoking crack?

yeah

the trick was/is: who gets to be considered a person?

everybody was a person

[Ben Kenobi]

I am clearly not alone.
From a Master thesis about christianity and slavery in Antebellum Louisiana

That's somewhat less authoritative than anything I post as I'm an actual catechist with more than 5 years experience, btw.

[Kidlicious]

Where?

You probably don't want to enslave God's people after he wants them back.

[Proteus_MST]

That's somewhat less authoritative than anything I post as I'm an actual catechist with more than 5 years experience, btw.

I believe you that your interpretation is, what the catholic church teaches now.
After all this makes sense, nowadays morals have grown in a way, that holding slaves is morally wrong, therefore it would be a bad move from the catholic church, to teach that slavery is good/right

With regards to what the catholic church taught in the US slaveholder states before the civiil war,
I trust the History Master thesis (from an accredited US university) I linked more, however

[Ben Kenobi]

After all this makes sense, nowadays morals have grown in a way, that holding slaves is morally wrong, therefore it would be a bad move from the catholic church, to teach that slavery is good/right

With regards to what the catholic church taught in the US slaveholder states before the civiil war,
I trust the History Master thesis (from an accredited US university) I linked more, however

I have evidence that Catholic priests have taught that slavery was morally wrong going back quite some time. Again. I also have credentials as a historian, so I'm perfectly willing to spar with a master's student.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyways, not ignoring Ming, have had other duties. I'll get to his post probably this evening.

[Berzerker]

and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

thats hard, if somebody stole my car I'd want them and all their family and friends serving jail time

[Berzerker]

and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

thats hard, if somebody stole my car I'd want them and all their family and friends serving jail time

[rah]

I didn't even know the gift had been *received* until 6 months later and I followed up on it. You didn't even 'decline' the gift, rah. Declining the gift would have meant sending me a PM. Did I get one? No.

Didn't get any notice, whatsoever. All I heard is when I eventually asked around if you'd received the gift. Eventually I got the truth that you'd declined the gift.

You could have had enough respect to tell me that, but you never did.

Why didn't you, rah? You could have said, "thanks for the gift, but we're not really comfortable in taking it from you."

As I said back then. Because of everyone involved I was just going to stay quiet and not accept it. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
But you just couldn't let it rest. You had to keep wanting recognition for it. So I finally told you why I didn't accept it. Because I didn't respect you and didn't want to be even close to being considered in your debt.
Your breaking your promise of not talking about it PROVES just why I didn't want to accept it. You have no honor.

I don't respect you, I will never respect you and trying to buy me off with a few bucks won't work. I can't be bribed by the likes of you. (and have turned down many bribes in my life)
Now stop talking about it. I know your promise means nothing to you but try to be a man for once.

I don't respect you, I will never respect you and trying to buy me off with a few bucks won't work. I can't be bribed by the likes of you. (and have turned down many bribes in my life)
Now stop talking about it. I know your promise means nothing to you but try to be a man for once.

I don't respect you, I will never respect you and trying to buy me off with a few bucks won't work. I can't be bribed by the likes of you. (and have turned down many bribes in my life)
Now stop talking about it. I know your promise means nothing to you but try to be a man for once.

Got it.

[Aeson]

Anyone who wants to buy me off with a few bucks, you can send it to my Paypal ... I promise I won't decline it