Home

TheSinner.net

Gay AND Catholic?

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:54 pm

macgamer wrote:Indeed, but can biochemistry or neuroscience explain consciousness or love?

Can it explain it? Science isn't limited by tense. Saying it cannot explain something is not the same as saying that it will not explain something. The brain is like a little box of magic... except, there is no such thing as magic; merely the unexplained. Love and consciousness are neural. Welcome to the world of monism, my dualist clutcher-of-magic.

macgamer wrote:So much for humanism. Sounds more like satanism to me.

You don't understand what humanism is if you think that it is contravened by a single word I've said. You certainly don't understand what Satanism is, either. I mean, which flavour of Satanism? LaVey, or one of the more long-standing ones that Catholicism has condemned for so long? I listened to a Satanic Mass once. It consisted of a Christian prayer in reverse. Which made me laugh. Satanists (aside from the worship of the self) are Christians having a temper tantrum.

The father, the son, the holy spirit... oh, and Satan. Not exactly a monotheism. Plus, Catholicism throws the Blessed Virgin Mary into the mixing pot, to further pollute the original message.

macgamer wrote:I would not like to live in a society organised along your mindset or philosophy.

Largely, you already do. Welcome to planet Earth.

macgamer wrote:It sounds miserable, meaningless, depressing and nihilistic, where there is no instrinsic worth in anything or anyone.

Worth (or value) is a personal thing. Everyone has something (or someone) that they value. So, yet again, you have failed to understand the non-macgamer version of the world.

macgamer wrote:How could hold such a society together without degenerating into anarchy? Why of course an all powerful state that knows truly what is best for its citizens.

Again, look out of your window. Mostly, it's already there... save for some social-evolutionary throwbacks. For that, look in the mirror. As for your suggestion of Communism, it really isn't a binary world where the absence of macgamerism equates to Communism.

macgamer wrote:Can you identify schadenfreude and the bully within yourself? Do you take pleasure in crushing other people? What does that say about you? What are your motives?

Translation: I'm a bully, therefore you are the bullied.

There is no schadenfreude in me. Not so far as you are concerned, at least. Your problems are self-prescribed. In the past, I have provided my own Walls of Text (and seen others do the same) in an effort to help you escape from the prison you have created for yourself. You have ignored it all. And yet you keep producing the same misguided nonsense that you always have, boosted by new users on TheSinner providing their own Walls of Text. And still, you ignore evidence, sound advice and (importantly) the key to your prison cell... and I'm left wondering what your motivation is for doing so.

You are the village idiot, with his head in the stocks yelling at people to throw rotten fruit at them... and then calling them bullies when they do so.

So it is reasonable to have the response of a giant What The Fuck?

macgamer wrote:I come here to hear other points of view. To test my own opinions with people who disagree with me vehemently. It is a sort of training. If I cannot explain and justify my position to others how could I continue to hold them?

All of which is pointless, because you consistently ignore those counterarguments. Time after time, I've seen users of TheSinner provide perfectly valid and sound reasoning why your position is flawed. I mean, I've only been here for... 4 years or so, so perhaps you used to accept their reasoning before... oh, no, wait: your position is that of The Vatican, so it is pointless beyond all pointlessness to argue any case to you whatsoever. And yet you still throw around your insanities.

Too harsh a word? Calling you insane? Well, let's see. According to you, either the entirety of Catholicism is correct or none of it is. But what if every part of the bible was correct, apart from the last written testament: Matthew. Imagine what that would mean? Jesus Christ, son of God, delivered the message... and it was recorded faithfully, apart from one late-comer who provided a lot of nonense about the Nativity and Peter being The Rock? What then?

All or nothing? You really do live in a binary state.

Humans are grey... and every shade of grey.

macgamer wrote:Self-pity and the seeking of pity should be avoided it is not mature behaviour. I'd imagine few people can search themselves and claim that this tendency has been eradicated completely.

Well now, tell me about the aspects of my life for which you should feel pity for me.

You have no idea, because I've never shared them. I'm certainly not going to play a game of "my woes are greater than yours" but entertain the idea, if you can, that nobody on here has a life of blissful harmony.

macgamer wrote:Yes, partly to proselytise too. To show to people that there is a diversity of approaches to life. Others may find it interesting if not convincing. I find the reaction of others interesting too. I am able to refine my presentation afterwards.

How's the conversion rate? Has anyone decided to stop "shaking hands"?

macgamer wrote:Strange as it might seem to you, RedCelt69, even you serve a purpose in my life. I'm not entirely sure how that will square with your nihilism. I'm much happier with my hope, even if you see it as pitiable self-deception lacking in intellectual rigour.

I'm not a nihilist. Seriously, if you're going to throw words around, at least learn what they mean first.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:45 pm

RedCelt69 wrote: Saying it cannot explain something is not the same as saying that it will not explain something.

Indeed.

RedCelt69 wrote:Welcome to the world of monism, my dualist clutcher-of-magic.

Cartesian dualism perhaps.

macgamer wrote:So much for humanism. Sounds more like satanism to me.

You don't understand what humanism is if you think that it is contravened by a single word I've said. You certainly don't understand what Satanism is, either. I mean, which flavour of Satanism? LaVey, or one of the more long-standing ones that Catholicism has condemned for so long? I listened to a Satanic Mass once. It consisted of a Christian prayer in reverse. Which made me laugh. Satanists (aside from the worship of the self) are Christians having a temper tantrum.[/quote]
I've observed your disputation about humanism in this thread and elsewhere and you still have failed to convey what you understand by humanism, or you have not at least offered a view of humanism that anyone here finds particularly attractive. Sell your humanism to The Sinner.

RedCelt69 wrote:The father, the son, the holy spirit... oh, and Satan. Not exactly a monotheism. Plus, Catholicism throws the Blessed Virgin Mary into the mixing pot, to further pollute the original message.

Stawmen are always easier to deal with...

RedCelt69 wrote:Largely, you already do. Welcome to planet Earth.

I'd find you (more) amusing if I thought there wasn't so much malice behind your words. I prefer to see some of your harsher words a mocking without malice, rather than arising from hatred.

RedCelt69 wrote:Worth (or value) is a personal thing. Everyone has something (or someone) that they value. So, yet again, you have failed to understand the non-macgamer version of the world.

Tell me, what do you value? Then I'll be convinced that you reject nihilism.

RedCelt69 wrote:Again, look out of your window. Mostly, it's already there... save for some social-evolutionary throwbacks. For that, look in the mirror.

MEOW. I don't see how hold alternative views on the interaction between the state, society and the individual makes someone an 'evolutionary throw-back'.

RedCelt69 wrote:Translation: I'm a bully, therefore you are the bullied.

Okay, I admit that probably was more self-pity.

RedCelt69 wrote:There is no schadenfreude in me. Not so far as you are concerned, at least. Your problems are self-prescribed. In the past, I have provided my own Walls of Text (and seen others do the same) in an effort to help you escape from the prison you have created for yourself. You have ignored it all. And yet you keep producing the same misguided nonsense that you always have, boosted by new users on TheSinner providing their own Walls of Text. And still, you ignore evidence, sound advice and (importantly) the key to your prison cell... and I'm left wondering what your motivation is for doing so.

Why don't you set up a poll in a new topic and allow The Sinner to express its opinion with how I engage or not with debate here or any other aspect. My discussions with The Cellar Bar, Wild_quinine and JollyTiddlyWink involved engagement.

You claim I have made a prison for myself. Well, actually when things were looking bleak for me last year that is how it seemed to me: a prisoner and prison guard. That, mentally, no longer operates. If you could have seen before and after you would see that I have changed greatly.

Perhaps you may remember the infamous 'Paul' on The Sinner. He was someone who did not engage with anything posted.

My motivation for what? For being obstinate? Or 'imprisoning' myself as you see it? My motivation for remaining a Catholic and remaining chaste is God-given faith and a self-knowledge which allows me to determine what is for my own good or to my detriment. These are the same decisions which make in your own life.

RedCelt69 wrote:You are the village idiot, with his head in the stocks yelling at people to throw rotten fruit at them... and then calling them bullies when they do so.

I question whether you have a bullying tendency not just from my experience of your debates with me, but also with others. You appear to be able to demonstrate little restraint from the temptation of engaging in ad hominem attacks.

RedCelt69 wrote:Too harsh a word? Calling you insane? Well, let's see. According to you, either the entirety of Catholicism is correct or none of it is. But what if every part of the bible was correct, apart from the last written testament: Matthew. Imagine what that would mean? Jesus Christ, son of God, delivered the message... and it was recorded faithfully, apart from one late-comer who provided a lot of nonense about the Nativity and Peter being The Rock? What then?

Matthew's was not the last to be written, that was John's. Matthew's was probably the second to be written.

RedCelt69 wrote:All or nothing? You really do live in a binary state.

What I'm saying is that I'd have to start again from some sort of zero-faith state. That would be the most intellectually honest position. Frank has retained his Catholic cultural indentity but felt no longer able to remain a Catholic. He was no able, as I wouldn't be, to chuck the bits he didn't like away since it would not be honest. He fell away entirely.

RedCelt69 wrote:Well now, tell me about the aspects of my life for which you should feel pity for me.

It not about pity. It about getting you to understand that I do not hate you or anyone else here.

RedCelt69 wrote:You have no idea, because I've never shared them. I'm certainly not going to play a game of "my woes are greater than yours" but entertain the idea, if you can, that nobody on here has a life of blissful harmony.

I realise that and it is a point I was trying to make on the issue of human nature and the human condition. I'm not that ignorant.

RedCelt69 wrote:How's the conversion rate? Has anyone decided to stop "shaking hands"?

Actions speak louder than words. God does the converting not me.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:41 pm

More interestingly, in earlier texts. Barabbas, which means 'Son of the Father', was referred to 'Jesus Barabbas'. This is somewhat preseved when Pilate refers to Jesus as, 'Jesus whom you call the Christ'. Barabbas is that temporal leader who was captured for trying to overthrow the Roman occupation.


It seems like someone is getting somewhere if you have been allowed to know of this. A few years back you wouldn't have been allowed to say any such thing in public - without at least being barraged with more venom than "confessing" to be gay brings you just now.

What earlier texts do refer to, so far as I know is that "Barrabas" or "Jesus Barrabas" was in fact James his brother. And Pilate, in what is really an apochryphal story, since the Romans never ever admitted of a "holiday" which allowed the Jews to choose a victim, offered them the choice of Jesus Christ or Jesus Barrabas. A form of the word "barrabas" in Aramaic actually means "holy man". Based on the same principle, that regardless of whom they chose the combination of Temporal and Spiritual Messiah would be destroyed and put paid to the confidence the Jews could have had in any uprising. That notion of Barrabas being anything more than a criminal is one of the many calumnies foisted on the true history to prove a point in the validity of the Catholic principle of Jesus being the one and only Messiah, He couldn't have been - the prohesies specified two.

Even more than that, Barrabas could not have been the Temporal Messiah for the simple reason that Jesus was. That's the whole point of the heredity line that is laid out so specifically in the New Testament. Jesus was born into the House of David. Both John, son of Mary's sister, and James could both claim heredity from the House of Levi. Only those who were descended from the House of David could claim a Temporal legitimacy and only those from the House of Levi could enter the priesthood.

That was seen as the ultimate combination - Jesus as a WARRIOR King leading the revolt and then assuming the role and title of King of the Jews and John or James assuming the role of Priest Messiah and the two of them reigning over a Kingdom of God on Earth. The Romans knew what they were doing - they knew the Revolt that Jesus was planning could not succeed unless those two conditions were met. More than anything else, the historical facts and traditions of Judaism essentially denies Jesus any authority in being looked upon as a spritual teacher.

In the same way, there has been a deliberate and concerted effort to misinterpret the term "Son of Man" It actually refers to the 12 tribes of Israel and the belief, in Jesus and his followers calculations, that the tribes of Israel will finally be driven to revolt by the execution of the rightful heir to the Throne.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:36 pm

macgamer wrote:I've observed your disputation about humanism in this thread and elsewhere and you still have failed to convey what you understand by humanism, or you have not at least offered a view of humanism that anyone here finds particularly attractive. Sell your humanism to The Sinner.

Not here. Not now.

macgamer wrote:
RedCelt69 wrote:The father, the son, the holy spirit... oh, and Satan. Not exactly a monotheism. Plus, Catholicism throws the Blessed Virgin Mary into the mixing pot, to further pollute the original message.

Stawmen are always easier to deal with...

Hey, you're the one who gave the name to Satan; the god who isn't a god.

macgamer wrote:Tell me, what do you value? Then I'll be convinced that you reject nihilism.

What I do (or do not) value is utterly moot. Here, let me Google it, seeing as how you can't be bothered.

World English Dictionary wrote:nihilism (ˈnaɪɪˌlɪzəm)

— n
1. a complete denial of all established authority and institutions
2. philosophy an extreme form of scepticism that systematically rejects all values, belief in existence, the possibility of communication, etc
3. a revolutionary doctrine of destruction for its own sake
4. the practice or promulgation of terrorism

[C19: from Latin nihil nothing + -ism , on the model of German Nihilismus ]


Lacking any context (to highlight which one is being referenced) I'd work with the philosophical definition. Regardless, none of those apply to me. None of them are invalidated by the holding of any kind of value.

macgamer wrote:MEOW. I don't see how hold alternative views on the interaction between the state, society and the individual makes someone an 'evolutionary throw-back'.

A lot of time has passed since Hobbes. Even more time has passed since Aquinas. Does the phrase really require further explanation?

macgamer wrote:Why don't you set up a poll in a new topic and allow The Sinner to express its opinion with how I engage or not with debate here or any other aspect. My discussions with The Cellar Bar, Wild_quinine and JollyTiddlyWink involved engagement.

Engagement? Great. Did anything change, thereafter?

macgamer wrote:You claim I have made a prison for myself. Well, actually when things were looking bleak for me last year that is how it seemed to me: a prisoner and prison guard. That, mentally, no longer operates. If you could have seen before and after you would see that I have changed greatly.

Your prison is Catholicism or, more closely, Natural Law. The torment you went through (and still struggle with) is due to personal choice. And I don't mean your homosexuality. You choose to believe all of that utter bullshit. You can call me mean/spiteful/antagonistic as much as you like. That wasn't my starting point. I tried to help your troubled mind. That might have been as far back as 4 years ago... and I've long since stopped trying to help.

That became especially true when your position about condoms came to light. In poor countries, your position is (to borrow a word) an abomination. All of those short, brutal existences that needn't happen. You approve of it happening as it is much better (by your reckoning) than men wearing a bit of latex on their cocks.

So, with that in mind, I couldn't give a flying fuck about you getting depressed because your chosen belief-system was at odds with your sexuality.

macgamer wrote:I question whether you have a bullying tendency not just from my experience of your debates with me, but also with others. You appear to be able to demonstrate little restraint from the temptation of engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Stupidity and a lack of rationality are the two triggers for (pretty much) all of my ire. As an example, your misunderstanding of the phrase ad hominem.

An ad hominem is to attack the person instead of their position. Attacking them as well as their position isn’t ad hominem.

Example:-
1. You’re an idiot.
2. A is not equal to B because A is equal to C and C is not equal to B… you idiot.

1 is ad hominem 2 is not ad hominem. It’s insulting, but sometimes insults are deserved.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:47 am

The Cellar Bar wrote:It seems like someone is getting somewhere if you have been allowed to know of this. A few years back you wouldn't have been allowed to say any such thing in public - without at least being barraged with more venom than "confessing" to be gay brings you just now.

I'm not sure what you mean?

The Cellar Bar wrote:What earlier texts do refer to, so far as I know is that "Barrabas" or "Jesus Barrabas" was in fact James his brother. And Pilate, in what is really an apochryphal story, since the Romans never ever admitted of a "holiday" which allowed the Jews to choose a victim, offered them the choice of Jesus Christ or Jesus Barrabas. A form of the word "barrabas" in Aramaic actually means "holy man". Based on the same principle, that regardless of whom they chose the combination of Temporal and Spiritual Messiah would be destroyed and put paid to the confidence the Jews could have had in any uprising. That notion of Barrabas being anything more than a criminal is one of the many calumnies foisted on the true history to prove a point in the validity of the Catholic principle of Jesus being the one and only Messiah, He couldn't have been - the prohesies specified two.

I agree there is evidence in the Gospels for the Jews trying to determine whether Jesus was the Messiah. There was that rather amusing aside where Nathanael retorts to Philip who has claimed he has found the Messiah, 'Nazareth?! Can anything good come out of there?'

Then, later in John's Gospel,
John 7 wrote:Others said, 'This is the Christ'; and others again, 'Is the Christ, then, to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture told us that Christ is to come from the family of David, and from the village of Bethlehem, where David lived?' Thus there was a division of opinion about him among the multitude; some of them would have seized him by violence, but no one laid hands on him.

Meanwhile the officers had gone back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, 'Why have you not brought him here?' The officers answered,' Nobody has ever spoken as this man speaks.' And the Pharisees answered, 'Have you, too, let yourselves be deceived? Have any of the rulers come to believe in him yet, or of the Pharisees? As for these common folk who have no knowledge of the law, a curse is on them.' Here Nicodemus, the same man who came to Jesus by night, who was one of their number, asked, 'Is it the way of our law to judge a man without giving him a hearing first, and finding out what he is about?' They answered him, 'Are you, too, from Galilee? Look in the scriptures; you will find that Galilee does not breed prophets.' And they went back, each to his own home.


The Cellar Bar wrote:That was seen as the ultimate combination - Jesus as a WARRIOR King leading the revolt and then assuming the role and title of King of the Jews and John or James assuming the role of Priest Messiah and the two of them reigning over a Kingdom of God on Earth. The Romans knew what they were doing - they knew the Revolt that Jesus was planning could not succeed unless those two conditions were met. More than anything else, the historical facts and traditions of Judaism essentially denies Jesus any authority in being looked upon as a spritual teacher.

In the same way, there has been a deliberate and concerted effort to misinterpret the term "Son of Man" It actually refers to the 12 tribes of Israel and the belief, in Jesus and his followers calculations, that the tribes of Israel will finally be driven to revolt by the execution of the rightful heir to the Throne.

I find no evidence in the Gospels of Jesus being a 'warrior' King. Does he not say to Peter when he cuts off the ear of the High Priest's servant, 'All those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. Do you doubt that if I call upon my Father, even now, he will send more than twelve legions of angels to my side? But how, were it so, should the scriptures be fulfilled, which have prophesied that all must be as it is?'
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:35 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:Hey, you're the one who gave the name to Satan; the god who isn't a god.

False gods. His power or influence only comes from what was given him originally as one of the angels.

RedCelt69 wrote:What I do (or do not) value is utterly moot. Here, let me Google it, seeing as how you can't be bothered.

World English Dictionary wrote:nihilism (ˈnaɪɪˌlɪzəm)

— n
1. a complete denial of all established authority and institutions
2. philosophy an extreme form of scepticism that systematically rejects all values, belief in existence, the possibility of communication, etc
3. a revolutionary doctrine of destruction for its own sake
4. the practice or promulgation of terrorism

[C19: from Latin nihil nothing + -ism , on the model of German Nihilismus ]


Lacking any context (to highlight which one is being referenced) I'd work with the philosophical definition. Regardless, none of those apply to me. None of them are invalidated by the holding of any kind of value.

I did indeed mean philosophical nihilism. Perhaps you do not reject all values.

RedCelt69 wrote:A lot of time has passed since Hobbes. Even more time has passed since Aquinas. Does the phrase really require further explanation?

That's not an argument. Just because a significant amount of time has passed does not mean that their writings are invalidated. A large amount of time has passed since Newton wrote his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica but that does not invalidate the universal law of gravitation.

RedCelt69 wrote:Engagement? Great. Did anything change, thereafter?

Why must significant change occur in order to satisfy you? Seldom do people's views change overnight, there is a gradual undermining of positions held previously followed by a readjustment. Perhaps the 'drip, drip, drip' tactic is working on me RedCelt69?

RedCelt69 wrote:Your prison is Catholicism or, more closely, Natural Law. The torment you went through (and still struggle with) is due to personal choice. And I don't mean your homosexuality. You choose to believe all of that utter bullshit. You can call me mean/spiteful/antagonistic as much as you like. That wasn't my starting point. I tried to help your troubled mind. That might have been as far back as 4 years ago... and I've long since stopped trying to help.

I have told you that it is not my Catholicism. There is an intrinsic understanding that SSA, especially those with SSA, directs certain individuals towards a genital expression of sexuality discordant with the function of the sex. This inner conflict may be resolved by rejecting or ignoring the true function of sex or (rationalisation), as I have, realising that actually sex isn't the pinacle of human interaction and one can live without it.

Those with SSA are free to make their own choices on how to cope, some choose a genital expression and you know, despite disagreeing with them I do understand that choice. Here, I give justification for my own position, not the condemnation of those of others. I'm sorry if it appears like the latter, but it is not.

RedCelt69 wrote:That became especially true when your position about condoms came to light. In poor countries, your position is (to borrow a word) an abomination. All of those short, brutal existences that needn't happen. You approve of it happening as it is much better (by your reckoning) than men wearing a bit of latex on their cocks.

You're changing the subject here. I could retort, as you did, 'Not here. Not now'. I shall instead, refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comments on this matter, which he shall find are part of a consist application of the view that sex is for procreation and encouraging promiscuity by risk compensation erodes any benefits that condoms have at preventing STIs. Why are chlamydia and HPV rising in Britain despite access to condom and education? Would it be that their modes of transfer are not preventing by a prophylactic?

Problems in LEDCs are not solved by chucking condoms at them, sterilising their men and women and aborting their unborn children. Education and development will change outcomes and the fortunes of the people in developing countries. I and the Church are not preventing other agencies distributing condoms and other more sinister ways of 'preventing those Africans from filling up the world'.

Every new human being is a cause for hope because it provides potential for change and inventiveness. Despite their deprivation, people in developing countries are far more hopeful than we privileged Westerners. I have hope in humanity, whereas the mindset that distributes condoms or throws money at the situation (without actually doing something) is a despairing, 'they can't control themselves, they are poor because they are instrinsically incompetent, so let's pity them and feel good about ourselves.'

RedCelt69 wrote:So, with that in mind, I couldn't give a flying fuck about you getting depressed because your chosen belief-system was at odds with your sexuality.

For whom or what do you care? I just cannot believe that you are like this normally, or at least I really hope not for your sake and those around you.

RedCelt69 wrote:Stupidity and a lack of rationality are the two triggers for (pretty much) all of my ire. As an example, your misunderstanding of the phrase ad hominem.

An ad hominem is to attack the person instead of their position. Attacking them as well as their position isn’t ad hominem.

Example:-
1. You’re an idiot.
2. A is not equal to B because A is equal to C and C is not equal to B… you idiot.

1 is ad hominem 2 is not ad hominem. It’s insulting, but sometimes insults are deserved.

I think you'd make a good Jesuit if you were that way inclined.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:04 pm

I find no evidence in the Gospels of Jesus being a 'warrior' King.


The evidence is in his blood line macgamer. Pure and simple. The Scriptures go to great lengths to specify and assert his descent from David, who was the warrior king. And as I said, Jewish tradition laid down very specific conditions as to the role that any individual could play within the tribes themselves. And in that respect, those from the House of David were the warriors and those, for instance from the House of Levi were the "Holy Men" - descendants of Aaron. What makes it especially interesting in the case of Jesus is the fact that a) his claim to the throne of King of the Jews was stronger on his mother's line and that b) the plethora of "Matthews" as a name also shows a strong connection to the House of Levi. Matthew was traditionally a name within that house. Which is why there is mention of Jesus coming from there
Has not the scripture told us that Christ is to come from the family of David, and from the village of Bethlehem, where David lived?'
What further strengthens that claim and that association is the fact that "Nazareth" translates as "Branch Village" due to the fact that it was a well-known palce for those from the House of David who had settled there. It's why "Nazareth" as a name doesn't begin to appear later as an "histoical" fact - simply because it was a nickname. Rather like referring to London as "The Smoke" It's also why if you remember the infamous siege at Waco a few years back that the sect called themselves "Branch Davidians".

In terms of that comment about the outrage that might have come your way had you suggested that Barrabas was anything more than a common criminal - that until recently was the simple fact. Throughout the centuries since all of this, the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to expunge any suggestion that Barrabas had any association with Christ. Despite the fact that any look at the translations would show at least some doubt as to his identity in such terms. If nothing else, progress seems to have been made as the literary and historical facts begin to reveal the truth of such matters. That to me is progress. As I said, "we" seem to be making progress if those facts are now being accepted rather than met with the fury and outrage that certainly did meet any suggestion that there was a "second Messiah" in the past. Jewish tradition insisted that there were to be two Messiahs so justice at least seems to have been done.

What is more heartening in many respects is the even stronger point, that you and others elsewhere now seem to accept the designation of James being one of His brothers - as detailed in Matthew for all these years. Actual brothers....not this ridiculous assertion of him being "kinsman" or possibly maybe cousin or distant relative. Equally that John the Baptiser was in all probablility his cousin, nephew of Mary and son of her sister Elizabeth. What it revelas, to the historians among us, is an incredibly powerful place that this "family" occupied in Jewish society. Look even further and you will find that the other brothers also went on to succeed James as leader of the Temple right up until about 90 AD when his brother Simeon must have been in his 90's. This Nazarene family were incredibly powerful - which goes some way to explaining why the Romans continued to pursue and persecute the family for the 70 odd years after they had executed the seditionist they saw Jesus to be.

One of the more interesting developments that I have come across, both in terms of the history and also the religious texts, is the grwoing view that Christ didn't actually see himself as being the Messiah in the terms we have come to understand. As I said earlier, the reference to "The Son of Man" is one to the twelve tribes of Israel, with only two of them in Judaea itself and the rest of them scattered across the Aegean basin and forming the "Diaspora" we talk of. Christ refers to the "Son of Man" and in doing so refers, not to Himself, but to these tribes. And talks of how the "Son of Man" will rise in three days of his death. There is a growing suspicion that, for whatever reason, Jesus has perceived of Himself as being the catalyst for the Uprising through his martyrdom and death. It's an incredible theory I agree but for whatever reason, there is a strong body of opinion now growing that suggests that He had taken on the role of offering Himself and His death to finally cause the kind of outrage and anger among the Jews that they will finally rise up. That he accepted, and actually caused the situation of His death to happen and that he had long accepted that he would not assume the Throne but would be the one to lead the way for another to take on that role. Your quote
Do you doubt that if I call upon my Father, even now, he will send more than twelve legions of angels to my side? But how, were it so, should the scriptures be fulfilled, which have prophesied that all must be as it is?'
What he is saying essentially is that he is in a position to raise an army that would prevail over the Romans....but the Prophesies would not be fulfilled if He did so. Twelve legions?.....twelve tribes? What exactly does or could He have meant by "all must be as it is" if it doesn't suggest that was the plan?

Apologies again for yet another history lesson :) The point is that it fits in to what I have been trying to say throughout. When I said read the Scriptures and then cahse down the allusion and references, what Iwas trying to say is that you basically have a choice. A choice between actually discovering what Christ and the society he lived in in fact took on about homosexuality and sexuality in general. Or adopting and accepting what a Westernised version of His teaching and mores and, in my mind, distorting them for a purpose that was never intended from the source. Jesus, and even Paul, held no great moral outrage against homosexuals. Jesus and Paul, too had no mysoginistic insulting views of women and the role in their Movement and society in general. Again, read the texts, and also the other texts and Gospels that you aren't allowed to consider, and you will find that women played a huge role in the Movement. Accept if nothing else, that Peter was not the Rock on which the Church was built. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He made him the janitor, the doorkeeper, the bouncer. Nothing more nothing less. Certainly no suggestion that Peter would lead the Movement and control its direction. But there has long been an understanding that Mary Magdalene played a much greater role in the development of the Movement which for some unknown (?) reason the Church has also seen fit to denigrate and reduce over the past 2,000 years.

Read the texts - I implore you. And then hopefull come to the conclusion that like I keep saying - you are not broken!!!!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby wild_quinine on Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:23 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:Why? Give sound and valid reasoning why I should expend even more time explaining my position. To you.


Normative should as in 'ought'? No reason. But if you want to improve your viewpoints, there have been some fairly decent criticisms levelled so far. I've made a few of them in a new thread, to avoid further de-railing this one. It should be helpful, I would think.

Although I do significantly disagree with the position as you've so far put it forwards, I've dropped 90% of my usually flippancy in an effort to avoid invoking your 'I'm a dick' rule, which also seems to have an unfortunate effect on your clarity of your own posts.

I don't have a duty to educate you. There is no pay/reward system.


I'm not going to say anything ridiculous, like that I never learned a thing from you or anything you said. But if you think that this exchange ought to have been a one way street, you're delusional. You're a smart person. But you have flaws, and so do your worldviews. Even you recognise that, in the abstract. You just seem to be upset by the specifics.

I mean, I hope that my position can be accepted more widely, because the world would be a better place if it rid itself of such illiberal thinking...


Hmm.

But that's for later, when my time at St Andrews is at an end and I can dedicate myself more efficiently to such things. Assuming I can get my writing published. I can but try.


If you want help or advice on the publishing front, I may not be useless to you.

If you make good use of my post in the other thread, I would accept a credit in the acknowledgements as Quinn Wilde.

I haven't painted myself into a corner. I'm not in a corner. I'm not in a room. You are the one who is trapped in a room with closed walls. Can you even see the door?


I was supposed to laugh at this, right? I thought it was *brilliant*.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:35 pm

The Cellar Bar wrote:The evidence is in his blood line macgamer. Pure and simple. The Scriptures go to great lengths to specify and assert his descent from David, who was the warrior king. And as I said, Jewish tradition laid down very specific conditions as to the role that any individual could play within the tribes themselves. And in that respect, those from the House of David were the warriors and those, for instance from the House of Levi were the "Holy Men" - descendants of Aaron. What makes it especially interesting in the case of Jesus is the fact that a) his claim to the throne of King of the Jews was stronger on his mother's line and that b) the plethora of "Matthews" as a name also shows a strong connection to the House of Levi. Matthew was traditionally a name within that house. Which is why there is mention of Jesus coming from there
Has not the scripture told us that Christ is to come from the family of David, and from the village of Bethlehem, where David lived?'
What further strengthens that claim and that association is the fact that "Nazareth" translates as "Branch Village" due to the fact that it was a well-known palce for those from the House of David who had settled there. It's why "Nazareth" as a name doesn't begin to appear later as an "histoical" fact - simply because it was a nickname. Rather like referring to London as "The Smoke" It's also why if you remember the infamous siege at Waco a few years back that the sect called themselves "Branch Davidians".

The additional connection with Levi suggests that Jesus was two 'Messiahs for the price of one'. Where is the armed struggle that Jesus Christ is supposed to have lead? Certainly it came afterwards with the Jewish uprising ~66 AD, the sack of Jerusalem ~70 AD, which Jesus appears to prophesy during his journey to calvary speaking with the women of Jerusalem, and the interesting seige of Masada. The latter was an embarrassment for the Romans.

The Cellar Bar wrote:In terms of that comment about the outrage that might have come your way had you suggested that Barrabas was anything more than a common criminal - that until recently was the simple fact. Throughout the centuries since all of this, the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to expunge any suggestion that Barrabas had any association with Christ. Despite the fact that any look at the translations would show at least some doubt as to his identity in such terms. If nothing else, progress seems to have been made as the literary and historical facts begin to reveal the truth of such matters. That to me is progress. As I said, "we" seem to be making progress if those facts are now being accepted rather than met with the fury and outrage that certainly did meet any suggestion that there was a "second Messiah" in the past. Jewish tradition insisted that there were to be two Messiahs so justice at least seems to have been done.

I learnt about Jesus Barabbas from a footnote in Mgr Ronald Knox's (a Catholic convert) translation of the New Testament, finished in 1943. As for a 'second Messiah' I accept it insomuch as that was what the Jews were expecting. Jesus Christ was a disappointment to them. Other Jewish 'Messiahs' came after promising military salvation and also proved a disappointment.

The Cellar Bar wrote:What is more heartening in many respects is the even stronger point, that you and others elsewhere now seem to accept the designation of James being one of His brothers - as detailed in Matthew for all these years. Actual brothers....not this ridiculous assertion of him being "kinsman" or possibly maybe cousin or distant relative.


I'm suppose you'd find the following unconvincing?
Catholic Encyclopedia / NewAdvent.com wrote:That [James and Joseph] were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the manuscripts of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

Full article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm


The Cellar Bar wrote:Equally that John the Baptiser was in all probablility his cousin, nephew of Mary and son of her sister Elizabeth. What it revelas, to the historians among us, is an incredibly powerful place that this "family" occupied in Jewish society. Look even further and you will find that the other brothers also went on to succeed James as leader of the Temple right up until about 90 AD when his brother Simeon must have been in his 90's. This Nazarene family were incredibly powerful - which goes some way to explaining why the Romans continued to pursue and persecute the family for the 70 odd years after they had executed the seditionist they saw Jesus to be.

Second cousins, with Mary mother of Jesus being a cousin of Elizabeth mother of John the Baptist:

Catholic Encylopedia wrote:Zachary, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest of the course of Abia, the eighth of the twenty-four courses into which the priests were divided (1 Chronicles 24:7-19); Elizabeth, the Precursor's mother, "was of the daughters of Aaron", according to St. Luke (1:5); the same Evangelist, a few verses farther on (1:36), calls her the "cousin" (syggenis) of Mary. These two statements appear to be conflicting, for how, it will be asked, could a cousin of the Blessed Virgin be "of the daughters of Aaron"? The problem might be solved by adopting the reading given in an old Persian version, where we find "mother's sister" (metradelphe) instead of "cousin".

A somewhat analogous explanation, probably borrowed from some apocryphal writing, and perhaps correct, is given by St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor., II, iii). According to him, Mathan had three daughters: Mary, Soba, and Ann. Mary, the oldest, married a man of Bethlehem and was the mother of Salome; Soba married at Bethlehem also, but a "son of Levi", by whom she had Elizabeth; Ann wedded a Galilean (Joachim) and bore Mary, the Mother of God. Thus Salome, Elizabeth, and the Blessed Virgin were first cousins, and Elizabeth, "of the daughters of Aaron" on her father's side, was, on her mother's side, the cousin of Mary . Zachary's home is designated only in a vague manner by St. Luke: it was "a city of Juda", "in the hill-country" (1:39). Reland, advocating the unwarranted assumption that Juda might be a misspelling of the name, proposed to read in its stead Jutta (Joshua 15:55; 21:16; D.V.; Jota, Jeta), a priestly town south of Hebron. But priests did not always live in priestly towns (Mathathias's home was at Modin; Simon Machabeus's at Gaza). A tradition, which can be traced back to the time before the Crusades, points to the little town of Ain-Karim, five miles south-west of Jerusalem.

Full article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm


What you are saying makes some sense from a reading of the Gospel by someone who denies the divinity of Christ. Jesus was quite explicit as to His identity as the Son of God, and moreover God:

John 8 wrote:'Honour must come to me from my Father, from him whom you claim as your God; although you cannot recognize him. But I have knowledge of him; if I should say I have not, I should be what you are, a liar. Yes, I have knowledge of him, and I am true to his word. As for your father Abraham, his heart was proud to see the day of my coming; he saw, and rejoiced to see it.' Then the Jews asked him, 'Have you seen Abraham, you, who are not yet fifty years old?' And Jesus said to them, 'Believe me, before ever Abraham came to be, I am'. Whereupon they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Jesus by using 'I am' has taken the name of the Lord onto Himself. To the Jews this is a double blasphemy and their reaction is hardly surprising.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Apologies again for yet another history lesson :) The point is that it fits in to what I have been trying to say throughout. When I said read the Scriptures and then cahse down the allusion and references, what Iwas trying to say is that you basically have a choice. A choice between actually discovering what Christ and the society he lived in in fact took on about homosexuality and sexuality in general. Or adopting and accepting what a Westernised version of His teaching and mores and, in my mind, distorting them for a purpose that was never intended from the source. Jesus, and even Paul, held no great moral outrage against homosexuals. Jesus and Paul, too had no mysoginistic insulting views of women and the role in their Movement and society in general. Again, read the texts, and also the other texts and Gospels that you aren't allowed to consider, and you will find that women played a huge role in the Movement. Accept if nothing else, that Peter was not the Rock on which the Church was built. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He made him the janitor, the doorkeeper, the bouncer. Nothing more nothing less. Certainly no suggestion that Peter would lead the Movement and control its direction. But there has long been an understanding that Mary Magdalene played a much greater role in the development of the Movement which for some unknown (?) reason the Church has also seen fit to denigrate and reduce over the past 2,000 years.

My objection homosexual acts is philosophical more than scriptural. The scriptures for me are they to understand God's revelation and to understand who God is. Yes, there is morality contained within them, but just relying on a literal application the scriptures, as the Pharisee's of Jesus' day did, does not guarantee a moral life.

As to women, undoubtedly their role in the early Church was crucial. They were the first to witness and spread the news of the resurrection after all! There is development of doctrine and influences from tradition, which will have been passed down through the Church in an unwritten form. Many of the Church Fathers reference their writings with, 'I heard this from so-and-so who taught me, and he from the other guy' in a chain back to the apostles. The Church spreads to the Gospel to all peoples from all cultures. The role of women is different in some cultures to others, but there is always some connection to the biological sexual dimorphism - women bear the children. That's for the Feminism vs. Humanism thread perhaps.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Read the texts - I implore you. And then hopefull come to the conclusion that like I keep saying - you are not broken!!!!

Thanks for these interesting pieces of information. I'm not a biblical scholar, I'm still learning. More needs to be made in Catholic catechesis of the historicity of the bible. I do not consider myself 'broken' in the sense that you think. I have the same human nature as you and perhaps even that higher being, RedCelt69.

I'm still trying to understand human sexuality. The power of it frightens me. Call me emotionally immature if you like, it probably would be a fair assessment. However, would you recommend an emotionally immature person do start a mature relationship before he had achieved the requiste level of development? Surely that is a recipe to be exploited bringing with it more pain?

During my depression, I had fleeting thoughts of abandoning Catholicism and experimenting with same-sex relationships. I shared these thoughts with non-Catholic friends of mine. Do you know what they said to me? 'Don't do it.' Their point was that I needed to have a solid self-esteem, to become a stronger person and to not just throw away my faith on a whim that had meant so much to me. They saw every chance that I would end up even more unhappy than before.

It takes a true friend to say that. Someone who actually cares and who doesn't relish or delight in the loss of someone's faith even if they think it is nonsense.

Can you accept the choice of one who realises that he is not suited psychologically (and for reasons of conscience) to intimate relationships involving the genital expression of sexuality? Thank-you for reaching out to me, your approach is one of compassion, whereas as RedCelt69's is something rather different.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:55 am

Hi macgamer - you doing OK?

What I'd say in terms of the armed struggle, is that it runs through the entire narrative of what Jesus and John, for instance, were at work doing from the very beginning. A case in point would be the supposed or argued miracle of the raising of Lazaus which essentially makes more sense when, once again, read within an historical context. The historical fact is that Lazarus was one of Jesus "lieutenants" who had lead a series of assaults on the Romans, including a failed effort to destroy the water supply into Jeruslaem itself. With a good deal of predictability, the Sanhedrin Council, in an effort to appease the Roman autorities, had essentially "excommunicated" Lazarus and removed from him from the Jewish community and refused him the right to participate in any of the functions of worship. Look carefully at other comments about "the dead" in the Scriptures fom an historical point of view and you will see that it means "lost heart" or "failed to see the "rightness" of the cause" Comments such as "let the dead look after the dead" actually means to let those who failed to accept the argument for revolt to their own devices. The historical underatanding now is that Jesus went to visit after Lazarus had lost heart and conviction and no longer believed that any such revolt would succeed. In the three days they spent together, Jesus apparently talked Lazarus around again and convinced him of the validity of the revolt and the conviction that it would succeed. Lazarus essentially "rose from the dead"

A second more obvious argument would be that Jesus was actually executed as a "seditionist". At that point in Roman history, the Romans could have cared less who anybody worshipped. They too were of the view that their subject should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's as in payment of taxes and periodic sacrifices to their gods...but they tended to draw the line at outright sedition and revolt. The basic point is that he was executed as a putative replacement for their "place man" as King of the Jews. They knew a revolt was being planned. They declared him "INRI" on the cross. It was what the charges levelled against Him represented. And on an another historical point, the Copper Scroll fro the Essenes shows only too well just what the haul was from the injunction to "give up thy worldly goods and follow me" represented. According to the inventory contained in that Scroll, those contributions amounted to something like 34 tons of silver, 24 tons of gold...among a vast array of jewellery and other treasures that were destined for the cause.

In terms of the relationship between Jesus and his brothers, the first point would be that the statemnt of "brotherhood" emanates from Matthew. From very early on, that is, rather than from any other later claims that might have been made. Further than that, I have read that description and explanation of James and Joses and Judas and Symeon's paternal connection and it actually raises more questions than it answers.

In the first place, "Clophas" and the other variations of the name, are a translation of an Aramaic word meaning "replacement" or "substitute" If you remember the story of Onan, you should know that it was the responsibility of the next, unmarried brother of a deceased husband to marry, and to take in, the widow of a brother. "Clophas" is not a name...it's a "designation" or description. The only option we have in this case is to understand that "Clophas" is actually the brother of Joseph. Who, by implication, would have married Mary after the Joseph had died. That was the Law. That was the social and socially binding convention. So any suggestion that Mary remained a virgin (in the real sense of the word) after the birth of Jesus falls flat on its face in the light of the both the historical conventions and also the translations and descriptions. "Clophas"/"Ceophas"/"Alpaheus" was in pretty much all certainty the brother of Joseph. Hegessipus spells it out as plainly as he can - "he is the Uncle of the Lord" but it takes a real stretch of the imagination that therefore "Clophas" marries Mary's sister, Mary, by whom they have children. "Clophas" is the uncle of the Lord because he is brother of the "legalised" father. If nothing else, to further that thinking, it's an undoubted fact that "Joses" is the informal name for "Joseph" and a familial memorial to his brother. To me, it's purely a device to explain away what the Gospels somewhat inconventienly spell out as fact and to distance any relative or brother in an effort to perpetuate the mistranslation of what "virgin" actually meant to infer.

More than that, there has been a continual effort to dostort what the word "virgin" actually means. The Aramaic word used means "unmarried". Nothing more nothing less. Lot's daughter was also a "virgin". She was unmarried which is why Lot would have suggested she join the party goers who called at Lot's house. As I've said before, there was no presumption or suggestion that either she or Mary were not sexually active or experienced before marriage. Simply a bald statement that they were unmarried. Again, if nothing else, no comment on their moral character as a result.

So what we have in that context, is the very real possiblity that Mary was indeed the unmarried teenage mother of Jesus who then went on to marry her guardian's brother afther Joseph's death.

And basically, as a combination, all four Gospels raise some huge problems of definition as to the names involved. No-one, for instance, can possibly believe that Mary, Mother of Jesus, had a sister ALSO called Mary and that she was possibly maybe another candidate for the brothers. The simple, unspoken, uncommented upon fact which carries absolutely no denigration among the people who lived at the time, with none of the imprecation or moralising that is grafted onto it in later centuries from "Rome" is detailed in Matthew.

Equally, with absolutely no disrespect for what you hold to be true, if I seem to deny the Divinity of Jesus....then so does He. At no time, am I aware that he claims Divinity. Pilate asks him if he is the "Son of God". He makes no comment or reply. What I did talk about was the "Son of Man" discussion which is totally different. The Prophesies talk of the "Son of Man" rising again and it refers to the Twelve tribes of Israel and not to any one single individual. Strip down the variations from the Gospels of what He talks about and in its historical context, Jesus is also referring to the rising of "The Son of Man" in three days as being the revolt that will emerge from his execution and Martyrdom that the Jews will regard as the final straw. I sincerely believe that's what He is referring to when He talks of the "Twelve Legions" and how His causing that rising will actually undo the efforts of the Prophesies. I find that even more perplexing than anything else because the implication is that, as He said often enough, He is not essentially destined to rule the Kingdom but believes in the Prophesies which talk of another Messiah coming after Him who will complete the objectives. That's why, in fact, as you rightly say, He actually does foresee the coming uprising - because he believes His Martyrdom will be the spark that causes it!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:34 am

Thank-you for reaching out to me, your approach is one of compassion,


seriously and absolutely not a problem, macgamer. It's takes a deal to say what you have said in that, and all through this, I have tried to make sure not to denigrate what it is that is and has driven you both to distraction and depression by the sounds of it. If nothing else, you have more courage than a goodly number of people I know.

And I'd tend to agree with your friend. Not necessarily for the same reasons, but I would say that what you need to do basically is "define" yourself and who you want to become. That in itself has traditionally been something of a religious journey. Which is why, I "disagree" with your line of thinking. Because I seriously don't see any dichtomy between you looking for some sort of "guidance" in how you want to conduct yourself - ie your Faith ....and what it is otherwise that you are finding out about yourself.

I honestly do not see why you should feel that you should, in your words, "abandon your Faith" on account of your sexuality. But you sure as hell do not need any further confusion in your life right now in terms of attempting to develop and understand your sexuality. I agree - sexuality and the "power" it can exert can be daunting. But its physical expression doesn't have to dominate the rest of "who you are "essentially. It doesn't have to be a case of "one or the other". It is a part of who you are. It isn't WHO you are. It might - might - cause you to respond to things in the world around you....but I don't see why see any prospect of it dictating how you relate to others outside of a personal relationship. I'm not being facetious.....but the Romans probably had the right idea :) As in, I and a huge proportion of the population of the planet could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home in terms of how you form close personal relationships to bolster you against whatever the world throws at you. Remain as "celibate" as you want. Because in the long run, I don't know of too many "gay" surgeons who failed to live up to expectations because they were gay. Or writers thinkers teachers parents boxers football players athletes who found that their skills and what they bring to the world were somehow stunted or "broken" because they were gay.

Just be who you are and the "journey" and what is in you will eventually tell you that you have reached the point where you are comfortable with who you are.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby Humphrey on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Well, this has been an interesting thread. Macgamer, I agree with Cellar Bar ‘you are not broken’ and I applaud you for ‘coming out’ or however you want to term it.

I think – on the point of how homosexuality has come to be viewed in the Christian tradition (and by extension the Western World) we have to examine the attitudes that shaped the Old and New Testament; and also those of the Patristics.

Firstly, looking at ancient Jewish culture the attempts to say that Paul of Tarsus confined himself to condemning certain types of homosexual behaviour don’t convince me. The caveat to this is that the assumptions behind Paul’s denigration of same sex relations are totally different to ours – I would go so far as to say that they are totally alien to ours & frankly weird. There does seem to be a centuries old tradition of Jewish aversion to sexual relations between men (going back to the sixth century BC) which ones sees in extra-biblical sources such as Philo and Josephus. The question is why? It goes back to the way Jews viewed sexual acts, which is that they are only lawful if they end with semen being deposited in the female uterus. Any emission of semen outside this context is a contamination. In fact even getting emitting so much as a drop of semen would mean you are impure for an entire day.

Why were they so obsessed with spunk (to the extent that there is an entire body of law on jizz outlined in Leviticus)? Because they believed their duty was to increase and multiply, thus populating the earth – later it was to preserve their racial identity and to avoid disappearing as a group. For example in a few verses same sex acts are condemned as an ‘abomination’. Abomination (the word Toevah) means mixing or confusion – the mixing of unlike things was repulsive to the Israelites as they regarded their cultural and physical existence as depending on staying separate.

Another issue was the ancient hang-up with penetration; the view being that being sexually penetrated is a sign of weakness and submission (in Roman society for example, those who were weaker were supposed to be subservient to the strong). To be dominated in such a way would be to lose one’s claim to power and honour (the principle male virtue). A good example is the Roman poet Catullus who wrote in Improba Carmina:

I will fuck you in the ass and in the mouth,
Aurelius you sodomised ass licker
And Furius, cock-sucking little pervert,
Who think me, from my little verses
Which are sensual, to be far too wanton.

The point here is that Furius and Aurelius are questioning Catullus masculinity so he responds by threatening to penetrate them. There’s nothing homosexual about his verses because for the Romans sex was about power and dominance. Instead the shame and the dishonor goes to the passive partner (against whom early prescriptions against homosexuality were directed).

In terms of Christian attitudes to homosexuality, the surprising them is that the Bible was not the only, or even the principle source of early Christian ethics (most of the provisions of ancient Jewish law would have seemed intolerable and were abandoned). The idea that the only lawful end of sexual nature was procreation may not have won out and it’s ascendancy was far from assured. Instead Christian misgivings on the subject of homosexual practices stem from other arguments which can be categorised as animal, unsavory associations, nature and gender expectations. These were those which eventually won out.

The animal argument comes from the (apocryphal) epistle of Barnabas which claims – among other things - that Moses said that eating a hare would cause you to become a child molester as it grows a new arsehole each year. Others singled out were the hyena (changes gender) and the weasel (conceives through the mouth). The church father Clement of Alexandra uses these arguments to denigrate homosexuality (he knew hyenas couldn't change gender but assumed the males mounted each other a lot) and these were passed down through Western culture through the bestiaries.

The unsavoury association argument followed from the practice (apparently common in the ancient world) of selling abandoned children into sex slavery. Tertullian and Clement rail against this because it could result in accidental incest. Homosexual acts were also associated with hedonism sexuality and male prostitution. You actually see something akin to this argument today with the association of homosexuality with civilizational decline.

The Nature as a moral principle argument - despite it’s later importance, doesn’t seem to have been mentioned by Jesus, or to have been a concern for St Paul. Instead this came from Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of ‘ideal nature’ – this played out similar to the animal argument. Of course it finds it’s final development in the hands of St Thomas Aquinas and now forms the touchstone of Roman catholic sexual ethics (Aquinas’s teacher – the great Albertus Magnus – thought of homosexuality as a contagious disease which could be cured by taking the fur of an Arabian animal called the alzabo (probably a hyena), burning it with pitch and grinding it to a powder, then applying it to the homosexual’s anus). The trouble with Aquinas – in many ways a brilliant thinker – is that he resorts again and again to animal behaviour as the final arbiter in matters of human sexuality. This despite the fact that he could observe dogs and cats as being promiscuous. He gets round this by claiming that animals that bring up offspring are not promiscuous – using the example of birds. This is clearly incorrect. He further bolsters his argument by claiming that – because the major moral good of the propagation of the human species is impeded – the misuse of sexual organs is wrong. The problem with this is that so does the voluntary virginity that Aquinas sees as the crowning Christian virtue, as does the ‘nocturnal emissions’ he thinks are natural and sinless. In the Summa he admits that homosexual desire is the result of a "natural" condition (which following his logic, would have made behaviour resulting from it not only inculpable but good. However homosexual acts are still called the unnatural vice by Aquinas because he thinks that they do not occur among animals; which of course they do, in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms.

Gender relations – The one patristic authority commenting at length on homosexuality was St John Chrysostom. He was influenced by Manichean opposition to pleasure and stoic reverence for nature. Essentially he, Augustine and Lactantius had a sort of misogynistic revulsion to men doing anything feminine with their sexuality (Chrysotom thought homosexual attraction was normal but found the practice abhorrent).

Hostility to gay people and their sexuality became noticeable in the West during the period of the dissolution of the Roman state-i.e., from the third through the sixth centuries; probably due to the disappearance of urban subcultures, increased governmental regulation of personal morality, and public pressure for asceticism in all sexual matters. Serious opposition did not occur until the latter half of the 12th century.

This is getting pretty long-winded. To wrap up I do struggle to see any coherent body of thought in Ancient Jewish thought or what I know of the Early Christian writings which would preclude MacGamer from attending the Manchester gay pride festival (unless of course anyone can find a hare with 10 arseholes and a cross-dressing hyena). Sure there is some base condemnation to be found in the fathers of the Church but these people also spoke out against lending at interest, jewellery and died fabrics, shaving, regular bathing, wearing wigs, performing manual labour on feast days and serving in the civil service or army. If anything the prohibition against lending at interest in the Christian tradition was far stronger than that against homosexuality but the sin of usury won out. Good thing too as the modern financial system would be impossible without it.
Humphrey
User avatar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:29 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:43 pm

Basically, I couldn't agree more with Humphrey. Looked at over the long term, the Roman Church's "interest" in sex is verging on the obsessional. And like they say, it takes a dirty mind to know one and the variations that that lot come up with has to be a real worry. Or if nothing else, a useful reference manual for anyone who might have run out of ideas!

There is very definitely some sort of a shift through the process of the emerging Jesus Movement and its drift away from its roots. The injunctions against "non-procreational sex" in the Old Testament is understandable. Even if you fall for the "tormented Hebrews fleeing slavery" line, it is perfectly understandable that at some point in the journey there would have been some sort of "conference" and a decision to lay out what was "permissible". This was a community in an allegedly harsh environment bent on conquering new, already occupied lands to the East and it is understandable that terms had to be laid out. Therefore, the decision was made that "lying with goats is a distinct no-no. Yes....even that really soft fluffy one, Aaron, with the magically soft coat!!" The onus was on productive procreation in an effort to bolster numbers. Just as the injunctions and guide lines on health and diet and the rest were all specifically and logically laid out to ensure the well-being of the community. In itself, it's one of the most interesting pieces of the Old Testament due to the depth in which it goes to ensure survival and how it reveals what was already known in a time that is regarded as esentially "ignorant".

But what it also reveals is in fact the existence of such practices and that, for the time being at least, they were regarded as being off-limits.

Thereafter....pretty much nothing in the way of moralising or imprecations as to personal sexual proclivity. I used the example earlier of how Lot reacted to the "party goers" banging on his door one night calling on him to allow his guests to go out with them. The "crime", the "sin" in that episode is not that they were "homosexual" but that they were expecting and presuming that Lot would allow total strangers who were his guests to go out with total strangers into an alien town. That breached all the rules and conventions of hospitality that applied then and that is what appaled Lot - not any suggestion that they were "homosexual". In fact, in suggesting that his unmarried daughter go in their place, kind of suggests that he had no real problem in the fact of "partying" - just who they were expecting to go with them. AGAIN - "virgin" means "unmarried" - it is only later, in a later time, that there is any presumption put onto the word that the person involved has no sexual experience whatsoever. Lot's daughter was a "virgin" only because she was unmarried. Which is why he suggested her going. Had she been married, he would have been condoning adultery. But the feeling is that he could have cared less if she had regularly entertained the Sodom and Gomorrah First XV Rugby Club on a regular basis. But from that?.......the blandishment of "Sodomy" appears, flying in the face of logic if nothing else as to why he should suggest his daughter rather than his son. And the resultant delight that the Roman Church goes in for in finding "proof" of their view of "homosexuals".

Paul seems to have the same view. He lists virtually every possible combination he can think of......but then specifies that the "sin", the "unrighteousness" consists in doing it outside of marriage. He essentially acknowledges the fact of such practices. Passes no moralising view on their existance per se but if nothing else, lists before that the presumably greater "unrighteousness" of lying, thievery and drunkeness. But for some unknown reason, sexual proclivity seems to have been of more interest in the moralisers that come hereafter and spread their particular word.

And like I said, I have no idea why. There is no doubt that, as macgamer says, that the influence of sexuality is incredibly powerful. There is no doubt that it has influenced the decisions of men from Julius Caesar and Mark Antony on down the line to make the most incredible fuck-ups of decisions on the basis of the prospect of bedding Cleopatra. It can have the most "diverting" of effects on decisions that men can be known to make. But why should it be that as a result, a vast array of literature is devoted to how to avoid it, what is seen as "righteous" sexual relations and what is to be avoided.

It confuses the hell out of an agnostic like me. As I understand it, the message of the Jesus Movement, as opposed to "Christianity", is one of hope, of care, of a belief in the power of ordinary people to rise above the challenges of life and still behave in a way that is fitting and "civilised" and for the benefit of all as well as self while living among others. The Teachings are full of the notion of responsibility to others, of the sharing of the wealth of a society, of the ineffable understanding that "you can't take it with you" but while you tread this planet you have responsibility to others who are also "God's Children".

And yet...and yet. Out of all of that is somehow drawn this obesessional attention to not only sexual proclivity and the "dirtiness" essentially of the sex act outside of any inclination to produce children but also an obsession with pain and suffering and the view that life is essentially nasty brutish and short. The cynical Agnostic would argue that it is just that way because of the way in which the Roman Church proceded to co-operate with the temporal powers to ensure that became a fact for the vast majority of the population. But I have read nothing in any of the actual Teachings that specify that that was what Christ and his followers envisaged for those they sought to win over to their faith.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:49 pm

Humphrey wrote:I applaud you for ‘coming out’ or however you want to term it.

I hope that it has been worth it :/

Humphrey wrote:Another issue was the ancient hang-up with penetration; the view being that being sexually penetrated is a sign of weakness and submission (in Roman society for example, those who were weaker were supposed to be subservient to the strong). To be dominated in such a way would be to lose one’s claim to power and honour (the principle male virtue).

As I've hinted at earlier on this thread, this is a significant psychological issue for me. Homosexual acts are not going to improve my self-esteem or security in my masculinity.

Humphrey wrote:To wrap up I do struggle to see any coherent body of thought in Ancient Jewish thought or what I know of the Early Christian writings which would preclude MacGamer from attending the Manchester gay pride festival.

I do not see how I am being irrational by holding the view that the evolved function of sex is reproduction. From this assumption hang my moral objections to non-procreative sex / sexual acts in their various forms.

Humphrey wrote:If anything the prohibition against lending at interest in the Christian tradition was far stronger than that against homosexuality but the sin of usury won out. Good thing too as the modern financial system would be impossible without it.

Or perhaps not given recent events...

The Cellar Bar wrote:seriously and absolutely not a problem, macgamer. It's takes a deal to say what you have said in that, and all through this, I have tried to make sure not to denigrate what it is that is and has driven you both to distraction and depression by the sounds of it. If nothing else, you have more courage than a goodly number of people I know.

Thanks. Courage? Perhaps.

The Cellar Bar wrote:I honestly do not see why you should feel that you should, in your words, "abandon your Faith" on account of your sexuality. But you sure as hell do not need any further confusion in your life right now in terms of attempting to develop and understand your sexuality.

If I am to be true to my faith, I cannot go out and 'experiment' in the way you and others are suggesting. The very prospect of experimentation in this area terrifies me. That is not what I want for myself or 'who I want to become'. The physical expression of SSA as advocated here is very much inconsistent with my faith - that is the why I said 'abandon my faith'.

The Cellar Bar wrote:It is a part of who you are. It isn't WHO you are. It might - might - cause you to respond to things in the world around you....but I don't see why see any prospect of it dictating how you relate to others outside of a personal relationship.

Certainly, I must try to 'integrate' my sexuality (as in the broader human sexuality context) into the rest of myself. Whilst I've made 'peace' with the SSA, the raw subconscious sexuality is still troubling.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Because in the long run, I don't know of too many "gay" surgeons who failed to live up to expectations because they were gay. Or writers thinkers teachers parents boxers football players athletes who found that their skills and what they bring to the world were somehow stunted or "broken" because they were gay.

This is not what I have suggested.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Just be who you are and the "journey" and what is in you will eventually tell you that you have reached the point where you are comfortable with who you are.

And just who am I? It's a question to which I have no clear answer especially if Catholicism does not figure in it somewhere.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:22 pm

macgamer wrote:I do not see how I am being irrational by holding the view that the evolved function of sex is reproduction.


Oh, now, why should anyone accuse you of a lack of engagement. You held that same view 8 years ago when you joined TheSinner, didn't you? You've certainly held that same view for the 4 years I've witnessed your posts.

How about engaging with this? I mean, I'm repeating myself, but you never did answer it. Oh my oh my... you didn't engage! <shock>

Sustenance is the evolved function of eating food and drinking liquids. Do you ever add sauces, spices or anything tasteworthy purely to bring pleasure that would not have existed, otherwise? A single dab of ketchup makes you a hypocrite. Wine instead of water (why now, that would mean that Jesus recognised something higher than an evolved function)... anything pleasurable whatsoever (above and beyond pure sustenance) makes a mockery of your supposed fixation on the evolved function of sex, rather than the pleasure that can be derided from sex (utterly separated from procreation).

You're not allowed to kiss, either (not that that should be a problem for you).

And, importantly (for a celibate you) you're not allowed to sing. Language is for communication. Singing is for pleasure.

Your mouth is for eating, drinking and talking. That's the evolved function, at least.

Now. Please engage.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:16 pm

And just who am I? It's a question to which I have no clear answer especially if Catholicism does not figure in it somewhere.


You are very probably a man of very many talents - and the "journey" consists of fulfilling them and learning their place in your life and how they might contribute to the lives of others around you. It's a journey we all make one way or the other and it isn't exactly the easiest process known to Mankind. All I have been saying is that beyond this particular, and admittedly immensely troubling part of it for you, there is plenty in your Faith which ought to sustain you and when necessary guide you when you need guidance.

Which is why I wasn't advocating any partcular experiment or accent on your sexuality to the extent of embarking on a mission of relationships. In fact, I had hoped that I made it clear that I didn't recommentd introducing any further confusion in your life right now. Just as your friend equally recommended not doing anything of the kind.That was why I pointed out that others, who are among other things, "gay" or "homosexual", don't find that it puts any particular crimp in what they are capable of achieving as human beings. It doesn't cloud their judgement,, doesn't prevent them from using those other talents they have been born with or honed. Not as the member of any particular "group" of human beings. But just through being an actual human being.

Personal relationships are an element of who we are. The Adam and Eve quote we both referred to encompasses that. As I said, I didn't and don't read any implication in it that its primary function is to further the species. It's a far broader, more profound understanding of what a relationship consists of as being essentially a "partner" in life who can hold you up when necessary when a person finds that they can't stand up to it itself. That represents pretty much any relationship and there are probably plenty of relationships which are non-sexual in nature. They are called "friendships" and they can go far further than simply "doing lunch" or going for a pint. It's why "straight" wedding vows talk of "in sickness and in health", for "richer and poorer" - all the elements of what might assault all of us at one time or another. Rather than one single specific item that probably doesn't take up much more than 3 or 4 or 5% of the average human being's life.

There's no reason why Catholicism shouldn't remain a part of your life. Like I said, read the texts - NOT the interpretations from a particular agenda - and simply grow into who you are.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:57 am

RedCelt69 wrote:Sustenance is the evolved function of eating food and drinking liquids. Do you ever add sauces, spices or anything tasteworthy purely to bring pleasure that would not have existed, otherwise? A single dab of ketchup makes you a hypocrite.

Adding spices or flavouring to food, does not prevent me from gaining sustenance from the eating of it.

RedCelt69 wrote:Wine instead of water (why now, that would mean that Jesus recognised something higher than an evolved function)... anything pleasurable whatsoever (above and beyond pure sustenance) makes a mockery of your supposed fixation on the evolved function of sex, rather than the pleasure that can be derided from sex (utterly separated from procreation).

By using contraception or engaging in intrinsically infertile sex acts, one is knowingly preventing or subverting the purpose of sex, viz., procreation. Pleasure associated with actions is fine provided that they do not subvert the primary purpose of the action.

RedCelt69 wrote:You're not allowed to kiss, either (not that that should be a problem for you).

This looks like schadenfreude to me. The mouth can be used to curse as well as bless, but I wonder how much of the time curses fall from your mouth rather than kisses, praises and blessings? As the saying goes, 'I hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth!'

RedCelt69 wrote:And, importantly (for a celibate you) you're not allowed to sing. Language is for communication. Singing is for pleasure.

Is language a thing or an action? Singing is an action. What is the purpose of singing?

RedCelt69 wrote:Your mouth is for eating, drinking and talking. That's the evolved function, at least.

You're changing the frame of the debate, by discussing anatomy. I was discussing 'actions'.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:34 pm

By using contraception or engaging in intrinsically infertile sex acts, one is knowingly preventing or subverting the purpose of sex, viz., procreation. Pleasure associated with actions is fine provided that they do not subvert the primary purpose of the action.


not to put too fine a note on it macgamer, the words missing from that argument are that "it is the stated view of the Roman Catholic Church that "by using contraception........."

There is nothing in either the Old Testament or the New Testament which states that the primary functon of sex is procreation. There is an implication in the "go forth and multiply" statement that it is apurpose. But I seriously cannot find anything in that that it is a sin or any similar sort of contravention of your God's will to fail to at least attempt to produce children as a result.

And unfortunately we are back yet again to interpretation and agenda. And this obsessional interest in sex that has haunted the men of the Roman Catholic Church over the years which bears little resemblance to the facts of the matter. You yourself have admitted to the fact that you have found the nature of "sexuality" daunting and its power immense and there is little doubt that they too held the same views. Yet where are the references to the "sin" of sex, to the injunction that only sex which essentially uses a woman as some sort of vessel for the use of men to further the generations? Because I can't find any in the source texts that they purport to use which argue such a use either for "sex" of indeed for women.

The illogical presumption in such terms is that any forerunner to sex - such as kissing, the holding of hands, the embracing....anything.... - that occurs elsewhere between two people is also verging on the sinful if it is not designed to "see out" this impregnating very soon. That any public displays of affection between a couple is flying in the face of God's will and is therefore an abomination and a sin and very likely requiring of some form of castigation to remind oneself of our inherent unGodliness and weakness.

Sex creates life. I'm not inclined to believe in miracles but the ability of two human beings to produce a "replica" of themselves verges on such a description. It is the most fantastic fulfilling awe inspiring part of our existence. Why then should it be that a Church that ostensibly celebrates the Creator of such things should decide, not to celebrate that fact, but to concentrate on the perceived sinfulness of it and pummel its adherents with all sorts of self-inflicted punishments?

Two possible reasons I would venture come to mind if one is of a particular mind set. 1) consists of the fact that the Old Testament unfortunately talks of how Adam and Eve "ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" which to most observers includes the "knowledge" of procreation and how to essentially circumvent the God who created them. Mankind essentially became Gods in their own right and were capable of creation themselves. The Hebrews had no problem with that fact but the Roman Church seems to have. And 2) the fact that Mary, Jesus mother, was a teenager at the time of conception and was also unmarried at the time and again, the men of the Roman Church had no little problems with the fact that their founder was the illegitimate son of a teenage unmarried mother. Again, the Jews, Christ's real community, didn't regard that as any sort of stumbling block to heeding His teachings as to their faith in their God. But the Roman Church did.

An example of that would be your own reservations and dilemma. In that (in)famous Corinthians passage, Paul rails and condemns "liars drunkards and thieves" as being the most unrighteous of all people who do not deserve a respected place in the community. "Oh and also....don't commit adultery" And the result? Full blown centuries old condemnation and repression of a particular few listed in those who are committing adultery. Not ALL of them - only those related to homosexuality. And sure as hell no similar condemnation of the "liars drunkards and thieves" among us who are listed first. Why not? That's more than "unfortunate" that "thieves" and "liars" - such as modern day bankers who have devastated the lives of millions - should escape the condemnation of your Church. Whereas those not inclined to further the species, through using condoms, are essentially condemned to the pits of hell!!

Christ brought to you a message of hope and joy. There is no mention of pain and suffering in what he taught as to how we ought to live our lives on this Earth. There is a recognition that His mission will bring Him an amount of pain and suffering - but absolutely no directive that we are bound to suffer pain and regret and remorse constantly in order to try and remember what He went through. All He essentially asked is that His followers met periodically and broke bread to rember Him. There is supposed to be celebration of a relationship with your God that He believes will enrich human life and give it some sort of purpose and framework of how we relate to one another.

Essentially, and with every best intention macgamer - I would say it again. Read the texts. Not the interpretations of what men down the ages "believe" He really meant - but what is reported to you as "directly" as is possible. And then read up on the context of those Teachings. Trust those Teachings rather than the views of a bunch of men who actually held a vote to decide whether Jesus was a God or not!! He never ever claimed to be a God - but that didn't seem to deter them from knowing better!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:23 pm

macgamer wrote:Adding spices or flavouring to food, does not prevent me from gaining sustenance from the eating of it.

So, you're borderline starving then, yeah? You've never eaten for the pleasure of the flavours... only for sustenance, every single time? We should be able to play your ribs like a xylophone. Unless you're a hypocrite.

macgamer wrote:By using contraception or engaging in intrinsically infertile sex acts, one is knowingly preventing or subverting the purpose of sex, viz., procreation. Pleasure associated with actions is fine provided that they do not subvert the primary purpose of the action.

Do you send your crusty socks to a local Sperm Bank? And you didn't answer my question about wine. Jesus thought wine was good... he even turned water into wine. Sustenance to pleasure.

macgamer wrote:This looks like schadenfreude to me.

Pragmatism, not schadenfreude. Don't judge others by your own values. I'm nowhere near as vindictive as you. Your self-prescribed celibacy hardly leaves room for foreplay... even the remotest beginnings which are captured in a kiss. Kissing isn't what your mouth evolved for.

macgamer wrote:The mouth can be used to curse as well as bless, but I wonder how much of the time curses fall from your mouth rather than kisses, praises and blessings?

There you go again... trying to turn this against me, rather than engaging. Hate the sin, love the sinner? Pffft! Not for you, eh, macgamer? I can do kissing and praising just fine, and always with sincerity. As for whether I provide blessings... with my mouth? Why yes, I've been told that I'm quite good at that, too. But you wouldn't approve, as it doesn't involve eating (well, metaphorically, it does), drinking (well...) or speaking. Although note-varied humming sometimes happens.

macgamer wrote:As the saying goes, 'I hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth!'

No, I don't. She died when I was 12. Tell me, macgamer, the purpose of Leukaemia... would that be just pain, or would the loss of dignity and witnessing the pain of your children... is that part of the purpose, too? That was rhetorical, in case you hadn't guessed.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:45 pm

The Cellar Bar wrote:not to put too fine a note on it macgamer, the words missing from that argument are that "it is the stated view of the Roman Catholic Church that "by using contraception........."

That's usually taken as a given here whenever I write anything...

The Cellar Bar wrote:There is nothing in either the Old Testament or the New Testament which states that the primary functon of sex is procreation. There is an implication in the "go forth and multiply" statement that it is apurpose. But I seriously cannot find anything in that that it is a sin or any similar sort of contravention of your God's will to fail to at least attempt to produce children as a result.

The Bible is not mine nor the Church's sole source for morality, but also determinations from reason and natural law.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Yet where are the references to the "sin" of sex, to the injunction that only sex which essentially uses a woman as some sort of vessel for the use of men to further the generations? Because I can't find any in the source texts that they purport to use which argue such a use either for "sex" of indeed for women.

I don't suppose you'll ever find anything written supporting the use of women as 'vessels' and rightly so.

The Cellar Bar wrote:The illogical presumption in such terms is that any forerunner to sex - such as kissing, the holding of hands, the embracing....anything.... - that occurs elsewhere between two people is also verging on the sinful if it is not designed to "see out" this impregnating very soon. That any public displays of affection between a couple is flying in the face of God's will and is therefore an abomination and a sin and very likely requiring of some form of castigation to remind oneself of our inherent unGodliness and weakness.

What you have mentioned is not the preserve of couples, but also between children and their parents as well as friends of either sex. None of those things are, as such, exclusive 'forerunners' to sex. Note, that I have never denied that sex itself is a manner by which husband and wife can licitly express their love and affection. What I have stressed that the primary function of sex is procreation.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Sex creates life. I'm not inclined to believe in miracles but the ability of two human beings to produce a "replica" of themselves verges on such a description.

I'm glad you admit that procreation / reproduction is the function. The old English verb, 'to beget' works better for the function of sex. The couple play not direct or active part in the 'creation' process. It is rather a begetting of new life.

The Cellar Bar wrote:It is the most fantastic fulfilling awe inspiring part of our existence. Why then should it be that a Church that ostensibly celebrates the Creator of such things should decide, not to celebrate that fact, but to concentrate on the perceived sinfulness of it and pummel its adherents with all sorts of self-inflicted punishments?

I agree it is fantastic and awe inspiration and that is why the Church wishes to protect and uphold it so much by opposing abortion and contraception. The perception of the obsession or focus on the sinfulness is on the part of non-Catholics and dissident Catholics who cannot or will not accept the teaching. Believe me, we Catholics don't spend our all time talking about this amongst ourselves. When non-Catholics find out I'm Catholic, it's they who bring up 'sex'.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Mankind essentially became Gods in their own right and were capable of creation themselves.

As above, it depends on whether you see reproduction as 'creation' or 'begetting' of new life on the part of the couple.

The Cellar Bar wrote:2) the fact that Mary, Jesus mother, was a teenager at the time of conception and was also unmarried at the time and again, the men of the Roman Church had no little problems with the fact that their founder was the illegitimate son of a teenage unmarried mother.

Joseph took Mary as his own wife at the command of the angel of the Lord in Matthew's Gospel, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.' Mary was married to Joseph when Jesus was born. I do not see anything Jesus said where He undermines marriage. Rather, He makes even greater demands.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Again, the Jews, Christ's real community, didn't regard that as any sort of stumbling block to heeding His teachings as to their faith in their God. But the Roman Church did.

I'm sorry? When He said, 'I am the Son of God' they wanted to kill Him because that is what the Law demanded for such 'blasphemy'. So yes, they did 'have a problem' with it. The Roman Church had / has a problem with what adultery / fornication? Yes, and so did the Jews. Why were they putting Mary Magdalene to death? Jesus didn't condone what she had done? He said, 'Go, sin no more.'


The Cellar Bar wrote:Full blown centuries old condemnation and repression of a particular few listed in those who are committing adultery. Not ALL of them - only those related to homosexuality. And sure as hell no similar condemnation of the "liars drunkards and thieves" among us who are listed first. Why not? That's more than "unfortunate" that "thieves" and "liars" - such as modern day bankers who have devastated the lives of millions - should escape the condemnation of your Church. Whereas those not inclined to further the species, through using condoms, are essentially condemned to the pits of hell!!

The Church has condemned the rapacity of the bankers. Perhaps it should have never gone silent on ursury. That is an area I do not quite understand. It seems like the theology of 'rupture' which the current Pope dislikes so much.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Christ brought to you a message of hope and joy. There is no mention of pain and suffering in what he taught as to how we ought to live our lives on this Earth. There is a recognition that His mission will bring Him an amount of pain and suffering - but absolutely no directive that we are bound to suffer pain and regret and remorse constantly in order to try and remember what He went through. All He essentially asked is that His followers met periodically and broke bread to rember Him. There is supposed to be celebration of a relationship with your God that He believes will enrich human life and give it some sort of purpose and framework of how we relate to one another.

That is your interpretation. Pain and suffering is, alas, a human reality for us all. Some have it worse than others. Jesus came to heal that. The Church says we can use the pain and suffering that we experience, as an inevitable part of lives, for salutory purposes in union with Christ's sacrifice.

The Cellar Bar wrote:Trust those Teachings rather than the views of a bunch of men who actually held a vote to decide whether Jesus was a God or not!! He never ever claimed to be a God - but that didn't seem to deter them from knowing better!

Jesus founded a Church on Peter, that very fallible apostle, he did not write a book. The teachings of Christ are the teachings of the Church. To ask me to deny Peter is to deny Christ also. If Christ is not God incarnate, then on whose authority, as the Jews asked Him rightly, did he teach? He didn't not claim His own authority but that of His Father who He claimed to know and be with since before Abraham. He was very clear about His divinity.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron