Thread: Catholic homosexuals

Originally Posted by Mario F.

In fact I did, didn't I? I'd preferred you didn't adopt a paternalistic stance.

None intended. It was just rather amusing to see you do the kind of thing some Christian fundamentalists are infamous for

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I didn't realize I was quoting one of the books of the Hebrew bible.

That is not the problem, since that is included in the Christian bible. The problem is that you quite literally picked the first thing that you found, and then went on to use it as the sole basis for your interpretation, without considering its intended audience, historial context, textual context, or cross referencing any related verses.

This can work for personal scripture reading, or even a bible study group, but it is far from a systematic approach to using scripture as the basis for doctrinal development.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But you stance does trouble me, laserlight. You cannot just "wash your hands" from the free interpretation of the scriptures and accommodate only that wish is more convenient to your views or your desire to defend the faith.

wish -> which?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It's exactly because of this, exactly because of the problem the Bible presents to all of its readers as being a puzzling book (at best) and a false book (at worst) that the church "invented" dogma.

Not really: it is precisely because of the problem of interpretation that the church invented bible scholars, theologians, and the bishops who have the final say. It is not that very much different from say, the use of a judiciary to interpret a constitution or other written set of laws, except that this time the "constitution" happens to consist in part of "fairy tales", various sayings, historical records of unknown accuracy, and various letters and recountings of purported and then-recent history, and events that may come to pass. Oh, and sets of laws and other rules and guidelines given to various peoples.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I can find the same amount of symbolism and muddiness in any of Nostradamus illustrations, why aren't they accepted by you? Are those who think of Nostradamus as a true prophet less deserving of your acceptance? By your dogma, yes. But what about reason? What does reason say to someone who follows a dogma? Why should that be wrong and this be right?

I think your questions boil down to: why are you Christian, in particular Roman Catholic, and why do you follow what your religion teaches instead of something else? To summarise an answer: given that the apostles testified on pain of death to the resurrection, I find it probable that Christ resurrected. Combined with personal spiritual experience within the Catholic Church, and impressed by its continuity, unity and coherence yet the diversity of its theology and spirituality, I conclude that it is most probable that the Catholic Church is my best option, and thus I consider it sensible to follow my option's teachings, otherwise I might as well choose a different option, or come up with my own set of beliefs concerning Christ.

Originally Posted by laserlight

That is not the problem, since that is included in the Christian bible. The problem is that you quite literally picked the first thing that you found, and then went on to use it as the sole basis for your interpretation, without considering its intended audience, historial context, textual context, or cross referencing any related verses.

Wait a minute. You are passing judgment?
Do not even presume I used the first thing that I picked up. Instead you can accuse me of having used the quote that better suited me for the purpose at hand. It's a fair accusation, it's a true accusation and it's also a useless accusation. But on matters of the bible, trust me when I say you and I can most probably discuss it on equal footing.

As for the actual Leviticus book, the issue of God addressing the Israelis is probably the matter of contention between Catholics who do not take this book in its entirety. Arguably, I cannot remember many aspects of it, but my Roman Catholic Bible, for instance does not include 3 chapters of this book for instance.