New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[Maguire01]

So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.

It IS a judgement on them, as you don't even know if they'll commit a "sin". And yet you're willing to sell a homosexual couple a bed. It's clear that you're just not comfortable having gay people in your house - the notion of preventing "sin" is a distraction.

[LCohen]

1 Timothy 1:10-11

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

LCohen could scripture be any more explicit?

Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

There you go Tony. Equal rights for women is sacrilegious. In fact getting married under our current laws will probably mean we all go to hell, according to St. Paul. He would probably have flipped at the notion of a female teacher.

Of Paul's view of things is far more influential over the Christian world than any other single individual's, including Jesus. It was believed that he wrote most of the New Testament, but even if he didn't, the book mistakenly attributed to him were almost certainly written by people heavily influenced by him and based on his writings. Of course Paul wasn't one of the Apostles and didn't know Jesus before His crucifixion. Yet his writings are 'The Word of God'.

Thanks muppet, you have done my work here for me.

Tony, I asked you specifically for the biblical extract you find convincing. Do you really find the book of Tim authoritative?

[LCohen]

We are talking specifically about homosexuality here.Other points you allude to are open to wide interpretation.

So is scripture the word of god and sacrosanct or is it open to interpretation and therefore an unreliable basis of law and morals?

[LCohen]

Often amazes me the biblical knowledge those who claim to be non believers have. Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?

The point about women is they are the fairer sex to be looked after and guided by men.Simple as that.But the point about homisexuality is clear and unambiguous.

Such nonsense. Surely it is possible to read a text and find it believable or not.

Surely it is understandable for inquisitive people to study the mad things that others find believable

[The Iceman]

Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.

Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.

In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.

Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.

I struggle a lot with some of the going's on on the board. I find myself engaging on threads where I know I shouldn't where I know I will be beat into submission or silence. But i do anyway. I don't try to be judgmental but try to give a different side to the conversation other than the usual spin that God is made up, anyone who believes in Him is an idiot..... That's hard to read/listen to over and over again without speaking up...

[LCohen]

Every individual has to make their own interpretation according to context.I am fine with those who like muppet (although I disagree) who believe women should be demeaned,equally I respect the views of non believers,is it too much to ask for my views to be accorded similar respect?

We do respect your right to believe.

In many instances I do not respect what respect what your believe. In those instances it appears to be the worst form of humanity and one not only saddens me greatly but causes direct pain and hurt to many, many people. I think your views represent the worst form that man can take and offer little to the positive enjoyment of life that most seek to enjoy. 

[LCohen]

Er the Bible is on the menu,main course as its the basis of religious belief.

It is basis of blief and it is to believed.......because you believe it is to be believed. Where does the corroboration come from that would allow it to be taken seriously?

And then there is the point that most (probably all) who say it is to be believed simply because it is the word of god who, when pressed actually admit that they do not believe in its every word.

The bible categorically is not a reliable souce of history, morality or law

[imtommygunn]

Yeah i can see why you struggle iceman.

*some* athiasts have actually now become what they claim to hate about religion/christians and are hypocrites.

the problem with any attack or defense of catholicism in this board is fearon's opinions. Reasonable people of faith don't think like this and some people are duped into thinking everyone of faith is like that. I feel for the genuine people reading them.

[LCohen]

So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.

So is this definition of sin still based on teh 10 commandments that the loon on the hill came down with? If it down on them stones we are not to be at it but if it isnt on the list its fair game?

Or is there another definition of sin you want the law to rely on? To have a consience law based on sin you will need a precise definition

[T Fearon]

LCohen,I would love actually not to believe and to have proof God doesn't exist.But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.

In any event if it's all false I've lost nothing,I have a good life,good health and count my blessings every day.

[Oraisteach]

Tony, if you do good because you fear having to "pay the price," then I believe you're at the lowest level of Kohlberg's Law of Moral Development, the obedience-punishment level, no different than a child who doesn't steal because it's wrong but because he'll get spanked if he does.  So, what's governing your attitude towards your hypothetical B&Bers is perhaps not moral rectitude but, arguably, selfish self-preservation.  That seems like a decidedly Old Testament view of a vindictive God, and not one that promotes the Christianity that Pope Francis seems to advocate.  It's one that literalist evangelicals follow.  Oh, no, for years you've been traipsing up and down the Garvaghy Road in Armagh orange, and maybe all the time you were a fifth columnist for the other crew.

[LCohen]

Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.

Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.

In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.

Quality post.

[LCohen]

So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.

I think if you will continually judge an act to will find that those who commit the act will find themsleves feeling judged.

If you are going to judge an act negatively on the basis that you consider it a sin you need to be forthcoming with a definition of sin. Your definition (i.e. the 10 commandments) excludes homosexual acts and yet you continue to refer to these vert acts as sinful. You can see how people will not only consider themselves to having been judged but to have been judged on an entirely flawed basis.

[LCohen]

So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof?

What? Even you are not that monumentally stupid.

Well, if I was being judgemental........

[LCohen]

LCohen,I would love actually not to believe

Relevance?

and to have proof God doesn't exist.

And do you have proof that he does exist? You know real proof that will stand up to robust examination? Please share it

But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.

Ah yes. I recall Joesph Bank's paper on his nagging doubts on butterflies. And did Charles Darwin not make a presentation to the Royal Society on his nagging feelings about earthworms and Isaac Newton similarly about falling apples? You have me there. Its just impossible to find a flaw in an argument based upon nagging feelings.

If you are going to hinge future fate on doing right you will need a robuts definition of "right"

Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.

And that proves what exactly?