Anti Catholicism of lapsed Catholics in free state now rivals Orange Order

[muppet]

Muppet whats the point in discussing it if you give no weight to the evidence? You asked for bible references and I gave them to you only to discount them. If you're not interested in discussing then don't discuss. Same as the other thread. Your response to me was to put up a picture and not engage.
The church has always taught that homosexual acts are sinful like they have always taught that adultery is sinful and lying and killing and everything else we all know about. These teachings are founded in scripture (the word of God) and backed up by the discernment of the Church (Holy Spirit). If you don't like the answers then don't ask the questions.

This has nothing to do with slavery, or the holocaust or white extremists or anyone else who uses the bible to justify their own agenda. This is about the Church instituted by Jesus and the discernment of that Church over the years which has remained consistent on homosexual acts and will always remain consistent. That the acts are sins but the people should be loved and shown mercy like all who seek God and seek forgiveness for those sins.

I said: "Show me where God said it was a sin?"

You showed me a quote from the Book of Romans, written by Paul 20 years after Jesus' death, where he talks about what God did, but nowhere does he quote God.

You think this is 'evidence'.

Your problem is that I don't agree with you, but don't hide behind accusing me of not engaging.

This isn't a does god exist or doesn't he conversation. If you don't believe God wrote the Bible then what is the point in engaging?

Wow.

I am finding difficult to comprehend your claim that God wrote the Bible. Can you explain this a bit more before I comment?

No I won't. You are purposely engaging with loaded questions which you know my response for. You want me to show you a big mountain where God burned into the cliff that Gay sex is a sin. Then you want to scientifically prove that it could be nothing else but God.... You have no interest in a conversation on where the teaching comes form or why.
You and Myles can go off and follow your own "conscience"

Now who isn't engaging.

I have never heard anyone claim before that God wrote the Bible, in my experience you are actually unique.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did the church not pick and choose which gospels to include in the bible to suit their attitude/teachings at the time?

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

[The Iceman]

You've got us all on the ropes here muppet- the entire Church.
You'll be lucky to be a Paul one day- right now you're a real Saul

[muppet]

You've got us all on the ropes here muppet- the entire Church.
You'll be lucky to be a Paul one day- right now you're a real Saul

'The entire Church' has accepted this for centuries. When the real issue is power and wealth, a 1200 year forgery is irrelevant.

[IolarCoisCuain]

I, for one, hope the Government does the right thing when the equal marriage referendum arrives and is brave in its wording, just as Mr Kenny was brave in his famous condemnation of the Church in his first year. As others have pointed out on this thread, we have evolved from tribal people, superstitious of anything beyond the light of the campfire to the educated, sophisticated, intelligent and, yes, tolerant, people of today.

People have been talking here about expanding the definition of marriage to include loving couples who are not comprised of an accidental pairing of one man and one woman, and they're right. But why limit it to couples? Isn't this just another form of bigotry? Why not, as the poker players say, roll 'em up, as these three brave women have done in Massachusetts: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/married-lesbian-trio-massachusetts-expecting-child-article-1.1765862?

I mean, once they're in love, that's all the counts, right? What sort of people are you?

[muppet]

I, for one, hope the Government does the right thing when the equal marriage referendum arrives and is brave in its wording, just as Mr Kenny was brave in his famous condemnation of the Church in his first year. As others have pointed out on this thread, we have evolved from tribal people, superstitious of anything beyond the light of the campfire to the educated, sophisticated, intelligent and, yes, tolerant, people of today.

People have been talking here about expanding the definition of marriage to include loving couples who are not comprised of an accidental pairing of one man and one woman, and they're right. But why limit it to couples? Isn't this just another form of bigotry? Why not, as the poker players say, roll 'em up, as these three brave women have done in Massachusetts: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/married-lesbian-trio-massachusetts-expecting-child-article-1.1765862?

I mean, once they're in love, that's all the counts, right? What sort of people are you?

I recently admitted to having two wives. I thought that was big o' me.