Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old Apr 16, '12, 9:49 pm
thistle thistle is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
but you dont know that these are "truths". that is my point.
i agree that truths cannot change, it is our UNDERSTANDING of truth which changes. Christ knew this. which was why he gave the popes authority to change certain teaching and doctrines. so for example, if we later find out that homosexuality is not contrary to the natural law, that doesnt mean that homosexuality was immoral two thousand years ago, and now its moral, it simply means that it was moral all along, except we were just mistaken.
to be honest, my main disagreements with the church are on contraceptioin and masterbation. i dont really support homosexuality or divorce, i was just using those as an example for those who are so adament on following the old testament.
the church has been mistaken on issues in the past, therefore it is not crazy to believe that they are currently wrong on certain issues.
Are you kidding? The Church was not given authority to change doctrines but to teach the unchangeable doctrines of God.
The teachings on homosexuality, masturbation and conception that you refer to are INFALLIBLE teachings. By definition that means they are the truth and CANNOT be changed. If such a teaching were to be changed it would mean the Catholic Church was a fake and Christ had lied.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Apr 16, '12, 10:13 pm
someperson555 someperson555 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2011
Posts: 967
Religion: catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Are you kidding? The Church was not given authority to change doctrines but to teach the unchangeable doctrines of God.
The teachings on homosexuality, masturbation and conception that you refer to are INFALLIBLE teachings. By definition that means they are the truth and CANNOT be changed. If such a teaching were to be changed it would mean the Catholic Church was a fake and Christ had lied.
looool, no.
the aforementioned are NOT unchangeable. for crying out loud. the unchangeable are the dogmas, and the dogmas are the fundamentals of our faith. (i.e one God, belief in angels, ressurection, etc). but all other teachings can be changed. AS JESUS CHRIST SAID TO PETER: "WHATSOEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND IN HEVAEN AND WHATSOEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN".
(behold the power of my capslock )
why are you ignoring that? there were church teachings in the past that people held to be "infallible" but then turned out to be incorrect.
tell me, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
do you believe in burning 2 year old children (alleged witches) at the stake?
do you believe that the earth is older than 6000 years?
guess what if you disgaree with ANY of those then you are by definition a HERETIC.
this is why i disagree with papal infallibility, it is only harmful to the church, look at history, look at all the concessions the church had to make, look at all the times it held something to be "infallible" only to recant later. this is greatly harmful to the credibility of our faith.
when papal infallibilty was first instituted, it was heavily criticized by church fathers. and rightly so.
it has been PROVEN that the church was mistaken on certain issues in the past, so by your definition, the church is fake. why are you still a catholic then?
oh, and actually its common knowledge that the pope ( i believe it was john paul 2) even said that the teachings on contraception CAN BE CHANGED.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Apr 16, '12, 11:32 pm
thistle thistle is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
looool, no.
the aforementioned are NOT unchangeable. for crying out loud. the unchangeable are the dogmas, and the dogmas are the fundamentals of our faith. (i.e one God, belief in angels, ressurection, etc). but all other teachings can be changed. AS JESUS CHRIST SAID TO PETER: "WHATSOEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND IN HEVAEN AND WHATSOEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN".
(behold the power of my capslock )
why are you ignoring that? there were church teachings in the past that people held to be "infallible" but then turned out to be incorrect.
tell me, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
do you believe in burning 2 year old children (alleged witches) at the stake?
do you believe that the earth is older than 6000 years?
guess what if you disgaree with ANY of those then you are by definition a HERETIC.
this is why i disagree with papal infallibility, it is only harmful to the church, look at history, look at all the concessions the church had to make, look at all the times it held something to be "infallible" only to recant later. this is greatly harmful to the credibility of our faith.
when papal infallibilty was first instituted, it was heavily criticized by church fathers. and rightly so.
it has been PROVEN that the church was mistaken on certain issues in the past, so by your definition, the church is fake. why are you still a catholic then?
oh, and actually its common knowledge that the pope ( i believe it was john paul 2) even said that the teachings on contraception CAN BE CHANGED.
Your reference to the age of the earth, sun revolving round the earth etc are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with faith and morals and have never been infallibly taught.
Infallible teaching teachings are in matters of faith and morals only and the Church cannot be in error in that respect. There has never been a single infallible teaching that has been changed.
John Paul II did NOT say that the doctrine on contraception can be changed. You are WRONG!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Apr 17, '12, 12:13 am
someperson555 someperson555 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2011
Posts: 967
Religion: catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
Your reference to the age of the earth, sun revolving round the earth etc are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with faith and morals and have never been infallibly taught.
Infallible teaching teachings are in matters of faith and morals only and the Church cannot be in error in that respect. There has never been a single infallible teaching that has been changed.
John Paul II did NOT say that the doctrine on contraception can be changed. You are WRONG!
"With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population"

"Official report

"The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][3][4] According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:


The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman--that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives--makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Apr 17, '12, 1:52 am
thistle thistle is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
"With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population"

"Official report

"The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][3][4] According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:


The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman--that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives--makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."
I repeat. The Church doctrine that artificial contraception for birth control purposes is forbidden is an infallible teaching that can never be changed and you have shown nothing that contradicts that.
It is further interesting that you made no comment on my other points.

In case you are actually interested in the Church's official teaching:

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

See also Humanae Vitae:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...-vitae_en.html

Extract from it:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old Apr 17, '12, 2:03 am
Church Militant's Avatar
Church Militant Church Militant is offline
Forum Elder
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2004
Posts: 25,518
Religion: Catholic: Revert
Lightbulb Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Who says the New Testament doesn't condemn homosexuality. Look at what St. Paul wrote in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans.

[18]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [28]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. [29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Look also at 1st Corinthians 6:[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The NAB makes it even more clear. "
9* Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
__________________
Dominus meus et Deus meus
Michael


Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old Apr 17, '12, 4:35 am
someperson555 someperson555 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2011
Posts: 967
Religion: catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
I repeat. The Church doctrine that artificial contraception for birth control purposes is forbidden is an infallible teaching that can never be changed and you have shown nothing that contradicts that.
It is further interesting that you made no comment on my other points.

In case you are actually interested in the Church's official teaching:

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

See also Humanae Vitae:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...-vitae_en.html

Extract from it:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
hmmm, i just want top address something you mentioned in your previous reply. you said "that the church's teachings on faith and morals never change". well then what about this:

"Slavery incorporated into Canon Law

In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,.[61][62] Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450.....

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions. Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters.

(c) The crime of brigandage in the Pyrenees mountainous districts, 1179.

(d)Unjust aggression or other crimes, 1309-1535. The penalty of capture and enslavement for Christian families or cities or states was enacted several times by Popes. Those sentenced included Venetians in 1309.[63]

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[64] Little seems to have happened before the order was removed."

the churchs moral teachings never change? do they thistle?

i have addressed all of your points so far, it is you who has presented nothing but non-sequitur all along. you just keep spouting "dogma" like you actually know what it means.
http://catholicsforcontraception.org...id=6:chrchdocs
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old Apr 17, '12, 4:45 am
someperson555 someperson555 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2011
Posts: 967
Religion: catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

@ thistle
continued from my last post:
Appeal on Eve of Humanae Vitae


"Just prior to Humanae Vitae becoming public, the Pope sent this appeal to all the Bishops in the world, urging them to unite with him and warning them of the importance of supporting and promoting the upcoming Humanae Vitae. It was "Top Secret" at the time, which in Vatican form carried sub grave, meaning whomever revealed its contents ipso facto commited mortal sin. What is particularly impressive is the disregard that virtually all the bishops had for this appeal and, to the contrary, coming out against Humanae Vitae in defiance to the Pope. Its not a sin to reveal or read it anymore,"


http://catholicsforcontraception.org...mart&Itemid=27
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old Apr 17, '12, 4:51 am
thistle thistle is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
hmmm, i just want top address something you mentioned in your previous reply. you said "that the church's teachings on faith and morals never change". well then what about this:

"Slavery incorporated into Canon Law

In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,.[61][62] Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450.....

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions. Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters.

(c) The crime of brigandage in the Pyrenees mountainous districts, 1179.

(d)Unjust aggression or other crimes, 1309-1535. The penalty of capture and enslavement for Christian families or cities or states was enacted several times by Popes. Those sentenced included Venetians in 1309.[63]

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[64] Little seems to have happened before the order was removed."

the churchs moral teachings never change? do they thistle?

i have addressed all of your points so far, it is you who has presented nothing but non-sequitur all along. you just keep spouting "dogma" like you actually know what it means.
http://catholicsforcontraception.org...id=6:chrchdocs
Canon Law are the laws of the Church and not infallible teachings.
Please show me the infallible teaching of the Church which changed.

By the way contrary to your statement it is NOT heresy to believe or not believe the earth is 6000 years old, and it is NOT heresy to believe or not believe in geocentrism. The Church does not have a teaching on this because it is science and not a matter of faith and morals. Catholic are free to believe whatever they want about the age of the earth and geocentrism.

As for me I believe the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old and I believe the Earth orbits the sun, neither of which makes me or anyone else a heretic.

I almost forgot to mention it but denying papal infallibility is heresy.

Last edited by thistle; Apr 17, '12 at 5:08 am.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old Apr 17, '12, 6:08 am
The_Scott's Avatar
The_Scott The_Scott is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 1,341
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
that is a very incorrect and rigid view of "natural law". natural law is what occurs naturally without technological interference or modification. for example, masterbtion is natural since you are able to do it. if it were truly contrary to natural law, then you wouldnt be able to self stimulate.
.
I only have time to comment on this.
You, my friend, are even more incorrect. "Natural" here doesnt mean "animal like" or "environmental." Just because animals don't wear clothes doesn't mean we should be naked all the time. Animals don't have technogy to create vaccines, so we shouldn't disregard those. Thats just stupid logic Frankly, the fact that you thought this was natural law speaks volumes of why you're dissenting from the Church.

This website explains natural law better than I ever will, so ease look at http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html for the real reason. Essentially, humans should obey the natural law by allowing specific moral acts reach their natural end. In dealing with the elderly, it's allowing them to die naturally without any sort of lethal injection of morphine (euthanasia). In sex, it's to unite the husband and wife and to procreate.
__________________
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Scott
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...


Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old Apr 17, '12, 6:12 am
The_Scott's Avatar
The_Scott The_Scott is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 1,341
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555;
Nice unbiased, agenda-less website there.

And I absolutely love how you think you know better than 2,000 years of Church tradition and teaching. It must be nice to know how important you are.
__________________
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Scott
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...


Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old Apr 17, '12, 6:16 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someperson555 View Post
i do not reject the bible since the bible is the word of God.
well, actually i think only the new testament can be said to be the word of God since it is by Christ himself. the old testament was written by prophets who the lord God was speaking through, but we dont know which parts of the old testament were truly divinely inspired and which parts were just the author's own feelings. for example, the old testament commands that a woman must marry her rapist, do you honestly believe that God was speaking through whoever wrote that passage?
therefore, it is my view that the church should only follow the parts of the old testament which are confirmed in the new testament.
i do not place myself above the church in any way. but i will not blindly follow doctrine either, wasnt it st paul who said "put all truths to the test"?
Are you the authority?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old Apr 17, '12, 3:10 pm
Raphaelite Raphaelite is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2012
Posts: 6
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mab23 View Post
it would be if it was forced....

but 2 gays consenting to their own desires in their own privacy...

im much more concerned about murder, oppression of the poor and defrauding workers
The Lord doesn't grade on a curve.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old Apr 17, '12, 3:27 pm
rfournier103's Avatar
rfournier103 rfournier103 is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: March 29, 2012
Posts: 1,923
Religion: Latin Catholic of the Roman Rite
Default Re: slaves ok, killing disobedient kids is good but being gay is bad.

Ah... the great debate of our time.

Besides "late 20th century and early 21st century western culture", I can't think of any culture in the last millenia that was okay with homosexual behavior. Where does it end? History will show us that if enough people want something, it will gain acceptance as the norm.

Incest, cannibalism, and beastiallity could therefore be accepted one day. I've even heard it said, "how can it be wrong if God made them that way?" I ask you... where does it end?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8449Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: jenna1983
5139CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: hopeful01
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3733Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3316Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3280Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3223Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3107For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:16 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.