How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Dr.Who]

In this article they say that they wish to support gays but remain true to the Catholic AND JESUIT traditions. One cannot by definition treat gay and transpeople as equals and remain true to the tradition that condemns them.


Here's the final paragraph in this article: "I was shocked reading this editorial, and I am not a man easily shocked by such matters. I knew that these same arguments had been made publicly by homosexual movements like Dignity and New Ways Ministry. But until I read this editorial, I had never seen these arguments defended by a serious organ of the ecclesiastical establishment. So here we are. Morally speaking, the whole progressivist establishment, if it agrees with this opinion taken in America, would not be so much different from the putrid “Anglican Church” that is preparing to accept homosexual priests. The editorial is a real sign of the times."
This suggests that the position of the Jesuits is not only new, but unheard of in the wider church and disapproved of if it's true. I especially note the "putrid" reference about the Anglican Church. I would also like to point out that the author is advocating an investigation to find out who the homosexual Bishops are--something that will not bring anything good into their lives, I'll wager.



Here's a paragraph from this article: "But here in Massachusetts we're growing accustomed to headlines about priests who undermine families, and priests who are actively involved with the homosexual movement. What's more scandalous, really, is the fact that these priests are not subject to immediate public reprimand and discipline. Just a few months ago, Cardinal Law refused to allow a priest to speak in Boston parishes, because he was affiliated with Priests for Life, and the cardinal deemed that group too confrontational. But these priests -- who are in flat-out public opposition to the Church on a crucial moral question -- face no such censorship. The only priests who testified on this measure testified against it. There's a clear show of the abdication of responsibility by our Catholic leadership."
I don't know about you, but that seems to suggest that the ones supporting the gay and lesbian community are apostate in the eyes of the church. Personally, I applaud them, but I suspect that the Pope is gonna come down on them like a ton of bricks one of these days.

How has the Pope responded to their support that contravenes his statements? I like the fact that some Christians are bucking thousands of years of tradition and I appreciate their efforts. Time will tell if they get thrown out or whether they are the cutting edge of a long-overdue changed in the "ecclesiastical establishment."

You yourself have argued that the early church was tolerant of gays and now when I supply arguments for the same position going on now you argue against it. the existence of disagreement between the jesuits and others does not mean that the jesuits are not tolerant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It was only a few posts back there was no need to quote you. this is what you said this time. (at other times you did provide the source)

" The quotes from the Bible are there for anyone to read. It may be that you get naked with your male friends and swear undying love, and knit your souls together, and lie on the ground kissing. You may even state that your love for them surpasses the love of women, buy if you do those things you will have the Bible-beaters down on you like white on rice."

We can all see that this time you did not quote the bible. But each of those elements come from parts of the bible that are well known and we all know where they come from. You deliberatley mixed these parts from different stories and made it seem like they were from one story. The getting naked (to change clothes) was not in the same story as some of the other parts that you listed.

And this time I did quote you. If this thread was not going back so far that I have forgotten half of what we were discussing I could probably find where you did the same thing and did quote the bible.

Btw, i did not call you a liar. I said you deliberately fabricated the story. I believe you did it deliberately because you have an agenda and I believe you fabricated it because you created a single new story where there was before two or more. But I think that in your mind it makes sense and you believe it to be true. You are not lying.

I paraphrased the part of the Biblical story of David and Jonathon that had previously posted in complete quotes. Not all of the quotes are contiguous as this is the story of their relationship and they did different things at different times. But the story is there for anyone to read and I quoted it correctly. Are you arguing that it was some other David and Jonathon? This is the story of two men who were in love, so much so that David said Jonathon's love surpassed that of women. They did not change clothes, Jonathon gave David all his clothes and weapons and stood before him naked. You know the Bible quite well and you are lying when you say that this is not all one story of one couple. The fact that the parts of the story have other things mixed into it is irrelevant.

A deliberately fabricated story told as the truth is one of the definitions of a lie. So once again you have lied about what you have written.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is time to stop jumping on people for not providing quotes when you just finished doing the exact same thing. If you want quotes you can ask politely. we are having a discussion not writing a term paper.

The first book of the bible illustrates the equality if women when she is described as being created from the side of Adam and not from, say, his feet. The word used for side is "azer" which means a complete half of him rather than just a rib. No quote is needed as even the most illiterate are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve just as no quote is needed when one says the sky is blue.

One reference is supposed to wipe out the reality of the treatment of women by the Christian religion? A perfect example is what Jesus is alledged to have done and said when the people were going to stone the woman for prostitution. He said NOTHING about the man involved, nor did any of the others present, He chastises the woman and the man gets a free pass.

When did the church finally accede to the fact that women had souls? When were they allowed to own property? When were they allowed to vote? When were they allowed to divorce abusive husbands? When were they accepted into all religious clergy positions? Tell us about the "rule of thumb". When were women allowed to kidnap men, rape them, and then turn them out homeless? How many women were burned at the stake for being witches in relation to the number of men who were burned for being warlocks? Why don't you explain to us why there is a weird prescription in the Bible for determining if a woman has been unfaithful, but not for a man? Why is a woman to be stoned if she's not a virgin on her marriage bed, but men have such requirement?

Once again, just like Lakeman, you are ignoring what you know about the Bible and the history of Christianity to tell something that is not true. This is deliberate on your part in order to give a false impression.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You yourself have argued that the early church was tolerant of gays and now when I supply arguments for the same position going on now you argue against it. the existence of disagreement between the jesuits and others does not mean that the jesuits are not tolerant.

I fail to see how the early church's tolerance of gays bears on the a few rebel Jesuit priests. Liberation theology is far more widespread but no one is claiming that it is the policy of the church. You have scrambled for ANYTHING that will suggest Christianity is not in the forefront of the persecution of gays in this country today--and the Catholic and Mormon churches especially. Once again you fail. I at least read your citations, I look up your references every time, whereas you refuse to do so.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

CONGRATULATIONS!

Dr. Who: You have received the Lakeman Award for Disingenuous Religious Posting.

Henceforth it's "Thanks, but no thanks. You have called me a liar with no quotes to back it up, I have caught you in lies time after time and I have quoted you to prove my point. Lie to somebody else, I won't discuss with you anymore.

 

[Dr.Who]

One reference is supposed to wipe out the reality of the treatment of women by the Christian religion?

You asked what the bible said not what some Christians have said in whatever century. maybe those Christians would do well to follow their bible better.

A perfect example is what Jesus is alledged to have done and said when the people were going to stone the woman for prostitution. He said NOTHING about the man involved, nor did any of the others present, He chastises the woman and the man gets a free pass.

That passage was not in the earliest manuscripts. It says so right in the notes of many bibles.

When did the church finally accede to the fact that women had souls? When were they allowed to own property? When were they allowed to vote? When were they allowed to divorce abusive husbands? When were they accepted into all religious clergy positions? Tell us about the "rule of thumb". When were women allowed to kidnap men, rape them, and then turn them out homeless? How many women were burned at the stake for being witches in relation to the number of men who were burned for being warlocks? Why don't you explain to us why there is a weird prescription in the Bible for determining if a woman has been unfaithful, but not for a man? Why is a woman to be stoned if she's not a virgin on her marriage bed, but men have such requirement?

You are asking questions about topics from all over history. Stick to one and there is a possibility it can be answered. You also are covering multiple churches and lumping them all together as if they were one entity. Do you mean the Jewish church or the Catholic church? Are you talking about 3000 BC or 500 AD?



Once again, just like Lakeman, you are ignoring what you know about the Bible and the history of Christianity to tell something that is not true. This is deliberate on your part in order to give a false impression.[/QUOTE]

Actually I am being aware of the difference between what the bible says, which is what I referenced, and what various peoples and churches have done. It is you who are making generalizations that cause the issues to become muddled.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

CONGRATULATIONS!

Dr. Who: You have received the Lakeman Award for Disingenuous Religious Posting.

Henceforth it's "Thanks, but no thanks. You have called me a liar with no quotes to back it up, I have caught you in lies time after time and I have quoted you to prove my point. Lie to somebody else, I won't discuss with you anymore.

 

[Dr.Who]

CONGRATULATIONS!

Dr. Who: You have received the Lakeman Award for Disingenuous Religious Posting.

Henceforth it's "Thanks, but no thanks. You have called me a liar with no quotes to back it up, I have caught you in lies time after time and I have quoted you to prove my point. Lie to somebody else, I won't discuss with you anymore.

I am not going to stop acknowledging the good posts you make nor countering the rubbish. If you want to throw the chess pieces on the floor and tie your own hands so be it.

To all of you out there in cyber land: I don't respond to MT because I think there is any chance that I can change his mind. I do so so that when he says things that are ridiculous others can see the counterpoint. I clarified that I do not think he is a liar but he is going to force his own interpretation on to the facts and use it to justify his strategy. Obviously one of his strategies for dealing with disagreement is to just label people as liars, refuse to talk to them, and then presume to be taking the high road. I am sure he feels good about it but it is not a logical way to debate.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am not going to stop acknowledging the good posts you make nor countering the rubbish. If you want to throw the chess pieces on the floor and tie your own hands so be it.

To all of you out there in cyber land: I don't respond to MT because I think there is any chance that I can change his mind. I do so so that when he says things that are ridiculous others can see the counterpoint. I clarified that I do not think he is a liar but he is going to force his own interpretation on to the facts and use it to justify his strategy. Obviously one of his strategies for dealing with disagreement is to just label people as liars, refuse to talk to them, and then presume to be taking the high road. I am sure he feels good about it but it is not a logical way to debate.

And along with your disingenuous religious posting (as with Lakeman), you continually call me "he" as a deliberate attempt to insult. Thanks, but no thanks. There are people worth discussing with and liars who are not. If well-educated person is willing to lie about their own religion, then what WILL they be truthful about?

 

[Dr.Who]

And along with your disingenuous religious posting (as with Lakeman), you continually call me "he" as a deliberate attempt to insult. Thanks, but no thanks. There are people worth discussing with and liars who are not. If well-educated person is willing to lie about their own religion, then what WILL they be truthful about?

I know with a pretty high certainty that you are going to call me a liar for this but...

I have attempted to avoid using any pronoun when addressing you (anyone can review my posts and see that almost all of them do not use the word he or she when referring to MT) because I do not know if you are misguided he or an unfortunate victim of a genetic disorder that lead to a surgical correction making you genetically a he but physically and legitimately a she. It slipped out this time as a mistake and there was no intentional labeling. Why do you lack the grace to understand that people who disagree with you do not mean you harm?

Overall I suspect your insistence on labeling people to be liars to be intolerant and a means of avoiding an discussion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know with a pretty high certainty that you are going to call me a liar for this but...

I have attempted to avoid using any pronoun when addressing you (anyone can review my posts and see that almost all of them do not use the word he or she when referring to MT) because I do not know if you are misguided he or an unfortunate victim of a genetic disorder that lead to a surgical correction making you genetically a he but physically and legitimately a she. It slipped out this time as a mistake and there was no intentional labeling. Why do you lack the grace to understand that people who disagree with you do not mean you harm?

Overall I suspect your insistence on labeling people to be liars to be intolerant and a means of avoiding an discussion.

One last time, Who, I didn't and don't label all others liars and haters. In this you are a special case. Many people are poorly educated and don't know any better. Such is not the case with you since you have a good education and deliberately use it to lie.

You admit that you don't know who or what I am, but you lack the courtesy to address me politely even while arguing that I am "less than" and don't deserve the same legal rights and protections as you claim for yourself. Whatever you say, the ugly fact remains that I am not trying to take from others the things I value for myself and you are. I believe in equality and will not take from others what I claim for myself.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Dr.Who]

One last time, Who, I didn't and don't label all others liars and haters.

When have I said that you label ALL others as liars and haters? I have said that you label many who disagree with you as liars and haters. I might have even used a generalization, and of course people know that generalization are meant to be taken generally and do not imply ALL. But you have used the word all. Does that make you a liar?

In this you are a special case.

I am not so special. You have called several others liars and haters. Does that make you a liar?

Many people are poorly educated and don't know any better. Such is not the case with you since you have a good education and deliberately use it to lie.

I am continually impressed with the quality of the arguments that come from many people on this board. I am often impressed by those I don't agree with. I am even at times impressed by those who are clearly uneducated but nevertheless are good thinkers and say good things. I am sorry you do not have the same respect for the intellectual abilities of so many here.

You admit that you don't know who or what I am, but you lack the courtesy to address me politely even while arguing that I am "less than"

I have never said you are less than based on your orientation or "gender."

Inadvertently calling you a he (when you are in fact genetically a he) when I intended to avoid the issue out of respect is not in fact disrespectful. I have called you angry and bitter and wrong and a bunch of other stuff. But it has been spoken in truth and without malice.

Did you know that I have inadvertently called other males here she and other females here he? I usually only pay attention to the post and not so much to who makes them.

and don't deserve the same legal rights and protections as you claim for yourself. Whatever you say, the ugly fact remains that I am not trying to take from others the things I value for myself and you are. I believe in equality and will not take from others what I claim for myself.

You either already have the same rights or do not have the same rights for logical reasons just like blind folks cannot drive for logical reasons.

I would like to see the state get out of the marriage license business for all so I advocate the only system that would grant rights equally. You would extend an unfair system of granting rights and licenses upon just one or two more groups while continuing to exclude other groups.

Would anyone want to make a gentleman's wager that this will not be the last time MT addresses me? It's not like MT has not said repeatedly that I would not be addressed.

 

[Dr.Who]

And along with your disingenuous religious posting (as with Lakeman), you continually call me "he" as a deliberate attempt to insult. Thanks, but no thanks. There are people worth discussing with and liars who are not. If well-educated person is willing to lie about their own religion, then what WILL they be truthful about?

I would bet that there is a 80% chance I have never called you a he more than once.

I would bet that there is a 90% chance I have never called you a he more than twice.

I would bet that there is a 99% chance I have never called you a he more than thrice.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who
I am not going to stop acknowledging the good posts you make nor countering the rubbish. If you want to throw the chess pieces on the floor and tie your own hands so be it.

To all of you out there in cyber land: I don't respond to MT because I think there is any chance that I can change his mind. I do so so that when he says things that are ridiculous others can see the counterpoint. I clarified that I do not think he is a liar but he is going to force his own interpretation on to the facts and use it to justify his strategy. Obviously one of his strategies for dealing with disagreement is to just label people as liars, refuse to talk to them, and then presume to be taking the high road. I am sure he feels good about it but it is not a logical way to debate.

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who
I am not going to stop acknowledging the good posts you make nor countering the rubbish. If you want to throw the chess pieces on the floor and tie your own hands so be it.

To all of you out there in cyber land: I don't respond to MT because I think there is any chance that I can change his mind. I do so so that when he says things that are ridiculous others can see the counterpoint. I clarified that I do not think he is a liar but he is going to force his own interpretation on to the facts and use it to justify his strategy. Obviously one of his strategies for dealing with disagreement is to just label people as liars, refuse to talk to them, and then presume to be taking the high road. I am sure he feels good about it but it is not a logical way to debate.

Depending upon whether one wants to say that those are all examples of one post and one error or many errors I am either wrong or right.

I will assume I am wrong and recant my earlier statement and restate it as applying to separate times that I made that mistake.