308 replies to this topic

[the L]

http://www.telegraph...y-marriage.html


"In the fight for the family, the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question," the Pope said in Italian during an end-of-year speech.


Kind a misleading  title.

[Coffey]

Anyone surprised really?

I swear the Pope/Vatican spreads more hate than love.

[the L]

Coffey, on 23 December 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Anyone surprised really?

I swear the Pope/Vatican spreads more hate than love.

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.
Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

[Sean93]

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.
Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

And this is not the only thing the church is divided over, which begs the question. if the bible is Gods word, why the hell isn't it seen universally as one work and word; y'know, considering it was made for everyone equally? (That's rhetorical btw)

Edited by Sean93, 23 December 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[the L]

Sean93, on 23 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

And this is not the only thing the church is divided over, which begs the question. if the bible is Gods word, why the hell isn't it seen universally as one work and word; y'know, considering it was made for everyone equally? (That's rhetorical btw)

Because its process. Church too evolved. They change. Which is good. They allow different opinions and they argued about them.
Jesuits, as one of my favourite orders due their influence on education and knowledge in general, are not seeing many things as others Chatolic orders.
They were always exception in Chatolic church and I like their history and their views on many things.

[Gravitorbox]

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

[the L]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

That is logic argument. (Isnt?)

Edited by the L, 23 December 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

That is logic argument. (Isnt?)

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

[Coffey]

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.
Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

Ah didn't realise they where divided over it. Not surprised though, they couldn't agree on the colour of *****.  (gotta love that bit in Braveheart lol)

Edited by Coffey, 23 December 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[Coffey]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

Not according to the Oxford dictionary.

Quote

Definition of marriage
noun

• 
  1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage
  
• 
  [mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage
  
• 
  (in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.

<a name="marriage__8"> 2a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

Which means you can have same sex marriage by it's definition.

[the L]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 23 December 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

But Abraham got his child in 60s. Who knows what tommorow bring. Maybe science will found way for curing it. Also if couple dont want a child it might happen to them no matter what.Mysterious is ways of the God.

[Sean93]

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Because its process. Church too evolved. They change. Which is good. They allow different opinions and they argued about them.
Jesuits, as one of my favourite orders due their influence on education and knowledge in general, are not seeing many things as others Chatolic orders.
They were always exception in Chatolic church and I like their history and their views on many things.

That's my problem. The church should not have to evolve because the rules were given millennia ago; strict guidelines on the do's and do not's of life and the mere fact that the church is still progressing (no longer burning people alive for witchcraft* etc) give evidence to it's man-made origin because I cannot believe that an omnipotent and powerful creator would lay down it's law, only to have it change over time with new additions and the deletion or ignorance of others.

It should have been clear from the start what god intended like these days, burning someone alive*2 would be considered murder and a horrible sin in gods eyes and yet back in the day, his law aloud for it to happen under certain circumstances. Lev 20:14 among others.

Of course you could say that God is letting us progress but he/she/it never had a problem stepping in before, getting involved personally whereas now he doesn't. (unless of course you're of the breed that he clears check-outs and helps you find your keys)

*In developed countries.
*2 Again, in developed countries.

Edited by Sean93, 23 December 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[shadowhive]

Whenever the pope speaks it's like he's so out of touch. I onder, has he ever even actually met a gay person and talked to them? Likely not as he seems convinced that they're some big bad monster.

[the L]

Coffey, on 23 December 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Ah didn't realise they where divided over it. Not surprised though, they couldn't agree on the colour of *****.  (gotta love that bit in Braveheart lol)

Yup. When I discovered Jesuits and their history and their stance in general I change my opinion on Chatolic church. You must love that order.
Only thing they are shamed of is their priest Xavier.
When they talk about Big Bang in Vatican Hawking was there. Search for Pierre Teilhard de Chardin for example. He influenced over Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
They dont always obey to Church orders so Vatican and Jesuits have interesting history. Tense one but interesting.

They argued with Vatican about evolution, abortion, big bang, child birth control, gays...

During WW2 Nazists saw them as highly dangerous enemies. And Gestapo hunted down Jesuits and if not killed on scene they would be sent in concentration camps.

[the L]

Sean93, on 23 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

...

I dont see why God if exist wouldnt allow progress in time. Slow one. Why wouldnt Church evolved? If they saw that they were wrong. There are intellectuals among Chatolic church as well. Those people dont want to stick with old mistake rather then hear new voice. But Chatolic church (beside Orthodox church) is church which Jesus established. So things dont go there as in Church who established some loony. They have tradition and rules inside it.
Also Spanish inqusition is more political question then religious question.