As is being around a woman during her menstral cycle...approching the alter without perfect vision, and getting your haircut on saturdays....hell were all goin to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Rapture is imminent!

Those only apply to Jews, though.

How do you figure? Its in the OLD test...which Christians still follow, but many of them try and say "it dosent apply" bc of jesus in the new test...riiiiight


Ok, in the new test...it says we should all gouge our eye out if we lust....hmmmm

I have no idea if lovemerox is an ethnic Jew or not.

Well, hey, I'm just saying that that's why people don't follow those rules. Personally, I am an atheist, but it's no skin off my nose what people choose to follow.

Gouging, hmm, that's kind of difficult, can I just look at the sun for 20 minutes?

or other parts of the body, if you do follow judaism or islam : )

do islmaic people also get circumsized?

You mean Muslims.

yes, i believe only men do .. now.

Gay marriage is evil, according to the Pope. Therefore, governments shouldn't allow it.

Gay sex with children is something we can overlook, however, because it's nobody's business but the Church's and therefore government shouldn't get involved in it.

OK, everyone understand? The Catholic Church is trying to explain to us about morals since they obviously know so much about it.

this makes it sounds as if the church mandates priests to have gay sex with children. that is not fair. priests are men. and men is sinful.

(i am not catholic)

No but they are quick to cover up any molestation scandel

Just like the Iraqis and their weapons of mass destruction. :wink:

Don't be a drama queen :razz:


The Hebrew Bible (which is the appropriate term for the Old Testament) is fundamentally re-interpreted by Christianity, to the point where the interpretation is incompatible with that of Judaism (one of the reasons why Jews, unlike Gentiles, have been vehemently against converting to Christianity is that Christianity's doctrines are in essence anathema to Judaism).

The appropriate approach towards interpreting the Hebrew Bible from a Christian perspective is to see it as a symbolic paving of way for Christ; it's back history, basically. The commentary that follows Christ, Acts and afterwards, is in essence a set of interpretations, including St. Paul's epistles.

This leaves us with the Gospels...Important note: Matthew is writing for Jews, Mark and Luke for Gentiles, John is the more abstract. Another important note: Matthew has no intention of giving an historical account; the concern is with trying to convert his fellow Jews to Christianity, and establishing firm links between the HB and NT.


Anyways, my point is that an appropriate interpretation will acknowledge that the Bible has a great symbolic dimension, rather than see it as complete, literal account of facts (which it could not be; the text itself has ample proof that this is not possible). The concepts involved therein are factual enough anyways, which is the reason why Judaism and Christianity will continue to exist for millenias more; neither religion is going anywhere but forward.


On the pope: the criticism is as much if not more about the breakdown in the terminology of marriage than it is about homosexuality. Problem is that marriage has ceased to be the sole domain of religion for a very long time, if it ever was. But, and I agree with this, it has a deeply religious meaning for a lot of people, and religious institutions see it as their duty to defend its definition as it is against revisions.

The current changes taking place are part of a volatile process. The way I see it, the definition of marriage to include homosexuals will continue to spread in the West, but it's very possible (I'd say likely) that resurgent fundamentalism or a reversion to the old definition will down the line call for a re-definition. When you are dealing with an institution that has been steadfastly observed for millenias without much significant change, 'tradition' will not allow for such an abrupt break from the past without a great struggle. In other regions of the world, there is no chance of this even being considered. Why? Because there is no such thing as a universally accepted 'gay' or 'lesbian' identity. Some cultures don't have a term for it at all, in which case it does not exist to begin with. The idea of a homosexual as we have it in the West is completely foreign to other cultures*. And getting from there to changing a fundamentally important institution such as marriage is close to impossible.


As regards the pope and Iraq: The pope was at the forefront of calls not to attack Iraw. Not only that, he was considered a top contender for the Nobel Peace Prize because of it (among other things). The Vatican has clearly maintained that it opposed the war. One official even went so far as to complain about the way Saddam was paraded by Americans post-capture (he was critiziced for that, for whatever reason).


Etc.


*Not only other cultures, but ancient cultures that are frequently cited as being friendly towards homosexuals are completely different from what we think of it today. Plato, who is always cited as a great proponent of it, and in some ways is, had a fairly hostile view of actual gay relations as we understand them now; I believe he called it unnatural at one point (not 100% sure on this). Anyways, for Plato, homosexual love was based on the desire to attain wisdom; the lover would help the boy in that process. Sex, as I understand it, is beside the matter. As well, all the men were expected to grow up and marry women, without question. In Babylon, in some cases the priests would go around having sex as a means of collecting semen for the fertility goddess they worshipped. It was above all a symbolic ritual. There are plenty of other examples. It should be noted that much of the hostility in the HB is directed towards competing religions and states in the Middle East at that time; that is why Eve is the one who falls (an insult to the Earth godess cult) and the serpent is portrayed as an agent of evil (an insult to Egyptian and other cults that worshipped the snake as a deity).

[-( :-$ :wink:

is the pope still ill?

Mike, that pic kicks ass! Hahaha \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/

Pope is the illest!

woo hoo \:D/

:mrgreen:

Show me where.

Anyone.

Love thy neighbour.

Wrong, we don't believe in Hell. :wink:

Anyhow, I half agree with your earlier statement that its not about the red-necks, its about stating certain tenets, the difference is how much TIME and ENERGY and PUBLICITY this particular one gets in comparison to other ones. The fact that there is even some doubt and debate as to if the pope came out against the war in Iraq or not means he still pays much less heed to it than this issue. Look, the U.S. stands for alot of things too, but there's a hierarchy to what pressing concerns we deal with first, and it just seems to me like the amount of attention the Pope gives to this means its number one on his things-to-do list. More than any genocide in Africa or the Middle East, more important than labor abuse, poverty, or even disease, more important, than, well anything else. Thats remarkable considering as much as people may not like gays, I have yet to hear of them slaughtering straights, I have yet to even hear about a random gay drive-by shooting. They're nice little middle to upper class law abiding citizens that just sit there all cute with their upper education degrees, furnished little homes in the suburbs and their dogs and their desire to have kids and go to church on Sundays, and basically upholding everything about being a good citizen and a good christian with the one difference that they're gay. And the Pope seems to spend more of his time on this topic than anything else. Priorities.

But why should it be a priority for the Pope to come out against the war in Iraq? Granted, he did anyway, but why should he? The Pope is not playing American politics; he should be coming out for what he believes to be morally just, right? Well, is it not morally just to free people from oppression?

My point is, that there IS some room for hesitation when it comes to the war in Iraq and the Catholic point of view; there is no such ambiguity when it comes to homosexual sex.