Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Swedish celebration of St Lucia, then, or the tradition of visiting church on Christmas Day Morning (which is basically the only day of the year most of the churches is anywhere near full).

And the church curses all of us to an eternity in Hell as well. Yet I really do love those Christmas Day Mornings. Because tradition, custom, and heated spiced wine served afterwards.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh look, massive walls of religion.

[Frumple]

What I don't get though, is why you, Truean, seems to be angry at the organisation, when in this case the organisation as far as I understand actually told the priest he did wrong.

Ah, because as True's interpreting it (near as I can tell), the organization didn't tell the priest he did wrong, they told the priest that he basically shouldn't have got caught doing it. I.e. the approbation wasn't for the reprehensible act, but for doing said act in public.

That's fair to get miffed about.

[scriver]

Ah, if that is the case, I agree.

[GlyphGryph]

And that's what they seem to do EVERY time someone gets something wrong - It's always "Don't make us look bad!" not "You did something terrible!"

[Andir]

Same reason atheists might still want to celebrate Christmas, tradition and custom.

The tradition and custom of engaging in a religious ritual from an organization that explicitly tells you you're going to Hell for what you're doing? I wouldn't want any part in that.

Christmas is a rather poor comparison, I believe, since it has enough of a secular element to be a recognizable holiday even if you excise anything religious.

Agree.  Christmas to me is about family and gift giving.  It's also a poor example because gays can be believers even though they think the church is wrong and feel that worshiping their deity is more important than a close minded aspect of that religion.  Also, it may be difficult to find a church willing to accept you depending on the area you live.

[Truean]

I would've thought my sarcasm was obvious and dead on point here. The bible has some pretty terrible punishments set out in it man.... Stoning people to death is straight off the page and so is burning them in this instance. Yeah....

I know what kind of sarcasm you were going for because I've seen it a billion times.

From me? No no, I told you expressly what kind of sarcasm I was going for. The issue, the only issue I raised was pointing out how selective enforcement and ignoring certain parts was silly. That's it.

A.) It's about selectively ignoring some parts but not others.... B.) It doesn't matter which parts they are selectively ignoring or where they are located. The fact that they are ignoring them part is key.

Actually, it does matter. Parts of the New Testament simply supersede parts of the Old Testament. There is a (legitimate enough) belief among most Christians that (related to concepts like the New Covenant and Old Covenant) that Mosaic Law was specific that that place/culture or has been at least partly abrogated by the New Covenant with Jesus Christ. It's complicated, but you can't just dismiss it as inconsistent theology, because it isn't necessarily so. For example, there are distinctions between different types of Old Testament law affecting whether or not they apply in a modern Christian context (for instance, ceremonial laws vs. moral laws). Honestly, it's obvious you just haven't researched this very thoroughly.

I definitely agree that many religious people arbitrarily pick-and-choose which tenets of their faith/holy book to follow, but this is a case much more complex than that.

A.) Non applicable; you're missing the argument entirely. Yes, specific parts are overridden, but these are not those parts. No, unless you can show me where those parts of the old testament I was talking about banning homosexuality are specifically overridden, then they still apply.

C.) What "New Testament stuff?" Especially what new testament stuff that isn't based upon old Testament stuff if there is any?

There are several references in the New Testament which may or may not be taken to refer to homosexuality, depending on your interpretation/translation. You mention some yourself.

"In the New Testament, the gospels do not contain explicit discussion of homosexuality, but instead only of "sexual impurities" or porneia in general, which in the context of Mosaic law can be understood to include homosexual acts, but Christian views on the old covenant vary."

The Old Testament did.... It wanted to talk about something so it talked about something, plain as day. New testament simply didn't talk about homosexuality. The rule is if they were gonna talk about it then they did--right out in the open. Only here they didn't. So, more selective interpretation? Very specific in many areas, but dead silent on this one, so let's stretch to cover....

But really who cares? I really don't feel like debating religion, because it's pointless.

If you don't feel like debating religion, then don't bring up arguments about religion. You can't expect to make arguments for or against people's religion without expecting a response.

Have you really misunderstood this so completely?
I don't want to debate this religion; this religion is debating ME, because I'm gay.

When my parents die, I'd like to attend their funeral, and respect their final wishes, without a crapload of flack.

1.) Communion given to a convicted serial killer in prison, but not to gay? The fact that it happened AT ALL in a large organization with well set rules....

There are other factors here, such as whether or not the convicted killer is repentant. That makes a huge difference.

It makes absolutely no difference, because everyone in jail is both "innocent" and "repentant." They're "innocent" to see if they can get out of jail in life and "repentent" to see if they can get out of it in death/(or if applicable life).

3.) The actions of the priest as condoned or not by the church. <--- This is admittedly debatable, but come on, saying the catholic church doesn't like gays isn't a controversial statement. Whether or not this guy acted too strongly on them not liking it might be fair game.

I agree that the Catholic Church is rather backward concerning any matter related to human sexuality. However, even in a highly regimented organization, you're still going to get some people who go against the grain or do things they aren't supposed to do.


Personally, I'm curious why a homosexual would want to take Communion in a Catholic church.

Very simple, it was her mom's funeral and she wanted her daughter to. She was respecting her mom's wishes.

What I don't get though, is why you, Truean, seems to be angry at the organisation, when in this case the organisation as far as I understand actually told the priest he did wrong.

Ah, because as True's interpreting it (near as I can tell), the organization didn't tell the priest he did wrong, they told the priest that he basically shouldn't have got caught doing it. I.e. the approbation wasn't for the reprehensible act, but for doing said act in public.

That's fair to get miffed about.

Yes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"The Archdiocese of Washington, DC, responded and called Fr. Guarnizo’s actions against Church policy. According to the Washington Post, the Archdiocese said:  'When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion,it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person.'"

Listen to what the Bishop said. He didn't say "it was wrong not to give her the communion." He said it was not the policy of the Archdiaocese to reprimand her "publicly."  Big difference. He's not staying he doesn't like the priest's actions. he's saying he shouldn't have done it where everyone can see. The reprimand was not for the conduct, but for doing it publicly....

If it's an issue with keeping people outside your church from getting this sacrament, then come on? There are going to be people at that funeral who aren't in your church or who don't even go to church. Who are we kidding, there are all sorts of terrible people out there. They still got it.... The gay one gets publicly singled out though? Mom's funeral? [sigh]

[FearfulJesuit]

Quick chime in: the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality or other sexual immorality, at least that wasn't the main sin.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

I really wish the Religious Right would remember this verse more often.

[Max White]

Morning folks...
Hold on, I need a cup of tea, can't think right now.

Anyway, what is the hot topic right now? Why people who read religious texts in a literal way can suck it?

[Virex]

Anyway, what is the hot topic right now? Why people who read religious texts in a literal way can suck it?

Considering that the topic at hand was that a gay woman was denied the rights to hold a communion at her mother's funeral, 'they can suck it' is an interesting way to put it...

[Truean]

Morning folks...
Hold on, I need a cup of tea, can't think right now.

Anyway, what is the hot topic right now? Why people who read religious texts in a literal way can suck it?

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/priest-denies-lesbian-communion-at-mothers-funeral

Feh, I was just upset at this. It really makes writing wills/estate planning documents difficult for a lot of reasons if someone is gay. Even if it isn't the gay person writing the will....

Here, mom made it a point to plan out her affairs quite well including her funeral and choosing who she wanted to give the eulogy and how she wanted things done. Well, she chose her daughter, who... is gay. Complications arose.... A large scene was made including said pastor leaving the church while the daughter was giving the eulogy and implying he might not come back to finish the service due to this.... Somehow I don't think mom wanted that. It's sad really.

[G-Flex]

A.) Non applicable; you're missing the argument entirely. Yes, specific parts are overridden, but these are not those parts. No, unless you can show me where those parts of the old testament I was talking about banning homosexuality are specifically overridden, then they still apply.

This might surprise you, but the Bible isn't terribly clear about everything and interpretations of it vary wildly. Like I just told you, a lot of Mosaic law is seen to be superseded by the Law of Christ, including that part, the parts about clothing and shrimp, and so forth.

I really don't see why it's so illegitimate to believe that the laws given to the Jewish people in the time of Deuteronomy/Leviticus/Numbers were meant for those specific people at that specific point in history.

There are a lot of justifications for why they believe this in particular, and for why it applies to some things (e.g. most of mosaic law) and not others (mostly the Ten Commandments), a lot of it related to a few things Jesus said. It's a complicated issue, but the fact remains that it's not just arbitrary picking-and-choosing, it's dispensing with basically mosaic law (Ten Commandments aside) as a whole in favor of Christian law.

The Old Testament did.... It wanted to talk about something so it talked about something, plain as day. New testament simply didn't talk about homosexuality. The rule is if they were gonna talk about it then they did--right out in the open. Only here they didn't. So, more selective interpretation? Very specific in many areas, but dead silent on this one, so let's stretch to cover....

You're acting like the bible is a lot more explicit than it actually is. Plenty of extremely vague words and concepts are used, like "porneia", "arsenokoitai", and "akatharsia". The Bible is often incredibly bad at being specific about these things; about as bad as those old state laws that would forbid things like "crimes against nature".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Under "more detailed coverage" there are plenty of examples of this. The language is not particular clear, and due to an utter lack of linguistic context, is in some cases rather indiscernible. For instance, the word "arsenokoitai" doesn't have any extant record of usage before that passage was written.

Various interpretations are defensible, some more conservative than others. Personally, this is a reason I would give against relying so much on an old religious text for your value system that the varying translations of a single indecipherable word from a totally different linguistic and cultural context can have profound impacts on personal ethics.

Have you really misunderstood this so completely?
I don't want to debate this religion; this religion is debating ME, because I'm gay.

I thought you meant arguing about it in this thread, but point taken.

It makes absolutely no difference, because everyone in jail is both "innocent" and "repentant." They're "innocent" to see if they can get out of jail in life and "repentent" to see if they can get out of it in death/(or if applicable life).

It makes a difference in the eyes of the Church, in the sense that the Church is (except in extraordinarily rare cases) open to anyone repenting and receiving forgiveness. Yes, it's an extremely easy thing to do, but still, it's a significant difference when it comes to Church behavior.

Listen to what the Bishop said. He didn't say "it was wrong not to give her the communion." He said it was not the policy of the Archdiaocese to reprimand her "publicly."  Big difference. He's not staying he doesn't like the priest's actions. he's saying he shouldn't have done it where everyone can see. The reprimand was not for the conduct, but for doing it publicly....

Yeah, fair enough.

Quick chime in: the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality or other sexual immorality, at least that wasn't the main sin.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

I really wish the Religious Right would remember this verse more often.

That's a pretty good find. I'll have to remember it.

[Durin]

The reason "Estate planning" is difficult for gays is that there is no common law tradition for gay "households" because gays do not create "households" in the common law sense of the word. Our laws derived from old common laws, and hence there is not much in the way of guidelines for what is and is not an "estate" for gays. It's not some sort of dark Christian conspiracy.

The article in question is rather short on details. I do not think if the mother was a devout Catholic that she meant for her openly gay daughter to PARTAKE of the sacrament. If she did, she made an error. It is simply not within the scope of the Catholic faith to offer someone "out of communion" with the church to partake of the sacrament of "communion". If you do not believe that, then you do not belong in the Catholic church. If you are not Catholic, but trying to honor your dead mother's wishes, you simply quietly refuse communion. I can assure you such things can be done. They have been done by thousands of people over literally centuries.

Treating what is essentially a sexual kink as a civil rights issue is going to end up being one of the most dangerous ploys the far left has yet employed to divide this nation and destroy our grand experiment in self rule. If , in the name of "tolerance", you can't take a deep breath and just respect an entire religion's right to believe and practice their religion, then your "tolerance" is meaningless.

[G-Flex]

Durin, I was basically with you (the Catholic Church is a VERY dogmatic institution) up until this:

Treating what is essentially a sexual kink as a civil rights issue

Homosexuality is no more a sexual kink as heterosexuality, nor is it a choice, or even strictly a behavioral issue. If being gay is a "kink", so is being straight, and the civil rights issue comes into play when you treat each of those orientations differently within the law.


Also, I don't think anybody is really saying the Catholics shouldn't be able to believe what they want to believe. However, we also have the right to vehemently disagree with it, and to say their religious beliefs shouldn't impact how the actual legal system operates and what laws or rights do/don't exist.

[Durin]

The passing of the Old Testament Law is detailed in the New Testament rather extensively, and twice in Acts sexual sin is specifically singled out as an exception to the injunctions against holding people to the Judaic law. I might add that nothing in Christianity forbids Jews from continuing to practice Judaism as they had previously so long as they acknowledged Christ.

This supposed confusion over words is an invention. There is no confusion at all over the accepted sexual relationship detailed in Genesis and repeated over and over again in the Bible. The ideal model is further fleshed out in the New Testament as one man and one woman, although the scripture falls well short of forbidding polygamy in the church. For anyone who finds difficulty in a word that roughly translates to "man couching" used in the context of a whole slew of other obviously sexual references, I can only say they should take some time to refresh themselves on the importance of context in reading comprehension.