Compelled to change?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You're looking for extremes and asking rhetorical questions about them .... to prove exactly what ? IVANHOE

I'm not trying to prove anything , I'm trying to get to the bottom of what the objection to homosexuality is (other than scripture). You say that it is unnatural or not complimentary so I am finding exceptions to the rule and wondering why you reproduce because it is "unnatural" and furthers an "unnatural" gene. How far do we go?

You say that it is unnatural or not complimentary ...

In order to have a fruitful and meaningful discussion I beg you to be more precise .....

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you believe that the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is a guide to the will of God. It appears to be not only an interpretation of the scriptures, but an extrapolation of it as well. .....

The Roman Catholic Church's Cathechism is a concise description and explanation of the Scripture based teachings of the RC Church. As such it is information to use for believers and non-believers alike. You don't have to "believe in it" or to accept the truth of the teachings in order to use it as a source of information.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The descriptive fact that they do not form a "sexual complementarity" is not what is interesting about your claim in question. Yes, ivanhoe, a gay couple is not a straight couple.

What's interesting, and what I would like to see you support, is in regards to the "genuine affective...complementarity" -- or rather the putative lack thereof.

Your moral and spiritual universe is quite different from mine. If you refuse to accept the language, the deliberations, the attitude and the fundaments on which my moral universe is built, you will never be able to have a fruitful discussion with me.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Roman Catholic Church's Cathechism is a concise description and explanation of the Scripture based teachings of the RC Church. As such it is information to use for believers and non-believers alike. You don't have to "believe in it" or to accept the truth of the teachings in order to use it as a source of information.

I'd agree. However you seem to hold it up as the ultimate source of truth. Your arguments largely (perhaps completely) rest on the veracity of this document. Do you see the Catechism as an inerrant source of truth?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'd agree. However you seem to hold it up as the ultimate source of truth. Your arguments largely (perhaps completely) rest on the veracity of this document. Do you see the Catechism as an inerrant source of truth?

"However you seem to hold it up as the ultimate source of truth."

Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, is the inerrant source of truth. The Cathechism is the cristallisation of the truths of the Bible in concrete teachings.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"However you seem to hold it up as the ultimate source of truth."

Scripture, interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, is the inerrant source of truth. The Cathechism is the cristallisation of the truths of the Bible in concrete teachings.

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been inerrrant over the course of its history?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been inerrrant over the course of its history?

One has to make a clear distinction between the teachings, based on Holy Scripture, and the acts of people, members of the Church, such as Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and laypersons.

There have been many acts, performed by members of the Church and sometimes even in name of the Roman-Catholic Church, which cannot be called morally acceptable. Certain acts in history were morally wrong and totally unacceptable.

One has to bear in mind that people are sinful, also people who belong to or act in the service of the RC Church. They can make mistakes. They can make grave mistakes.

Therefore your question should be answered in this way:

Members of the Church are never inerrant. Only certain statements, laid down in the official teachings of the Church, can be inerrant.

Not everything representatives of the Church do or state is morally good or morally acceptable simply because they happen to be members or representatives of the RC Church.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
One has to make a clear distinction between the teachings, based on Holy Scripture, and the acts of people, members of the Church, such as Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and laypersons.

There have been many acts, performed by members of the Church and sometimes even in name of the Roman-Catholic Church, which cannot be called morally acc ...[text shortened]... morally acceptable simply because they happen to be members or representatives of the RC Church.

How can inerrant teachings be produced by those who are not inerrant?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Members of the Church are never inerrant. Only certain statements, laid down in the official teachings of the Church, can be inerrant..

Certain statements that very clear backing by Christ. Not just anything that happens to be in the Bible. For example, Moses' Law cannot be part of Christianity, in my opinion.

Also here is something that is worth considering. Moses Law preceeded Christ by 2K to 3K years. Christ came and did away with it. In the time of Christ the Pharisees were busy enforcing that law in a manner that displeased Him. There is no substitute for understanding the purpose of a law or guideline and applying the spirit of that law with love and understanding. This is where the Pharisees failed. It has now been 2000 years since Christ.

There can very well be new laws and guidelines forming before our eyes and we are too blind to see it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b] You say that it is unnatural or not complimentary ...

In order to have a fruitful and meaningful discussion I beg you to be more precise .....[/b]

I would like you to be more precise actually. How does homosexuality harm anyone or cause individual / social destruction? Afterall , nobody is asking you to watch .

I can offer you precise accounts and clear arguments as to how the church's stance causes hurt , pain and unhappiness. For example , I have spoken to Christians who have felt marginalised and treated as second class by the church . The anguish , pain, guilt and confusion is obvious. Can you offer a precise counter example?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Your moral and spiritual universe is quite different from mine. If you refuse to accept the language, the deliberations, the attitude and the fundaments on which my moral universe is built, you will never be able to have a fruitful discussion with me.

Oh give me a break, ivanhoe. I am just asking you to provide rational support for your stance. You made a claim (copied and pasted a claim, that is) that in part says blanketly that the affections and feelings between gay partners are not "genuine" and/or are not complementary. Now I'm directly asking you, ivanhoe, why I should believe that. If all you do is post some unsupported claims and then cannot or refuse to provide any further support when asked, why should anyone take you seriously, ivanhoe?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh give me a break, ivanhoe. I am just asking you to provide rational support for your stance. You made a claim (copied and pasted a claim, that is) that in part says blanketly that the affections and feelings between gay partners are not "genuine" and/or are not complementary. Now I'm directly asking you, ivanhoe, why I should believe that. I ...[text shortened]... use to provide any further support when asked, why should anyone take you seriously, ivanhoe?

You can't read. The Cathechism does not state the claims you mention.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How can inerrant teachings be produced by those who are not inerrant?

A wee bit of topic .... don't you think ..... but interesting anyway !

Originally posted by Rajk999
Certain statements that very clear backing by Christ. Not just anything that happens to be in the Bible. For example, Moses' Law cannot be part of Christianity, in my opinion.

Also here is something that is worth considering. Moses Law preceeded Christ by 2K to 3K years. Christ came and did away with it. In the time of Christ the Pharisees were busy enfo ...[text shortened]... an very well be new laws and guidelines forming before our eyes and we are too blind to see it.

"Moses Law preceeded Christ by 2K to 3K years. Christ came and did away with it."

He did ? How ?

This is also a wee bit off topic ......

Originally posted by ivanhoe
A wee bit of topic .... don't you think ..... but interesting anyway !

How is this off topic? You clearly rely on the veracity of the Catechism of the RCC as your source for guidance on this topic. I'm just questioning the wisdom of following a source that is provided by an institution that seems to have trouble following and therefore likely understanding the teachings of Jesus.