Pope likens "saving" gays to saving the rainforest

[Midnight Son]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. "(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."
The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."


The Papacy: Not out of touch at all!

[Ryan A]

The Papacy: Not out of touch at all!

While coming up with an actually meaningful statement may be more effort than Midnight Son is willing to put into any of his trashposts, I'm sure a legitimate critique of the Vatican's position is possible here. Out of touch? Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

[DavidKaye]

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6043/captainobviousyj4.jpg

[Midnight Son]

While coming up with an actually meaningful statement may be more effort than Midnight Son is willing to put into any of his trashposts, I'm sure a legitimate critique of the Vatican's position is possible here. Out of touch? Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

How do you manage to get through life being such a mean hating son of a bitch? Just checking.

OOH! And that Kalle, too..... Tsk tsk.

[Problematique]

lol

He forgets one thing.

Paul says:

"No Longer do we serve in the old ways of a written law, but in the new way of the spirit" Romans 7:5

The law banning homosexuality was established in the Torah. However, according to Paul, the main focus point of Christianity, is how the people no longer have to adhere to this law. Faith that Christ died for your sins is enough for a Christian to enter the pearly gates. So the Pope has to choose now. Either Paul was faking it. Or the Pope should admit that he desires Catholicism to be surpass other religions such as Islam( his No1 "enemy" in terms of scale) in numbers, even to the extent that he nullifies the understandings of own teachings.

Sorry, but I'm still disgusted as to how the Catholic church bans the use of condoms in aids afflicted countries.

[Lum]

Pope Benedict: straight outta 1633 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!).

The law banning homosexuality was established in the Torah. However, according to Paul, the main focus point of Christianity, is how the people no longer have to adhere to this law.

Not that it personally effects my views (I'm not big on biblical inerrancy and think Paul of Tarsus has a lot to answer for historically, and I put a lot more stock in gender theory than the epistles of 1st century apostles) but there are many references in the New Testament critical of homosexuality as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

[Lh'owon]

While coming up with an actually meaningful statement may be more effort than Midnight Son is willing to put into any of his trashposts, I'm sure a legitimate critique of the Vatican's position is possible here. Out of touch? Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

No, it is out of touch. With reality.

[Midnight Son]

No, it is out of touch. With reality.

Hey now! Defending the Pope against evil doers like myself is doing Gawd's work!

I made fun of the Emperor......

[Problematique]

Pope Benedict: straight outta 1633 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove%21).



Not that it personally effects my views (I'm not big on biblical inerrancy and think Paul of Tarsus has a lot to answer for historically, and I put a lot more stock in gender theory than the epistles of 1st century apostles) but there are many references in the New Testament critical of homosexuality as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Christianity

Thanks for that. I learned something new today lol.


The thing is though :

For we conclude that a person is upright with God, ONLY through faith and not be doing what The Law commands (Romans 3:28)

Here he establishes that faith in the crucifiction and ressurection of Christ is enough for salvation. Making specific remarks against the Law of Moses. So how can he hold the same views, or even consider that ANYTHING can prevent a Christian from the pearly gates?

So many questions, :s

[Ryan A]

Problematique: Go read the entire chapter of Romans 3. The verse you're quoting is not a rejection or refutation of the Mosaic Law. Rather, it is the conclusion of Paul's argument that it is humanly impossible to perfectly adhere to the Law and thus earn one's way into Heaven: that the impossibility of the Law highlights the need for Christ's crucifixion as a substitute for the penalty all of mankind sits under for failing to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

As far as the relevance to this topic, I don't think it's a very good idea to look to the Bible for justification of homosexual marriage. If you accept the Bible as an authoritative source to direct modern living, it presents a number of incredibly thorny issues to work through. If you want to justify homosexuality or divorce or any number of other things that are widely accepted in modern society, do so with modern arguments and quote modern thinkers: you'll find plenty.

[Midnight Son]

I still can't wrap my head around discussing fiction as if it were reality. Oh well.

[Problematique]

Problematique: Go read the entire chapter of Romans 3. The verse you're quoting is not a rejection or refutation of the Mosaic Law. Rather, it is the conclusion of Paul's argument that it is humanly impossible to perfectly adhere to the Law and thus earn one's way into Heaven: that the impossibility of the Law highlights the need for Christ's crucifixion as a substitute for the penalty all of mankind sits under for failing to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

As far as the relevance to this topic, I don't think it's a very good idea to look to the Bible for justification of homosexual marriage. If you accept the Bible as an authoritative source to direct modern living, it presents a number of incredibly thorny issues to work through. If you want to justify homosexuality or divorce or any number of other things that are widely accepted in modern society, do so with modern arguments and quote modern thinkers: you'll find plenty.

Ah thanks. I guess I have to read that then :)

[Jason McCullough]

It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

Dunno about that (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805226.htm).

A plurality of registered Catholic voters, 36 percent, said homosexual couples should be able to form civil unions. The remaining 64 percent were split evenly -- 32 percent to 32 percent -- on gay couples being able to legally marry or such couples getting no legal recognition.

Amusingly the group that commisioned the poll then goes on to say they don't believe the results. I get poll results all over the place though - 2% here (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=28263)? 48% here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/prop-8-tea-leaf.html#comment-3285038221628701219)?

Ah, here we go - Pew (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage) has catholics evenly divided.

[MattKeil]

While coming up with an actually meaningful statement may be more effort than Midnight Son is willing to put into any of his trashposts, I'm sure a legitimate critique of the Vatican's position is possible here. Out of touch? Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

If enough people agree a group of other people should be oppressed, they should be oppressed? They tried that argument with segregation already. Was wrong then, too.

I still can't wrap my head around discussing fiction as if it were reality. Oh well.

Spend some time on comic book forums, you'll get the hang of it.

[Midnight Son]

Spend some time on comic book forums, you'll get the hang of it.

Do they take it as serious as religion? Probably do....

[Lh'owon]

... it is humanly impossible to perfectly adhere to the Law and thus earn one's way into Heaven: that the impossibility of the Law highlights the need for Christ's crucifixion as a substitute for the penalty all of mankind sits under for failing to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

So let me get this straight:

1. God creates humans who are intrinsically incapable of living up to his standards.
2. He then defines an absolute law that must be lived up to if one is to enter his magic land of endless happiness (the alternative being the magic land of endless pain).
3. Now he realises there might be a small problem here – namely that his design of us is imperfect and thus no human can enter heaven. So to fix this he...
4. Impregnates his own mother to give birth to his son-but-really-himself so that he can die painfully for mankind's sins (which he manufactured), except that he came back to life after three days which he new would happen.

And even this depreciated sacrifice fails to grasp that you cannot absolve someone else of guilt by your own suffering. You can even take the place of the condemned murderer on the gallows, but you can't remove their guilt.





(Just poking fun!)

[rhinohelix]

So let me get this straight:

1. God creates humans who are intrinsically incapable of living up to his standards.
2. He then defines an absolute law that must be lived up to if one is to enter his magic land of endless happiness (the alternative being the magic land of endless pain).
3. Now he realises there might be a small problem here – namely that his design of us is imperfect and thus no human can enter heaven. So to fix this he...
4. Impregnates his own mother to give birth to his son-but-really-himself so that he can die painfully for mankind's sins (which he manufactured), except that he came back to life after three days which he new would happen.

And even this depreciated sacrifice fails to grasp that you cannot absolve someone else of guilt by your own suffering. You can even take the place of the condemned murderer on the gallows, but you can't remove their guilt.





(Just poking fun!)

Denigrating the views of Christians: Comedy.
Denigrating the views of any other religious group: bigotry.

No double standards here.

[Lh'owon]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

"Denigrate" – criticize unfairly; disparage
Unfair? Did I get something wrong or what?

"Disparage" – regard or represent as being of little worth
A very accurate description of what I think of religious belief :)

When have I ever said doing the same to other religious views is bigotry? I am quite even handed in my disparagement of silly beliefs.

And yea, it is comedy. I laughed out loud when I read Ryan A's summary of Paul's argument.

[Ben Sones]

If enough people agree a group of other people should be oppressed, they should be oppressed? They tried that argument with segregation already. Was wrong then, too.

Not to put words in Ryan's mouth, but he didn't say anything one way or the other about how he feels about the issue. He merely pointed out that Midnight Son was incorrect in saying that the Pope is out of touch for looking down on gay people. And sadly, Ryan is correct. On that matter, the Pope is more in touch with the general population of the world than are gay rights advocates here in this forum, and elsewhere. People supporting gay rights are, unfortunately, a minority of the general population.

[Ryan A]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

"Denigrate" – criticize unfairly; disparage
Unfair? Did I get something wrong or what?

"Disparage" – regard or represent as being of little worth
A very accurate description of what I think of religious belief :)

When have I ever said doing the same to other religious views is bigotry? I am quite even handed in my disparagement of silly beliefs.

And yea, it is comedy. I laughed out loud when I read Ryan A's summary of Paul's argument.

I think Lh'owon actually gives a pretty good outsider's overview of christian belief: any belief system sounds pretty ludicrous when you reduce it to the broad overview and divorce it from some of the more important underpinnings. Heck, any story does too. That doesn't make the belief system (or the story) ludicrous: it's like taking a delicious dish and yanking out half of the ingredients: the ones remaining won't taste good.

As for Ben Sones and Matt Keil: Ben read me correctly: I wasn't trying to espouse any personal beliefs with regard to the pope. As far as I'm concerned, the Vatican represents much of how human avarice has corrupted a pretty awesome system of thinking and believing.

[cesare]

No, it is out of touch. With reality.

..Or very in touch with the tenets of the given faith. Given the subjectivity of the issue, I'm not sure how anyone's view can be considered "out of touch" unless there's a qualification attached. For example, "out of touch with modern society", or "out of touch with God's intent".

This isn't ID, the Pope is arguing doctrine, not science.

[Ryan A]

So let me get this straight:

1. God creates humans who are intrinsically incapable of living up to his standards.
2. He then defines an absolute law that must be lived up to if one is to enter his magic land of endless happiness (the alternative being the magic land of endless pain).
3. Now he realises there might be a small problem here – namely that his design of us is imperfect and thus no human can enter heaven. So to fix this he...
4. Impregnates his own mother to give birth to his son-but-really-himself so that he can die painfully for mankind's sins (which he manufactured), except that he came back to life after three days which he new would happen.


The important part where you diverge from the story is in number 1. The story goes that God's creation, man, was perfect and fully in tune with God's Law. God made man with free will, which gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose whether or not to follow God's rules. They chose to break the rules, magically cursing themselves and all their descendants (mankind). The Incarnation was the way to break this curse. Upon the crucifixion, while the curse was broken, people retain their free will to select salvation or damnation. The whole damnation thing is a bit of a sticky wicket in christian theology, as most conventional beliefs about the afterlife seem to have more basis in medieval art and literature than in anything written in the Bible.

[Rimbo]

While I find the idea of "Saving gays" questionable, I really like the idea of "ecology of man" or of the soul.

So how can he hold the same views, or even consider that ANYTHING can prevent a Christian from the pearly gates?

Well, there's one version of Predestination which says just that -- that Christ's sacrifice was total, and all are destined for Heaven.

The theory goes on to say that if you don't reject the sinful life, you won't be able to recognize it when you get there, you'll be in a Hell of your own making, you will reject it or it will seem like Hell to you.

I think the idea of that last one is like: Consider a person who has only known deceit, and suddenly finds himself in a town where everyone is honest and forthright. He would drive himself mad second-guessing everyone's intentions, and would end up rejecting all of the friendly overtures due to suspicion or spite. Or a thief who finds himself trapped in a situation where he has all the wealth in the world, and keeps hiding the silver in his pocket, only to find that no one cares what he steals -- there's no challenge, no reward, no point to the stealing, yet he keeps on stealing things, getting madder and madder that everyone else is content and doesn't mind. What is for all others a paradise is, for these souls, a Hell.

[Wholly Schmidt]

This thread is way more interesting than I was expecting (like, in a genuine, not sarcastic way). Weird.

[Rimbo]

I still can't wrap my head around discussing fiction as if it were reality. Oh well.

Consider Aesop's Fables. Is it true that "One good turn deserves another" as in "The Lion and the Mouse?" Is it true that "Slow and steady wins the race" as in "The Tortoise and the Hare?" We know that Lions and Mice don't talk to each other, and that there is no organized sportsmanship between lepidoptera and reptilians. So it's obviously fiction.

Consider Orwell's 1984. Obviously there is not now nor has there been a world described therein... yet some would say we are approaching an "Orwellian" future, that we've experienced "Big Brother."

We regularly read fiction stories for the truths about humanity that they reveal. (And other times just for the sex and violence.)

The idea that a text can report "just the facts" without bias is relatively recent, and certainly comes LONG after the Bible was written. The point has always been to use stories -- fictional and otherwise -- to illustrate higher truths.

[Rimbo]

The important part where you diverge from the story is in number 1. The story goes that God's creation, man, was perfect and fully in tune with God's Law. God made man with free will, which gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose whether or not to follow God's rules. They chose to break the rules, magically cursing themselves and all their descendants (mankind).

Just to be pedantic, one of the key areas where many Protestants disagree with Catholics is right here, the idea that Adam and Eve's sin cursed all of their descendants. The Protestant version, rather, is that we are each responsible for our own behavior. It's actually possible to live life sin-free by this reckoning. So you as an individual may not need the sacrifice of Christ.

But you probably do. :)

This is glossing over a TON of details (and I might even have a glaring error or two) that are an injustice to Ryan A's detailed descriptions of dogma.

[Ryan A]

Just to be pedantic, one of the key areas where many Protestants disagree with Catholics is right here, the idea that Adam and Eve's sin cursed all of their descendants. The Protestant version, rather, is that we are each responsible for our own behavior. It's actually possible to live life sin-free by this reckoning. So you as an individual may not need the sacrifice of Christ.


Sorry, Rimbo, but I'm pretty sure that what you've expressed here would be considered heresy by any Protestant or Catholic theologian.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Original Sin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)

[noun]

NEWS FLASH: Religious figure reiterates dogma known for being a cornerstone of that faith. No one's opinion gets changed. Film at 11.

[Midnight Son]

Next: I report Pat Robertson's latest wisdom.

[cesare]

The Protestant version, rather, is that we are each responsible for our own behavior. It's actually possible to live life sin-free by this reckoning. So you as an individual may not need the sacrifice of Christ.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

12345

[madkevin]

I think the idea of that last one is like: Consider a person who has only known deceit, and suddenly finds himself in a town where everyone is honest and forthright. He would drive himself mad second-guessing everyone's intentions, and would end up rejecting all of the friendly overtures due to suspicion or spite. Or a thief who finds himself trapped in a situation where he has all the wealth in the world, and keeps hiding the silver in his pocket, only to find that no one cares what he steals -- there's no challenge, no reward, no point to the stealing, yet he keeps on stealing things, getting madder and madder that everyone else is content and doesn't mind. What is for all others a paradise is, for these souls, a Hell.

You seem to have confused theology with the "A Nice Place To Visit" episode of the original Twilight Zone. A common mistake.

[Lh'owon]

..Or very in touch with the tenets of the given faith.

Which is entirely out of touch with reality.

I can't see how you can possibly argue that "(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed" which is talking explicitly about sodomy ("The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are") isn't out of touch with reality.

I think Lh'owon actually gives a pretty good outsider's overview of christian belief: any belief system sounds pretty ludicrous when you reduce it to the broad overview and divorce it from some of the more important underpinnings.

Any religious belief system, yea. Which doesn't surprise me for obvious reasons: I think they're all silly.

Heck, any story does too. That doesn't make the belief system (or the story) ludicrous: it's like taking a delicious dish and yanking out half of the ingredients: the ones remaining won't taste good.

No, I'd disagree with any story. Maybe fiction, but even then I struggle to think of a story that would sound as ludicrous as that one does. And even if I did it's fiction, so that hardly supports your argument.

The whole cake analogy is entirely your assertion and that's fine you feel that way, but you'll have to enlighten me on the essential ingredients as I've yet to hear any that significantly improves the story.

The important part where you diverge from the story is in number 1. The story goes that God's creation, man, was perfect and fully in tune with God's Law. God made man with free will, which gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose whether or not to follow God's rules.

So God's definition of perfection is a being which follows his set of rules to the letter. He then gives his created beings free will, which allows them to do whatever they like so long as it is exactly what he wants them to do. If they actually exercise their "free will" they bring destruction upon themselves. I think God was struggling with the concept a little bit. :)

Not only that, but in the perfect garden where they live he places an apple tree which he absolutely forbids them to partake of. And in this tree he puts a snake which tempts them to eat the apples. Why would he do that? I think this cake might need a little more seasoning before it becomes palatable, but that's just me.

They chose to break the rules, magically cursing themselves and all their descendants (mankind). The Incarnation was the way to break this curse. Upon the crucifixion, while the curse was broken, people retain their free will to select salvation or damnation. The whole damnation thing is a bit of a sticky wicket in christian theology, as most conventional beliefs about the afterlife seem to have more basis in medieval art and literature than in anything written in the Bible.

You said "any belief system sounds pretty ludicrous when you reduce it to the broad overview..." before, but I've got to be frank here: the more details you add the more ludicrous the story gets. This could work as a fantasy novel, but you're talking about it as if it is actually true. My mind boggles to think that people believe in this not just as metaphor but as literal truth. And even as metaphor I'm struggling to see the wisdom in any of this.

[Rimbo]

Sorry, Rimbo, but I'm pretty sure that what you've expressed here would be considered heresy by any Protestant or Catholic theologian.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Original Sin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)

Well, maybe it's just my version, because it's a ridiculous thing to believe.

Edit: I know we've had this discussion before.

Anyway, I never got the idea from my church (Presbyterian) that I'd inherited anything; we all pretty much figured we'd done enough on our own to need salvation. Maybe I just got lucky?

[Ryan A]

Hey Lh'owon,

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to convince you to believe any of this story. I wasn't. You're certainly not the first to believe the cake is a lie.

[Lh'owon]

I should say that the Garden of Eden story I find oddly touching. It was a very human thing to do, eating the apple, and demonstrated characteristics that make me particularly proud of our species: curiosity, a latent desire to "see what happens", and above all an unwillingness to bow down to absolute authority - an unspoken wisdom that tells us our free will is what makes us human, and to forsake it is to forsake ourselves.

I've always understood that the apple is supposed to represent worldly knowledge, knowledge which forever destroyed the innocence of Adam and Eve and doomed humanity. The choice, then: forever be a child in paradise, knowing nothing but love love of God and obedience to God; or choose knowledge and grow up, have the blinds lifted from your eyes and see the world for what it really is, both dark and light. Ignorance may be bliss, but given the choice I would eat that apple every time.

[Lh'owon]

Hey Lh'owon,

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to convince you to believe any of this story. I wasn't. You're certainly not the first to believe the cake is a lie.

Oh no, not at all. I'm just stating my reasons for thinking it silly.

[Rimbo]

You seem to have confused theology with the "A Nice Place To Visit" episode of the original Twilight Zone. A common mistake.

Haven't seen that episode. Have discussed this in Sunday School before, though. But it was brief. Just interesting.

The real reason for Predestination was as a response to Excommunication -- the idea being that only God has the authority to expel people from Heaven, not the Pope/Church.

[cesare]

I can't see how you can possibly argue that "(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed" which is talking explicitly about sodomy ("The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are") isn't out of touch with reality.

I don't get what you're saying. It's a doctrinal statement, it's the exact type of statement I'd expect from the Catholic church based on its teachings. The only thing it's out of touch with is a modern liberal minority viewpoint. That's like telling someone that not eating pork for religious reasons is totally out of touch with reality. I mean wtf, it's not possible to make more subjective argument than that.

[Lh'owon]

I don't get what you're saying. It's a doctrinal statement, it's the exact type of statement I'd expect from the Catholic church based on its teachings. The only thing it's out of touch with is a modern liberal minority viewpoint. That's like telling someone that not eating pork for religious reasons is totally out of touch with reality. I mean wtf, it's not possible to make more subjective argument than that.

I'm saying that sodomy does not destroy mankind, there is not the slightest evidence to suggest it would, and to compare sodomy to the felling of rain forests in destructive effect is patently false. One shows no "destructive" effects, the other empirically does.

That is the very definition of being out of touch with reality. Why does it matter that it's in touch with religious doctrine - I mean no shit, he's the pope. It's reality I'm talking about, which is a completely different thing to religious doctrine.

[Rimbo]

I looked it up.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

I WAS RIGHT!!! I got yer fuckin' citations right here...

cf. "A Brief Statement of Faith (http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-faith.htm)" by Presbyterian Church, USA

33 But we rebel against God; we hide from our Creator.
34 Ignoring God's commandments,
35 we violate the image of God in others and ourselves,
36 accept lies as truth,
37 exploit neighbor and nature,
38 and threaten death to the planet entrusted to our care.
39 We deserve God's condemnation.

Commentary on this taken from Belonging to God (http://www.amazon.com/Belonging-God-Commentary-Brief-Statement/dp/0664252966/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230094984&sr=8-4), W C Placher and D Willis-Watkins, ©1992 Westminster/John Knox Press, pp. 109-111...

The authors of the Bible rarely tried to "explain" the origin of sin; indeed, they recognized that the origin of sin cannot be explained. If some force "caused" us to sin, we would not be responsible. We choose sin, and that choice seems deeply irrational...

Many Christian theologians have sought to explaint that universality of sin by talking about "original sin," but they have explained that sin and our relationto it in varied ways. ... The dominant account in Calvin and in the Reformed confessions (and, for that matter, the view Paul seems to take in Romans 5) emphasizes Adam's representative character.

...

To sin is not our nature, for we are God's creatures and, as such, good. But the human reality as we know is a reality of universal sin. ...

...

We know ourselves to be judged guilty in a way that makes sense only if we are responsible for our actions; we also know the sheer inevitability of human sin.

The text goes on in more detail than I'm willing to transcribe here, but in short, there is no "curse" or inheritance, and this is very much part of the Reformed tradition. (Leave it to a Catholic to call it "Heresy.") We rebel against God, all on our own.

[Rimbo]

Also, notice the little ecological dig Presbyterian Church USA put in there? That was pretty radical back in 1992. :)

[Ryan A]

Leave it to Rimbo to invent an either/or out of a both/and.

Rimbo, you can make up whatever individualized belief system you want, but don't pretend it's any kind of orthodox christianity. It's your assertion that each individual has the capacity to be perfect apart from Christ that would be considered heretical by any theologian, not your blind quoting from commentaries you don't understand.

I don't personally care what you believe. Just don't dress it up in the name of any of the intellectual or spiritual progeny of Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other protestant reformer. You might find some folks in the LDS movement to agree with you, or possibly some old gnostics, but you won't find anybody that actually understands christian doctrine to support your erroneous "corrections" in this thread.

[Staff Sergeant]

It's irrelevant anyways, because even thinking about committing a sin is considered a sin in the Christian religion, so whether or nor you have ever actually done something wrong, you have had sinful thoughts and are in need of salvation (and there is no lying here, if you believe in God, then you also believe he knows what you are thinking/have thought).

[Anders Hallin]

Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.
As I recall, Prop. 6 failed.

[Jason McCullough]

The text goes on in more detail than I'm willing to transcribe here, but in short, there is no "curse" or inheritance, and this is very much part of the Reformed tradition. (Leave it to a Catholic to call it "Heresy.") We rebel against God, all on our own.

I don't know about official doctrine, but Southern Baptists are pretty damn adamant that without being born again through immersion you're going to hell. I guess we rebel the second we pop out?

[Mordrak]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222

The Papacy: Not out of touch at all!


I guess the his holy poopiness hasn't seen any recent population numbers or the rate of homosexuality among the populace. It's not like homosexuals are out to convert us heteros with their gay pagan porno magic.

[Mordrak]

I don't know about official doctrine, but Southern Baptists are pretty damn adamant that without being born again through immersion you're going to hell. I guess we rebel the second we pop out?

I think Catholics believe in original sin. There's some age of accountability. Before a certain age, original sin doesn't take affect I guess. They should have a "You are now damned." coming of age party.

[Rimbo]

Leave it to Rimbo to invent an either/or out of a both/and.

Rimbo, you can make up whatever individualized belief system you want, but don't pretend it's any kind of orthodox christianity. It's your assertion that each individual has the capacity to be perfect apart from Christ that would be considered heretical by any theologian, not your blind quoting from commentaries you don't understand.

I don't personally care what you believe. Just don't dress it up in the name of any of the intellectual or spiritual progeny of Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other protestant reformer. You might find some folks in the LDS movement to agree with you, or possibly some old gnostics, but you won't find anybody that actually understands christian doctrine to support your erroneous "corrections" in this thread.

My claim was that there are major Protestant faiths that reject the idea of Original Sin. I backed it up with evidence. Everything you say above is simply irrelevant; whether it's an either/or or an and/both, Original Sin is just not part of Presbyterian dogma.

Trying to say that I "don't understand" something I've studied and you haven't is just your own arrogance; you were caught acting like a knowitall and now you're acting like a sore loser knowitall.

[Rimbo]

I like the idea of a "You are now damned" coming of age party. :)

I don't know about official doctrine, but Southern Baptists are pretty damn adamant that without being born again through immersion you're going to hell. I guess we rebel the second we pop out?

As my Mom would say, "That's why we're not Southern Baptists."

Presbyterian dogma requires both (a) free will and (b) innocent until choosing to rebel against God.

But one thing to note is that while the official dogma of the PCUSA is that all will eventually choose to rebel, that the way the church works, this was likely a compromise between multiple groups, from those who do believe in Original Sin with those who believe, "Man, we don't need to resort to logical Rube Goldberg devices just to convince people that they just GOTTA join our religion."

Which was the real reason we weren't Southern Baptists.

[Ryan A]

My claim was that there are major Protestant faiths that reject the idea of Original Sin. I backed it up with evidence. Everything you say above is simply irrelevant; whether it's an either/or or an and/both, Original Sin is just not part of Presbyterian dogma.

You didn't quote any evidence of any major Protestant faith that rejects the notion of Original Sin, which is why I said you didn't understand your own source. Which is par for the course with you. The modern American Presbyterian doctrinal statement does not exist as the sole holy or instructional text in the Presbyterian faith. Which is typical Rimbo false dichotomy posting (the either/or instead of the both/and). Go read the Wikipedia entry on Presbyterianism and get into an editing war if you disagree. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) Here's a time-saver though, you'll lose. Like I said, believe whatever you want to on a personal level, but don't try to dress up your half-understood statements as some kind of intelligent synthesis of modern Calvinist thought.

Here's an interesting article for anybody interested in an analysis of modern Presbyterian thinking (http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Gregory.html)

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (http://www.pcusa.org/oga/constitution.htm) will also be instructive.

Here's the Westminster Confession of Faith (http://www.bible-researcher.com/wescontext.html), which expresses the core doctrine of the Presbyterian denomination.

Here's the relevant section with scriptural annotations:

Chapter 6. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof.

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.a This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.b
a. Gen 3:13; 2 Cor 11:3. • b. Rom 11:32.
2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God,a and so became dead in sin,b and wholly defiled in all the (29) faculties and parts of soul and body.c
a. Gen 3:6-8; Eccl 7:29; Rom 3:23. • b. Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1. • c. Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Rom 3:10-19; Titus 1:15.
3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,a and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.b
a. Gen 1:27-28 and 2:16-17 and Acts 17:26 with Rom 5:12, 15-19 and 1 Cor 15:21-22; 1Cor 15:45, 49. • b. Gen 5:3; Job 14:4; 15:14; Psa 51:5.
4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,a and wholly inclined to all evil,b do proceed all actual transgressions.c
a. Rom 5:6; 7:18; 8:7; Col 1:21. • b. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Rom 3:10-12. • c. Mat 15:19; Eph 2:2-3; James 1:14-15.
5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;a and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin.b
a. Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20; Rom 7:14, 17-18, 23; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8, 10. • b. Rom 7:5, 7-8, 25; Gal 5:17.
6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,a doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,b whereby he is bound over to the wrath of Godc and curse of the law,d and so made subject to death,e with all miseries spiritual,f temporal,g and eternal.h
a. 1 John 3:4. • b. Rom 2:15; 3:9, 19. • c. Eph 2:3. • d. Gal 3:10. • e. Rom 6:23. • f. Eph 4:18. • g. Lam 3:39; Rom 8:20. • h. Mat 25:41; 2 Thes 1:9.


The introduction notes the sections where modern American Presbyterianism differs from the original doctrinal statements. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/confess.html) Chapter six (on original sin) is not one of them.

[Grifman]

I don't know about official doctrine, but Southern Baptists are pretty damn adamant that without being born again through immersion you're going to hell. I guess we rebel the second we pop out?

Uh, you're not even close, official doctrine or not :)

Let me elaborate where you are mistaken:

1) You are not "born again" through immersion, baptism is a symbol, being "born again" precedes baptism
2) Baptism (immersion) does not save you, it is an act of obedience following the command and example of Christ
3) Though Baptists practice immersion, that does not mean that other churches that do not practice immersion are sending their members to hell (implied in your post).

[Linoleum]

This is a much less interesting story if you read an accurate translation of what the pope actually said (http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/12/23/what-pope-benedict-actually-said/). Relying on British media for your reporting on Christianity is like relying on MEMRI for your reporting on Islam.

[Linoleum]

I'd add the Original Sin is essentially a Western doctrine, and one that for the most part carried over into Protestantism from Catholicism. This gets tied into the collapse of Western soterology into a focus on penal substitutionary atonement and the standing before God reduced to a legal status based on sin. That is a commonality even in Protestant branches that have gotten away from the Original Sin concept. All of this is in marked contrast to Eastern Christianity, but that's a whole different tangent.

[Athryn]

I think Catholics believe in original sin. There's some age of accountability. Before a certain age, original sin doesn't take affect I guess. They should have a "You are now damned." coming of age party.

They do, it's called Confirmation.

[bago]

A very bittersweet moment for a priest.

[Mordrak]

They do, it's called Confirmation.

Ahh, do you get to wear horns and dance with the devil? :) Seriously, ya, there's no equivalent in most Protestant churches that I'm aware of, it just kinda happened sometime between birth and adulthood. Oh, Rimbo's on crack if he thinks protestant churches don't believe in original sin. I'm sure Linoleum is more familiar with Eastern Christianity than I am, but I was told that in Japan, many people didn't just get the concept of original sin. It didn't make any sense culturally, so in isolation because of persecution, they changed it so Jesus had done something terrible that he had to atone for by going on the cross. I don't know how accurate that is, but it seems reasonable.

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, you're not even close, official doctrine or not :)

Let me elaborate where you are mistaken:

1) You are not "born again" through immersion, baptism is a symbol, being "born again" precedes baptism
2) Baptism (immersion) does not save you, it is an act of obedience following the command and example of Christ
3) Though Baptists practice immersion, that does not mean that other churches that do not practice immersion are sending their members to hell (implied in your post).

What's with the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Baptism) then? I don't recall "no immersion = hell" from my time there, yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that - just that they sure acted like they believed in original sin.

[Grifman]

What's with the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Baptism) then?

What about it? Nothing there contradicts what I am saying and nothing there supports what you said.

I don't recall "no immersion = hell" from my time there,

But thats what you said :)

yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that - just that they sure acted like they believed in original sin.

Ah, but you never even used that phrase and appeared to say very little about the concept :)

[Jason McCullough]

That's what I get for posting after a marathon NWN2 session. The game just DOESN'T END.

[Rimbo]

Which is par for the course with you. ... Which is typical Rimbo false dichotomy posting (the either/or instead of the both/and).

Both of these statements are false and uncalled for.

You might have the capability, but the above comments make it impossible for me to believe you have any interest in having an honest intellectual discussion on this topic.

Edit: You are (1) conflating the idea of "Total Depravity" with "Original Sin" -- they are very different -- and you're also (2) assuming that one doctrinal statement must trump another or (3) represent something other than a compromise within the Synod.

When you speak of "American Presbyterianism," remember that PCUSA and Presbyterian Church in America are two very ideologically different denominations. PCA split off from PCUSA in 1973, as an offshoot of congregations who were uncomfortable with the direction PCUSA was going at the time, (I believe) specifically over whether the Bible should be treated "literally" or not.

[Ryan A]

Rimbo: you'll dig a far more shallow hole for yourself if you just admit you were wrong. Go ahead and spend some time reading the PCUSA Constitution on the PCUSA website you yourself quoted from.

[Aeon221]

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782

Catholic views on Original Sin. Far more complete than Wikipedia. Dunno about you heretics, but that'd be what we believe.

[Rimbo]

Ryan,

You have a good brain on this topic and you know your History very well. The problem with History is that Things Change.

You will note that "A Brief Statement" is the only part of the Constitution which comes after the 1973 schism -- actually it was a response to the reunion of PCUSA with two other (different) Presbyterian denominations. And like other Constitutions, amendments to this one can and do supersede what came before them. It is thus a more accurate representation of modern PCUSA belief than e.g. The Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and other documents which predate the USA itself, the Enlightenment, and other major changes that led to its modern form.

Your answer to my assertion that "PCUSA doesn't believe we inherited Adam's guilt any more" seems to be "Yeah but you used to! No take backs!" But of course we are allowed to take back, and we did it in 1983.

And we did it on purpose.

The basic idea is that if we cannot choose not to sin, if we have no capacity to be innocent, then how can we have sinned? We have only done what we were programmed to do, and without Free Will, then judgment and forgiveness -- and even Grace! -- have no point, because we cannot choose Christ in those circumstances, either.

[Rimbo]

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782

Catholic views on Original Sin. Far more complete than Wikipedia. Dunno about you heretics, but that'd be what we believe.

Egad! And look what it says:

The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Ryan A]

You will note that "A Brief Statement" is the only part of the Constitution which comes after the 1973 schism -- actually it was a response to the reunion of PCUSA with two other (different) Presbyterian denominations. And like other Constitutions, amendments to this one can and do supersede what came before them. It is thus a more accurate representation of modern PCUSA belief than e.g. The Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and other documents which predate the USA itself, the Enlightenment, and other major changes that led to its modern form.

Here's what the preface to your own PCUSA Constitution says about that. You'll note it was last revised in 1997. I bolded the part you seem to have trouble grasping:

"The creeds, confessions, and catechisms of The Book of Confessions are both historical and contemporary. Each emerged in a particular time and place in response to a particular situation. Thus, each confessional document should be respected in its historical particularity; none should be altered to conform to current theological, ethical, or linguistic norms. The confessions are not confined to the past, however; they do not simply express what the church was, what it used to believe, and what it once resolved to do. The confessions address the church’s current faith and life, declaring contemporary conviction and action."

Seriously, read up on what you claim to believe. Maybe you'll discover you don't want to be a Presbyterian. Cool. Just don't pretend to know what you don't just because your mama said so.

Also, you might want to do a little bit of reading before you attempt to lump any branch of Presbyterianism with the Socinian or Pelagian heresies. Again, feel free to accept them as your own peculiar worldview, but don't pretend it's in accord with Presbyterian doctrine.

[Andrew Mayer]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why the founders were so adamant about the separation of Church and State.

[wildpokerman]

How do you manage to get through life being such a mean hating son of a bitch? Just checking.

The same way you are able to manage while being a malignant cocksure sadist.

Self denial is a very powerful survival tool.

And Merry Christmas.

[John Many Jars]

Church and state are gay

[corsair]

While coming up with an actually meaningful statement may be more effort than Midnight Son is willing to put into any of his trashposts, I'm sure a legitimate critique of the Vatican's position is possible here. Out of touch? Hardly. It looks like the Vatican is actually pretty well in touch with their body of believers and at least 52% of Californian voters.

What are you talking about? I can't say I recall any vote equating saving humanity from gays and saving rainforests as equivalent goals. In any case, the world will continue with or without gays - losing the rainforests would have a significant impact.

Now, if gays were systematically destroying the rainforests, the pope might have a case....
;-)

[Flowers]

Church and state are gay
Graphic novels in general, man.

[Rimbo]

Here's what the preface to your own PCUSA Constitution says about that. You'll note it was last revised in 1997. I bolded the part you seem to have trouble grasping:

"The creeds, confessions, and catechisms of The Book of Confessions are both historical and contemporary. Each emerged in a particular time and place in response to a particular situation. Thus, each confessional document should be respected in its historical particularity; none should be altered to conform to current theological, ethical, or linguistic norms. The confessions are not confined to the past, however; they do not simply express what the church was, what it used to believe, and what it once resolved to do. The confessions address the church’s current faith and life, declaring contemporary conviction and action."

Seriously, read up on what you claim to believe. Maybe you'll discover you don't want to be a Presbyterian. Cool. Just don't pretend to know what you don't just because your mama said so.

Also, you might want to do a little bit of reading before you attempt to lump any branch of Presbyterianism with the Socinian or Pelagian heresies. Again, feel free to accept them as your own peculiar worldview, but don't pretend it's in accord with Presbyterian doctrine.

If you take the statement you bolded as a given, then the doctrine quite simply contradicts itself. The point is, it's contradicting itself on purpose. PCUSA was one of the denominations that was affected very strongly by the Enlightenment, and as a result, it hedges its bets on everything. So the language of the doctrine is always giving absolute deference to past orthodoxy while at the same time making it clear that those past doctrines are completely bunk.

It's deliberately designed to make the person who reads it believe his point of view is the one that it agrees with.

Now there's actually a good post-Enlightenment reason for hedging one's bets like this: As new information comes out from research, you find out things that make you change your mind, so when you write up Dogma that's intended to withstand the test of time, you want to be careful about what you say to make sure you leave yourself a way out for future generations to say, "Naw, we were wrong, let's go back to how it used to be."

If you simply stop and think about what you're claiming here, you present yourself with a terrible unanswered question: If PCUSA really does currently accept Original Sin, then why did a majority approve an addition to the Constitution that asserts the opposite? If it isn't what the denomination on the whole believes, then why would they say it is what they believe at all?

[Jon Rowe]

Not every Catholic follows everything the Pope says. And not every catholic follows all of the doctrines of the church.

[Lorini]

Not every Catholic follows everything the Pope says. And not every catholic follows all of the doctrines of the church.

See, this is something I don't understand. If you aren't going to follow the Pope nor all the doctrines, then why call yourself a Catholic? Why pick and choose? The Catholic church doesn't present its beliefs as a buffet, eat what you want and forget the rest, it's supposed to be all encompassing, or at least it was when I attended Catholic school.

[Qenan]

Based on some of my in-laws, there are a lot of cultural Catholics. For example, if you take the belief.net survey, my mother-in-law is closer to Buddhism or UU. But leaving the church would dismay many family members, so she stays.

I think a lot of religion is like that.

[Jon Rowe]

See, this is something I don't understand. If you aren't going to follow the Pope nor all the doctrines, then why call yourself a Catholic? Why pick and choose? The Catholic church doesn't present its beliefs as a buffet, eat what you want and forget the rest, it's supposed to be all encompassing, or at least it was when I attended Catholic school.

You should learn more about the different catholic sects. Catholicism is so vast that there is a lot of splintering.

I went to a Catholic college where an openly gay, and Catholic man was the head of the Religious Studies department. (Great teacher as well)

Catholicism is very interesting in how conservative and traditional it can be on one end, and how ultra-liberal it can be on the other end of the spectrum.

Very interesting indeed.

[Flowers]

Differences of opinion on matters where the Pope is clear are not permitted in Catholicism. You believe what the Pope says you believe, end of story.

An openly gay Catholic might, if at Catholic institution, be making enough confessional runs in order for him and his brown scapular to guarantee that he does not die in the state of mortal sin, but for him to be openly gay and to teach or imply that it is permissible is heresy.

Sorry.

But yes, lapsed and bad Catholics can be quite progressive. And even good Catholics tend to be pretty radical, in a caring for people kind of way. But when it comes to homosexuality, the Church's ruling is clear.

[bago]

You should learn more about the different catholic sects.

Just as long as they wear the schoolgirl skirt.

[Jon Rowe]

Differences of opinion on matters where the Pope is clear are not permitted in Catholicism. You believe what the Pope says you believe, end of story.

An openly gay Catholic might, if at Catholic institution, be making enough confessional runs in order for him and his brown scapular to guarantee that he does not die in the state of mortal sin, but for him to be openly gay and to teach or imply that it is permissible is heresy.

Sorry.

But yes, lapsed and bad Catholics can be quite progressive. And even good Catholics tend to be pretty radical, in a caring for people kind of way. But when it comes to homosexuality, the Church's ruling is clear.

He isn't any sort of preacher or anything, just a professor. Also, I could never explain it as well as he could. People have asked him a lot of the same questions, but he has an answer to all of them. Usually passages from the Bible and writing from other saints are involved. I think it is just that there is so much about catholicism that he likes, that he doesn't accept the bad parts.

How else is a religion supposed to change for the better? If people keep moving on with the status quo, nothing will get done.

Hell all masses used to be in latin up until fairly recently. That changed, and other things can too.

Catholicism happens to be the most rigid and most loose religion ever. It has to be, really. The only thing keeping Catholicism what it is is the tradition. Every other christian religion is a splinter off of catholicism, it is the original.

[Flowers]

He isn't any sort of preacher or anything, just a professor. Also, I could never explain it as well as he could. People have asked him a lot of the same questions, but he has an answer to all of them. Usually passages from the Bible and writing from other saints are involved. I think it is just that there is so much about catholicism that he likes, that he doesn't accept the bad parts.

How else is a religion supposed to change for the better? If people keep moving on with the status quo, nothing will get done.

You may have heard of something referred to in certain circles as, "The Protestant Reformation." But inside the Catholic Church, disregarding dogma and teaching that others can so do is heresy.


Hell all masses used to be in latin up until fairly recently. That changed, and other things can too.

Catholicism happens to be the most rigid and most loose religion ever. It has to be, really. The only thing keeping Catholicism what it is is the tradition. Every other christian religion is a splinter off of catholicism, it is the original.

Vatican II was nice, yes, but hard fought. Trust me, it is going to be a while before the old guard gives up the ghost. They are remarkably progressive on science and poverty, but not birth control in areas where unplanned pregancy is a major contributing factor to poverty, which is to say, they are not pragmatic in their approach. In fact, the current Pope was appointed by a group of cardinals that think the Church needs a tighter grip on its members.