ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Daring to judge God

I always had my doubts about the legitimacy of Desmond Tutu.  His recent theological posturing confirms my suspicions that he was always more about winning the favor of a fallen world than serving God:
Tutu, who retired as Archbishop of Cape Town in 1996, has long campaigned for gay rights. 

'I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,' he said. 'I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.'
At 81 years old, it would seem Mr. Tutu will soon have the option to experience the consequences of his decision.  Most likely to his surprise, as this is the statement of a deeply silly and superficial man with no reverence for the God he once affected to serve, and, I would argue, neither hope of Heaven nor fear of Hell.  Give him another few years and I have little doubt he'd come out as an atheist.

God is not homophobic. He is not afraid of homosexuals but merely regards them as abominations, perhaps because alone among sinners, they define themselves by their sin and assert their pride in it.

Labels:

311 Comments:

1 – 200 of 311 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother July 30, 2013 4:31 PM  

Tutu has never been legitimate. He was a close ally of Nelson Mandela and the ANC for years. He is a communist in robes, pretending to be a good man, just like Mandela pretends to be a peaceful freedom fighter instead of the bloody communist thug that he really is.

Blogger Scott July 30, 2013 4:32 PM  

they define themselves by their sin and assert their pride in it.

Well said.

Anonymous non-theist, non-asshole July 30, 2013 4:33 PM  

or maybe your church is RIGHT and you are WRONG???

On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, 'Who Am I to Judge?'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 4:38 PM  

God is homophobic. He is not afraid of homosexuals but merely regards them as abominations, perhaps because alone among sinners, they define themselves by their sin and assert their pride in it.

A freaking men

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 4:39 PM  

On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, 'Who Am I to Judge?'

Ultimately, God is the one who judges. That's consistent with the Bible.

Blogger Giraffe July 30, 2013 4:40 PM  

Francis was not suggesting that the priests or anyone else should act on their homosexual tendencies, which the church considers a sin.

Yeah, sounds like right to me.

Blogger Giraffe July 30, 2013 4:41 PM  

I mean, sounds RIGHT to me.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother July 30, 2013 4:42 PM  

I am guessing non-theist non ass-hole is telling Tutu that he is wrong, and the Catholic Church is right?

Anonymous Fred July 30, 2013 4:46 PM  

Tutu will get his wishwish.

Blogger Beefy Levinson July 30, 2013 4:46 PM  

A phobia is an irrational fear greatly out of proportion to any actual danger. It's rational to be afraid of heights since falling from a great height can injure you or kill you. An acrophobe is so terrified of heights that he will refuse to ever get on a plane even though he's much more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash. I'm sure there's a "homophobe" somewhere in the world, that is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuality that is so paralyzing that he can't make any kind of decisions.

Of course when liberals use the word homophobe, that's not what they mean. They're implying that people who find homosexual acts disgusting or who uphold traditional sexual values have issues. This is undoubtedly some projection by people who themselves have some major issues.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni July 30, 2013 4:47 PM  

And here we are, friends, in a world where the Pope feels unable - or afraid! - to make judgments on Biblical prohibitions. Why did he become Pope if he didn't feel that he could judge whether the Bible was being followed or not? What good is he? Will he maintain the same position when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals? Where is Pio Nono when we need him??

As for Tutu, he is no more a cleric than Julien Sorel in The Red and the Black. He's only in it for the money and to be worshipped by fools.

Anonymous inhumanist July 30, 2013 4:49 PM  

The "Popocalypse 2013" incident was fully examined by GetReligion.org, definitively proving that "gay is the new black" for our news makers in the media.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/07/pope-francis-1st-miracle-media-coverage-of-mercy/

Blogger Sleepy July 30, 2013 4:50 PM  

Shameful. The real issues that gays go through (short answer: masculinity deficiency and lack of healthy male relationships) are swept under the rug with indifferent "acceptance". Though I suppose it would be easier, if one was a doctor, to say that cancer was simply a part of one's self that they'd best learn to live with, rather than attempt a treatment.

Anonymous non-theist, non-asshole July 30, 2013 4:53 PM  

"Ultimately, God is the one who judges. That's consistent with the Bible."

A) Your holy book says listen to the pope.

B) the pope says not to judge gays.

ooops for you homophobes.

Anonymous Pa Kur July 30, 2013 4:58 PM  

In the end, people don't hide who they are, in most cases, anyway. They proclaim it. Tutu has spoken his position plainly, and he will suffer terrible torment. God need merely point back to his proud boast. "I will not go to Your Heaven, God. I refuse."

I can see God shrugging and motioning the angel to pitch yet another boaster into the flames of Hell.

I see this and shudder for the foolishness of men. God grant Tutu grace to flee his sins.

Blogger Giraffe July 30, 2013 5:00 PM  

"Ultimately, God is the one who judges. That's consistent with the Bible."

A) Your holy book says listen to the pope.


Please provide a quotation. Or leave according to the rules of the blog.

B) the pope says not to judge gays.

Did you read more than the headline?

Blogger Jehu July 30, 2013 5:01 PM  

You know, some people with temptations and/or failings towards homosexual sex aren't political as such. They wrestle with their temptations every day. The homosexual identity politics crowd are really doing that group a damned disservice. The Church has no issue with accepting sinners and helping them work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But they have to recognize that they are sinners and that many of their 'natural' desires are in fact sinful.
Passing off this nonsense about any natural desire being 'not that bad' is an abomination of a snare. It's part of why Hell is said to be paved with the skulls of priests. Mr Speaker, how many square feet of hell would you pave?

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 5:01 PM  

A) Your holy book says listen to the pope.B) the pope says not to judge gays.ooops for you homophobes.

Wrong and wrong.

Where does the Bible say to listen to the pope?

Anonymous Pa Kur July 30, 2013 5:01 PM  

non-theist, non-asshole, where does the Bible say to listen to a man in a funny hat, silky robes and wearing a ton of rings?

Anonymous Freddy July 30, 2013 5:03 PM  

Hey asshole,
The bible nowhere tells the Christian to "listen to the popes."

Francis is covering for all the pedophile priests that the abominable doctrine of celebacy of the priesthood creates.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother July 30, 2013 5:04 PM  

"Ultimately, God is the one who judges. That's consistent with the Bible."

A) Your holy book says listen to the pope.

B) the pope says not to judge gays.

ooops for you homophobes.


1. Interesting. Please provide evidence for your claim that we have to listen to the pope.

2. Please tell us how " listen to the pope and don't judge gays" meshes with the first chapter of Romans' absolute prohibition on homosexual and even effeminate behavior.

Anonymous VD July 30, 2013 5:05 PM  

A) Your holy book says listen to the pope.

B) the pope says not to judge gays.

ooops for you homophobes.


You quite clearly didn't read the article you cited.

"Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors."

Anonymous The Deuce July 30, 2013 5:06 PM  

"The South African Nobel peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu says he will never worship a 'homophobic God' and would rather go to hell than find himself in a 'homophobic heaven'."

And so shall it be.

Blogger El Borak July 30, 2013 5:11 PM  

The Deuce: And so shall it be.

Pretty much my reaction, too. I think it was CS Lewis who said that in the end there are really only two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done."

Anonymous Crude July 30, 2013 5:14 PM  

I really get annoyed when I hear people talk about how they'd deny God expressly and demand to be sent to hell over such piddling matters.

Really, think about what Tutu is saying here: either God gives his blessing to anal sex, or he'd rather go to hell. You know, hell, popularly portrayed as the place of eternal damnation and suffering. I think it's safe to say that, when faced with this, even most of the ridiculously out-and-proud flamboyant gay men would decide 'You know what? Pussy ain't so bad after all.'

Anonymous realmatt July 30, 2013 5:14 PM  

Celibacy did not lead to boy touching.

Anonymous The Deuce July 30, 2013 5:15 PM  

"B) the pope says not to judge gays."

It's going to be all kinds of fun hearing the anguished cries of betrayal among you gullible idiots as it becomes apparent that in spite of ignorant media narratives, the Pope is actually Catholic.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 5:15 PM  

Catholic priest is pro-sodom?

And this is news?

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother July 30, 2013 5:18 PM  

Catholic priest is pro-sodom?

And this is news?


..In other news, Porky is revealed to be Jack Chick, of Chick Publications.

Anonymous Crude July 30, 2013 5:19 PM  

It's going to be all kinds of fun hearing the anguished cries of betrayal among you gullible idiots as it becomes apparent that in spite of ignorant media narratives, the Pope is actually Catholic.

The worst part is, they're being played by the liberal media they're nominally rightfully suspicious of. You'd think by now people would learn to actually research what was actually said when it comes to these things rather than trusting a mainstream media summary.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 5:26 PM  

@Stg58/Animal Mother

You can send your young boys to Taco Night in Tutu's Rectory.

I'll pass.

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 5:30 PM  

Celibacy did not lead to boy touching.

I think it's a contributing factor. Happily married priests are less likely to be sexually deviant.

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 5:31 PM  

Catholic priest is pro-sodom?

You moron, you clearly have problems with reading comprehension.

Anonymous TLM July 30, 2013 5:32 PM  

If you would have told me at my HS graduation in 1986 that "all things gay" would be cool, hip, and popular in 2013, I would've told you what a fag you were for even thinking something that gay. Times have changed and queers are the ultimate snowflakes concerning their sin.

Anonymous Steveo July 30, 2013 5:33 PM  

Is any of the ilk at all a homophobe? Do you fear a "throat" of gays (or whatever you call the gaggle of the thing?)? What sheer idiocy. I vote we give them a new word for a name... how about "heteromolestus" - they just annoy the hell out of me most of the time. Crikey.

Blogger Scott July 30, 2013 5:36 PM  

What I find amusing is that underneath the veneer of redefined words it is the *liberals* who are truly phobic and most intolerant. God has no phobias, homo or otherwise. He despises evil and all that is immoral, including the distortions of gender and sexual "preferences" that have taken hold.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 30, 2013 5:36 PM  

Happily married priests are less likely to be sexually deviant.

Any studies?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 5:37 PM  

Tutu (why do I hear ballet music in my mind) is an Episcopalian last I checked.

"I am the vine, you are the branches".

If you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on, you should be very sure you are cutting on the remote side of the trunk.

Homosexuals have human dignity. I think one reason for the "Gay Rights" movement is that they were treated as a minority to be abused - see Stonewall - denied basic human and civil rights because they were "Gay".

I think that is what Francis is speaking to. We are ALL sinners. It would be a great blessing if I was Gay and that was my only sin as it would be obvious. Like a big, ugly, external tumor that could be easily cut off. Instead, most of us have our sins buried deep and it requires major surgery to even discover them, much less extract them, and hope they haven't metastasized.

God is not homophobic, but in the instant at our Lord's throne the Bishop, as well as each one of us will discover in perfect clarity how or what is an abomination and all the consequences from before Sodom and Gomorrah through the future before Armageddon that a personal sin causes. But it won't be only for that. If God were only merely homophobic. But he hates pride, greed, envy, lust in every other form as well, sloth, gluttony, and wrath (be very cautious if you think you have mere righteous indignation as it can coexist). There are seven deadly sins not just one, and the sins which aren't deadly can still be damning.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 5:38 PM  

Et tu, Tutu?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 5:40 PM  

Happily married priests

Sounds like a trilemma.

It is hard enough to find a happily married couple.

But tell me, if the happily married priest insisted on doing something out of 50 shades and sodomizing his wife in a brutal manner (against church teaching, contraceptive if nothing else), would that be OK?

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 5:40 PM  

"...and assert their pride in it"

Don't they ever. With rainbows and parades and parties galore

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 5:41 PM  

I may be a little homophobic around a gang of 6'4 spinchter smashers intent on my anal destruction. Other than that, they are not very scary. At least not near as terrifying as "GAY" spiders or "GAY" heights. Now those are scareeeee.

Blogger Weouro July 30, 2013 5:48 PM  

Tutu's an Anglican.

Anonymous Josh July 30, 2013 5:49 PM  

But tell me, if the happily married priest insisted on doing something out of 50 shades and sodomizing his wife in a brutal manner (against church teaching, contraceptive if nothing else), would that be OK?

Marriage bed hoss. It's all good.

Blogger Scott July 30, 2013 5:49 PM  

You know what sucks? Having to tell your 10 yr old daughter why some kids made fun of her rainbow earrings. "Are you gay? Your earrings are so gay. hehehe" "She's a lesbo! heehehe" "Dad, why are my earrings gay?"

It's not enough to appropriate words such as "gay", they must also taint innocent symbols like the freaking rainbow.

No, I'm not afraid fags. I just hate them; more so with every day.

Anonymous righteous gobbler July 30, 2013 5:51 PM  

There is a concluding scene in the movie; "The Rapture" where the lead character, played by Mimi Rogers refuses entrance to Heaven because of her dispute with God concerning His moral actions.

I found that scene and the message or moral of the story to be breathtakingly hubristic...and more then a little ignorant.

Desmond Tutu's "I would rather go to the other place" then a "homophobic" heaven leaves me with a similar reaction.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 5:52 PM  

@Steveo Is [sic-are] any of the ilk at all a homophobe?

I can't speak for this diverse group of thinkers, but in the most obvious definition - an irrational fear of homosexuals - I would not only say "No", but I and I expect the rest would laugh.

As far as I can tell, we all respect that God has called their acts abominations, but would consider their actions assuming they could determine such. Someone who has a thousand contacts per year in San Francisco (irony and pun intended) is different than an celibate.

We are called to control ourselves. Not find ways or places we can lose control without the worst of consequences.

Also, we are all sinners. If I point to them and ask for God to condemn them for their sin, how can I expect God to be merciful with me an my sins?

Francis has stated that homosexuals are sinners to the extent they give into their passions (willingly). Tutu (awful imagined Scalzi image came to mind, I need to do a quick exorcism ... that's much better) seems to be saying homosexuals are NOT sinners when they act out. If he persists he might end up in Hell, and in an area Dante could not imagine as he never watched HBO's "Oz".

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 5:54 PM  

Tutu's an Anglican.

Apparently a very obtuse Anglican.

Hell will certainly be warmer than 90 degrees.

Anonymous Measlomapaddycakes Fuckerbumpkin July 30, 2013 5:56 PM  

Give him another few years and I have little doubt he'd come out as an atheist.

More likely, he will be advocating pantheism. [1] Ya know, God is, and is in ALL things. A nice big all inclusive happy family, where no one goes to hell, and heaven/paradise is extended life here on planet earth, with all those coveted material "gadgets" for life eternal.




---------------
[1] It is said by J.S. Mill (1840): "The philosophical writings of Schelling and Hegel have given pantheistic principles a complacent admission and a currency which they never before this age possessed in any part of Christendom." Buchanan (1857) says: "The grand ultimate struggle between Christianity and Atheism will resolve itself into a controversy between Christianity and Pantheism." Saisset (1863) speaks of Pantheism "as having made, and daily making, the most alarming progress." "This is the beginning and end of German philosophy, it begins with scepticism, it ends with Pantheism." It is said by E. Caird (1883): "In the scientific life of Germany there is no greater power at present than Hegelianism, especially in all that relates to metaphysics, and thus to the philosophy and history of religion."
-- "Modern Pantheistic Philosophy: Pantheism, It's Progress," Christianity and Anti-Christianity: In Their Final Conflict by Samuel J. Andrews (1898/2003)

Anonymous Father Vivian O'Blivion July 30, 2013 6:00 PM  

Won't you eat my sleazy pancakes?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 6:00 PM  

Give him another few years and I have little doubt he'd come out as an atheist.

No, Heretical clergy tend to create an image of God in the image of their own ideas. He would not be an atheist in any proper sense of the word, but neither would his breaching or opinions be distinguishable from one. An irrelevant God.

Anonymous Crude July 30, 2013 6:01 PM  

You can be a married priest in the Catholic church. You'd be byzantine rite, or a converted Anglican. It's not like it's forbidden the way women priests are.

I question the claim that it would help with incidents of abuse. There's no lack of married guys who sexually abuse children/the underaged.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 6:02 PM  

@Father Won't you eat my sleazy pancakes?

Doh! meets frying Pan - theism.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 6:05 PM  

@Crude

Correct, however it is not licit for priests to marry after they become priests, and not for Bishops at all.

Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma (but given Game, it is one of the things I thank God profusely for).

Anonymous ApolloK July 30, 2013 6:15 PM  

So, what's the blast radius of a divine smiting? I very much hope I'm not in it when TSHTF... Maybe I will survive for long enough to evangelize some. The world sucks but I sure don't want to leave it yet.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 6:16 PM  

We need better trolls, preferably ones who can read.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2013 6:17 PM  

"But tell me, if the happily married priest insisted on doing something out of 50 shades and sodomizing his wife in a brutal manner (against church teaching, contraceptive if nothing else), would that be OK?"

/facepalm

Blogger Penrose July 30, 2013 6:18 PM  

Ultimately, God is the one who judges. That's consistent with the Bible.

Not much is consistent with the bible.

Blogger Beefy Levinson July 30, 2013 6:20 PM  

We need better trolls, preferably ones who can read.

And ones who can think of lines Thomas Aquinas didn't already refute 800 years ago.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 30, 2013 6:20 PM  

To be fair, not everyone with same-sex attractions makes a political principle out of that particular temptation. And plenty of people who don't share that temptation make political principles out of other, much more grievous sins (like abortion) which they defend with even fiercer pride.

If one felt like giving Tutu the benefit of the doubt, one could assume he is merely asserting a belief that committed, permanent and exclusively faithful homosexual relationships are not sinful, and credit him with still condemning behaviours like promiscuity, infidelity, emotional exploitation and abandonment of one's partner(which are sins of which straight mainstream Western culture is profoundly guilty as well). But that particular line is an *extremely* narrow one to walk, and not helped by the appearance most Western urban GLBT communities give of being nowhere near as interested in the actual standards of traditional marriage as they are in the legal perks and lawsuit leverage.

Blogger Weouro July 30, 2013 6:21 PM  

He probably doesn't believe in Hell anyway, so he's really just pointlessly rambling.

I think it's a contributing factor. Happily married priests are less likely to be sexually deviant."

Priests in general are less likely to be sexually deviant than the general population. Children were always more likely to be sexually abused in public schools by teachers than by priests. The fact that priests are unmarried isn't relevant to the situation. Protestant clergy members are more likely than priests to sexually molest children. It's just media bias.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/24/sexual-abuse-minors-in-protestant-churches/

Anonymous Steveo July 30, 2013 6:21 PM  

TZ

It is the unrepentant nature of their position with regard to the sin that makes a much different problem. You cannot call evil good - refusing God's position on the matter and be on solid ground with your future in eternity - it is not in fact Tutu's call to make. It's God's. Yes, we are all sinners... and we must repent & sin no more (repeat as necessary in all sincerity). Speak the truth in love brother. Treat adults like adults whether they like it or not.

Notice that you may be called to be a Nathan in someone's life. Judge wisely. Read 2Sa 12:1-15 for what happened to David after murdering Uriah... notice the consequences of his sin - even after he repented.

Anonymous Saint Alphonso July 30, 2013 6:24 PM  

Get on your feet and do tha Funky Alphonso!

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 6:40 PM  

However, his legacy will be made brighter if he continues down his current path.

Well now, that depends on who's writing the legacy, doesn't it?

- Azimus

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 6:42 PM  

"Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

Anonymous Dan in Tx July 30, 2013 6:42 PM  

Shuttup Tad

Blogger Penrose July 30, 2013 6:42 PM  

You cannot call evil good

But that's exactly what God calls it. Your god is a sadistic, child sacrificing, torture God who delights in suffering, murder, slavery, and death. Why call him God? Why call God love?

Blogger Cool Hand July 30, 2013 6:44 PM  

I hope he can find the err in that position before he is stuck with it.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 6:46 PM  

"The list of proper alternatives is already long."

Silence, faggot.

- Paisley

Anonymous Gx1080 July 30, 2013 6:47 PM  

There's no news on the New York Beta Times being a bunch of manipulative cunts. Dunno how people take them or HuffPo seriously.

Anonymous VD July 30, 2013 6:50 PM  

Goodbye again, Tad.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 6:50 PM  

@JDC
We need better trolls, preferably ones who can read.

Or "This blog deserves a better class of troll..."

Agreed. I suggested as much. Perhaps Vox can get some summer interns.

@ Beefy Levinson [trolls] And ones who can think of lines Thomas Aquinas didn't already refute 800 years ago.

Forget Aquinas, the bottom of the first year class at his university.

The Dumb Ox need only gore those who are capable of rising to the level of his horns. Most will be trampled by his hooves.

@ApolloK - the blast radius of divine smiting is ZERO. The difficulty is "Judge not and you shall not be judged" is not taken seriously. Lot's wife's disobedience was just as serious. If you are 1000 miles away from Castro street, but instead of repenting yourself, but instead condemning "them", do not be surprised that some errant bit of brimstone flys away and incinerates you.

@Steveo

The difficulty is with the confusion over morality. If you are Catholic, contraception itself is a grave sin. So any married couple practicing it would be equally guilty. Assuming full will and knowledge. And the knowledge is broken. We don't consider ham-and-cheese sandwiches forbidden.

Contracepting married couples are in a "gay marriage" and practicing "safe sex". They are treating persons as objects. If the church is unwilling to condemn the former, who are turning the holy of hollies where God might create a new soul into the abomination of desolation, it has no business bothering with those who can only pantomime and have no possibility of the creation of new souls.

Anonymous Ferd July 30, 2013 6:51 PM  

Tutu states, " 'I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,' he said. 'I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.' "

He does not understand or believe the Holy Scriptures! To embrace this lost world's sinful vices and turn your back on a wonderous afterlife demonstrates he is one deluded puppy. In heaven all this sin will be as nothing and he will be rotting in hell, I suppose very prideful of his stance.

How sad is that?

Anonymous VD July 30, 2013 6:54 PM  

Tad/Gawker has devolved to the point that he no longer even serves an illustrative purpose. 10 points to the person who can first spot his next persona.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 6:54 PM  

Is there some connection between the Manning post amd this Tutu post? He was very outspoken about Manning.

- Azimus

Anonymous Augustina July 30, 2013 6:57 PM  

I am tired of hearing that it is okay to have homosexual desires, but it is only the act that is bad. Really? The Bible clearly states that desires themselves are sinful.

You don't have to steal, you need merely covet your neighbor's possessions. You don't need to commit adultery, you need merely covet your neighbor's wife. That last one was reaffirmed by Jesus Himself. Any man that desires another women commits adultery.

In fact many sins are sins of thought, not action. Pride, anger and lust.

It is not helpful to tell people that merely desiring sodomy is okay, even good, but acting on it is bad. This clearly goes against thousands of years of Biblical teaching.

And yes, I know I am a terrible sinner and an abomination who needs God's grace. But you don't see me out in the street with a placard demanding that others say my sins are goodness perfected.

Anonymous Gx1080 July 30, 2013 6:58 PM  

Dunno, Tad is easy to spot when his cuntiness comes afloat, so is more of a question of who's online when that happens.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 7:01 PM  

The list of proper alternatives is already long.

Yet the list of improper alternatives is far longer as you've chosen to enumerate.

Bigot - implies irrational hatred and prejudice, not fear.
Asshole - It takes one... considering the amount fecal matter emitted.
Idiot - IQ < X. I doubt an idiot could distinguish enough to fear or understand what he was told to fear.
Ignorant - perhaps. However such can be cured easily by visiting any of the sites expressing the horror and evil of prison rape. (A matter of censorship bots).
Christian - they do not fear homosexuals, but only properly understand their ACTS as disordered, and an abomination. As one might understand the ACTS of the Aztec priests cutting the hearts out at the tops of the pyramid.

Some don't accept that violating the telos of the sexual act - procreation - is disordered (and Onan in Gen 38 found out). We can argue that.

But I condemn those who practice contraception more strongly because they destroy a real potential over homosexuals who don't have such a potential.

Anonymous Totally Not Tad July 30, 2013 7:05 PM  

I am totally, 100% qualified to judge God by my own standard of right and wrong.

Unlike that faggot Job.

Anonymous willneverpostagain July 30, 2013 7:08 PM  

Tad = Penrose?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 7:12 PM  

@Augustina

I am tired of hearing that it is okay to have homosexual desires, but it is only the act that is bad. Really? The Bible clearly states that desires themselves are sinful.

You don't have to steal, you need merely covet your neighbor's possessions


The Catechism calls homosexual desires "disordered". Such desires, if they originate without willing them and the will does not cooperate is a temptation and not a sin.

Coveting as is a sin, but in the sense of "Looking at a woman has already committed Adultery with her".

Temptations come.

We can then reject and push them away as a woman would repel an advance of a cad. Or we can pause and consider. And see. And maybe think of enjoying the encounter.

If one is damned because one is merely tempted, then you are just as destined to hell as any homosexual who experiences desires - it matters not whether you resist and reject them.

Blogger Dingo July 30, 2013 7:23 PM  

Scott; when you figure out the gays didn't taint the rainbow, it was the idiots picking on your daughter, you'll likely be a little happier.

Blogger Penrose July 30, 2013 7:25 PM  

Tad = Penrose?

Nah, not me. Don't have an opinion on gays. Most of it is about how they feel. Can't hurt anyone's feelings. Unless your white, male, Christian, and straight then someone can hurt you.

Anonymous p-dawg July 30, 2013 7:27 PM  

Alone among sinners? Really? Why would you think that? Look at all the crap that goes on today - slut walks, the "fat acceptance" movement, the rise of neo-paganism, political figures who proudly show off their terrible junk, there are a lot of sinners who glory and publicly revel in their sin. I'm sure I'm even missing quite a few since it's so common these days. I really don't think gays are the only ones who define themselves by their sin.

Anonymous VD July 30, 2013 7:28 PM  

No, Tad = Gawker. It's been obvious for weeks.

Anonymous Steveo July 30, 2013 7:30 PM  

TZ good thing I'm not Catholic

transcending the pedantic... issues open for in-house Christian debate are not the same as issues where God's take on the matter is explicit and clear. I believe you are conflating the two (contraception & homosexuality), for your own reasons. Additionally, sola scriptura- the way I will continue to look for the final word on an issue, God's Word on the matter... good luck with your choice, I wish you well.

Anonymous willneverpostagain July 30, 2013 7:33 PM  

Duh--sorry Penrose.

Long shifts at work lately.

Drinking a beer, that's my excuse!

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 7:33 PM  

Tad just went off the cliff when nobody liked his "Atheism Forever" video he shot at UC Berkeley.

-Azimus

Anonymous Augustina July 30, 2013 7:35 PM  

TZ,Most men would agree with you, since the desires of a man for a women come unbidden. They can't help it. Yet we are told by Jesus that these desires are just as bad as adultery. So we shouldn't be encouraging them by saying they are just 'disordered' and originate without willing them.

This does not lead people away from sin, but towards it. By telling them their 'desires' are 'unwilled' and it's okay as long as they don't 'act' on them. They should flee those desires just as men should flee their very natural desires for women other than their wives.

Our problem today, and for the past several generations is not from too much focus on sin and it's consequences. We are not suffering from 'too much judgment,' but rather from a lack of judgment. For the past several generations people have been told by everyone, and I include the church, that they should most of all 'be themselves' and 'embrace their sexuality' and 'follow their dreams,' and so on. This is the reigning moral code.

I don't think we need more lectures on not being judgmental and how homosexual desires are not sinful. That whole tack has gotten us where we are today. I've heard it my whole life, and entire generations are now lost in sin. We need more fire and brimstone. And, I do believe we will get it.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 7:39 PM  

I really don't think gays are the only ones who define themselves by their sin.

It might be fair to say that gays are the only sinners that organize every aspect of their lives around their sin. I have never known a chronic drunk, or wife-beater, or thief, etc, live eat and breathe pride for their sin an promote it like gays do. Sign of the times maybe.

- Azimus

Anonymous Blume July 30, 2013 7:39 PM  

No, the bible never gives any papal authority what so ever. I am protestant. The pope can say what ever he wants it doesnt change one iota of the word or will of god.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 7:41 PM  

@VD - kudos to the ability to distinguish between the various forms of illogic between different trolls. They seem to be distinct but it can be tedious or at least annoying to try to sort them.

Is that young lady who exclaimed "you ain't got not chili" available to pretend to troll?

Or perhaps you can do a bit of foxy programming

This is less than ankle-biting. More like plantars warts.

Anonymous Blume July 30, 2013 7:47 PM  

Yes, yes it did. Paul clearly states celibacy is not for everyone and if you cant handle it go get married and have sex with your wife. It was the pope who decided to make all the priest swear vows of celibacy and for hundreds of years they vowed and the church looked the other way when they took lovers. Its only now when they have to practice what they preach that problems like pedophilla are arising.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 7:48 PM  

@Blume, No, the bible never gives any papal authority what so ever.

Then you reject Isaiah 22 where the keys to the kindgom are transferred, and it has succession.

"You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I shall build my church"...

Giving the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter and not the apostles or disciples.

(Catholic Answers and others has the full argument I won't repeat here because either you will research it yourself in the pursuit of truth or preemptively reject it so there is no reason to bother).

@Anonymous - Banksters - those on wall street who claim greed, crony capitalism, bailouts are good equally define themselves by their sin. They think that by creating toxic waste derivatives they are doing God's work.

Anonymous Ain July 30, 2013 7:50 PM  

'I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,' he said. 'I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.'

He sounds like a 13 year old girl informing adults of what they should do.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 7:50 PM  

The war on reality continues. He has his reward here and now. I hope he enjoys the short lived esteem of wealthy powerful men.

Anonymous VanDerMerwe July 30, 2013 7:56 PM  

"I think it's a contributing factor. Happily married priests are less likely to be sexually deviant."

There are many "happily" married pedophiles or at least happily married people are not rare when it comes to being perpetrators of child abuse.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 7:57 PM  

Scandals, oppression, murder, war, corruption, etc. all abound


... and the elites have man is literally focused on his anus.

If I were among the rich and powerful, I'd laugh.


Blogger tz July 30, 2013 7:59 PM  

@Blume, the church did not look the other way

Please do at least do the courtesy of understanding the actual history and position of the Roman Catholic church before discussing it.

Perhaps it should be directed @Bulver

I find it pointless to try to discuss or defend actual positions when they are misunderstood or misstated. I cannot defend caricatures, but caricatures are not the real point.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 7:59 PM  

"Happily married priests are less likely to be sexually deviant."



Priests are already married... to the church.

Anonymous p-dawg July 30, 2013 8:00 PM  

Also, people who are way into body modification certainly order their entire lives around their sin, and glory in it and promote it. Just search the web for the Jim Rose circus, if you've got a strong stomach.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 8:07 PM  

For some, the center of the universe is their anus.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:11 PM  

Would you accept that the existence if "Happily married homosexuals" would make gay marriage licit?

@Steveo TZ good thing I'm not Catholic

Perhaps. Then you don't have to confront any authority other than what you can make up yourself from the ambiguous and contradictory passages of the bible so you can basically cherry pick.

I believe you are conflating the two (contraception & homosexuality), for your own reasons.

I do not conflate them. Sexual abomination is of one kind, but may vary in degree.

Additionally, sola scriptura- the way I will continue to look for the final word on an issue, God's Word on the matter... good luck with your choice, I wish you well.

See Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control. Before 1930 every protestant church condemned contraception in the strongest terms and didn't even allow for NFP. This is historical fact. http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=swrb&keyworddesc=&subsetcat=speaker&subsetitem=Charles+Provan

Luther, Calvin, and Wesley condemned it, I think the latter as a sodomic sin.

sola scriptura becomes sola (my personal subjective interpertation of) scriptura

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:13 PM  

Godfrey For some, the center of the universe is their anus.

Co-located with their cerebellum.

Some like the hole-istic approach.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 8:15 PM  

Blood of Christ redeemed even the atheists, Pope says.

Yep, still thinking he is going to the the False Prophet.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:16 PM  

@Godfrey Priests are already married... to the church.

But "happily" is not an adjective I would dare to insert.

"The Taming of the Shrew" comes to mind.

It takes an alpha...

Anonymous Azimus July 30, 2013 8:18 PM  

tz July 30, 2013 7:48 PM @Blume, No, the bible never gives any papal authority what so ever.

Then you reject Isaiah 22 where the keys to the kindgom are transferred, and it has succession.

"You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I shall build my church"...

Giving the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter and not the apostles or disciples.


You realize, of course, that three obscure verses, which could be interpreted many ways, are flimsy ground on which to kiss the steps of the Scala Sanctum and trust your eternal soul implicitly to every passing fancy of the Holy See, whether French or Roman. Believers are all part of a Royal Priesthood, and have no need for an intermediary copycat of the Jewish priesthood.

The claim to authority based on these verses is absurd, but honestly I don't try to pick fights with Catholics. There are many Catholics I admire, including in my own family.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:18 PM  

Some like the hole-istic approach.

The pun, given the topic, was unintended. At least consciously.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 8:19 PM  

Totally Not Tad July 30, 2013 7:05 PM

I am totally, 100% qualified to judge God by my own standard of right and wrong.

Unlike that faggot Job.


You know this is all being recorded, right?

Blogger RobertT July 30, 2013 8:19 PM  

Very few righteous people rise to fame like Tutu's. Billy Graham is the only one who comes to mind and I doubt he's that famous. It must truly take a pact with the devil to accomplish.

Anonymous Mudz July 30, 2013 8:21 PM  

You can understand how the celibacy thing for priests came about though.

The folk look to priests for holy authority, and 'celibacy' is a sort of holy credential. Peer pressure would probably make it a tradition sooner or later.


'I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,' he said. 'I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.'


Sigh. Score one for the Devil.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 8:22 PM  

You can understand how the celibacy thing for priests came about though.

The folk look to priests for holy authority, and 'celibacy' is a sort of holy credential.


I think it came about because if they had children, the inheritance would have gone to them and not the Church.

Blogger RobertT July 30, 2013 8:22 PM  

"I am totally, 100% qualified to judge God by my own standard of right and wrong. Unlike that faggot Job."

I'm not sure the judging will get you into trouble. After all everyone does that whether they choose his way or not. It's the verdict that can play havoc in your death.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:24 PM  

@ Markku
Blood of Christ redeemed even the atheists, Pope says.
Yep, still thinking he is going to the the False Prophet.


1. It did. 2. that still might come to pass.

God says those who obey his commandments are his followers, not those who acknowledge him but disobey even they know.

I can only praise God for every wise word that Pope Francis utters. That God desires actual righteousness, not merely declarations "I'm on your team".

The holy spirit chose him, and with no irony he said "god forgive you for what you have done".

I really, really, love being a Catholic under Francis. Even more than the very clear B16, or the deep JP2.

Anonymous Mudz July 30, 2013 8:27 PM  


I think it came about because if they had children, the inheritance would have gone to them and not the Church.


That's a cynical proposition. But it'll take more knowledgeable men than I to gainsay it.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 8:27 PM  

tz: I can only praise God for every wise word that Pope Francis utters. That God desires actual righteousness, not merely declarations "I'm on your team".

How did Paul deal with those who would be of the church but choose licentiousness?

Blogger J Curtis July 30, 2013 8:29 PM  

What Pope Francis really said about gays -- and no, it's not new

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:37 PM  

@Azimus

When you don't want to acknowledge the plain, clear, meaning of a verse, you play games.

"Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" can't have anything possibly to do with the eucharist although the only words in RED in the epistles are "This is my body", "This is my blood"?

Interpret them however you want to, but there can only be one correct interpretation, and it might not be yours. Are you willing to bet hell that you're right?

Blogger Weouro July 30, 2013 8:41 PM  

"I think it came about because if they had children, the inheritance would have gone to them and not the Church"

If so that would have been a wise reason. It would also help prevent fights about offices being handed down and nepotism.

"The claim to authority based on these verses is absurd, but honestly I don't try to pick fights with Catholics. There are many Catholics I admire, including in my own family."

The Catholic Church claims authority based on apostolic succession like Ireneaus and Augustine did in their day, not by stringing together Bible verses. The Bible doesn't even claim authority for itself, so "proving" something from Scripture is pointless.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 8:43 PM  

"I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

I just can't wrap my brain around that. It's such hubris. God created the entire world. Who would presume they were qualified to tell God how he should feel about something in His own creation? But I already know the answer to that question. Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and 45 million vegan eating Prius drivers set down their lattes and stepped forward....

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:44 PM  

@zen0

tz: I can only praise God for every wise word that Pope Francis utters. That God desires actual righteousness, not merely declarations "I'm on your team".

How did Paul deal with those who would be of the church but choose licentiousness?


He dealt with them with the greatest degree of harshness and condemnation as is proper.

This assumes the choice is free and informed.

It was licentiousness in any form including rebellion of wives. If you want to go there (literally) suggest Vox cross-post to AGP. I've posted worse there.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 8:47 PM  

I really, really, love being a Catholic under Francis.

I hear he's offering time off in purgatory if you follow his twitter account.

What a really great guy.

Scripture be damned.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:49 PM  

The Catholic Church (under narrow circumstances) is infallible but not impeccable. The pope is a sinner. The soon to be canonized JP2 went to confession weekly if not more often.

Being bad and being wrong are different things. As I've tried to demonstrate on the Natural Law thread.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 8:54 PM  

@Porky (not kosher?) - I'll take any indulgence I can get. If following @francis means following @JesusChrist, I ought to.

Reading scripture for 30 minutes has an indulgence. Not only not be damned, but remove the temporal penalty for sin if you read scripture.

This assumes you don't read it to twist it into a pretzel or worse, Gordian knot which you must cut to exit purgatory yourself.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 8:55 PM  

tz:

This assumes the choice is free and informed.


I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that people whogo to the bother of studying priesthood and claim to be priests are ignorant?

Anonymous DonReynolds July 30, 2013 8:55 PM  

There are too many "Christians" who want to redefine what being a Christian means. To this end, I have great respect for those churches that follow the Bible and very little for those who pander to those who demand that Christian faith be tweeked or adjusted to relieve them of the discomfort of certain trendy issues. It does not matter that they are, themselves, church leaders or clergy of some of the largest mainline denominations of the Protestant faith or that they are Marxist radicals wearing the collar of a Roman Catholic priest or bishop, while preaching liberation theology.

Those who do not accept Christianity as it has been defined, for many many generations, need to admit that they are NOT Christian and simply butt out of the conversation. Clearly, it is not their religion.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 8:57 PM  

Oh please. The false doctrine of purgatory is published in catechism.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 8:57 PM  

"Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors."

This probably isn't true anyway, but the media clearly has decided to criticize the Church and her past popes by presenting Francis as the kinder, gentler, humbler, more compassionate pope whether he actually is or not. Pope Benedict was no less compassionate toward homosexuals and other sinners, but he presented his compassion in more careful theological language that couldn't be so easily misrepresented.

Pope Francis isn't nearly as orthodox as I'd like, but he's not the change-happy maverick that his sloppy language is going to be used to frame him as either.

Blogger Penrose July 30, 2013 9:04 PM  

At this point it's all just a guessing game what god would want anyone to do.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:04 PM  

The Pope:

"They complain," Francis said, "If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good." He explained that Jesus corrected them, "Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good."

The disciples, Pope Francis explained, "were a little intolerant," closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong... Jesus broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation."

...

'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

----

The Bible:

Hbr 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:06 PM  

http://malcolmthecynic.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/the-non-controversy-of-pope-francis/

I love how people missed the part where he condemned the homosexual lobby.

What a farce the media coverage of THAT has been.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:08 PM  

"The Bible:

Hbr 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

When did he say anything about drawing near to God. I read something where he said atheists can do good things. You really think that everything an atheist does is automatically not good? If so, I'm afraid I'll have to side with Pope Francis.

This slander against Pope Francis is sickening.

Anonymous Van July 30, 2013 9:08 PM  

"Tad/Gawker has devolved to the point that he no longer even serves an illustrative purpose. 10 points to the person who can first spot his next persona."

Comparable to your theory on the origin of "get in the hole" during golf games, this may result in comments of "Shut up, Tad" immediately after each new post.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:10 PM  

"Not only not be damned..."

Indulgences don't make you "not damned".

Anonymous Rex Little July 30, 2013 9:14 PM  

God . . .regards them as abominations, perhaps because . . . they define themselves by their sin and assert their pride in it.

Not sure that "because" holds up. The reference to homosexuals as "abominations" first appears in Leviticus. Was there much "gay pride" going on at the time that was written? Nothing I've read or heard suggests so.

And of course, even today there are an awful lot of them who do their best to stay in the closet. Does God consider them any less of an abomination than the other sort?

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:17 PM  

When did he say anything about drawing near to God.

The point was about the impossibility to please God without faith. Just look at the words in there.

-The Lord has redeemed ... Even the atheists.
-This was in response to "story of a Catholic who asked a priest if atheists were saved by Christ."
-But do good: we will meet one another there.

Now, do you suppose there is even one atheists who, after hearing all this wouldn't react with total WTF if he then added later "oh, right, by the way: It is impossible that any of you atheists please God."

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:18 PM  

"The reference to homosexuals as "abominations" first appears in Leviticus."

I think the response would be that Leviticus's condemnation applied to actively sinning homosexuals.

Blogger Penrose July 30, 2013 9:20 PM  

"Igore the Old Testament cause dad was whacked out when he wrote it." --Jesus

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:23 PM  

"Now, do you suppose there is even one atheists who, after hearing all this wouldn't react with total WTF if he then added later 'oh, right, by the way: It is impossible that any of you atheists please God.'"

Who cares how they'd react? He didn't add that afterward because that's not what they were discussing.

Of course the Lord has redeemed the atheists. They're people, right? That doesn't mean that they can't choose not to follow God anyway, but they certainly CAN reach Heaven like anybody else if they change their ways and repent.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:26 PM  

Who cares how they'd react?

Because it is misrepresentation to the point of being a lie. Exactly the thing the Pharisees of Jesus's time were so good at.

After all that, any reasonable person would think that both the Christian and the atheist are pleasing God when they do good.

Blogger JohnG July 30, 2013 9:29 PM  

The ‘phobic’ part of any leftist slur is to imply a mental problem – hopefully laying the groundwork for the magic gulag of the future. There’s never anything new, it’s all been done before (abuse of psychiatry is well documented), lefties think they are brilliant because they can get something on Google in a few seconds. It would be nice if the Right and/or the RNC could man-up and wade through that stuff (or even dish it back)…instead every night on the news I think I’m watching Monty Python and the Knights that say Ni!

I’ve actually ran into some homophobic guys in the military, we’d always mess with them by touching their legs, just to see them jump up and curse. Even funnier than that is watching somebody a little touchy on the subject talk to an Arab (who’s comfort zone is about 3” and doesn’t mind holding hands with other men) and get backed into a corner.

Nah, my problems with the homos is their diseases, the fact that they killed off at least 10,000 hemophiliacs in the 80s-90s because of the tainted blood supply and because they aren’t paying out of pocket for their drug cocktails that let them live longer than 10 years after acquiring HIV – a perfectly preventable disease. I got exposed to tuberculosis on a mission for the Army one year, which was caught and treated, but people have the sense to snatch drug resistant TB carriers off of planes – but noooo, let’s let a bunch of idiots debauch themselves repeatedly in orgies (remember the promoter announcing an Obama Pig F*ck in celebration of the first Obama electoral victory?) or even worse, the Bug Chasers that want to get infected? John Kerry was recently advocating letting homos give blood – that POS moron. Really? Counter argument is heteros get diseases too – yah, but they’re not fatal. Syphilis is cured by a penicillin shot in the ass.

Tutu. Maybe somebody will offer you a drop of water while you’re roasting dude. Bible’s pretty clear on leadership leading people to sin. Bad Juju. I sometimes wish there were more Ananias and Sapphira going on with so called ‘priests’ and ‘pastors’ – but I suppose there is a reason why the Christians after the memory of Christ would be revered.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:29 PM  

"Because it is misrepresentation to the point of being a lie."

It's a statement of obvious fact.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 9:31 PM  

@zenZERO - It applied to those whom St. Paul said were licentious, priest or laity. Or even Bishops. Those who do NOT study are more likely to be ignorant, but those who do are more likely to incorporate heresy as truth.

@Porky Oh please. The false doctrine of purgatory is published in catechism. It is published in the Catechism. You have not even attempted an argument that it is "false". Bring it on (if you dare). Are you Gaderene by any chance?

@cailcorishev Trust our Lord and the Holy Spirit to know that they are doing.

@Markku - I've pointed to faith unto death in other threads, do you claim that or are you in fear. Without faith it is impossible to please God, yet it says faith, not perfect knowledge or even acknowledgement. If an Atheist has a "Mysitical experience" and does what is right and obeys the commandments without explicit faith, are you saying that they will be rejected while a "believer" that knows what is right but breaks the commandment and does something else will be better off?

Ann in the other thread correctly and profoundly quoted Matthew 25 about the two sons, one who said he would obey but didn't, and the other who said he wouldn't obey but did.


Anonymous Mangina July 30, 2013 9:33 PM  

"being gay is perfectly natural and more moral than the genocidal maniac in your holy books" not jesus, cause jesus is made-up like santa

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 9:34 PM  

C.S. Lewis made a similar point both in the book "The Last Battle" with the good pagan and in his essay "Man or Rabbit", which deals with things more directly.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:37 PM  

@Markku - I've pointed to faith unto death in other threads, do you claim that or are you in fear. Without faith it is impossible to please God, yet it says faith, not perfect knowledge or even acknowledgement.

Yes, I claim it. But since I am not really tested at this point, I cannot yet prove it.

If an Atheist has a "Mysitical experience" and does what is right and obeys the commandments without explicit faith, are you saying that they will be rejected while a "believer" that knows what is right but breaks the commandment and does something else will be better off?

He explicitly uses the words "But I don't believe" as an example of what he means by atheist. As for your question, the answer would be yes if you indeed said believer, but since it is in quotation marks, then no. Both are rejected.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 9:38 PM  

The disciples, Pope Francis explained, "were a little intolerant," closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong... Jesus broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation."

Francis judges the apostles, but not homosexuals. Tutu judges God, but not homosexuals.

Wolves in sheeps clothing , devouring the little ones in Christ.

It would be better that a millstone be attached to their necks and they sink in the deepest sea.

Abomination, indeed.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 9:40 PM  

@Mangina

Cancer too is perfectly "natural", as are tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

Jesus as historical figure is more certain by any measure than Caesar. When you say "Jesus" is "made-up", by that same standad, most of the historical figures who have fewer references are "made up".

Vox, can you find some simpleton who at least knows ancient history, this is getting tedious.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:42 PM  

Come on now, do you think anyone who isn't trolling would choose the handle "Mangina"?

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 9:52 PM  

Also note that whether I have faith unto death is a separate question of whether I am a sinner. I'm such a great sinner that I appall even myself.

However:

Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.

---

God assigns the measure of faith, I don't produce it in myself. And that is why I think it will hold unto death. If it were my own accomplishment, I would have fear. But since it is God's, I don't.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 9:56 PM  

tz gets cute:

@zenZERO - It applied to those whom St. Paul said were licentious, priest or laity. Or even Bishops. Those who do NOT study are more likely to be ignorant, but those who do are more likely to incorporate heresy as truth.

Priest, Laity, Bishop, Nun. Anyone who claims to be part of the Bride of Christ and retains licentiousness is a fraud.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 10:04 PM  

I prefer a God that is in harmony with His creation. One understands basic biological functions as He has created them.

Anonymous zenZERO July 30, 2013 10:05 PM  

buttsneeze offers:

Have you ever had that urge to sneeze, and instead fart?

Everyone knows that if you belch, sneeze, and fart, all at the same time, you will die.

Go fuck yourself.

Anonymous Godfrey July 30, 2013 10:15 PM  

@Porky July 30, 2013 8:47 PM
"I hear [the Pope] is offering time off in purgatory if you follow his twitter account."



Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would make more sense than "once saved, always saved" or "sola scriptura".

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 10:18 PM  

You have not even attempted an argument that it is "false".

Dude.... the blood of Christ is the atonement for your sin.

Following pope Francis on twitter.com is not.

If you can't get this simple truth then I certainly can't get you out of your sorry state of confusion. Catholics are such a f-ed up bunch I feel sorry for them.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum July 30, 2013 10:19 PM  

Homosexuals are made in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and are deserving of the respect and compassion. That being said, yes, homosexuality is disordered, and the act is sinful. If they want to go to Heaven (which I pray they do) then they must live a life of celibacy. That is their cross to bear.

Homosexual sex is on par with adultery, and fornication. Homosexuals should not give in to their sinful desires anymore than a married man should not give in to having an affair with his young secretary while his wife, the mother of his children, stays at home.

As an aside: Homosexuals aren't the only ones who glorify in their sin. Thanks to sites like www.ashleymadison.com which glorifies more sin, our descent in Paganism (started with the Protestant rebellion of the 16th century I might add, but that's for another time...) continues.

Anonymous zenZER0 July 30, 2013 10:22 PM  

Godfrey visits the kabbalistic realms of passive aggression:

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would make more sense than "once saved, always saved" or "sola scriptura".

Be a man Godfrey. Just tell us you think fellow believers are bound for hellfire and damnation, to be tortured for all eternity for the sin of not listening raptly to the priests of licentiousness.

Just do it, man.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:22 PM  

The parable of the two sons Matt 21.

The Parable of the Two Sons
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
“‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
The first,” they answered.


He explicitly uses the words "But I don't believe" as an example of what he means by atheist.

@Makku: He explicitly uses the words "But I don't believe" as an example of what he means by atheist. like the son who said "I will not".

Uncommon but extant.

@Mangina Jesus loves all, but hates evil, even fear, thus he detests homophobia, yet not homophobes, homosexuality, yet not homosexuals. Sin but not sinners. And we are commanded to do likewise. Hate sin. Love the sinner.

@Zen0 - your sins may differ in kind but are you damned (I mean that literally) sure they don't differ in magnitude?

Anonymous zenZERO July 30, 2013 10:25 PM  

Credo in Unum Deum July 30, 2013 10:19 PM

Homosexuals are made in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and are deserving of the respect and compassion.


link?

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 10:31 PM  

like the son who said "I will not".

It says that he changed his mind. Someone in that earlier thread tried to present this as the story having actually been that he worked there for some other reason than the fact that his father told him so. But that's not what it says. Rather, first he thought one way, and then changed his thinking.

The equivalent to this is that the atheist converts to Christianity, and it is utterly uncontroversial that such things happen, and lead to salvation. But there is no way on earth that a reasonable person would interpret the Pope's words as "it is impossible that you please God no matter how much good you do, but if you accept salvation in Christ, then you will please him".

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 10:31 PM  

tz says :

@Zen0 - your sins may differ in kind but are you damned (I mean that literally) sure they don't differ in magnitude?

If I understand you correctly, those who do not qualify to be part of the Bride of Christ are damned?

Part 2 ... to torture for all eternity?

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 10:35 PM  

Part 3

Do those who claim to be part of the Bride of Christ risk more extreme punishment for sins than those who do not?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:37 PM  

@Porky

You have not even attempted an argument that it is "false".

Dude.... the blood of Christ is the atonement for your sin.


From Matthew:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

I do so at least each Sunday. I literally gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood. It remits my sins.

You may maintain that his blood remits your sins, but do you drink it?

St. Paul in 1 Cor 11, the only RED letters in the epistles:

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood (TZ- not symbols) of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the (TZ- literal, not symbolic) body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Anonymous Horace Staccato July 30, 2013 10:40 PM  

Ain't that just like a nigger... or a Democrat.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:42 PM  

@Zen0

Yes on all counts.

If you think you are saved on some basis other than grace, and/or that you can with full will and knowledge break the commandments and still be saved (in a state of grace) you are wrong.

You claim superior knowledge. Someone who does not know good v.s. evil properly has an excuse, even for grave sins, so may enter heaven. If you claim to know the Law perfectly, but do not obey it perfectly ad do not repent, you will be damned.

That is clear from the scriptures. You won't repent of a sin you don't think you've committed.

Anonymous A Visitor July 30, 2013 10:43 PM  

I think it's a contributing factor.

It's not.

Regarding homosexuals identifying with their sin, a brother (now, if he stuck with it, ordained priest) once said that. It's true.

I am afraid of homosexuals:

1) Along with their lobby, they warp the gullible public's view of what is normal

2) As Scott said, they co-opt innocent symbols

3) Personally, they hit on me and it sickens me.

Someone who has a thousand contacts per year in San Francisco (irony and pun intended) is different than an celibate.

We are called to control ourselves.
Homosexuals are called to the same level of chastity that unmarried men and women are called to.

Remember, condemn the sin not the sinner. So many people get upset when you condemn their sin because it's like "you're judging them." What happened to all the men in this country?

I question the claim that it would help with incidents of abuse. There's no lack of married guys who sexually abuse children/the underaged. Thank you, Crude! I've heard that married pastors in other Christian denominations have a higher rate of abuse than Catholic priests.

Celibacy is a discipline Correct tz.

It is not helpful to tell people that merely desiring sodomy is okay, even good, but acting on it is bad. This clearly goes against thousands of years of Biblical teaching. I had a response to this but tz made a better point and in quicker prose than I could have. Here's the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM>part</a> of the Catechism I believe tz was referring to.

<b>Tad = Penrose?</b> I believe so. I'd also say Totally Not Tad is too since he appeared out of nowhere so soon after tz's comment on homosexuals' lack of potential.

<b>I believe you are conflating the two (contraception & homosexuality), for your own reasons. </b> Steveo, based on what we believe acting on homosexuality and use of contraception is wrong.

<b>We are not suffering from 'too much judgment,' but rather from a lack of judgment.</b> I would agree. I think, to the best of my recollection, I have yet to hear a priest give a solid homily that addresses common mortal sins that seem to be prevalent today and announce to the congregation that they will be going to Hell if they do not seek Christ's forgiveness.

<bI'm not sure the judging will get you into trouble. After all everyone does that whether they choose his way or not. It's the verdict that can play havoc in your death.</b> I wouldn't temp God's wrath.

<b>The Catholic Church claims authority based on apostolic succession</b> Christ founded it too.

<b>The pope is a sinner.</b> This is true all the way back to Peter. The Pope is Christ's visible vicar on Earth.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 10:43 PM  

I read it several times trying to figure out how you think it makes your point, and then started thinking, waaaait a minute, are you interpreting "without discerning the body of Christ" as something like "without seeing the body of Christ in it".

Would this be correct?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:43 PM  

If I understand you correctly, those who do not qualify to be part of the Bride of Christ are damned?

Tautology, by definition.

Blogger Eric Wilson July 30, 2013 10:46 PM  

"It would make more sense than...'sola scriptura.'"

Pray enlighten how anything could make more sense than that.

Anonymous castricv July 30, 2013 10:47 PM  

Tutu is Christian in name only as it is a convenience for him. He is simply an African nationalist that uses one of the international entities to increase his prominence and personal status. If not for Christianity, it would have been some UN posting or later in life some corporate tokenism as an advocate for Africa.

All Catholics and Christians please do not forget this when you advocate for a black pope or blindly rejoice at Christianizing part of Africa on your missions. Non-Europeans do not process Christianity in the same way regardless of it they are fully versed in it. I am half Latin American. My father is from Nicaragua but his parent were both from Italy. They went to Catholic schools and know the Western way. However most of those countries practice an almost alien form of Catholicism. They know of Jesus and God, but the rituals of localities almost overwhelm the true purpose. Why would this not be even more pronounced on a continent without even a partial basis in Westernism.

At least the Hispanics have a taste of Spain/Portugal.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 10:47 PM  

I do so at least each Sunday. I literally gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood. It remits my sins.

Try not to die on Saturday then.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 10:47 PM  

tz warns:

For those who eat and drink without discerning the (TZ- literal, not symbolic) body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Whoa. Best not to even bother.

Too scary.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:50 PM  

@Markku - you either think it is a piece of bread and cup of wine, or that both are the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Who said "This IS", not "This REPRESENTS", or "This is a SYMBOL OF".

It seems unreasonable to become sick and die for being guilty of a symbol (Paul doesn't admit of that indirection).

Given John 6, if you take it literally, the RCs are right. If you don't then most of the bible is amorphous.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 10:51 PM  

In other words, that is NOT your interpretation of what "discern" means in that place?

Anonymous castricv July 30, 2013 10:53 PM  

This is also why Pope Francis's actions have not surprised me in the least. The Italian side of him restrains his full on Obamanism that pervades much of the third world and even sneaks into Western countries. The term escapes me. He forgets that piety and sacrifice are PERSONAL experiences and cannot be imposed upon everyone or it is worthless. Pope Benedict, while old and crotchety knew this. Pope Francis despite his thriftiness and man of the people attitude, REALLY needs the admiration of the world.

I fear for this one as I have always been a staunch supporter. When Churchianity and popular winds overtake even the Catholic Church, we are doomed. Islam? Chinese Slaves to the Robot Empire? Good lord how things have slipped in such a short time. Can you imagine even 10 years from now?

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 10:58 PM  

@ Eric Wilson
"It would make more sense than...'sola scriptura.'"
Pray enlighten how anything could make more sense than that.


First, why didn't Jesus himself - who was literate and had free time for two decades prior to his ministry - himself write a "perfect" book? Instead we have copies where we try to sort the original manuscript from glosses. "Upon this book I will build my church". Except it wasn't a book (Codex, or scroll).

Second, what is "scriptura". I have 73 books. Most have 66. Why? Where is the list of the Canon of scripture in scripture itself? Paul quoted from books considered non-canonical, ought they be considered canonical? Jude goes further (Enoch). If you can't even determine with any certainty the canon of scripture, "sola scriptura" is meaningless.

Jesus established a church, quoting Isaiah 22, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom" (open no man shut, etc.), Simon, you are (now) Peter (rock) and upon this rock (peter) I will build my church. So the church is the authority, superior to scripture, so can define it.

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 11:02 PM  

Given John 6, if you take it literally, the RCs are right. If you don't then most of the bible is amorphous.

I categorically state that the mature understanding of John 6 is definitely not literal.

I also categorically reject your conclusion that most of the bible is then amorphous.

If you in fact consider yourself of the Bride of Christ and not subject to condemnation, you are are shaky ground, my friend.



Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:02 PM  

@Markku - discern, perceive, see. Either when you look at what by accident (see Aquinas) is bread, you see Jesus or you see just bread. Jesus says you need to have faith that the former is true.

Disagree if you must, but then all those scriptures including the only two instances of red in the epistles are symbolic and not literal as is John 6. And if you start to assume a priori symbolic over literal, there won't be much left of the bible that is immediate, certain, and applicable.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 11:04 PM  

So it IS your interpretation of what "discern" means in that place?

It was a simple yes or no question, and I'm starting to think you are trying to dodge it.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2013 11:05 PM  

Jesus Christ. Who said "This IS"

So you think Jesus was talking about a warehouse in Pretoria filled with wheat crackers and wine 2000 years later?

Yeah, that doesn't make the bible any more "amorphous" at all.

Man, you guys are royally screwed up in the head.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:10 PM  

@Zen0

I categorically state that the mature understanding of John 6 is definitely not literal.

I also categorically reject your conclusion that most of the bible is then amorphous.

You can categorically state whatever you want, as Phony does quote often. Yet you offer no evidence.

I only said if you arbitrarily (as you have appeared to have done) take certain verses as symbolic and not literal, without any justification or rule, any verse, no matter how literal the context can thus be taken as symbolic. So your rejection of my position is illogical.

I consider most of the Bible literal, but I'm not free to pick and choose which verses. I have to determine via rational argument (dialectic, authority, or otherwise) what is literal and what is symbolic. I can't simply and arbitrarily "categorically reject" a verse as being literal (or symbolic) because I dislike such or it is inconvenient.

If you in fact consider yourself of the Bride of Christ and not subject to condemnation, you are are shaky ground, my friend.

No, I definitely consider myself constantly subject to condemnation. Hence the need for the Sacrament of reconciliation.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 11:16 PM  

tz:
I do so at least each Sunday. I literally gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood. It remits my sins.


Methinks we are re-fighting the entire reformation. For a clarification on this passage, see the illuminating object lesson in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:6-70. The entire multi-day, multi-location passage explains what He means and why you're taking it too literally.

- Azimus

Anonymous zen0 July 30, 2013 11:16 PM  

Looks like it was tz's turn in the barrel tonight.

selah.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:17 PM  

@Markku My apologies if it appears I'm dodging. My posts are long so "This is NOT what..." is to me ambiguous. At least I apparently did not understand your question about the word "discern".

If you would do me the favor of stating the whole and not just the single word without context and many prepositions instead of originals, I think I can provide an answer.

But perhaps to short-circuit things, if you do not discern the body, blood, soul, and divinity in the media after the consecration, then, you are not eating at the Lord's table worthily. That is what is said in the text.

Blogger Eric Wilson July 30, 2013 11:17 PM  

tz,

Couldn't the "rock" have been Peter's confession given immediately preceding your quote?

Blogger Crude July 30, 2013 11:17 PM  

Just to throw my two cents in, I'd have to say any Protestant who rages against even faithful, socially orthodox Catholics and any Catholic who rages against faithful, socially orthodox Protestants are both useful idiots to the worst sorts of LGBT-lobby-promoting atheists and liberals. Disagreement is one thing, but full on attacks and hopes that the other side is crippled by or even overrun by liberal secularists is another thing.

If even at this point in time you're as or more obsessed with attacking fellow Christians who are almost entirely on your side in the culture war, you couldn't be more on the side of Richard Dawkins, Dan Savage or Bishop Spong if you were expressly planted there to do damage.

So if you hate you summa dem Catholics/Protestants cuz yo PAPPY/GRANDMAMMY sure dun showed you the truth 'bout dem, yeah... you're a goddamn hick, and little better than a conscious PZ Myers sockpuppet.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:20 PM  

@Anon/Azimus - But on what authority superior to scripture itself do you say particular chapters and verses ought to be taken literally or symbolically?

Paul says you are guilty of the body and blood, not of the symbols thereof.

If you have some algorithm which can highlight symbolic from literal passages I would like to know what it is.

Blogger Eric Wilson July 30, 2013 11:27 PM  

Crude,

Agreed. With the caveat that salvation cannot be earned. It is a gift to those who believe in Christ's redemption.

That is literally the miracle of Christianity.

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:27 PM  

@Eric Wilson
Couldn't the "rock" have been Peter's confession given immediately preceding your quote?

Except that the keys which representative of a Prime Minister with succession were given to the person of Peter.

Also, he was called "Simon". "Rock" in Aramaic is Coephes. If it was his confession, why did his name change to Petros (koine greek male gender but means small rock, note Petra is the female gender and means big rock so if you go to the greek it says "You are male/small rock, and upon this female/big rock I will build my church" but in Aramaic, Coephes would be used for both words.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 11:28 PM  

But perhaps to short-circuit things, if you do not discern the body, blood, soul, and divinity in the media after the consecration, then, you are not eating at the Lord's table worthily. That is what is said in the text.

Yes, this is what I tried to figure out, if this was the way you thought the verse made your point, or if there was some other way.

Now, first as to the Greek word diakrino:

1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer
2) to learn by discrimination, to try, decide
a) to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute
3) to withdraw from one, desert
4) to separate one's self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend
5) to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

And then as for the English word discern, an old dictionary (Webster 1913 in this case) would give this as the first definition:

1. To see and identify by noting a difference or differences; to note the distinctive character of; to discriminate; to distinguish.

---

This is the problem with old English as read by modern readers - words have changed meaning. For example, the Finnish Bible from 1938 translates this as something like "without telling Christ's body apart from that other thing" (albeit in much fewer words - Finnish doesn't really translate concisely).

This was the issue at hand:

1 Cr 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

---

So, what it means is making a distinction with Lord's Supper, and food and wine that is served to fill your stomach or get you drunk.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 11:29 PM  

If you can't even determine with any certainty the canon of scripture, "sola scriptura" is meaningless.

Dude, say what you want about the tenets of sola scriptura, but at least its an ethos!

- Azimus

Blogger Eric Wilson July 30, 2013 11:33 PM  

tz,

Possibly because the confession that Christ is Lord was more important (a bigger rock) than anything else that Peter could say?

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden July 30, 2013 11:34 PM  

OT: (national security)

If you own a Lenovo product, then you better listen to this (7-30-13). If you don't own a Lenovo product, then you better listen to Duff and Harris talk about built-in backdoors in your personal systems hardware ...

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 11:40 PM  

@Anon/Azimus - But on what authority superior to scripture itself do you say particular chapters and verses ought to be taken literally or symbolically?

Scripture interprets Scripture. Clearer, more explicit passages interpret the shorter, less clear passages. Jesus walks you through the steps: 1, 2, 3 in John 6, and this clarifies the passage in Matthew. See your position is weak because by John 6 the only flesh available to eat was literally his body, all 10 stone of Him. You and I BOTH interpret John 6 to be symbolic because you need to be able to supply holy cookies to provide enough "flesh" to eat. The difference between you and I is that I take the symbol to be wholly symbolic, which is clearly explained, and you take it - err, partially symbolic, which is An untenable position given the two passages.

- Azimus

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 11:41 PM  

Well, the latest is that the LGBT community has an action in High Court against God for destroying Sodom & Gomorrha . They want compensation into trillions of Dollars & God saying very loud, I AM SORRY! FORGIVE ME !!

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:45 PM  

@Markku

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Failure to "discern" is a capital crime - but if you are right, people died for not very weighty and forgivable matters.

As to re-fighting the Reformation, St. Francis De Sales, pray for us.

@Azimus

Dude, say what you want about the tenets of sola scriptura, but at least its an ethos!

But see the threads on Natural Law and the Tao. Calling some internally consistent system of "morals" an ethos is easy. The chasm between consistent (true) and good is one that Dives and Lazarus could not bridge.

But it is not even an ethos. As this thread has shown, verses, chapters, or whatever need to be interpreted. Does Gen 38 ban masturbation and contraception (which Luther, Calvin, and Wesley taught)? Or not? When Jesus, after being asked about eating his flesh instead of saying it was a parable, instead said instead of "eat", unless you "gnaw" on my flesh... did he mean literally eating his flesh? Or not.

I moved toward protestantism until I found their claims based on personal opinions and not systematic in any form. The book of Mormon and the Koran claim divine inspiration as written and received. The Bible can only claim a "best guess" based on the texts available. Why didn't God create a perfect bible? Why are so few things as clear as an engineering document? Maybe because he established a church, and the bible is a product of that church. Both infallible but imperfect.

Blogger Markku July 30, 2013 11:50 PM  

Failure to "discern" is a capital crime - but if you are right, people died for not very weighty and forgivable matters.

Getting drunk on the symbol and filling your belly on it before someone poorer than you manages to get his fingers on it is the same kind of a thing as wiping your ass on the flag - the flag is merely the medium of your disrespect towards the thing it represents. And the culpability is in that disrespect, not in the fact that some feces ended up in some cloth.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2013 11:50 PM  

@tz

Sorry tz, the ethos comment was a borrowed quote from "The Big Lebowski".

- Azimus

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother July 30, 2013 11:55 PM  

Tz,

Scripture interprets scripture. The rock in Matthew 18 can't be Peter himself, because every other scripture that talks about that rock/cornerstone/foundation that the church is founded on is explicitly Christ. It can't be Peter!

Blogger tz July 30, 2013 11:59 PM  

@Markky - I can't convince you that no matter how many times our Lord said "IS" instead of "REPREsENTS", that he really meant "IS" instead of "REPRESENTS". That is fine, but then it means that much of scripture or even the sayings of our Lord are not literal, or at best we can personally (and not objectively, see objective v.s. subjective morality) decide which ones are which and which apply. Yet at the end, there cannot be an objective morality - is "Thou shall not kill" literal or symbolic? What do you point to in order to decide if nothing is superior to Scripture itself, not even reason?

1 – 200 of 311 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts