If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Dei Servus

TrunkstheSlayer

If it existed though...wouldn't an authority have 'sealed the deal' so to speak and said so by now?
I mean it makes no sense to buy into it if the main authority has never said "yep, it's there"...then again I suppose the opposite could potentially apply...though not as strongly.
Why doesn't someone just, oh I dunno, ask the bleedin Pope and get a direct answer?
......

I have no idea. The Holy See has left it more or less up in the open for the last 2000 years. I doubt they are gonna say one way or the other any time soon.

Gee, isn't he helpful...Someone to tell him to get off his holy a** and get us the damned information already. He's certainly had long enough

[Full~Moon~Kagome]

Gay marriage? right. that's an oxymoron. the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman. i don't hate gays at all, but if they want to be married- call it a civil union. cause the only real reason they want marriage is for social benefits from the government etc etc.

[Aino Ailill]

Full~Moon~Kagome

Gay marriage? right. that's an oxymoron. the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman.

And definitions can change. The definition of marriage, as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says nothing specifically about gender requirements in marriage. Man-Woman definition does not apply to everyone, and does not need to.

Quote:

i don't hate gays at all, but if they want to be married- call it a civil union.

Seperate but equal is inherently unequal.

Quote:

cause the only real reason they want marriage is for social benefits from the government etc etc.

Prove this.

[linaloki]

Full~Moon~Kagome

Gay marriage? right. that's an oxymoron. the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman. i don't hate gays at all, but if they want to be married- call it a civil union. cause the only real reason they want marriage is for social benefits from the government etc etc.

Funny thing... first off, check your Websters. Marriage's definition includes same sex marriage.

Second thing... There's a funny thing about definitions. They can get changed REALLY easily.

Third thing... The reasons homosexuals want to get married are the same reasons heterosexuals want to get married. Some for the benefits, some to show their love for a partner, and some to show that they're finally equal.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Full~Moon~Kagome

Gay marriage? right. that's an oxymoron.

Appeal to ridicule.

Full~Moon~Kagome

the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman.

Appeal to tradition; selective pleading.

Full~Moon~Kagome

i don't hate gays at all,

The rest of your post suggests otherwise.

Full~Moon~Kagome

but if they want to be married- call it a civil union.

No.
See Brown vs. BOE for an explanation as to why.
Either call both types of marriage a civil union, or marriage, or some other unified term, or call them nothing at all.

Full~Moon~Kagome

cause the only real reason they want marriage is for social benefits from the government etc etc.

I think you're lying.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Full~Moon~Kagome

Gay marriage? right. that's an oxymoron.

No, but you're the latter two syllables it would seem

Quote:

the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman.

Prove it. Prove the definition is concrete

Quote:

i don't hate gays at all, but if they want to be married- call it a civil union.

You don't hate, but you advocate discrimination? Yea, and you say gay marriage is an oxymoron?

Quote:

cause the only real reason they want marriage is for social benefits from the government etc etc.

Prove it. I dare you. Prove that equality isn't on the list. Prove that marriage isn't something viewed as 'sacred' by homosexuals and heterosexual alike.

[John Calvin]

Servus Dei

Not according to the Catholic faith.

"Unless a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot have life everlasting."

Wonderful. You're presenting a verse in which I argued against before. You failed to provide a rebuttal concerning this verse. Why try to attempt arguing with you at all, if you aren't going to at least confess that "heretics" are right at several theological points?

[John Calvin]

Servus Dei

1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Bible isn't the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Church is.

Behold, everyone! Catholics have to use the Bible to prove that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth! Does anyone else see the irony?

[Marshal67]

John Calvin

Servus Dei

1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Bible isn't the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Church is.

Behold, everyone! Catholics have to use the Bible to prove that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth! Does anyone else see the irony?

Noted and hillarious!

[linaloki]

John Calvin

Servus Dei

1 Timothy 3:15 says that the Bible isn't the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Church is.

Behold, everyone! Catholics have to use the Bible to prove that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth! Does anyone else see the irony?

Well, he's theonly Catholic I've seen do so. Not even my Catholic Bible puts that type of note on that verse. Of course, his was all misquoted, so he might be using the special Bible for people that need to know they're right. It comes with a box of Crayolas to mark out anything they think is wrong.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Damn Loki...Why you gotta bash on da Crayolas like that man? What did they ever do to ya?

[PoeticVengeance]

Dei Servus

PoeticVengeance

That's why new members are required to get baptized as soon as possible, to prevent their entrance into purgatory Limbo if they die immediately.

Dear God, you have a piss poor understanding of Catholic doctrine.

Not of Doctrine, dear Scholastic.

I have a bad understanding of vocabulary.

^_^

The basic situation is still the same. Let's try and stop making silly assumptions about all the apostates and heretics shall we?

Quote:

Quote:

Of course this is blasphemous to the Scriptures, and another issue I have with Catholicism, but we'll leave that for another time.

No, it isn't. stare

Like I said, we'll leave that for another time. Whether Catholics are blasphemous in using the Catechism to liberally interpret the Bible, and extend Papal authority over Scripture in such a massive fashion, as well as add things to the list of requirements to enter Paradise or not is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Whether the Bible condemns homosexuals is the issue here.

Once you and I have figured that out, we can move on to whether the Vatican can edit and add to Scripture to make it so homosexuals are condemned.

[PoeticVengeance]

Dei Servus

AngryRobotsInc.

Limbo is no longer part of Catholic canon, last I checked. Purgatory still is, but not Limbo. Limbo was commonly believed to be where unbaptized babies, the mentally disabled, and the mentally insane (both unable to convert) went when they died.

It wasn't canon to begin with. But it always has been, and still is fairly popular theological speculation that is commonly accepted by many Catholics. St. Augustine preached it, after all.

Aha I knew it. I figured they hadn't included Limbo yet. I know it was floating around but I didn't know if the Vatican took it seriously enough to make it dogma.



And why are you making issue with me about it, if it isn't Canon, and merely speculation?

And you say I have a piss poor understanding of Catholic doctrine? I am very disappointed in you.

[PoeticVengeance]

Dei Servus

TrunkstheSlayer

Then can someone give a word for it? Because if it isn't part of the doctrine...yet is believed by a large portion of the following...what is it? Mass delusion? I actually mean that seriously, not as an insult. What in the world would it be called?

It's a popular theological speculation that hasn't been officially canonized or condemned by the Church. It's basically a "believe it or not" type deal.

So why are you disputing my knowledge of doctrine based on a concept that is speculation?

[PoeticVengeance]

linaloki

PoeticVengeance

Servus Dei

linaloki

o_O ORLY? Last I checked, being baptized was just a proclaimation of your faith, and was not required for entry into heaven.

Not according to the Catholic faith.

"Unless a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot have life everlasting."
"Remember brethren, when I baptised you, you were baptised into the death of Christ."

Um, Loki... Servus is actually right about baptism, for Catholics it is required for entry into heaven.

That's why new members are required to get baptized as soon as possible, to prevent their entrance into purgatory if they die immediately.

Of course this is blasphemous to the Scriptures, and another issue I have with Catholicism, but we'll leave that for another time.

I know this, actually. I mentioned it in the original post, but he cut it off... I was saying that Biblically, there's no definitive mention of a water baptism required to go to heaven, and there's proof that one isn't needed. The Catholics, however, believe in one baptism, the forgiveness of sin. Baptism is needed to cleanse the body of original sin in order to prevent the baby from going into limbo.

Oh okay.

You're right of course, its another addition by the Catholics, and hence blasphemous, unless they can prove they have that authority.

Quote:

At least, limbo used to be where they went... >.< I may not have stayed with the Church as long as you did, Poe, but I stuck around long enough. wink

I never took limbo seriously while a Catholic. Unless it was Canon it wasn't ******** real. Simple as that.