Catholic Bigotry?

[Evil Goblin]

Strange. It is just that I haven't said that people should not have the right to hold beliefs.

I know, LDV, but Mans seemed to get the impression that you did hold that view. A problem we all have - what we say and mean is not necessarily what others read and understand.

[Chinahand]

I just cannot bear the thought that, if our children were to be orphaned, they might be adopted by a homosexual couple. I try not to imagine that one day, a little twelve year old boy, still missing his Mummy and Daddy, might find himself in a house where two men sleep together and practice homosexuality. To my family the thought is utterly dreadful.

 

I have a perfect right to exercise my point of view in accordance with my religion and no one is going to take that away from me. Furthermore I have a right to stipulate what I want for my children. However, in the UK that right has now been taken away from families like ours. The return of catholic persecution is upon us and it's a terrfying scenario.

 

The UK Government is outlawing religious beliefs bit by bit and its time for the fight back to begin.

Isn't it wierd how your memory plays tricks with you.

 

As soon as I saw this advert I thought of this post.

 

 

Bloody hell, it is 8 years ago ... how the heck did I remember that!

 

Anyway - throughout this thread I'm arguing that children are raised in diverse families, by grandparents, by aunties, by family friends, by single dads, by single mums, by lone uncles, by brothers, by half-sisters. You name it, there will be a family like it, and more than likely lots like it - the nuclear family is by no means the only possible family.

 

I have difficulty comprehending why some people pick out families where children are raised by homosexual couples for such disparagement.

 

I don't understand why some people would want to claim that the family portrayed here is in some way beyond the pale, unacceptable, wrong, apart from God.

 

That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Complicated world.

[Vulgarian]

You're not wrong, Chinahand.

 

But fucking hell that advert makes me cringe. Its not the depiction of a gay black couple raising kids that does it, but that cynical use of sentimentality as an advertising tool. I mostly detest advertising of all kinds. Its manipulative, dishonest, and fueled by avarice. But that sort of parisitism of emotion, sentiment, or some popular idea to sell tat is the worst variety. Some people would call it creative. I call it 'fuck off' and throw the remote at the TV (the reason why I don't watch TV any more).

[paul's got wright]

go ldv! x

[Vulgarian]

LDV sadly does not visit these forums much anymore. I am not him!

[Chinahand]

Hey ho ... I reopen this thread and the Pope then goes and says something really disturbing.

 

While discussing the Charlie Hedbo attacks the Pope came out with these little gems:

 

If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch in the nose.

 

You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others. They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.

 

This is the Pope saying it is ok to use physical violence against those who "make fun" and ridicule.

 

This is a man who claims to be personally connected to Jesus Christ - the guy who said turn the other cheek - saying it is ok to use violence against those who make fun of a religion.

 

This is no different than blaming the mini-skirt for the rape, or the nagging wife for her black eye.

 

If you think about his words I hope you'll find them abhorrent.

 

To reply to words, even curses, but especially mockery, with violence is Wrong.

 

For a man who is meant to espouse the theology of turn the other cheek it is hypocrisy of the worst sort.

 

Mr Deity has responded to this in untypical style. I'm not going to embed it as it is forthright and hence unsuitable for work, children etc.

 

But I can understand his anger.

[pongo]

Jesus Christ - the guy who said turn the other cheek

Matthew's happy-clappy benevolent and slightly wet Sunday school Jesus !

 

The Gospel of St Mark is much more interesting and you can read it in an evening. It's fascinating - especially for anyone who has been brought up on / with a smiley picture-book Jesus. St Mark's Jesus is a devious, secretive, mystical and dangerous exorcist and a magician. It would make a great film.

 

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

[Lao]

Thats just another of the problems with Christianity, for a supposedly monotheistic religion, there are a huge number of deistic figureheads, such as the holy trinity, mary, patron saints, angels etc

 

but the most confusing of all has to be the multi faceted Jesus figurehead.

 

Matthew's hippy jesus, Mark's Machiavellian Jesus, The Baby jesus seemed to be taught as a separate entity especially to young children.

 

I guess the church just can't shake off it's polytheistic roots.

[Isaac]

Matthew's happy-clappy benevolent and slightly wet Sunday school Jesus !

 

The Gospel of St Mark is much more interesting and you can read it in an evening. It's fascinating - especially for anyone who has been brought up on / with a smiley picture-book Jesus. St Mark's Jesus is a devious, secretive, mystical and dangerous exorcist and a magician. It would make a great film.

 

The portrayal of Jesus is really not that different in the written gospels. It's natural that the written gospels would differ in certain ways, due to having been composed seperately by different people; with Matthew and Luke being in part based on Mark and seperately amalgamating stories, sayings and teachings which had been passed by word of mouth from apostle to apostle. The gospels were written by entirely seperate communities. The early church had churches in every major city of the Roman Empire by the time these manuscripts were being written. It is the church and apostolic succession which Jesus founded first and foremost and it is the church which then wrote the New Testament scripture. The fact that a church already existed in different cities of the empire before these manuscripts were written is further proof of the historicity of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

[Vulgarian]

The portrayal of Jesus is really not that different in the written gospels. It's natural that the written gospels would differ in certain ways, due to having been composed seperately by different people; with Matthew and Luke being in part based on Mark and seperately amalgamating stories, sayings and teachings which had been passed by word of mouth from apostle to apostle. The gospels were written by entirely seperate communities. The early church had churches in every major city of the Roman Empire by the time these manuscripts were being written. It is the church and apostolic succession which Jesus founded first and foremost and it is the church which then wrote the New Testament scripture. The fact that a church already existed in different cities of the empire before these manuscripts were written is further proof of the historicity of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Fascinating stuff, TJ!

[Isaac]

The Catholic Church is insisting that it is allowed to refuse to provide adoption services to gays seeking to adopt Children. BBC Link

 

As it will become illegal to discriminate against gays in the UK under the new Equality Act, the church are insisting on an opt out in the law. They want to have the right to be discriminatory.

 

 

It's hardly discrimination as there is nothing stopping them going to another adoption service.

 

To absolutely without any exceptions refuse an individual or group the right to be discriminatory is in and of itself an active form of discrimination and quite Orwellian. To force Catholic adoption services to go against their religious principles is discrimination against a group of people because of their faith. If you're so bothered, why not lobby for the government to carry out these services instead of the Catholic Church having to do it?

[Chinahand]

I'm not convinced the portrayal of Christ is that similar - I would put it the other way round - because there were many different communities prior to the collation of the gospels there were rival authorities, teachers, leaders and elders (with the figure of John as an aging authority (one among you who will not taste death before the kingdom of God has come). They had different conceptions of who Jesus was and what his message was and the different gospels reflect that, written at different times, by different people in different communities.

 

There is in my view an especially very stark difference between the figure of Jesus in Mark compared to the figure of Jesus in John.

 

Jesus becomes more an more distanced from Jewish culture in the Synoptic gospels with Mark the most understanding of Jewish traditions while in the Gospel of John that is mainly gone with the text basically referring to "the jews" doing various things.

 

There is also a pretty stark change in the use of parables and the understanding of what the Messiah is and how Jesus admits to and acknowledges his role.

[Lao]

 

Matthew's happy-clappy benevolent and slightly wet Sunday school Jesus !

 

The Gospel of St Mark is much more interesting and you can read it in an evening. It's fascinating - especially for anyone who has been brought up on / with a smiley picture-book Jesus. St Mark's Jesus is a devious, secretive, mystical and dangerous exorcist and a magician. It would make a great film.

 

The portrayal of Jesus is really not that different in the written gospels. It's natural that the written gospels would differ in certain ways, due to having been composed seperately by different people; with Matthew and Luke being in part based on Mark and seperately amalgamating stories, sayings and teachings which had been passed by word of mouth from apostle to apostle. The gospels were written by entirely seperate communities. The early church had churches in every major city of the Roman Empire by the time these manuscripts were being written. It is the church and apostolic succession which Jesus founded first and foremost and it is the church which then wrote the New Testament scripture. The fact that a church already existed in different cities of the empire before these manuscripts were written is further proof of the historicity of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

 

 

That's not how proof of historicity works.

 

Three passages in non Christian works, that is the extent of the historicity claims.

 

By comparison Alexander the great had far more historicity, many would argue that is an unfair comparison, as Alexander made such a huge impact on the world, Whereas Jesus was a man (son of a god?), but you would think that a man who could feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, would be written about in some non christian works!

[Isaac]

That's not how proof of historicity works.

 

Three passages in non Christian works, that is the extent of the historicity claims.

 

Sorry, but discounting works written by Christians is not how proof of historicity works.

[Lao]

 

The Catholic Church is insisting that it is allowed to refuse to provide adoption services to gays seeking to adopt Children. BBC Link

 

As it will become illegal to discriminate against gays in the UK under the new Equality Act, the church are insisting on an opt out in the law. They want to have the right to be discriminatory.

 

 

It's hardly discrimination as there is nothing stopping them going to another adoption service.

 

To absolutely without any exceptions refuse an individual or group the right to be discriminatory is in and of itself an active form of discrimination and quite Orwellian. To force Catholic adoption services to go against their religious principles is discrimination against a group of people because of their faith. If you're so bothered, why not lobby for the government to carry out these services instead of the Catholic Church having to do it?

 

 

I would disagree that it's discriminatory to the adoption agencies, but i do agree that government should carry out these services, instead of having the catholic church do it.