The Catholic Church Is Horrible [Archive]

Wraith

11-12-2009, 10:24 AM

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday.After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples."If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Catholic Charities receives public money to support adoption, homelessness and health care services. They also contribute about $10M from the church. A new law going into effect, without any particular exemptions, would require them to conform to new rules in ways that are contrary to the church's beliefs, or else stop receiving public funds.

Seems to me like their best choice, if the law is passed as is, is to change they way they fund these services. Keep using the church's money for some services and run them as they want. Accept public money for things like homeless shelters where there's less likely to be conflicts with their beliefs.

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 10:45 AM

Yeah, I'm more with Wraith on this one. It is unfortunate, but given their choices, this seems understandable.

Hell, as much as I may disagree with 'em (and, believe me, I do), I actually have to applaud them for showing a little backbone. Let's see if it holds out...

ClannerDelta

11-12-2009, 10:51 AM

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 10:55 AM

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 10:56 AM

If the church wants to withhold charity to make a stand, why not? All of the selfless, tolerant, anti-church citizens can take up the slack.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 11:01 AM

If the church wants to withhold charity to make a stand, why not? All of the selfless, tolerant, anti-church citizens can take up the slack.

Because in trying to ban gays from equal rights they are hurting so many more, that's why.

It's blackmail. If you don't do something I want, others get hurt. Yeah, sounds real Christian doesn't it?

Churches have too much power. We need laws to get rid of their tax exemptions. All the tax-free money they take in they SHOULD be helping the communities in which they reside.

Ink Asylum

11-12-2009, 11:01 AM

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 11:07 AM

Christ, they're not witholding charity. They're simply not going to run the city's program, since it conflicts with their belief. That money is still there, and the city can still find someone else to distribute it (or even do it themselves).

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 11:13 AM

Because in trying to ban gays from equal rights they are hurting so many more, that's why.

It's blackmail. If you don't do something I want, others get hurt. Yeah, sounds real Christian doesn't it?

Churches have too much power. We need laws to get rid of their tax exemptions. All the tax-free money they take in they SHOULD be helping the communities in which they reside.
Wait, are you saying that poor and homeless people are completely helpless without the Catholic church?

I'm not defending the church's moral decision...I'm not Catholic and don't really care...just wondering why people like you expect so much of them after getting on a soap box about how horrible they are.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 11:22 AM

It doesn't say much about the morals of the church. "We'll stop helping poor people unless you discriminate against gays." They're free to do so, it's just another reminder of where their real priorities are.

Christ would be outraged. I'd like to see him come back just to smite all the people calling themselves "Christians" and blaspheming his name.

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 11:24 AM

Christ would be outraged. I'd like to see him come back just to smite all the people calling themselves "Christians" and blaspheming his name.
If you believed He could do that, then you'd better have a good hiding place yourself! :p

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 11:29 AM

If you believed He could do that, then you'd better have a good hiding place yourself! :p

I'm not Christian, but I'm still more Christian than some people that call themselves that.

I don't think Jesus would look down on me at all. I can't think of a single thing he'd be angry with me about.

Voodoo

11-12-2009, 11:31 AM

Christ would be outraged. I'd like to see him come back just to smite all the people calling themselves "Christians" and blaspheming his name.

I'd imagine the first thing he'd say is, "Who the eff is this Christ guy?!" :D

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 11:36 AM

I don't think Jesus would look down on me at all. I can't think of a single thing he'd be angry with me about.
Wow. I've never met a perfect person before. :eek:

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 11:44 AM

Wow. I've never met a perfect person before. :eek:

I think Yeshua (the Christ) would be realistic. None of us are perfect, but some of us are better than others. There is nothing of note that he'd be angry with me for, I think. He would think me a good, kind individual with no bigotry or bias (I think) in my heart, as is the Christian way. "Carry on, Kelegacy," I think he'd say. "Keep up the good work."

Well, sloth perhaps, since I should be working instead of typing this. ;)

Ink Asylum

11-12-2009, 11:44 AM

Wow. I've never met a perfect person before. :eek:

That isn't necessarily someone claiming to be perfect, but rather a reading of Jesus as something other than a vengeful perfectionist. I'm no bible scholar, but I don't recall Jesus getting "angry" at people, even sinners. Didn't he say something like "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do," while being crucified?

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 11:46 AM

Didn't he say something like "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do," while being crucified?

That's a great quote, but I fear often times we DO know what we do and yet still do it. We rationalize things, even if our rationale is warped.

Though in another life we might realize, "Holy shit I was wrong."

Zero

11-12-2009, 11:53 AM

The way some people carry on about it, I'm sure his last words were "Kill.... all... the faggots."

roboninja

11-12-2009, 12:06 PM

The way some people carry on about it, I'm sure his last words were "Kill.... all... the faggots."

That could have been a hilarious skit. :)

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 12:07 PM

That's a great quote, but I fear often times we DO know what we do and yet still do it. We rationalize things, even if our rationale is warped.

This is my problem it. And, although it probably shouldn't, the idea that some people would be forgiven, even if they really are repentant, has always bugged me. I bet we'd all be a bit sorry if we suddenly believed we just picked an eternity of torment over a veritable paradise. But a murderer, for example, still knew what he was doing was wrong when he did it.

The way some people carry on about it, I'm sure his last words were "Kill.... all... the faggots."

If there's a cute girl around, I want my last words to be "in...my...pocket!"

But, I digress...

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 12:29 PM

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 12:34 PM

Which is also why you shouldn't have disdain for someone who decides they're against it, no matter their reason.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 12:42 PM

Which is also why you shouldn't have disdain for someone who decides they're against it, no matter their reason.

We are only on earth once (maybe) so I want my fellow man to be able to live as equal, happy and free a life as possible. Letting them marry doesn't step on anyone's rights so I see no harm at all.

I'm not big on discrimination. I don't care if people are against anything, but actively trying to keep people from having the same rights is discrimination and I can't support that.

But being against gay marriage, that's fine; I have good friends and coworkers that are against it for whatever reason. You don't have to like it. I don't like mushrooms but I am not about to step on other peoples' right to eat and enjoy them.

Ink Asylum

11-12-2009, 12:46 PM

Which is also why you shouldn't have disdain for someone who decides they're against it, no matter their reason.

Maybe Jesus or someone who follows the teachings of Jesus shouldn't, but as someone who isn't a Catholic I certainly can and will have disdain for someone who puts opposition to gay marriage above helping the poor.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 12:51 PM

Maybe Jesus or someone who follows the teachings of Jesus shouldn't, but as someone who isn't a Catholic I certainly can and will have disdain for someone who puts opposition to gay marriage above helping the poor.

I think we should start a movement to ban the marriage of shellfish eaters, and period-sex havers and poly-cotton blends wearers. They are just some of the things mentioned alongside homosexuality in the bible, but I bet the anti-homos still wear fabric blends, eat shellfish and maybe have had sex with their wives while she's ragging. HYPOCRITES

That would suck for Maine, that's for sure. We love our lobster. But we also love repealing gay marriage. :)

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 12:52 PM

I think it is possible to repent...but only God and yourself know if you truly mean it. Your heart must be filled with immense guilt and remorse for the crimes you committed. And though you can fake it to your fellow man, that doesn't really matter in the repenting process. God is supposed to be all knowing. You can't fool him.

People can change, at least sometimes. With age comes wisdom. A murderer that kills as a 20-something can look back 30 years or more down the road and feel anguish for what he did. Remorse. That's the key ingredient in forgiveness.

I guess it's why it's not up to us to ultimately judge our fellow man. Only He can do that. That's why even if I didn't agree with gay marriage I'd still be for it.

I don't know, it's just something that always stuck in my craw, as they say. Maybe there are some acts that just shouldn't have penance...I know that there are some people I can never forgive. There is no way the anguish they feel can be equal to the anguish they've caused.

If I were a religious person, I doubt I'd see it any other way. In fact, if I were, the injustice of forgiveness might be enough that I'd want to make sure they never got the chance. Odd, that.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 12:54 PM

One of my more conservative beliefs is the death penalty. I'm all for it. I don't know if Christ would be, though. He's a peace-loving hippy dude.

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 12:55 PM

I don't like mushrooms but I am not about to step on other peoples' right to eat and enjoy them.

I would have picked almost any other food, given the topic. :p

txshurricane

11-12-2009, 12:57 PM

I would have picked almost any other food, given the topic. :p
Oh, wow! You win. I just had a good laugh over that.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 12:59 PM

I would have picked almost any other food, given the topic. :p

Haha, I didn't even realize.

My fiancee sent me a picture this morning of a huge penis that was burned into the front of her office building--right on the outside near the entrance doors. She was laughing so hard. Someone spent a lot of time burning that into the building's exterior. Maybe that's why subliminally penis is in my head.

Cyndair

11-12-2009, 02:46 PM

This is my problem it. And, although it probably shouldn't, the idea that some people would be forgiven, even if they really are repentant, has always bugged me. I bet we'd all be a bit sorry if we suddenly believed we just picked an eternity of torment over a veritable paradise. But a murderer, for example, still knew what he was doing was wrong when he did it.

The point is that whether you are a serial murderer or someone who stole some bubble gum from a grocery store, you are still a sinner. It only takes one sin your entire life to blow the perfect streak. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) so therefore we are all in the same boat. God is a righteous judge in that he will punish sin accordingly (Psalm 9:7-10). However, God provides Jesus as the answer in that he pays our penalty through his death. We just have to accept that by putting our faith in him as our savior. Murder, gum thief, still sinner.

Now, if the would be murderer claimed to be a Christian and truly was following in the footsteps of Christ's example, then he wouldn't murder someone in the first place even knowing he could get away with it because it would be dishonoring to God and essentially spitting in his face despite the wonderful gift of salvation that he had received in accepting Christ. That isn't a heart of repentance. (Example: Lets say I was crossing a busy intersection and I didn't see a truck coming. Some guy pushes me out of the way at the last second and saves my life. It would be like me turning around and stabbing that guy in the back right after he did that) You do your best to follow God's law and Jesus' example because you genuinely appreciate what you've been given: Life. If the murderer killed someone and then 30 years down the road he found God and accepted Jesus' salvation (like in Kel's example) then yeah, those sins are forgiven.

It doesn't seem "fair" but you have to accept the fact that man can do nothing to earn his own salvation; it is given freely by God. It is purely grace. If you can accept that fact, that we are all in the same boat and need God, then everything else falls into place. It gives a wonderful feeling of peace. If God can forgive a murderer; so can I.

OUX

11-12-2009, 03:16 PM

I'm not Christian, but I'm still more Christian than some people that call themselves that.

I don't think Jesus would look down on me at all. I can't think of a single thing he'd be angry with me about.

Didn't you declare yourself some sort of prophet way back in the day and form a new religion/cult around it? I am thinking like 4 years ago or so.

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 03:23 PM

It doesn't seem "fair" but you have to accept the fact that man can do nothing to earn his own salvation; it is given freely by God. It is purely grace. If you can accept that fact, that we are all in the same boat and need God, then everything else falls into place. It gives a wonderful feeling of peace. If God can forgive a murderer; so can I.

Well, I appreciate the response, Cyndair. I can't say I agree with it all, but that sort of acceptance may be one of the advantages of belief.

As an inspiration, I think the idea of Christ is great; as a redeemer...well, I'd just as soon have us all be damned than see the forgiveness of a few.

roboninja

11-12-2009, 03:28 PM

Well, I appreciate the response, Cyndair. I can't say I agree with it all, but that sort of acceptance may be one of the advantages of belief.

As an inspiration, I think the idea of Christ is great; as a redeemer...well, I'd just as soon have us all be damned than see the forgiveness of a few.

That's a very....spiteful way of looking at things, no? I am not sure I have ever heard anyone espouse this view.

Generation ABXY

11-12-2009, 03:51 PM

In that case, I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. I generally try not be very spiteful at all, but I have my limits, I guess.

Kelegacy

11-12-2009, 05:11 PM

Didn't you declare yourself some sort of prophet way back in the day and form a new religion/cult around it? I am thinking like 4 years ago or so.

HA! I had forgotten about that. Wow.

I think it was someone else who proposed the religion of the Kelegites, or whatever it was. But I did flesh it out. Man, I should try to dig that up.

Still, it was parody. God has a sense of humor. He and his hippie son Jesus both yuk it up at my antics daily. :)

Though I don't necessarily believe in God. I'm agnostic after all.

Widgetcraft

11-12-2009, 05:42 PM

I remember back when my Christian "friends" would tell me that, because I'm an Atheist and don't suck the balls of some imaginary friend, that I could never do anything selflessly. lulzy.

Anyhow, this is far less outrageous than them, you know... protecting known child molesters from prosecution. I'm still of the opinion that such activity has been going on for a very, very long time, and reaches high up into the "church."

Wasson_

11-12-2009, 06:15 PM

The Chruch and done much good for many people across the world. Fail to make "the gays" happy and suddenly your fucking evil. Awesome.

Kagger

11-12-2009, 06:24 PM

They've always been evil, where have you guys been?

I don't think they should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to (can't they already refuse heterosexuals?) but this is awful. It's blackmail.

God is generous...unless gays are involved? Fucking evil.

You said you don't have any bias against anyone, but that comment against the Catholic Church is offensive to me as a Catholic.

The Church is made up of people. People, by their nature, aren't perfect, and make mistakes. You aren't going to find a sane Catholic that really supported the cover up the abuse scandal. Yes, the fact that it happened is an atrocity, but that doesn't change the Theological teachings of the Church. Two of my best friends are in the Catholic Seminary, and my pastor from back home is like a second father to me. Every time someone refers to the entire Church as a bunch of pedophiles, it is the equivalent of calling one of your family members the same thing. The "Infallibility of the Church" only pertains to issues of Church Doctrine, not of the Church itself or the people who make it.

Now on to the issue at hand.

Has everyone actually read the article? The Archdiocese of Washington is not saying "if you give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, we will pull our support." They are saying that if they specifically have to participate, which would violate Church teachings, they cannot be a part of it. It isn't a "no rights for Gays or we take our ball home" thing. It's "we cannot morally participate if we are forced to also because it violates are teachings."

The ruling isn't based out of hatred. To understand the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, you have to understand their teaching on sexuality, which is a massive and fundamental issue. Just remember that in the Catholic Church you are not supposed to engage in sexual activity until marriage, so unmarried people are not supposed to be having sex. Whether the Catholics you know follow this does not change the teaching. Chastity is a fundamental principle.

The Catholic Church does not judge anyone, though they do feel certain actions are morally wrong. However, the severity of the sin, is between that person and God. It is not for me or anyone else to decide.

Again, the article is not saying "if you support gay rights we will stop helping people." The Archdiocese of Washington is saying because of our beliefs we cannot be forced to participate.

ShivaX

11-12-2009, 06:24 PM

The Chruch and done much good for many people across the world. Fail to make "the gays" happy and suddenly your fucking evil. Awesome.

They've also done a ton of horrible things throughout time, the most recently discovered being protecting child molesters. God only knows how long that was going on for, but I'm betting it passes the century mark by a long shot.

Just because you help out some poor folks you don't get a free pass on the rest of it.

Wasson_

11-12-2009, 06:36 PM

They've also done a ton of horrible things throughout time, the most recently discovered being protecting child molesters. God only knows how long that was going on for, but I'm betting it passes the century mark by a long shot.

Just because you help out some poor folks you don't get a free pass on the rest of it.

You know...it's pretty fucking annoying when people state the obvious.

I'm not going to play some kinda dumb-ass game of pros and cons when it comes to the catholic church and it's various discrepancies throughout the ages. All I will say is that it's a massive organization that does way more good that it does bad and you'd have to be a fucking fool to think the lives of a select number of molested children detract from all the other charity work and other positive social action a healthy religious community provides for millions of people.

BlackPete

11-12-2009, 06:40 PM

Heh... thought that this would fit best in this thread...

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Godless-Billboard-Moved-After-Threats/W0iGN9STXUW0m6VF2g2Xeg.cspx?234

Ten commandments removed from the courthouse = STOP PERSECUTING CHRISTIANITY! Put up a privately-funded atheist billboard = YOU'RE GONNA FUCKING DIE!

(paraphrased from fark)

EDIT: OK one more....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3385420340_875fd43aa7_o.jpg

ShivaX

11-12-2009, 06:48 PM

You know...it's pretty fucking annoying when people state the obvious.

I'm not going to play some kinda dumb-ass game of pros and cons when it comes to the catholic church and it's various discrepancies throughout the ages. All I will say is that it's a massive organization that does way more good that it does bad and you'd have to be a fucking fool to think the lives of a select number of molested children detract from all the other charity work and other positive social action a healthy religious community provides for millions of people.

I could easily argue that its bads outweigh its goods in many ways. I would argue its not all that "healthy" of a religious organization and a lot of Christians would agree with me. If you look at the organization historically it doesn't have much of a hope of coming out ahead at all.

Kagger

11-12-2009, 07:02 PM

I could easily argue that its bads outweigh its goods in many ways. I would argue its not all that "healthy" of a religious organization and a lot of Christians would agree with me. If you look at the organization historically it doesn't have much of a hope of coming out ahead at all.

Coming out ahead in what way? In the court of public opinion? When has that ever been the goal of Christianity?

And it's very easy to find Christian organizations that hate the Catholic Church, and condemn us all to hell. Which is counter one of the fundamental principles of the Christ's teachings.

Widgetcraft

11-12-2009, 10:55 PM

I wonder how Christ would have felt about blackmailing a city to fight progress in his name?

Matthias

11-13-2009, 12:58 AM

I wonder how Christ would have felt about blackmailing a city to fight progress in his name?

Well, I'm assuming you mean "coerce" instead of "blackmail," but that's beside the point. I hardly think the Archdiocese is coercing DC. They're simply laying their cards on the table- their beliefs and convictions do not allow for the actions this new law would require of them, so they're warning that they'll be leaving the party should this rule go into effect. If your convictions call for you to abstain from alcohol, you don't spend every weekend at a bar, and neither do you pay for other patrons to get drunk.

That being said, taking for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin, the church does help a lot of other people guilty of other sins- I imagine part of Catholic Charities' mission is to help alcoholics (failure to maintain moderation is sinful). That being said, the goal of the church is to ultimately help people to repent of their sin and turn away from it. The Catechism calls for people 'struggling with the condition of homosexuality' (paraphrase) to maintain a life of chastity, just as anyone with a disposition towards a given sin is asked to abstain from that sin. I don't think most openly homosexual people would appreciate the church broaching that topic with them, and would not be repentant of their choice the way a thief, adulterer, or murderer might be.

As for why the Catholic Church considers homosexuality sinful, it really boils down to their definition of sex and sexuality- sex is the joining of two people with the purpose of creating new life. Yes, it's pleasurable, but the Church holds that the purpose is for procreation within a married family. Sex outside of marriage is considered wrong, sex that uses contraceptives to practically eliminate the chance of pregnancy is wrong, and homosexual sex is wrong- any sexual activity that takes place solely to pleasure the self while closing the door to procreation is considered unnatural and therefore wrong. This is not a popular opinion in much of the world today, but don't expect the Church to back down on that definition anytime soon. The Church is slow to move in most areas, but it is their job to be.

Oh and "progress" can be a subjective term. When you consider something be a sin on par with theft, seeing society embrace it with open arms may seem like a sad defeat into moral regression to you.

Disclaimer: I am Christian, but am of the opinion that I cannot force everyone else to live by my moral code, and the only time I have a right to abridge someone else's rights is when they infringe on mine by a greater amount. I have sinned plenty in my own way, and have no right to act holier-than-thou to anyone, regardless of what their sins may be. I have a tendency towards being short-tempered as much as the next guy may have a tendency towards homosexuality, so who's to say I have any right to dictate what he can and can't do, regardless of whether his actions are considered sinful or not? Losing your temper is certainly sinful, and I have my work cut out for me just keeping myself from slipping.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 05:06 AM

You said you don't have any bias against anyone, but that comment against the Catholic Church is offensive to me as a Catholic.

Unfortunately I don't care if it's offensive. I think the church deciding not to help the poor, homeless and other people in need because of a potential gay rights bill is offensive to me and to the destitute of Washington. I really don't know how anyone can defend them.

I think they are hurting more people by doing this than just sucking it up. The whole gay thing is outlandish to begin with. It's a bunch of hypocrites interpreting the bible for their own bigoted reasons. Again, go read Leviticus. I know people like to spout the "gay is abomination" thing quite a bit but refuse to read anything else in that passage. That's hypocrisy.

The Church needs to get its head out of its ass and focus on more important endeavors. This is such a non-issue and waste of money and resources that it's laughable.

But God isn't laughing. I'm sure he's shaking his head down at the Church, face in palm, thinking, "What the hell are those fools up to now?" And Jesus pats him on the shoulder saying, "Forgive them Father, for they know what they do but don't care."

Deadend

11-13-2009, 08:09 AM

It's pretty obvious that the church doesn't really care about trying to do good things for those who suffer. Otherwise they would keep up their good works even with gay marriage. I am not sure how anyone is standing up for an organization that claims to do good things and help others, unless there is a gay couple in the territory.

Matthias

11-13-2009, 08:25 AM

Unfortunately I don't care if it's offensive. I think the church deciding not to help the poor, homeless and other people in need because of a potential gay rights bill is offensive to me and to the destitute of Washington. I really don't know how anyone can defend them.

I think they are hurting more people by doing this than just sucking it up. The whole gay thing is outlandish to begin with. It's a bunch of hypocrites interpreting the bible for their own bigoted reasons. Again, go read Leviticus. I know people like to spout the "gay is abomination" thing quite a bit but refuse to read anything else in that passage. That's hypocrisy.

The Church needs to get its head out of its ass and focus on more important endeavors. This is such a non-issue and waste of money and resources that it's laughable.

But God isn't laughing. I'm sure he's shaking his head down at the Church, face in palm, thinking, "What the hell are those fools up to now?" And Jesus pats him on the shoulder saying, "Forgive them Father, for they know what they do but don't care."

You ought to take a step back and read my post. While other denominations may rely solely on the passage in Leviticus, I've never heard a Catholic priest mention it at all on this topic. They view any sexual act that does not allow for procreation as sinful. It's not just a gay thing. Men who fully know they are infertile are also called to celibacy and technically not supposed to marry. It's fine if you don't agree with their beliefs, but please realize that it's not bigotry.

And I highly doubt the destitute of DC will no longer see any help- the city has already said they will take the public funds that Catholic Charities would no longer claim, and allocate them to another charitable organization. Meanwhile, the $10M that CC spends each year through the program will almost definitely be used to help the poor; it simply won't be used in full mixture with city funds. They'll just be two separate entities.

Can you really expect the Church to agree to "rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples" when in their opinion, these people are unrepentantly reveling in sin? That's like renting out a church hall to "hedonist" Satanists so they can discuss how much they love their rituals. This is a church that won't marry a heterosexual couple if it finds out they've been living together (most priests ask that you separate for the remainder of the engagement, then will still marry you).

Again, it's fine if you don't like its methods, but it has a pretty simple definition of the purpose of marriage and sex, and it affects more than just homosexual relationships, but that's their belief system. They supported an existing amendment to be exempt from having to fund certain actions that go against their belief system, but the amendment failed to pass. Now they're just backing off to let some other organization have those city funds, and I'm sure to spend their $10M helping the poor in some other way.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 08:46 AM

But God isn't laughing. I'm sure he's shaking his head down at the Church, face in palm, thinking, "What the hell are those fools up to now?" And Jesus pats him on the shoulder saying, "Forgive them Father, for they know what they do but don't care."
For someone who hates it when people of faith speak on God's behalf, you sure do it a lot yourself.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 08:48 AM

For someone who hates it when people of faith speak on God's behalf, you sure do it a lot yourself.

God speaks to me. I am merely conveying his voice to internet posts.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 08:55 AM

That's a very....spiteful way of looking at things, no? I am not sure I have ever heard anyone espouse this view.
There's quite a bit of irony in ABXY's musing there, the same kind of irony as Kelegacy exhibited with the "I hope God comes down and smites them" post...

It's really spiteful to wish the vengeance of someone's god on them if you don't like how they practice their worship to that god. That's like a Christian telling an atheist, "You'll be sorry when Jesus leaves you behind," which happens far too often. Someone has got to step up and say, "God loves you the way you are," or "Continue your walk of faith, and I'll continue mine. No hate here."

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 09:00 AM

God speaks to me. I am merely conveying his voice to internet posts.
Really? Because God told Abraham that the people of Sodom were grievously sinful. Odd that He wouldn't give you the same clarity.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 09:01 AM

If I was a baby killer and rapist, I doubt God would love me the way I am.

Unfortunately, the walk of faith can have hate in it. Or rather, discrimination, which is a form of prejudice and veiled dislike. Some would call it hate.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 09:07 AM

Really? Because God told Abraham that the people of Sodom were grievously sinful. Odd that He wouldn't give you the same clarity.

But the goings-on in Sodom were not all gay revelry. It wasn't a homosexual smite. The city could have been spared had they found enough righteous people.

It was a bad city with bad people in it. So God played murderer and destroyed them all in a brilliant display of filicide.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 09:12 AM

But the goings-on in Sodom were not all gay revelry. It wasn't a homosexual smite. The city could have been spared had they found enough righteous people.

It was a bad city with bad people in it. So God played murderer and destroyed them all in a brilliant display of filicide.
I'm pretty sure that sexual deviance and homosexuality were a major player. Especially since 1. the church of the Old Testament named the act of sodomy for the city, and 2. the only specific example that Moses gave for the city's sinfulness was when men of the city implored Lot to send in the men of his party for sexual purposes, and refused the women.

roboninja

11-13-2009, 09:19 AM

What I find most ironic is that the defense of the opposition to homosexuality re: the Catholic Church is that all sexual acts not towards procreation are sinful....and they are the church that has a now-known sordid history of child molestation, almost all of which is homosexual in nature. "Do as we say, not as we do" taken to a harsh extreme, it seems.

To the people that are crying "not all of us are like that!", I agree, obviously. Most people are not, and do not support, pedophiles. What I do not understand is why there is not more pressure from the constituency to weed out these people, and bring them to justice. It always seems to be more of a hush-hush, let's not talk about that vibe. Are you so devoted to the Church that you would support them no matter what?

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 09:21 AM

I'm pretty sure that sexual deviance and homosexuality were a major player. Especially since 1. the church of the Old Testament named the act of sodomy for the city, and 2. the only specific example that Moses gave for the city's sinfulness was when men of the city implored Lot to send in the men of his party for sexual purposes, and refused the women.

If God was truly against homosexuality he should have made the penis square, the vagina square, and the anus a triangle. :)

I truly think God is fine with the act of homosexuality. He loves all of us, and tells me thus. He might wish for us to make better choices sometimes, but there is no way God would send a man to hell for sleeping with another man if the rest of his life is a good, decent one. To sin is to be human, and he knows this.

Crowe

11-13-2009, 09:24 AM

They view any sexual act that does not allow for procreation as sinful. It's not just a gay thing. Men who fully know they are infertile are also called to celibacy and technically not supposed to marry. It's fine if you don't agree with their beliefs, but please realize that it's not bigotry.

That means they also shun every single woman who is on the pill for the purpose of contraception correct?

Crowe

11-13-2009, 09:26 AM

Really? Because God told Abraham that the people of Sodom were grievously sinful. Odd that He wouldn't give you the same clarity.

That if Abraham was telling the truth, he could have been a lying motherfucker.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 09:26 AM

It always seems to be more of a hush-hush, let's not talk about that vibe. Are you so devoted to the Church that you would support them no matter what?
Speaking from my experience in a church body: yes, there are. It sucks. I have a first-hand account of seeing people stand behind a pastor whose family was involved in a huge molestation episode.

But for most people, I think it's probably that they just don't know about it until it's brought to light. If you trust someone to teach you and represent you, then a scandal is going to come as a shock. The average church member in that case would have the same questions about their staff as the rest of the world.

That if Abraham was telling the truth, he could have been a lying motherfucker.
Hmm...that wouldn't explain why God rained hellfire onto the city. Unless you're implying that the whole story is bogus, in which case you mean Moses, not Abraham.

That means they also shun every single woman who is on the pill for the purpose of contraception correct?
Many churches do, yes. Not sure about Catholics specifically, but several Christian religions believe contraceptives are a form of pre-emptive abortion.

OUX

11-13-2009, 09:27 AM

That means they also shun every single woman who is on the pill for the purpose of contraception correct?

Shun might be the wrong word but yes and also any guy that uses a condom. Of course you are also not suppose to have sex until marriage so they are not for STDs either.

Panthera

11-13-2009, 09:31 AM

I'm pretty sure that sexual deviance and homosexuality were a major player. Especially since 1. the church of the Old Testament named the act of sodomy for the city, and 2. the only specific example that Moses gave for the city's sinfulness was when men of the city implored Lot to send in the men of his party for sexual purposes, and refused the women.

Oh, well, if you're "pretty sure" I suppose that settles it.

Never mind that there's significant dispute over the interpretation. Never mind that the sin would be rape. Never mind that the old testament is ignored when convenient and embraced when it happens to support an ignorant belief.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 09:36 AM

Oh, well, if you're "pretty sure" I suppose that settles it.

Never mind that there's significant dispute over the interpretation. Never mind that the sin would be rape. Never mind that the old testament is ignored when convenient and embraced when it happens to support an ignorant belief.
It's a belief. If you're looking for proof, then you're challenging the wrong type of person.
My reply was to Kelegacy, who claims to share the belief that God exists and that He destroyed Sodom.

If you don't believe the same thing, then what is your involvement in that particular discussion point? Are you disputing that it happened at all? Because at that point, you're shifting your implications in Kelegacy's direction as well.

Mike Kelehan

11-13-2009, 09:37 AM

"Sorry, poor guy. The government in the city where you're stuck is thinking about letting another persecuted group have equal rights, so you'll starve today."

Seriously, fuck the Catholic Church.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 09:38 AM

Yeah, the Old Testament is some scary shit. I think that's where the term God-fearing stems from.

Crowe

11-13-2009, 09:38 AM

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

I don't understand why they will be unable to continue to provide services because of same-sex marriage when their services have no doubt helped people who used condoms, have had sex before they were married and who use other forms of contraception like the pill.

Panthera

11-13-2009, 09:42 AM

It's a belief. If you're looking for proof, then you're challenging the wrong type of person.
My reply was to Kelegacy, who claims to share the belief that God exists and that He destroyed Sodom.

If you don't believe the same thing, then what is your involvement in that particular discussion point? Are you disputing that it happened at all? Because at that point, you're shifting your implications in Kelegacy's direction as well.

Well, it's pretty clear that the story is fictional, or at least didn't go down as told. But, if I'm going to be arguing against Christian bullshit, I figure it'd be disingenuous if I didn't at least know where the bullshit came from.

OUX

11-13-2009, 09:43 AM

National Kato

11-13-2009, 09:45 AM

I'm pretty sure that sexual deviance and homosexuality were a major player. Especially since 1. the church of the Old Testament named the act of sodomy for the city, and 2. the only specific example that Moses gave for the city's sinfulness was when men of the city implored Lot to send in the men of his party for sexual purposes, and refused the women.

Interpretation is everything. Some believe the men of Sodom wanted to interrogate or rape the visitors under Lot's roof. Writers of the Bible might have taken issue with rape or the violation of the obligations of hospitality (forcing men to exit a home in which their were guests) rather than homosexuality.

In the Book of Judges, there is a very similar account of a city being destroyed as punishment for a mob of citizens raping a woman.

Interpretation is everything.

Matthias

11-13-2009, 09:52 AM

That means they also shun every single woman who is on the pill for the purpose of contraception correct?

They don't shun anyone. Homosexuals are more than welcome to worship with the Catholic Church. They're just asked to do their best to not participate in sexual acts, just like any unwed person is asked not to participate in sexual acts, and just like any short-tempered person is asked to control his temper. All people are asked not to use contraceptives. As OUX pointed out, there's no need for them as an STD-prevention measure if you don't have sex outside of marriage in the first place. Marriage is defined by the Church as bringing a man and a woman together into one flesh, to share their love for God and each other through procreation. Once you take the possibility of having children out of the equation, there's little point for the marriage in the Church's opinion. You're welcome to disagree with this outlook.

As for the pedophilia discussion, yes there are individuals within the Church who have sinned. There has been scandal throughout the Church's history. There is scandal in the history of any sufficiently large body of humans. Men are flawed and fallible and they make mistakes, sometimes in a very big way. Priests are not perfect avatars of God just because they went through the ordination process. The fact that a relatively small number of priests did a very horrible thing does not invalidate the Church's message as a whole, nor even that of the individuals who performed that act. Even the murderer on death row can yield pearls of wisdom.

And Kelegacy, God hates all sin. He can't abide by it. Stealing a piece of gum from the convenience store is as bad as sex outside of wedlock, gay or not, and even murder. While the Catholic Church believes that God will judge those ignorant of Christ based on the contents of their heart, the best way we know to have an eternal relationship with God is to work to foster a relationship with Him here on earth. We need to repent of the times we've messed up, and work to not sin anymore. It is basically guaranteed that we will keep sinning even after coming to know God- we are by nature sinful. Part of the relationship is continually recognizing when we have done something sinful, and work to keep that from happening as much as possible. Like I said, I have a horrible temper, and I do lose it sometimes, but I've recognized this and repented for the times I lost my temper in the past, and work to control it as much as possible. It's not just about "getting saved," it's about improving yourself to make yourself more like Christ, the example of a sinless man. It's a process we go through willingly because we want to be as ready as possible to enter heaven when our time comes.

Matthias

11-13-2009, 09:58 AM

I don't understand why they will be unable to continue to provide services because of same-sex marriage when their services have no doubt helped people who used condoms, have had sex before they were married and who use other forms of contraception like the pill.

This, to be honest, is kind of my outlook on the issue. I can understand not wanting to donate Church resources to things like the lesbian couples' counseling sessions I referenced in an earlier post, but I don't really agree with their refusal to pay employee benefits to married homosexual couples. Jesus taught that we must co-exist with secular law, and if the law of the land recognizes same-sex marriages and prescribes certain benefits to people in such a civil union, I don't see the issue with the Church abiding by such a law even if they choose not to recognize that same marriage within their Church for any religious benefits. Again, I'm pretty Libertarian when it comes to this sort of thing, and can easily see a difference between a legal marriage and a holy marriage.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 10:00 AM

Interpretation is everything. Some believe the men of Sodom wanted to interrogate or rape the visitors under Lot's roof. Writers of the Bible might have taken issue with rape or the violation of the obligations of hospitality (forcing men to exit a home in which their were guests) rather than homosexuality.

In the Book of Judges, there is a very similar account of a city being destroyed as punishment for a mob of citizens raping a woman.

Interpretation is everything.
I agree. Would you also agree that a valid interpretation would be that of an organization of faith that descended from the people who wrote and experience the incident? The majority of Christian and Jewish faiths interpret homosexuality as being a major factor of the city's destruction, and also believe that it's a sin today.

National Kato

11-13-2009, 10:19 AM

I agree. Would you also agree that a valid interpretation would be that of an organization of faith that descended from the people who wrote and experience the incident? The majority of Christian and Jewish faiths interpret homosexuality as being a major factor of the city's destruction.

I'll believe anything when it comes to misinterpretations of ancient texts. :) I mean, a majority of Christians believe Mary was a virgin in the way we use that term today, despite the Hebrew meaning being worlds away.

In the Hebrew world of Jesus, a woman does not lose her virginity because she marries or has intercourse. A woman only loses her virginity through unfaithfulness. The Hebrew word used, almah, is widely understood to mean 'young woman' or 'young maiden.' In fact, some scholars believe almah is the feminine of elem, which means 'young man.'

A more distinct Hebrew term for someone who has not had intercourse is betulah. But that term isn't used. And yet, the idea that Mary was impregnated by unnatural means is commonly believed today.

I don't mean to get into a discussion of literal translation of Hebrew text - only to point out that even the seemingly logical and apparent translations of ancient Hebrew as used in the Bible have been misinterpreted, misunderstood, and yet commonly believed as fact.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 10:39 AM

And Kelegacy, God hates all sin. He can't abide by it. Stealing a piece of gum from the convenience store is as bad as sex outside of wedlock, gay or not, and even murder. While the Catholic Church believes that God will judge those ignorant of Christ based on the contents of their heart, the best way we know to have an eternal relationship with God is to work to foster a relationship with Him here on earth. We need to repent of the times we've messed up, and work to not sin anymore. It is basically guaranteed that we will keep sinning even after coming to know God- we are by nature sinful. Part of the relationship is continually recognizing when we have done something sinful, and work to keep that from happening as much as possible. Like I said, I have a horrible temper, and I do lose it sometimes, but I've recognized this and repented for the times I lost my temper in the past, and work to control it as much as possible. It's not just about "getting saved," it's about improving yourself to make yourself more like Christ, the example of a sinless man. It's a process we go through willingly because we want to be as ready as possible to enter heaven when our time comes.

Every father wants his children to be as good as possible, but we all know they'll get into mischief sooner or later--big or small. But yet, even in the face of the worst of crimes a father still loves his child.

Sin is unavoidable. So ultimately sin, in a great twist of irony, is life.

The Catholic Church views nearly anything enjoyable as sinful and that sin leads to damnation. They are interpreting him wrong. God wants us to enjoy life and be good and make good. He has told me thus.

There are many paths to Heaven. You can live the life of a good, life-loving atheist and still get there. You can live the life of a Puritan and avoid all enjoyment at all costs and still get there. It doesn't matter to him, as long as you are a good, decent person.

The Bible was written by man, so it's not the most foolproof thing. The best way to understand what God wants from us is to listen to our hearts. He's in there, too. Not just some pulpy book of fables.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 11:15 AM

There are many paths to Heaven. You can live the life of a good, life-loving atheist and still get there. You can live the life of a Puritan and avoid all enjoyment at all costs and still get there. It doesn't matter to him, as long as you are a good, decent person.
What about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? There was nothing to indicate that the man was a bad person, other than that he did not follow the teachings of the prophets.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 11:18 AM

What about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? There was nothing to indicate that the man was a bad person, other than that he did not follow the teachings of the prophets.

It's all man made. God doesn't work like that.

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 12:23 PM

"Sorry, poor guy. The government in the city where you're stuck is thinking about letting another persecuted group have equal rights, so you'll starve today."

Seriously, fuck the Catholic Church.

Read some of the posts about what is actually happening before you jump on the dumb-fuck bandwagon.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 12:31 PM

Read some of the posts about what is actually happening before you jump on the dumb-fuck bandwagon.

God forgives you for cursing at your fellow man and being rude.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 12:33 PM

God forgives you for cursing at your fellow man and being rude.
You should know. ;)

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 12:36 PM

You should know. ;)

No man is infallible.

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 12:59 PM

....
As I assure you I know nothing of what god condones or does not, but I forgive you for confusing my forthright with rudeness.

BigJonno

11-13-2009, 01:25 PM

While I don't agree with the move, I love the support for discrimination flying around in the thread. Obviously it's fine to force your beliefs and views on someone, as long as they're Catholic.

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 01:29 PM

While I don't agree with the move, I love the support for discrimination flying around in the thread. Obviously it's fine to force your beliefs and views on someone, as long as they're Catholic.
I don't see how it's discrimination to decide whether someone is faithful to a doctrine, or blatantly against it.

Generation ABXY

11-13-2009, 01:32 PM

I don't see how it's discrimination to decide whether someone is faithful to a doctrine, or blatantly against it.

Odd, I read his remarks just the opposite. I thought BigJonno was knocking people who are trying to force Catholics to accept gays...

txshurricane

11-13-2009, 01:41 PM

Odd, I read his remarks just the opposite. I thought BigJonno was knocking people who are trying to force Catholics to accept gays...
I should have read more carefully. I did think it was a weird thing for Jonno to say. Sorry, dude.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 01:41 PM

Odd, I read his remarks just the opposite. I thought BigJonno was knocking people who are trying to force Catholics to accept gays...

I did too at first. Then I reread it a few times. Actually, I had to reread it more than that.

I still think he was talking how txshurricane interpreted it. It was just a strangely worded comment--the syntax was warped a bit.

Or I could be wrong as well.

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 01:46 PM

Telefrog

11-13-2009, 01:53 PM

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 01:59 PM

If you turned it around and said the Catholic Church (or any church) was going to halt its charitable acts via city contract money if interracial marriage were allowed, or black voting, or anything like that, we'd see a shitstorm. I don't see the difference here. If you don't like homosexuality or think it's sinful, that's fine. You aren't going to change people. Call them sinners and be done with it.

Banning gay marriage does nothing to curb homosexuality. The bible doesn't mention anything about homosexual marriage. What if a man marries a woman and then the woman goes about a sex change and turns into a man? Is that marriage null and void if you are in a gay discriminating state?

It's too ridiculous to fight. The entire thing is a non-issue. Gay couples are together whether they are married or in a civil union. Calling it marriage is not really that drastic. Those people that say they're fine with civil unions but not marriage are lying bigots. What's the difference?

The other side of the argument is, if it's the same why do gays want it to be called marriage instead of a civil union? The answer comes in the form of a question: why not? If people are okay with civil unions, then it makes sense to just allow them marriage.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 02:06 PM

Hmm. I have to feel some sympathy for the Church here.

My company sells IT products and services to State and Federal agencies all over the country, with one exception; San Francisco. Why? Well, it turns out that to do business as a vendor in SF, you must agree to provide same-sex couples with the same insurance coverage (life - not just medical) as hetero marriages. My company isn't against gays, but extending coverage to same-sex couples is not mandatory in the State of Washington, where we are. Extending coverage to gays would require an optional buy-in clause that costs more for the company. A lot more. About six figures more.

The choice between realistically providing coverage for less than a handful of the company and paying two million dollars more a year in insurance, seems an easy one to make for a fiscally responsible mid-sized company.

I realize that much of the Church's motivation here isn't economically driven, but why are people surprised that they are taking a stand on this? If you were a business owner, would you agree to municipal contract stipulations that you could not hire black people or that you shouldn't give them insurance? I doubt it. You'd move.

Or, turn it around into a bizarro pre-Civil rights movement era. You don't do business with Boston because doing so would require you to give all your black employees the same benefits as your white ones. Say it's a Boston law or whatever. Doing so would cost your company more money. Right now you can get by not giving your black employees anything, which saves you a lot of money. So you don't do business with Boston because doing so would mean you'd have to treat your employees equally.

I get it from a business standpoint--the almighty dollar governs all else. But if you look at it from a humanitarian standpoint...well, your company isn't exactly playing fair. It's not mandatory, but there is nothing saying you can't do it either. Until the law says blacks are equal class citizens it's okay to treat them as the lower-caste that they are.

Of course I'm being dramatic, but I think the comparison is apt or close enough to make the point.

Telefrog

11-13-2009, 02:13 PM

If you turned it around and said the Catholic Church (or any church) was going to halt its charitable acts via city contract money if interracial marriage were allowed, or black voting, or anything like that, we'd see a shitstorm.

I agree. We'd see a shitstorm - in the here and now. The reality is that many churches and organizations did halt charitable programs in "permissive" municipalities that supported civil rights. Only a few people made an issue of that at the time.

I absolutely agree with you that it's stupid and bigoted to oppose gay marriage. Personally, I hope we see a time within my lifetime in which it is legally sanctioned throughout the US.

I just have a hard time understanding the outrage people feel towards an organization that has clearly been opposed to gay marriage when it makes a stand against said practice. I mean, no one would be shocked by skinheads not supporting interracial marriage, right?

Telefrog

11-13-2009, 02:18 PM

Or, turn it around into a bizarro pre-Civil rights movement era. You don't do business with Boston because doing so would require you to give all your black employees the same benefits as your white ones. Say it's a Boston law or whatever. Doing so would cost your company more money. Right now you can get by not giving your black employees anything, which saves you a lot of money. So you don't do business with Boston because doing so would mean you'd have to treat your employees equally.

I get it from a business standpoint--the almighty dollar governs all else. But if you look at it from a humanitarian standpoint...well, your company isn't exactly playing fair. It's not mandatory, but there is nothing saying you can't do it either. Until the law says blacks are equal class citizens it's okay to treat them as the lower-caste that they are.

Of course I'm being dramatic, but I think the comparison is apt or close enough to make the point.

No, I think you're spot on actually. Business is business and until a law forces my company's hand, they're not going to extend the coverage. That goes for almost every small to medium sized company in my state. I can't get too stirred up about it because right now, the only businesses here that can afford something like that are Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, and a small handful of others. Two million extra dollars in fees would absolutely kill my company, so there really isn't a way to do it regardless of what's right.

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 02:23 PM

The issue here, for me at least, is not one of gay people and whatever rights they have and other shit like that. It's these fools making abhorrent claims that are just fucking flat-out wrong, strangely malicious and ill informed about the church. It's stupid and unjust and It's been pissing me off.

It's identical to some kind of right wing conservative fuck blasting Islam for the shit that gets associated with it.

Mike Kelehan

11-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Read some of the posts about what is actually happening before you jump on the dumb-fuck bandwagon.

I read the article before posting. Every word. That was, and is, my opinion.

It's identical to some kind of right wing conservative fuck blasting Islam for the shit that gets associated with it.

No, it is identical to a specific Islamic organization getting blasted for the actions of that one specific organization. The title of this thread is not "Christians Are Horrible" or even "Catholics Are Horrible."

Kagger

11-13-2009, 03:46 PM

I read the article before posting. Every word. That was, and is, my opinion.

No, it is identical to a specific Islamic organization getting blasted for the actions of that one specific organization. The title of this thread is not "Christians Are Horrible" or even "Catholics Are Horrible."

The Church is the Catholic Community. The thread title did state "Catholics are Horrible"

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 03:46 PM

Oh gee, I guess that's technically right. So what exactly is your point? You're still going right out and saying "the catholic church is fucking evil." All because what? They stand by their scruples that they've had for years and they make a choice based on what is essentially necessity in that area. Don't you realize how little an issue this whole gay marriage thing is? Or do you not realize that just become something is highly controversial it gets high publicity...without stepping back and asking yourself, "how much does this really matter?"
Yeah, the Catholic church says they are opposed to homosexuality - you know what? Tomorrow the sun will still come up and millions of gays will go about with their lives, still go to work, still have relationships all the same.

edit: ah well it's obvious who i'm talking too, right Kagger?

Wasson_

11-13-2009, 03:56 PM

The Church is the Catholic Community. The thread title did state "Catholics are Horrible"

You bring up a good point. This shit is ridiculous and I don't know why the mods are tolerating this borderline hate mongering.

Either some people need to be banned or this thread needs to be closed.

LongStepMantis

11-13-2009, 04:04 PM

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

So they're just handling the operation, but make a point to let everyone know they also contribute $10M to those projects.

I don't see how this isn't a "do what we want or we're taking our money out" situation.

You know what, fine. I'm tired of all the religion/gay rights arguments. If they hate gays so much, they don't have to accept them or contribute money to a service that might possibly have some gays lurking around. Instead, they can lose their tax exemptions, including property taxes, and we can call it even.

BigJonno

11-13-2009, 04:17 PM

I guess my scathing sarcasm didn't come across as intended. :)

To clarify, I don't support the Catholic position, but I support their right to that position. They're being asked to support something they see as wrong and, instead of kicking up a stink, are bowing out gracefully.

Tolerance works both ways.

Generation ABXY

11-13-2009, 04:24 PM

It's okay, BigJonno, at least one person understands you. :p

Mike Kelehan

11-13-2009, 04:32 PM

The Church is the Catholic Community. The thread title did state "Catholics are Horrible"

I don't believe the Catholics were allowed to vote as to whether or not the poor should be used as a political bargaining chip in DC against gay rights. The Church is an organization that makes decisions without consulting the laypeople. Therefore, the only thing of which the Catholic community as a whole is guilty is funding this organization.

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 05:13 PM

I don't believe the Catholics were allowed to vote as to whether or not the poor should be used as a political bargaining chip in DC against gay rights. The Church is an organization that makes decisions without consulting the laypeople. Therefore, the only thing of which the Catholic community as a whole is guilty is funding this organization.

Good point.

You bring up a good point. This shit is ridiculous and I don't know why the mods are tolerating this borderline hate mongering.

Either some people need to be banned or this thread needs to be closed.

And Wasson, I think you need to cool down. Take a deep breath and maybe walk away from the thread for a while. You don't have to read it if it bothers or offends you for whatever reason. I think this has been a fairly civil discussion except for you spouting obscenities with almost every post.

I think people have every right to be critical of the DC Catholic Church in this particular instance. You don't have to agree, but I think you are overreacting.

BlackPete

11-13-2009, 05:13 PM

Kelegacy

11-13-2009, 05:18 PM

After some thinking on this, I've come to realize that I actually don't really see a problem with this.

The poor can still get married, they'll just have to go to a different church. Or get a judge to do it. There are other ways to get married.

If they want to get married at their own church and their church is turning them away for whatever reason, then that's a problem they'll have to take up with their own church. Or go elsewhere.

It seems like the Catholic Church is shooting their own foot here if they want to keep their parishioners.

At least the city has stepped up and said they'll find someone else to help the poor and homeless and other people in need. They don't need the Church.

It's in very bad taste on the Church's part, but they're allowed to do this of course. But commenting how much money they DO provide to the community is also in bad taste and makes it look like even more of a threat.

I hope this hurts them, like you stated. Some more bad PR for a church that has had enough of it in recent years.

Matthias

11-13-2009, 06:09 PM

As I've said before, I'm pretty sure the $10M would be used by CC anyway. It would just act as a private charity instead of engaging in a public contract with the city. The poor and homeless will not see any difference in care. But shame on the church for running its charity as a private organization instead of a public one! How dare it find some of the new terms for running a public organization against its moral code. It should never take a stand for what it believes, that's not the job of a religious group at all!

Hemalin

11-13-2009, 06:33 PM

Seems like as good a time as any...
As I've said before, I'm pretty sure the $10M would be used by CC anyway. It would just act as a private charity instead of engaging in a public contract with the city. The poor and homeless will not see any difference in care. But shame on the church for running its charity as a private organization instead of a public one! How dare it find some of the new terms for running a public organization against its moral code. It should never take a stand for what it believes, that's not the job of a religious group at all!
Do you know who else took a stand for what he believes?

Hitler

Crowe

11-13-2009, 06:43 PM

Seems like as good a time as any...

Do you know who else took a stand for what he believes?

Hitler

Yes but the church has helped millions, not slaughtered them. I still see them as bigots though, they have no problem treating people on contraception (no doubt because so many catholic followers practice it). They are always one step behind but they do seem to play catch up pretty well, contraception clearly isn't frowned upon as much as it used to be, and when homosexual get the rights they are seeking (it's inevitable) I wouldn't be surprised to see the church go a little more lenient.

Matthias

11-13-2009, 07:59 PM

Yes but the church has helped millions, not slaughtered them. I still see them as bigots though, they have no problem treating people on contraception (no doubt because so many catholic followers practice it). They are always one step behind but they do seem to play catch up pretty well, contraception clearly isn't frowned upon as much as it used to be, and when homosexual get the rights they are seeking (it's inevitable) I wouldn't be surprised to see the church go a little more lenient.

I can see them easing up on the insurance benefits to homosexual married couples, but not on using church resources for things like lesbian couples counseling. Sure they provide benefits to employees who probably use contraceptives, but they don't hold counseling sessions that encourage or even condone couples from continuing to use the pill.

Laughing Penguin

11-13-2009, 08:05 PM

The Catholic Church does not judge anyone, though they do feel certain actions are morally wrong.

Not to fan the flames needlessly, but isn't this phrase pretty much contradictory? Wouldn't finding an action to be wrong be, by it's very definition, making a judgement regarding that action? No judgement would be a simple "Live and let live", not "We don't *judge* you, but we pronounce your actions as wrong according to our law".

Can't have it both ways here...

Matthias

11-13-2009, 08:12 PM

Not to fan the flames needlessly, but isn't this phrase pretty much contradictory? Wouldn't finding an action to be wrong be, by it's very definition, making a judgement regarding that action? No judgement would be a simple "Live and let live", not "We don't *judge* you, but we pronounce your actions as wrong according to our law".

Can't have it both ways here...

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Laughing Penguin

11-13-2009, 08:30 PM

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Or, in other words, "We don't judge you, we pass judgement ON you... totally different, we promise"?

ShivaX

11-13-2009, 08:40 PM

Or, in other words, "We don't judge you, we pass judgement ON you... totally different, we promise"?

Well thats generally how it works out, but its not the idea behind it.

Kagger

11-13-2009, 11:12 PM

Or, in other words, "We don't judge you, we pass judgement ON you... totally different, we promise"?

One is condemning the person, another is thinking that their actions are not correct. Passing judgement "on you" would still be judging the person based on their actions.

Matthias

11-14-2009, 03:15 AM

Or, in other words, "We don't judge you, we pass judgement ON you... totally different, we promise"?

Did your parents love you less when you mouthed off to them? Did they love you less when you broke whatever rule they may have set on you, such as breaking curfew? I should hope they loved you just as much even when you screwed up. Did they still show that what you did was wrong, and dissuade you from doing it again? Did they encourage you to make subjectively correct decisions and discourage you from making subjectively incorrect decisions? I should hope so- that's what a moral guide does in your life. Your parents (hopefully) are living, breathing examples of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I should hope you don't hold such a cynical view of your relationship with your parents.

Matthias

11-14-2009, 03:50 AM

Well thats generally how it works out, but its not the idea behind it.

That's generally not how "it" works out- men just choose not to practice what they preach when it comes to that adage. Christians are called to support each other and others, to help others in their areas of weakness. We should all recognize that we are equally doomed to hell without Christ, so none of us have any room to judge. That doesn't mean we can't help each other overcome sin within our lives. Christianity is a non-legalistic religion at its core, but man enjoys being legalistic. We enjoy finding reasons to say we're better than those around us. This manifests itself in the lives of most Christians by saying "well I've sinned less/my sins are less dire than this guy over here, so obviously I'm better!" No! the wages of all sin is death, regardless of how bad our society chooses to rank individual sins. We are all convicts on death row. People just don't like to admit this.

Meanwhile, many atheists tend to manifest this same piousness by looking down on people of faith because they believe in something they can't prove, etc. Kelegacy seems to like to jeer at Christians while maintaining that he has a blameless soul because he hasn't raped anyone and is generally a nice guy by some undefined standards- perhaps society's. Hate to tell you, but you have failed to devote all your time and possessions to others, and have placed yourself ahead of others, I assume at least enough to own a computer and gaming consoles, based on your membership to a gaming forum. You have failed to love your fellow man completely, and are therefore a sinner. Perfection's a bitch to keep up with, man. And since all sin is equal, it took just as much sacrificial love on the part of Christ to take on the burden of your sins as it did to take on those of the murdering child rapist. Don't worry, I'm just as guilty as you are.

Sin, the lack of utter perfection, is the great equalizer. And while sin is unavoidable, it is not ultimately life; death is just as unavoidable to us limited beings. Sin deadens the soul as much as physical death deadens the body. Christ teaches us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves- we should recognize that we are all equally doomed by sin, and should work to help each other remove sin from our lives. Standing on a pedestal judging everyone else may make yourself feel more equipped for eternal life than the next guy, but you're really not.

That being said, to apply this to the OT, you should not engage in actions that would encourage others to sin, especially when you are teaching that such acts are sinful. You don't tell your high school boys' ministry that it's bad to view pornography and to masturbate, then give them each a copy of Playboy. Just because the Catholic Church doesn't feel right lending out its resources to homosexual couples' counseling doesn't mean they hate homosexuals. It simply means that they consider such an action to be the equivalent of buying Playboys for teenage boys.

ShivaX

11-14-2009, 04:13 AM

That's generally not how "it" works out- men just choose not to practice what they preach when it comes to that adage.

So... thats not how it works out, except when it usually works out that way?

Gotcha.

Ink Asylum

11-14-2009, 07:52 AM

Yeah, the Catholic church says they are opposed to homosexuality - you know what? Tomorrow the sun will still come up and millions of gays will go about with their lives, still go to work, still have relationships all the same.

Except for the ones that are beaten, killed, harassed, or discriminated against by people whose church tells them that gays are evil.

Also, they still won't be able to get married, often because religious groups including Catholics contribute money and effort towards things like the recent votes in California and Maine to deny gays that right.

Go ahead and pretend that one of the largest religious institutions in the world condemning homosexuality has no effect on the lives of millions of gays, but that's bullshit. The teachings and actions of the church have widespread negative effects on a minority class of people, and that should be called out and fought whenever and wherever possible.

Matthias

11-14-2009, 01:04 PM

So... thats not how it works out, except when it usually works out that way?

Gotcha.

I'm saying it's not a matter of that guideline being interpreted that way. People simply straight up ignore it. The Golden Rule is another example of something that "doesn't work out" to be interpreted poorly; Christians simply ignore it most of the time.

Apparently it's too much of an intellectual stretch to claim there's no problem with the rule, just those who choose to ignore it. I'll try to spell things out a little more clearly from now on. But thanks for reading and considering the rest of my post.

ShivaX

11-14-2009, 05:09 PM

I'm saying it's not a matter of that guideline being interpreted that way. People simply straight up ignore it. The Golden Rule is another example of something that "doesn't work out" to be interpreted poorly; Christians simply ignore it most of the time.

Apparently it's too much of an intellectual stretch to claim there's no problem with the rule, just those who choose to ignore it. I'll try to spell things out a little more clearly from now on. But thanks for reading and considering the rest of my post.

But that was my point as well. The Golden Rule is great, but people never actually follow it. They generally pervert it to be something else or to justify their own actions.

So we actually agree on this point, which is why I said:

Thats generally how it works out, but its not the idea behind it.
in reference to
Or, in other words, "We don't judge you, we pass judgement ON you... totally different, we promise"?

So in other words, people generally pass judgement on others, but the idea behind "Love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't one of passing judgement.

Doogie2K

11-14-2009, 08:56 PM

txshurricane

11-15-2009, 09:45 AM

Seems like as good a time as any...

Do you know who else took a stand for what he believes?

Hitler
Hitler had a moustache, too. Are they evil now?

Get real.

Except for the ones that are beaten, killed, harassed, or discriminated against by people whose church tells them that gays are evil.

Also, they still won't be able to get married, often because religious groups including Catholics contribute money and effort towards things like the recent votes in California and Maine to deny gays that right.

Go ahead and pretend that one of the largest religious institutions in the world condemning homosexuality has no effect on the lives of millions of gays, but that's bullshit. The teachings and actions of the church have widespread negative effects on a minority class of people, and that should be called out and fought whenever and wherever possible.
Wait, so you have to be a churchgoing Christian to commit hate crimes now? I think that's an assumption too far. I challenge you to find one hard reference where a hate crime was committed and the convicted individual was specified as being a Christian church attender.

You know, mosques don't get nearly enough attention in discussions like this one. Where's all the hate for Islam? Muslims consider homosexuality a sin, too, and mosques generally don't even contribute to the poor outside of their faith to begin with. If I understand it correctly, the practice of zakat leaves it up to the individual to decide whether or not to assist non-believers with charity. So where's the thread bashing the Muslim church body for not supporting the poor community in the name of homosexuality? Not to mention that we're talking about 5-6 million more votes against gay marriage law.

DylonCorp

11-15-2009, 01:38 PM

85% Great discussion, with a few kids who can't handle talking like grown ups. I give it two thumbs up, fine holiday fun.

Just remember that this: http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/images/buttons/report.gif
can be used at ANY time.

Hemalin

11-15-2009, 02:11 PM

Hitler had a moustache, too. Are they evil now?

Toothbrush mustache? Totally evil.

Blue

11-15-2009, 04:30 PM

Hitler had a moustache, too. Are they evil now?

Get real.

I'm going to assume he was putting a Godwin on the thread as it was sorely lacking one.

Panthera

11-16-2009, 09:00 AM

I'm going to assume it was a joke, and I think the people in this thread who missed that have aspergers.

ShivaX

11-16-2009, 02:25 PM

I'm going to assume it was a joke, and I think the people in this thread who missed that have aspergers.

I thought of this:

VGlONkndc-w

johnperkins21

11-16-2009, 11:37 PM

You know, mosques don't get nearly enough attention in discussions like this one. Where's all the hate for Islam? Muslims consider homosexuality a sin, too, and mosques generally don't even contribute to the poor outside of their faith to begin with. If I understand it correctly, the practice of zakat leaves it up to the individual to decide whether or not to assist non-believers with charity. So where's the thread bashing the Muslim church body for not supporting the poor community in the name of homosexuality? Not to mention that we're talking about 5-6 million more votes against gay marriage law.

I'd have to say a big reason for that is the insanely disparate proportion of Christians to Muslims in North America. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any Muslims in the US Government, but over 99% of them are of a Christian sect. Bitching about Islam's influence or lack of charitable work in the US, is like bitching about how the Underpants Gnomes keep steeling my drawers.

Ok, that was a tortured metaphor, but I can't pass up a good (uh, bad) Underpants Gnomes metaphor that doesn't include the three step process.

National Kato

11-17-2009, 07:51 AM

As far as I'm aware, there aren't any Muslims in the US Government...

There are practicing Muslims in government agencies, working in the White House [link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/white-house-touts-muslims_n_211230.html)], and in Congress (Ellison, D-MN).

Bingley Joe

11-17-2009, 11:45 AM

So where's the thread bashing the Muslim church body for not supporting the poor community in the name of homosexuality? Not to mention that we're talking about 5-6 million more votes against gay marriage law.

Where's the > 8.6-million taxpayer dollars given to the Muslim church body for community outreach in that area in the first place?

txshurricane

11-17-2009, 12:51 PM

Where's the > 8.6-million taxpayer dollars given to the Muslim church body for community outreach in that area in the first place?
If the Muslims were ready to step up to the contract, then they'd have it.

Ink Asylum

11-17-2009, 12:52 PM

Yeah right. Any government official who proposed giving millions of dollars to Muslim churches would be tarred and feathered by the right while being accused of treason and supporting terrorism.

National Kato

11-17-2009, 12:57 PM

Ain't that the truth.

txshurricane

11-17-2009, 01:12 PM

Yeah right. Any government official who proposed giving millions of dollars to Muslim churches would be tarred and feathered by the right while being accused of treason and supporting terrorism.

Ain't that the truth.
Yeah, you're probably right! :p

Bingley Joe

11-17-2009, 01:14 PM

If the Muslims were ready to step up to the contract, then they'd have it.

OMG! That. Is. Hilarious!

It's been enough of a struggle for Muslim charities to raise funds privately since 9/11, I can't even imagine the ridiculously labyrinthine bureaucracy and insulting levels of scrutiny they'd have to subject themselves to in order to get a shot at even a tiny fraction of those funds. Give me a break.

txshurricane

11-17-2009, 02:28 PM

OMG! That. Is. Hilarious!

It's been enough of a struggle for Muslim charities to raise funds privately since 9/11, I can't even imagine the ridiculously labyrinthine bureaucracy and insulting levels of scrutiny they'd have to subject themselves to in order to get a shot at even a tiny fraction of those funds. Give me a break.
I guess that means you could blame the government for awarding the contract to the Catholic church in the first place.

johnperkins21

11-17-2009, 09:44 PM

There are practicing Muslims in government agencies, working in the White House [link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/white-house-touts-muslims_n_211230.html)], and in Congress (Ellison, D-MN).

To be fair, I wasn't aware of them. :p

And three is still rather insignificant.

Generation ABXY

11-17-2009, 09:50 PM

And three is still rather insignificant.

Yeah, but when one of them is the president...and, yes, that was a joke.

Superman's Dead

11-24-2009, 05:04 PM

An interesting sidenote that has to do with Catholicism:

Things About Stuff (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQORJ9uOKY_klcRSKHBm5t8UM-kgD9C669LG0)

I don't think I have anything I want to say about this, because it really isn't my place and I don't have the language faculties to make any of it sound okay.

Tel Prydain

12-02-2009, 03:17 PM

I wonder how Christ would have felt about blackmailing a city to fight progress in his name?

I think the church deciding not to help the poor, homeless and other people in need because of a potential gay rights bill is offensive to me and to the destitute of Washington. I really don't know how anyone can defend them.
Seriously? Bashing a religion for not changing it’s entire belief system in order to continue to give money. Seriously?

alienmastermind

12-03-2009, 10:35 PM

Yeah, but when one of them is the president...and, yes, that was a joke.

I see what you did there. Very nice. :D

alienmastermind

12-03-2009, 10:37 PM

I'm going to assume it was a joke, and I think the people in this thread who missed that have aspergers.

Like my son. Good joke.

alienmastermind

12-03-2009, 10:51 PM

Really? Because God told Abraham that the people of Sodom were grievously sinful. Odd that He wouldn't give you the same clarity.

Yeah, man. He sure did. Do you know what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah besides all the gay sex? I mean, they were doing all kinds of bad shit, like attempting to rape angels God sent down to check them out. And the best guy in town, the HERO of this God forsaken story (pun intended)? Lot, he offers the mob his prettiest daughter for them to rape.

They were wicked in thought, deed, and purpose. God (of the Old Testament) smites the living hell out of those cities.

God did a lot of smiting in the Old Testament. Due to his cranky nature, he flooded the Earth, blasted a couple of cities to dust, created superheroes to pound the shit out of people (Samson, the first and greatest superhero, with the best weakness in all of superhero history), turned a lady into salt, cast out from paradise two people for making a mistake (a mistake he knew was going to happen and designed a test they were destined to fail), and killed all the first-born sons of Egypt.

Then, he had a kid, and lightened up. In fact, according to Paul, Christ's coming to Earth was to be a new Covenant (The Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments) with Man! Even Jesus states that no law was higher than 'love your fellow man as you love yourself'.

But here I go again, wasting a two year course in Biblical Studies and a year of Pastoral Studies on making jokes about the Bible.

Christ says lots of things in the New Testament. He says a shitload about hypocrites, he says a LOT about poor people, and he says a great deal (without saying a word) about treating people you find disgusting with not only respect, but love.

What he never once says...at all...is anything about Gay people.