Kevin where did you get this idea of Barabas offering Jesus a sword? Is that Scriptural or just something you find historically credible?

Your theology is pretty thin, the Old and New Testament dichotomy is the first mistake in New Testament theology. Jesus said.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". Mat 5:7

Fulfill them with his person, pure self giving, love is the law. - The Church's mission to make sure human relationships are ordered so that they lead to our flourishing. We who fall down, who aren't able to be chaste can look to Jesus and His Church for forgiveness.

It still must stress the existence of the biblical standard and remind us of those who lives bear witness to this truth and how they asked for help in achieving it.

Rephrasing the argument about the moral authority of the Church to not give its blessing to gay genital sexuality as one of persecution won't do. You're begging the question of whether homosexual desire is disordered. The adolescent desire to watch pornography, or an inclination to pederasty/child sexual abuse could be a kind of variety Our Lord loves by your reckoning.

Insofar as the Jews are fighting the rest of the world [sic] it would be only because there are many who in a disordered way are repelled by revealed religion. Jewish claims to election by God get in the way of their scramble for power. How can I be the best if the Jews claim to be? How can my desire to be a god unto myself (with the illusion of freedom)be satisfied if this Creator God exists? Must get rid of Judeo-Christianity first.

Human genital sexuality is designed for marriage between a man and a woman it is the most vital institution in our society and should be open to the birth of children (and we see in birth rates in the Western World how our civilization is dying - children seen as a burden instead of joy)

Wheeler's Law is yet to surface, so aren't we all so sophisticated!

Philo's point - design/ nature - can be ridiculed but it reflects the human condition. We are mighty clever and passionate, but no matter what discoveries we make, society quickly debases things.

The purist position of sex being manifest only in loving procreative monogamous relationships is a fairly high benchmark, so why not take the easy road and adopt sex on demand with no consequences… except perhaps HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis etc.

It seems a bit ludicrous that ART/IVF co-exists with abortion and contraceptives as means of liberation from the natural demands of married life. Such are the advances of female liberation & science

Anyway, as w suggests, I am applying my sarcasm and flying OS tonight for another big bash / outing, so to speak…

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gay-parade-banned-in-latvia/2006/07/20/1153166465394.html

I think and learn.

I understand that Reality Check has a point. I can see that asking for "sorry" or an "apology" is, as you say is "Howard's conundrum".

I thank you for being the first to at least be willing to show compasion and justice over these inhuman violent travesties. I agree that they should bear the full brunt of justice. So should any gay demonstrator that damaged any collatoral, yes: that is fair, if justice is fair and good.

This is a good arguement that Government and Church must be seperate, as in times, a Church will be blamed for a Government: seen as dominated by their Church, and the Government will blamed for allowing such dominance.

I doubt Philo would give a toss about anyone but himself and his stupid flowers and their sexual organs. OK, each to himself. Flower-man gets more comical by the milli-second.

What is a postrate Philo? Why is this a "G" spot? God works in mysterious ways, fancy putting it in the bowl! What was God thinking?

Apparently it works, I never tried it myself.

At W, after some thought, I can see you have a point in word use. I didn't intend to muddy the water, but I was compelled to show information about Poland and Russia that you didn't know and needed to learn about.

Hey, I am not perfect, I make mistakes in my choice of words, we all have, even in our postings. No matter how over-the-top I might go, you know that I only show compassion for justice.

Maybe the Vatican made a mistake too in using the wrong word "violence". The whole thing might have been an unintentional accident. Is that the lesson we are learning?

I am optomistic that there is a willingness for compassion out there, its just that so far, only Reality Check has shown this, along with, of course, the gay activists who have solid interests. The other Christians are yet to show Christian willingness for compassion, or even kind sentiments. Christians are using rhetorical statements that fail to show sincere compassion.

saint to the best of my knowledge neither Scout or I would classify as gay or activists and I think we both have compassion for homosexuals who consistantly cop abuse for who they are. I have several motivations for my stance on this (and other subjects)
- a passion for justice and fair play
- if the fundies sort out the "gay menace" they might renew their efforts against those of us who have sex outside of marriage or do other stuff that they don't like. There is benefit in standing with your neighbour against a common enemy of freedom.
- maybe like a former smoker a former christian is the most intollerant of the logic distortions and misrepresentations used by christians to push their beliefs on others. I don't think I was ever as bad as some of our resident christain posters and the kind of tragic stuff coming from some of these posters is similar to stuff that led to my change of views about that faith.

RC if Philo's views reflect the human condition he is using a novelty mirror. He takes elements of truth and distorts them to support his existing prejudices. Yes procreation is based on male/female sex (or the transfer of genetic material) but Philo then attempts to take that one aspect of the human sex act and treat it as though it represented the whole. He does not want us to think about sex for pleasures sake or as a part of the bond that exists between people because if we do so we might realise that his argument is based on just one small part of the wonder that is human sexuality.

He tries to lead us to believe that the intervention he took to polinate plants represents the sum of nature whereas in reality that genetic material ends up in all sorts of places where no new flowers are born. The unnatural (but pragmatic) thing is that Philo only put the material where he thought it would lead to polination. His god spreads it much more widely than that.

R0bert

Robert,

The idea you had better align yourself with causes ordinarily considered neutral or dubious to present a united front against the forces of theocracy reveals just how out of touch you really are.

There is not the faintest chance of that worst of all governments - a theocracy forming in any Western Nation. Irrational fears like the ones you say Christians have of a 'gay menace' clearly haunt your thinking.

"I don't think I was ever as bad as some of our resident Christian posters and the kind of tragic stuff coming from some of these posters is similar to stuff that led to my change of views about that faith."

Not an argument in it. Just a foul smear of time tested beliefs you deserted and replaced with a strained defense of indecency, and the destruction of a cherished cultural understanding of marriage for future generations ( and for a tiny minority of gays who actually desire it). And in your muddle headed way believe this amounts to a defence of freedom!

"logic distortions and misrepresentations used by christians to push their beliefs on others".

This kind of bigotry is particularly bad because it is implicit. It implies Christian belief is a priori unreasonable and survives only in the minds of manipulators. It seeks to remove the space available to traditional Christian beliefs in an open public square where they can be debated. How? By pushing your arbitrary belief about what is legitimate discourse onto others. Perhaps your passion for justice and fair play ought to begin here.

You pick a part of the argument Philo makes and present it as the whole Catholic position regarding the sanctity of marriage. You give no indication of any understanding of the Church's stance. Like those posting before you your preference seems to in demolishing straw men rather than honest dialogue.

If your fear of Christian belief is this great perhaps you should go back to where your rejection began and make your peace with Him.

Martin
How sad. No understanding you say? Robert displays far more than yourself. & wehat a mixed bag of prejudice & dogma yours is.

let'sa examine it shall we. You apply the idea of the flourishing of life - otherwise known as Natural Law. Instead of reading that sadly obsessional philosopher Augustine try the original teachers of Natural Law. Try Seneca or Epictetus. If you did you'd quickly see there are thousands of ways of flourishing. Some financial, some physical, some emotional. You've chosen one narrow way [ie. sexually] & apply it only to homosexuals. But if flourishing is only somethiong that can be done sexually then celibacy should be abandoned shouldn't it Martin? No of course it shouldn't because that would mean the Catholic church was advocating a lifestyle against natural law.

2nd. Jesus, whom you quoted before, said NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP about homosexuality. If homosexuality is deserving of the obsession that we see in both traditionalist Catholicism & fundamentalist protestantism why didn't He? Could it be, just possibly because Jesus didn't share your obsession?

3rd. The vast majority of versus that do speak of homosexuality have been misinterpreted. Sometimes quite deliberately. Why you ask? Simple. The church, no matter what it claims, is controlled by human beings with prejudices & many of them HATE certain groups & that comes out in their doctrinal statements. Would you like me to quote popes, cardinals & bishops who displayed out & out prejudice & hatred Martin? Are you so deluded as to think that wouldn't come out when they spoke of the beliefs of the church?