quote:

Originally posted by biplane1:
What I found hard to believe is when a minister, at a funeral, will say "There in Heaven now." What a slap in the face of Jesus who gave his perfect life so that all of mankind would be able receive life eternal.

They're dead and in the ground, or cremated, or whatever their state might be at death. The Bible states that with the dead there is no work, nor thoughts, etc. until the resurrection.

You believe in Soul Sleep?

biplane1

Gee, where did you get that? Right after you die, it says we pass from death until life. Christ certainly didn't sleep in the grave until resurrection.

When Christ returns a second time, it says the dead will rise. And again, the dead came out of the graves when Christ died on the cross. Of course, some people like to twist even that, saying that, no they didn't come out of the graves when Christ died on the cross, rather, they were sleeping in the cemetery and woke up when they experienced all the commotion, and then went home. LOL

quote:

Originally posted:
Scripture is clear that a physical resurrection had to take place or our faith is not relevant.

Bibliolatry is a bad word.

quote:

Originally posted by Nico:
This whole debate has brought up an interesting question: If it were possible to nearly guarantee that your child was born heterosexual, would you consider corrective pre-natal hormone treatments?

Within a few years, this will be quite possible.

Hmmm, I got to thinking about your post. Well, first off, I'm not at all certain that it will be as simple as all that; I think the biology of it all is rather complex. But for the sake of argument...

This idea presents difficulties to those of a conservative religious viewpoint. The stance among that group has always been very much against any biological manipulation. Not to mention the fact that they have always considered being gay a "choice," with no biological component at all. So, if it were possible to ensure heterosexuality, I don't see how they could be in favour of such a procedure, without doing a complete 180 from their previous teachings...

theoctobercountry~

Whoa!

This idea that everyone in the Christian community considers no biological component at all... is nonsense.

There are some people born in all sorts of convoluted ways, with all sorts of convoluted emotional and psychological puzzles embedded in their psyches. I'm certainly not going to try to discuss a many tiered panorama of humanity in a few hasty paragraphs.

Mentions of homosexuality in scripture can be found right along the same sentence with adultery and fornication. And in the same lines with adulterers, find liars and drunkards. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed mainly because of homosexuality, but because people did not show hospitality to strangers; there was much pride, prosperous ease, and the hand of poor and needy were neglected. Oh, visiting angels disguised as men did sit down with God fearing folk and explain their intent to destroy the cities with results that take on the look of an Atom blast. But the overall reason was ignoring the poor, the needy, and disregard of hospitality to strangers. And if you find that difficult to believe from all you've heard in the past, pick up a Bible for yourself, and go and read or re-read the chapters where the event is described in detail.

Everyone of us, if you wish to please the God of the Bible, has a personal cross to bear. A perfect one designed for just you. A cross is something where you die on the spot, in agonizing anguish. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Christ entered into the suffering of his life without a purpose, a light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, says Jesus was able to suffer all things, scripture writes, because of the incredible joy that was set before him. You cannot bear long ugly, hiddeous trials if you didn't see something. You may, along the way, lose all sense of reasoning, and let faith tumble from your hand. But it's the reminding yourself in a dark moment what you originally saw. That, at times, is all you have into order to put your one foot ahead of the other foot.

I used to be a practicing Roman Catholic. I'm not any longer in the same sense. If you have to place me anywhere, I lean strongly to the Evangelical Christian section of town. But there is a couple priests I occasionally listen to, and one of them is a Father John Corapi. The story goes he met a homosexual one day and was talking to him and he said,
"You know, there's something we both have in common." And the homosexual man, a bit surprised, asked Father Corapi, "Oh, and what's that?"
And the priest said, "We both are called into sexual abstinence, into purity."

And that is the rub, the cross, the anguish.

To begin altering genes and the identity of pre-born humans is perhaps the most dangerous of the voyages that so-called modern and learned man will embark on.

Ultimately, or at least long down the road, I suggest there is a particular segment of society that will become the grotesque of history. And another segment more humane and human than in all of history. At least it will be fundamentally so.


________________________________________________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
And the priest said, "We both are called into sexual abstinence..."

Reminds me of a quote by Bishop Spong:

"The Roman Catholic church will never get its head around the issue of women until its priests have daughters."

Shows the lack of knowledge of Spong. The Roman Catholic church follows the example that the twelve apostles were all men. In this regard, it'll never change.

Orthodox priests are usually married, but bishops are celibate.
Lots of available commentary on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Shows the lack of knowledge of Spong. The Roman Catholic church follows the example that the twelve apostles were all men. In this regard, it'll never change.

Your comment is unrelated to the quote. It was suggesting that Roman priests should be able to marry, as is natural, not that Roman priests should allow women priests (which they should)

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Orthodox priests are usually married, but bishops are celibate.

I know - the Orthodox at least have it half right.

Has anyone ever considered the Roman Catholic priest-little-boy-rape-issue with consideration to the fact that they're not allowed to have a normal sexual outlet? Maybe something to think about there.

Nard,

Interesting comment, though only the first sentence really had anything to do with my original post. I should clarify; I don't believe all Christians take the stance that being gay has no biological component. But there exists a sizeable contingent of conservative Christians who believe that same-sex attraction is completely a "choice"---which, to my way of thinking, is nonsense. (I'm reminded of that Jerry Falwell interview where he said that he "chose" to be straight...)

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
To begin altering genes and the identity of pre-born humans is perhaps the most dangerous of the voyages that so-called modern and learned man will embark on.

Just pointing out, there would be no gene manipulation or gene-whatsoever involved in any such procedure.

It's all in the pre-natal hormones.

Doug Spaulding~
Roman Catholic priests were allowed to marry until around the 15th century thereabouts. Ther is still a particular sect of the Roman Catholic church that continued the practice of allowing priests to marry, that is the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church. There is one in Anaheim, California, down the street from St. Boniface Church in Anaheim.

theoctobercountry~ Well, maybe Falwell had a personal thin line to walk. He chose to go straight. That experience may have colored his understanding dealing with other situations.

Nico~ Pre-natal hormones? Sounds just as bad as any manipulation with genetics.

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
...but bishops are celibate.

1 Timothy 3:2

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

Forgive me - I hate it when people quote scripture to support a point, but I just wanted to point out how things change over time. (I know Ambrose and Jerome disagree with my interpretation, but by their time, the church was heavily tainted.)

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Roman Catholic priests were allowed to marry until around the 15th century thereabouts.

Not so, I'm afraid. The First Lateran Council (1123), a General Council, adopted the following canons: Canon 3: "We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise."

Canon 21: "We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance."

Much earlier, at the Council of Elvira (circa 306), this declaration: "Bishops, priests, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office." Whilst this didn't disallow marriage, it did take the fun out of it!

I met her once, by the way. Elvira, that is. Pleasant lady.

Concubine is a good word.