European Islamophobia

[Sheilbh]

Yep, lock him up for hate speech.

That's a bit of a leap isn't it

[Jacob]

On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?

On the basis of Viking's 100% Guaranteed Purely Rational and Not Idiosyncratic at all Taxonomy of Moral Thought.

[Razgovory]

Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.

Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same?  For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?

The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. 

Okay, so is acceptable to ban religion?  Certain ideas are banned in Europe, correct?

[Malthus]

In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.

Point being here that it is subjective, not absolute. I might ask if you read my previous posts where I said that the old laws are guides to the mind of god. The central point here is that you can ignore them, guided by the holy ghost. The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws. Christianity falls into the first, Islam into the second. This is the reason why Christianity (and Rabbinical Judaism) can get around the laws while Islam (and TempleJudaism) cannot.

No, you can't. Not if you are a Catholic believer, any way.

As the article put it, "While the Old Testament's ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. ". The Church, with all its authority, states that men fucking men is a moral wrong, based in large part on the "moral requirements" found in the OT; the 'moral' basis of these OT commandments is buttressed (as it were) by the Gospels and "natural law".

No Catholic authority, anywhere, claims you can simply "ignore them, guided by the holy ghost". This is completely wrong.

In short, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish between Catholicism and (mainstream) Islam on the point of homosexuality. They both base their position, in large part, on much the same mythology. It is true that Catholicism looks in addition to the Gospels and "natural law", while Islam looks to various 'sayings' of the Prophet - but this makes no practical difference, as (according to Catholics and Muslims) they are all saying the same thing: that is, Homosex is morally wrong.

[Viking]

On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?

In terms of the topic I think Nigel Farage's attack this evening on a 'fifth column living amongst us, holding our passports' is sailing pretty close to the wind.

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"

That sort of convinced me.... The central point seems to be to reconcile the laws to morality and reality rather than the other way round. That's what I mean.

[crazy canuck]

In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.

The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

[Martinus]

Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.

Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same?  For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?

The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. 

Okay, so is acceptable to ban religion?  Certain ideas are banned in Europe, correct?

It is acceptable to ban certain religions if they are deemed harmful to the public good. For example, scientology is banned in several European countries.

Likewise, it is acceptable to ban certain practices, even if they are important to some religions. For example, certain countries ban ritual slaughter of animals.

[Sheilbh]

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

Viking's view of Catholicism (and from memory most non-literalist traditions) always seems a bit 17th century Protestant to me.

[Viking]

In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.

The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.

[The Brain]

The Catholic Church is neither holy, Catholic nor not a pedophile ring.

[Viking]

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

Viking's view of Catholicism (and from memory most non-literalist traditions) always seems a bit 17th century Protestant to me.

You can't both agree with and disagree with the guy saying you can't just make it up while saying the guys making it up are the true catholicism.

[Malthus]

In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.

The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.

Yes, but you were just arguing about Catholics specifically.

It is true there are a wide range of Christian beliefs (just as there are a wide range of Islamic ones). I challenge you to find a single version of mainstream Christianity that thought homosexuality was morally acceptable prior to the 20th century. (For Islam, the answer would be "Sufism").

[derspiess]

Yep, lock him up for hate speech.

That's a bit of a leap isn't it

Not at all.  He might have made someone feel uncomfortable.

[crazy canuck]

In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.

The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.

For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.  Catholic means universal.  To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles.  That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.

Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.

the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.

Wait a minute.  You were making claims about what Catholics believe and then to buttress that argument you turned to what non-Catholics believe?

[Jacob]

Wait a minute.  You were making claims about what Catholics believe and then to buttress that argument you turned to what non-Catholics believe?

There you go with nothing but ad-homs and name-calling again.