Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples

I like that there is a price for rape. 50 silver pieces and a nagging wife.
 
You honestly present a good argument. The only problem is that shagging helps build 'real' love, this is reasonably proven in the modern day. It's just the nature of the hormones. I'm not saying it's "guaranteed to" or "always causes". I mean 'helps'. IF it helps build real love, I think that Galatians 5 kicks in. IF it does not build real love, then clearly Gal 5 is out. But this would be determined at the individual level.
Physical intimacy (hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands, even physical nearness) other than sex also gives those hormone boosts.

I'm really sorry, I checked Galatians 5 and I can't find private revelation or a proximate, if you could please point it out I'd be very grateful, if it is somewhere else, no biggie, accidents happen and the Bible isn't exactly a small book.
That's not much by way of a response, so you'll excuse me if I continue to question that your beliefs are valid and consistent.
If you could please provided examples of Catholics "pick from all over the New Testament in order to justify what is still disapproved of and what is no longer disapproved of" I'd be grateful.
I like that there is a price for rape. 50 silver pieces and a nagging wife.
Yes, a very high price basically guarantees the man is the father's slave for years, IIRC the wife can still go to a rabbinical court to get the husband divorced.
 
Being in love with someone but never having sex. Why don't I just sit in front of a cheesecake all day and never eat it.
 
If you could please provided examples of Catholics "pick from all over the New Testament in order to justify what is still disapproved of and what is no longer disapproved of" I'd be grateful.

I believe the dispensation to eat almost anything and the injunction against homosexual acts, for example, are found in different books written by different people.
 
Physical intimacy (hugging, kissing, cuddling, holding hands, even physical nearness) other than sex also gives those hormone boosts.
Yes, true, cuddling helps. But sexual intimacy is fundamentally different. Different, er, things happen to the body and the mind with sexual intimacy. Sexual intimacy can be better, in fact, than mere cuddling. This really cannot be denied.

If I told you that coffee 'perked me up', you could point out that a peptalk does the same thing. Yes, true, but not in the same way. Not the same mechanisms. And not with the same efficacy.
I'm really sorry, I checked Galatians 5 and I can't find private revelation or a proximate, if you could please point it out I'd be very grateful, if it is somewhere else, no biggie, accidents happen and the Bible isn't exactly a small book.

Keep in mind that both Paul and Peter teach about private revelation as a source of knowing God's will. The very best example is Peter's sheet of animals. He didn't have the law 'clarified', the law was 'changed from what it used to be' by revelation.

So, here's where I am in Galatians 5

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

This is not saying that "if you love God, you'll keep the law". This is saying "the law can be over-ridden by the Spirit", that you can make personal choices based on your feedback from God.

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Now, here he's talking about fruit. Fruit is a consequence of behaviour, not a cause of behaviour. If a behaviour results in a fruit, it is not 'under the law'. This is because the law can be misinterpreted, so Paul mentions KISS earlier

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, if your relations lead to the fruit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. it's blessed by the Spirit. It is not under the law. Now *I* cannot judge whether any specific relationship of someone else`s creates Fruit or not. I can barely judge for myself! But I can make those decisions, if I strive to be honest while meditating on it. If I lie to myself about whether something bears Fruit, then I have to live with the consequences. But I do know it`s possible to build the Fruit with sexual intimacy, and that sexual intimacy does not NEED to hurt the Fruit (though it certainly can!).
 
Being in love with someone but never having sex. Why don't I just sit in front of a cheesecake all day and never eat it.
You and the person you love each have a cheesecake in front of you, you've been told you can't eat the cheesecake in front of you, likewise with them. Do you rage? Do you eat the cheesecake anyway? I personally would feed my cheesecake to the person I love and they would feed their cheesecake to me, we both get our fill of cheesecake.
I believe the dispensation to eat almost anything and the injunction against homosexual acts, for example, are found in different books written by different people.
All sexual acts outside of marriage are morally wrong, homosexual acts can never happen within marriage, ergo homosexual acts are morally wrong. homosexual acts are just a type of fornication.
Yes, true, cuddling helps. But sexual intimacy is fundamentally different. Different, er, things happen to the body and the mind with sexual intimacy. Sexual intimacy can be better, in fact, than mere cuddling. This really cannot be denied.

If I told you that coffee 'perked me up', you could point out that a peptalk does the same thing. Yes, true, but not in the same way. Not the same mechanisms. And not with the same efficacy.


Keep in mind that both Paul and Peter teach about private revelation as a source of knowing God's will. The very best example is Peter's sheet of animals. He didn't have the law 'clarified', the law was 'changed from what it used to be' by revelation.

So, here's where I am in Galatians 5

This is not saying that "if you love God, you'll keep the law". This is saying "the law can be over-ridden by the Spirit", that you can make personal choices based on your feedback from God.

Now, here he's talking about fruit. Fruit is a consequence of behaviour, not a cause of behaviour. If a behaviour results in a fruit, it is not 'under the law'. This is because the law can be misinterpreted, so Paul mentions KISS earlier

So, if your relations lead to the fruit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. it's blessed by the Spirit. It is not under the law. Now *I* cannot judge whether any specific relationship of someone else`s creates Fruit or not. I can barely judge for myself! But I can make those decisions, if I strive to be honest while meditating on it. If I lie to myself about whether something bears Fruit, then I have to live with the consequences. But I do know it`s possible to build the Fruit with sexual intimacy, and that sexual intimacy does not NEED to hurt the Fruit (though it certainly can!).
What we know as marriage today is marriage of bodies, it lasts until death, but this, this is something else, this is something special, it is a marriage of souls.

For as an eye that dwells long upon a star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and looking-glasses, lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendour; so must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low caresses; lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane: it must be allowed its share of both.

Galatians 5:1-6 said:
1 Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law. 4 You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace. 5 For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.

By "the law" he is referring to the Jewish Law
 
Yes, I know. He's saying that choosing to live by the law means that you're judged by the law. If you live in the Spirit, then you can avail yourself of Christ's salvation. And then he gives you guides how to know if you're living under the Spirit.
 
Yes, I know. He's saying that choosing to live by the law means that you're judged by the law. If you live in the Spirit, then you can avail yourself of Christ's salvation. And then he gives you guides how to know if you're living under the Spirit.
The introduction of any, however small, share of the ceremonial and Jewish rites, will greatly disfigure the purity and simplicity of the Christian institute.
 
All sexual acts outside of marriage are morally wrong, homosexual acts can never happen within marriage, ergo homosexual acts are morally wrong. homosexual acts are just a type of fornication.

Even if that were objectively true and not just a statement of religion, that could be easily solved by allowing legal same-sex marriages.
 
Even if that were objectively true and not just a statement of religion, that could be easily solved by allowing legal same-sex marriages.
legal≠ecclesiastical, the ecclesiastical part is what matters
 
Then you would seem to be in a continued situation of self-denial, based on the fact that the religious teaching to which you adhere will never be adapted to more closely suit the modern world.
 
legal≠ecclesiastical, the ecclesiastical part is what matters

Yes, I know. It's the same thing that makes some Hindu marriages true marriages. The legal rites by which the marriage is 'ordained' matters little compared to the level of love generated by the relationship. The Fruit justifies the marriage, nothing else.
 
Then you would seem to be in a continued situation of self-denial, based on the fact that the religious teaching to which you adhere will never be adapted to more closely suit the modern world.
The Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Self-denial of what?
Yes, I know. It's the same thing that makes some Hindu marriages true marriages. The legal rites by which the marriage is 'ordained' matters little compared to the level of love generated by the relationship. The Fruit justifies the marriage, nothing else.
A Christian marriage joins a man and a woman together, a Jewish marriage joins a man and a woman together, a Hindu marriage joins a man and a woman together...
 
Didn't some Native American tribes sometimes marry same-sex couples? They were called Berdache, IIRC.

EDIT: Nevermind, I was thinking of something else. The berdache were just people who sometimes fulfilled opposite gender roles within the tribe.
 
The Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Yes, I agree. But our understanding of morals changes with time. The objective facts of morality don't change, just circumstances do. A moral pronouncement claimed in the past can continue to be wrong, and building sandcastles around it doesn't really change it.
 
All sexual acts outside of marriage are morally wrong, homosexual acts can never happen within marriage, ergo homosexual acts are morally wrong. homosexual acts are just a type of fornication.

You're good at responding in a way that doesn't address the point, aren't you?
 
For whoever asked earlier where the New Testement specifically says homosexual relations are bad, it's in Romans 1:27, just to name one.


27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 
I wonder what makes Paul the Apostle such an authority to some people. The guy claims to have a vision and suddenly his word is treated as, well, gospel.
 
Top Bottom