Quote: Darknight613 said: Is a mortal sin different from a regular sin? How do you know which sins are mortal sins and which ones are not?
There's "venial" sin, and then there's "mortal" sin. The latter is obviously more heinous than the former and is also required in confession in specific detail whilst venial isn't as high priority. Venial consists of things like petty-theft, tripping someone, telling kinds of lies, etc.. Mortal is premarital sex, masturbation, grand larceny, and, generally to one of the greatest extents, murder. Although there is no true heirarchy of sinful situations since it depends on the circumstances of said situations. Not all mortal sins are equal in sinful volume to eachother either, one mortal sin can be greater than another.
As for how one would discern which are mortal and venial: You simply use your logic circuits with the Bible as your mediator; use its teachings to understand where a sin stands between the "venial" and "mortal" standard.
Quote: Also, you said that if parishoners were supporting the idea of gay marriage, you could understand the priest's view. Does this mean that supporting the idea of gay marriage without actually engaging in it would be considered a mortal sin, or make one worthy of being denied Communion?
It's an unadulterated violation of Catholic Doctrine. Endorsing homosexual behavior and remaining an accessory and/or a proponent of gay marriage within the Church is a sin.
Quote: I found the following quotes in the article I posted:
Quote: So that's an idea of where some of these people are coming from. It sounds like it's about fair treatment of gays as people, rather than an advocation of gay marriage.
If you'd please to note, the protestors were illustrating their "trans-gender and homosexuality" as positive traits. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that they're proponents of sexual acts that deviate from the proper and orthodox sexual acts. Their promotion of this behavior is a clear and distinct violation of Catholic doctrine and, in this case, is a mortal sin.
Quote: Beardguy57 said: And you REALLY have no tolerance for gays. You hide behind bible quotes that say it's a mortal sin. If there IS really reincarnation..I hope you come back as a Gay Man in your next life, and then you'll know how it feels to have people say things to you like, " I accept gays but not their sex acts. "
You must have pulled that from some pagan religion or something, because Christians don't believe in reincarnation.
Quote: I DO know some Bible quotes... " Let He who is without sin cast the first stone. " You seem to be awfully good at pitching, Pariah.
I didn't cast any stones, I pointed out how you were being judgmental and ignorant. I warned you about it earlier, but then you saw fit to partake of that stupidity once again. Your misinterpretations of my religion and the Bible don't equal lack of credibility on its part.
Quote: The Bible ALSO says, " If you see a woman who is a Harlot, you must organize a crowd and stone her to death. " There's a LOT of fun rules like that in the bible, Pariah..so before you insult others with quotes from said Bible, better practice what you preach!! Take the Bible WORD FOR WORD. Ok, kid, get out there, stone some hookers and kill a few Philistines!
Yes. The Bible illustrated that-that was the rule of the times. It then went on to say that Jesus corrected their fallacy.
Quote: klinton said: And the idea that homosexuality was a disease or brain defect was once the industry standard...I think you need to read up on how that ended up.
........Riiight.....So now you're just gonna bullshit me--For fuck's sake! Take a page out of Jim's book and be reasonable dammit. You have not proven homosexuality to be what you WANT it to be and neither have your purported majority of scientists.
Quote: klinton said: This discussion was to be to the exclusion of your religious ideals. Bringing in any religious influences...yes that includes your obviously biased church websites...serves no purpose in government policy. It is worthless as far as I am concerned.
My relationship with God is my own concern. You need to respect that fact.
I highlighted the informative segments of one religious site, which didn't express anything about spirituality or religion. At no time did I or it express any sort of views on your revisionist ideals regarding Christianity.
Quote: Jeff Gannon said: Do want gay people ostracized? For being gay? No. Do you want gay people to shut up? GLAAD anyway. Do you want gay people to repent of their "sins"? I encourage it. Do you want gay people to stop asking for "special rights"? Yes Would you rather they keep their gayness to themselves? Depends on how you mean. Do you want gay people in the closet? No. Do you want gay people to stop with their "immoral practices"? Yes. But not mainly because they're "immoral", but because they're unhealthy and dangerous. And the idea that they're harmless is catching on. Do you want gay people to "choose" to be straight? I want them to be open to the possibility that they don't have to be gay and that if they persist in believing they can't be any other way, they shouldn't express their love through acts of pointless physical harm.
Quote: magicjay38 said: Only by religious zealots! Not by psychologists or psychiatrists. Wrong.
Here's a question Pariah: Have you ever had sex with anyone male or female that you didn't pay? Virgin.
It's hard to imagine. You're more sexually repressed than St. Augustine. You just named one of my idols.
Quote: Uschi said: It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Homosexuality doesn't have to be the norm. I'm just saying that it's natural. If 'GOD" didn't want gays and homosexuality goes against "GOD's" will, howcome animals are homosexual?
That's like saying that, "If God didn't want us to eat other humans, or our own children for that matter, he wouldn't have engineered those instincts into lesser sentient lifeforms."
This all around line of argument makes me wonder exactly how you're defining "natural". One could reason that because we created plutonium or enrichened U-235 that-that automatically makes their existence a natural occurence because we, the makers of the substance, came from nature, but that's not about to bypass the fact that we made it and it didn't come straight from the earth as all natural resources do. More to point (and perspective), one could say that a man who has an abnormal brain structure, which makes him a violent killer, is a natural occurence and he should be allowed to do what he's predisposed to do. Could you accurately title such things as "natural"? Wouldn't it be, perhaps "anamolous". Your thesis is built upon an oxymoron; life is built to survive and prosper, not to destory itself and take others with it unnecessarily.
Quote: Penguins mate for life. There didn't have to be no female penguins. Maybe there weren't as many female penguins as male so they just paired up anyhow. It doesn't matter.
Which would suggest that they want sexual release, but that does not, on its own, suggest that homosexuality is natural.
Quote: As for one gender on the planet, we all started out as asexual multi-celled organisms reproducing through cloning ourselves and getting an occasional mutation when things didn't go perfect (as does happen). I see no reason to demand heterosexual relations for a species to survive on a planet. Even if we weren't here, some of the other lower-based life forms still would be.
Evolution = Not Proven. Therefore, it is not a proper example to base your arguments on.
Quote: In the Middle Ages nine of ten children would die of disease or something before reaching puberty. It was valuable for the church to teach 'be fruitful and multiply' when most of the people croaked. It was basic instinct to pop out whatever you could. In present time and in first world countries we don't have the same problems.
The main argument was never regarding the Church.
And where exactly do you get this from?
Quote: There is no need to restrict pleasurable activities to merely their primary function. People can afford to use contraception or alternative routs of sexual stimulation, including sodomy.
Reminder: Never involved the Church before you mentioned it.
This is contradictory to your previous argument. If its no longer profitable for the Church to encourage multiplication cuz' people aren't dying as voluminously, why do they have a firm standpoint against abortion?
Also, I'd like to point out, once again, whilst one can attain pleasure through sodomy, one can also partake of pleasure from lacerating one's self. Does that make it a viable "alternative route" towards sexual stimulation? Sodomy is not a harmless act. And either form of sexual stimulation (sodomy/lacerating) involves pre-requisite learned behavior for successful stimuli.
Quote: Again looking at animal behaviors, there is a class of Ape that is heavy on the sex-for-pleasure attitude. I believe it's the Bonobous or something like that. The primates have been observed in captivaty and in the wild engaging in non-reproductory sexual acts with each other, supposibly merely for the pleasure they recieve doing it.
Is this supposed to illustrate animals as being designed to be deviant, and therefore, a non-cooperative standard for the Church and Christianity altogether? If so, you've completely overlooked the fact that Christianity doesn't feel that animals are on the same level as humans--They don't even have souls. Their demonstration of their predisposition to the baser instincts and incapability to reason as higher sentient lifeforms proves nothing.
Quote: My point is, homosexuality is not unnatural or something detrimental to society in any manner.
This is pulled from another board I posted at regarding the same subject since I already explained this ad nauseum there AND here. Since I've talked about it on Rob's more though, I just decided to use this quote:
The current regulatory commissions of society adhere to rules that dictate the safety of said society. Down to the last individual. That's a given. But this is usually taken for granted in light of what people want as opposed to what's needed by their shared community of citizens. The harvested idea that sodomy is a harmless action is an anti-utopian ideal--And as a society, Utopia is precisely what we strive for. To allow the typical homosexual process to be considered a harmless venture in the face of society is fallacious. Someone saying that homosexuals practicing sodomy is isolated within a minority and, therefore, should be tolerated is no different than someone who reasons that drug trafficking shouldn't be fought against since the effectiveness is below minimal and the cost isn't worth the fight. The subtext, while slightly different, interacts adequately well with homosexual statutes as an analogy: To tolerate hallucinogenic/acidic drugs and let the conception spread that their presence is a harmless societal constant would speed up the governmental entropy and make society crumble. Just as the homosexual civil rights movement hammered the government for their now attained civil unions, the notion that their form of intercourse 'isn't something to worry about' would eventually, on a long enough timeline, cause a mass-spread of positive opinions regarding it. World-wide consideration for casual sodomy as a neutral-good thing would cause a severe negative impact on its recesses. Society dictates that we put people who are mentally imbalanced in the psyche-ward because their actions are a danger to themselves and other people around them. Since homosexuals feel a need to consummate their relationship, they unnaturally and very abrasively abuse their colon. They "feel the need to" have sex in an unorthodox and dangerous element of predisposition. Considering there's correlating feelings/factors between them and sado-masochists, that creates a definite concern as to whether or not we're adhering to ad hominem from an uncredible source. Moreover, this exemplification of a type of civil domino effect could be related to the dangers of the ever-constantly evolving popular culture that has been sewing seeds within politics for the past century. If these opinions caused by kindred forces that only dictate a voluminous voice, and not necessarily a benign one, continue to grow without proper analysis/regulation, their presence could permanently imprint themselves as crucial factors for the domineering political hierarchies of modern-day structural archetypes associated with business and government. No matter what the reality of their presence may be, they'll be viewed as a possible fore-thought that deserves its place in law. This is exactly how NAMBLA was able to get in its own two cents with a degree of success.
