Gay Marriage: Why the christians need to STFU about it

[Aiza]

Read it and weep.

The old Hullermann allegation? You mean the one where Archbishop Ratzinger agreed to allow the priest to stay in his diocese to undergo "counseling", was never informed of any child abuse allegations, and the priest wasn't even given a parish assignment til after Archbishop Ratzinger had left Munich? (Really stretching the definition of "reassignment" btw) (Archbishop Ratzinger having since gone on to the CDF and instituted tons of reforms for the better on the handling of child abuse cases). I thought that one was discredited years ago but looks like some people think this is legitimately a really terrible thing, "the worst" even! And yet Germany seems to be only blaming the bishop who was aware of the abuse and not the bishop who approved a priest to stay in a rectory within his diocese for "counseling". What do they know anyway?

I'm ticking the boxes of Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Age, Argumentum ad populum and burning through my logical fallacy bingo.

Sigh, I don't think you know what those phrases mean. I'm not saying that the fact that Catholicism is the oldest/largest Christian tradition makes it correct; but if you just use the term "Christianity" then well--those are going to be the most representative. I am sure you can find some isolated Christian or two citing Leviticus, but unless you are more specific it just looks like a strawman.

And no, Catholics don't hate and/or persecute homosexuality, as a matter of fact the CCC bans homosexual persecution (and gay men are overrepresented within Catholic priesthood). They don't believe in gay marriage, but neither did, say, the ancient Greeks. And I don't think they "persecuted homosexuality".

If you ever bothered to read the question posed, you'd instantly know why I dismiss your equivocation here.

Don't "allude", or prevaricate. It was a simple question, and equivocated answers do not wash. You're supposed to be the christian here, it is not up to me to interpret your ancient gibberish for you.

Let's pretend I quoted the whole of Matthew 5 if you like, fuck it, pretend I quoted the entire bible if it pleases you, but that would be retarded. I quoted a part of Matthew, which, is in context of Matthew. Point out the parts of Matthew 5 which contradicts this quote.

They don't "contradict" that quote, they illuminate that quote; and make it easier to understand what the fulfillment of the law is. The entire rest of Matthew 5 is about illuminating the moral principles behind the Mosaic law and bringing them out into their fullness, and this includes abolishing some aspects of Jewish culture, like divorce; which was allowed in the OT, but is not allowed in the NT, and eye-for-an-eye which is permissible (and required) in the OT but required in the NT. Capital punishment is also more explicitly abolished in 8. Elsewhere in Acts, the epistles, and the gospels (Matthew 15:11 to give an example), cultural aspects of the Mosaic law, most explicitly circumcision and dietary law, are abolished. And through the Gospels we have many times when Jesus illuminates the deeper spiritual significance of the Sabbath--that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice-versa, which is in contrast to Jewish tradition.

Don't you ever find it strange that no Christian community, ever, has followed Jewish law? I honestly have no idea how atheists can look at Matthew 5 and try to say "yep that totally means that Christians should be keeping kosher" unless they deliberately ignore everything else in Matthew 5.

I think you'll find that most people on here have read the entire bible. I did, and I didn't find one bit of it to be "good".

---

.....
So the scriptures advocate something. . .and then ban it. Ah, yes. Truly infallible.

What part of Matthew 5 do you find to be "bad"? When I say "good" I don't mean you have to agree with everything in it, mind.

Now "the Scriptures" consist of a whole variety of books written over a vast amount of time by many different authors. No single verse can be taken out of context from the rest, nor can they be taken from the even greater context of Christian tradition and Magisterium.