This is not my understanding of Christanity, and I don’t think it’s the Pope’s either. Getting into heaven is a function of belief and baptism - nothing more, nothing less. Resistance of sin has to do with not wanting to put more on Christ if you want him to pay for your sins and may have something to do with your placement in the Kingdom - but it has NOTHING to do with you getting in - maybe except for the black hole)
My argument against movie actors making political statements.
They are in the same state of sin, that being unworthy of the Kingdom of God. It does not change if they have had gay sex at some point, they would still be unworthy. Both people could have all their sins paid in full if they want - but they don’t have to take that offer.
I’m confused by your last post, kanicbird. How can you qualify your first paragraph with your last? Unless i’m reading it incorrectly, your first implies that belief and baptism are the only things that have a bearing on whether or not you get into heaven, whereas your third suggests that the two sinning people in my example will not get in heaven as a result of their sin. I’m pretty sure i’ve misread you somewhere, so could you clarify, please?
Oh, and;
Actors =/= the Pope. While some (and mostly children and teenagers) see actors as role models, they do not look to them for spiritual, or in fact any, guidance. Nor are they acknowledged “spokespeople” of a belief system (well, apart from Tom Cruise, perhaps ). To claim that actors shouldn’t make political statements because they have a similar ability to change things as the Pope also brings up an interesting question as to your opinion of free speech; clearly, under your view, actors and the Pope are similar in that ability, yet the Pope may be allowed to speak on issues whilst actors should not. Hypocracy, anyone?
Sorry about that, no person by their own acts can get into heaven due to sin, both people can have Christ pay for their sins and enter by belief and baptism.
Well not a actor, I would argue that people got guidance from M. Moore in F-911.
Cute. The Pope is a suppose to be a expert in spirtual guidance and as such should not his expertese be called upon. WTF does a actor know more then joe-shmo know about politics. It is the weight that the ‘media’ puts on each that is the difference.
Alright, I think i’m getting it. So let’s assume these two people from my last example have both been baptised and do believe in God. Are they both on “equal footing”?
I would imagine the only people who got guidance from Michael Moore are those people who already agreed with him - much like the Pope, in fact.
Well, if we use your example, Michael Moore does know quite a bit about politics. Even if you don’t agree with him (like me) he does have knowledge of that area. Sure, that knowledge is biased, but so is the Pope’s.
Generally the Pope doesn’t get a massive amount of airtime because everyone knows what he’s going to say. I’ve never been to Rome, but if someone asked me what the theme was to one of his sermons/letters/whatever, I think I could make a reasonably close guess. When the Pope has something new to say - for example, the recent debate in the Catholic Church on the use of contraceptives in AIDS-stricken nations - then there’s considerable media coverage. If, say, Ashton Kutcher has something to say about the use of contraceptives, it might get reported in <insert celebrity magazine here>, but likely it’s not going to be headline news. I really don’t see your complaint.
Sophistry. By that sophist logic, before Loving v Virginia marriage laws in many U.S. states weren’t discriminatory because everyone was free to marry whomever they wanted, as long as it wasn’t mixing a white person and some other race. Everyone was free to marry within their race.
That argument didn’t fly then and it doesn’t now, despite some who would argue that the 14th only protects against racial discrimination
What of it? The question was not whether it was correct to consider drug abuse a moral evil in the first place, but that whether it is possible, while so believing, to love drug abusers.
Yes, and I think I know where you are going with this one, well one of 2 ways. And BTW the baptisim has nothing to do with pourign water over a baby’s head.
But the answer is yes.
Well I still see some differences, like the religion makes the pope the spirutal leader, but I’m sorry I brought this up.
Homebrew I don’t see how the 14th Amendment is relivant to Der Trihs’s bigotry, nor his hatred…
But what the fuck does drug abuse have to do with being gay? The fact that one is willing to entertain the notion that the two are equivalent is a pretty big, blinking, neon sign that one is a fucking bigot.
Anybody remember when the late, unlamented milroyj attempted to argue that an event that had be advertised as specifically for “whites only” was not intriniscally racist? That’s what this reminds me of.
It has everything to do with being gay, from the Church’s point of view. The Church believes that it is possible to love the sinner while hating the sin. Certain posters say that that is impossible. The example shows that it is. Rocket science this is not.
Arsehead! :smack: People misunderstand this all the time. No-one is saying that the two are equivalent. The point is to offer up something that is viewed as incontrovertibly evil. We assume for the sake of argument that drug abuse is so viewed. We observe that despite viewing drug abuse as horrible, we can still love drug abusers. It therefore follows that we can indeed love the sinner while hating the sin. The argument that whoever hates homosexuality must hate gays is therefore shown to be false. It is not required at any point of the proof to show that homosexuality is considered as vile as drug abuse.
It has nothing to do with Der Trihs. I was addressing your bit of sophistry.
Disingenuous bullshit. You know very good and well what my statement meant and you’re avoiding the point by dragging a red herring across the path.
Others have called you an idiot before. Now I’m calling you dishonest, accusing you of not debating in good faith, and most likely a colostomy bag of the used variety.
Again, you’re giving Der Trihs more power and credit than he’s earned himself. What’s the point of doing a hate-to-hate comparison of the two? The Pope’s every word affects millions of people all around the world instantly; Der Trihs’s rants are only important to the ridiculously tiny percentage of the world population who have the means to listen to him. DT’s hateful. So what? He doesn’t have legions all around the world who oppress people because of something he says.
When did I say DT is not a hateful person?
Now you’re redefining help. Help doesn’t imply eternal damnation against people fulfilling their natural need for love and affection by saying that only those who go celibate are OK. That’s ridiculous.
Well, gee, OK, gay people can marry and make medical decisions for people they don’t care about. Fantastic. If that doesn’t cheapen marriage, what does?
I didn’t sidestep the question, I showed it was irrelevant. Now you’re throwing more irrelevant crap at me so that I’ll spend all day playing your silly games instead of making my point. Nope, sorry.
OK, so why does it matter if a woman loves another woman and consummates that love, or not?
When was the last time an actor’s political statement changed anything of note? No actor has a worldwide religious following like the Pope does. Some people may agree or disagree with Susan Sarandon, but that’s orders of magnitude less important than what the Pope spews out of his mouth–entire continents hang on to every word and build their lives around his faith.
I’m surprised–I was expecting you to call out hypocrisy by saying that you didn’t ask for actors to lose their free speech priveleges. Maybe you are asking for actors to lose their priveleges, though. Are you?
Michael Moore, lacking though he may be in tact and honesty, has nothing on the Pope for spiritual importance. Entire continents hang on the balance of the Pope’s every word, and millions of people around the globe change their thinking fundamentally to fit around the Pope’s.
Why does it matter? I feel like I’m trying to take you on a trip to climb Mount Everest but you won’t do it because you’re too fixated on climbing an anthill.
OK, if you want to make a untrue statement then when I call you on it you say I am not debating in good faith, lets go back and try to work through your statement:
This statment would allow gays to marry if they are of the same race - is this what you meant?
Irrelevant. There are practical genetic reasons for not permitting people to marry their children or siblings, and human-rights reasons for not permitting adults to marry minors below the age of consent.
None of those reasons apply to not allowing a consenting adult to marry another (unrelated) consenting adult of the same sex.
If you’re going to disallow a certain kind of marriage, you need to produce a convincing reason against it, not just argue “Hey, the rules are perfectly fair to everybody already, so we don’t need to allow this in the name of fairness!” As Homebrew points out, that argument could also be used equally well to justify disallowing interracial marriages.
What makes it offensive is that when making an analogy the source and target terms have to roughly equivalent or else the comparison is a false analogy. However, drug use is a purely volutional act and therefore cannot be used as an analogue to homosexuality, which is an innate state of being. By using this comparison anyway, it gives the impression that one considers them equivalent.
Darn right there is more to marriage than sex. And if Catholic priests and the rest of the church hierarchy could get past their bigotry they might come to realize that gay marriages (like mine) are very much about mutual support and responsibility. Family, even.
But only gays are being told that there is no non-sinful way for them to consummate their love for an unrelated, consenting, adult partner.
If the Pope were forbidding heterosexual marriage as well as homosexual marriage, your comparison would be valid. Otherwise, it’s dishonest to claim that everybody is regarded as equally inherently sinful and is given an equal chance to avoid sin.
). To claim that actors shouldn’t make political statements because they have a similar ability to change things as the Pope also brings up an interesting question as to your opinion of free speech; clearly, under your view, actors and the Pope are similar in that ability, yet the Pope may be allowed to speak on issues whilst actors should not. Hypocracy, anyone?