Religion

[southsider2k5]

Good questions and comments, but remember we are warned to be aware of false prophets in the bible. It is stated that many will pose as men of God, yet be mouthpieces for the devil. The key is always the connection between you and God, not between you, someone else, and God.

[kapkomet]

Good questions and comments, but remember we are warned to be aware of false prophets in the bible. It is stated that many will pose as men of God, yet be mouthpieces for the devil. The key is always the connection between you and God, not between you, someone else, and God.

DING!

 

Which is the single biggest reason that I have problems with Catholicism.

[CanOfCorn]

so i'm guessing Kinky was your man?

 

Yes, but not because we are both Jewish. But because a vote for Kinky was a vote against politicians. I hope you didn't mean anything by that other than a legitimate question, but I don't vote for religion, I vote for stance on things that are important to me.

[Balta1701]

Yes, but not because we are both Jewish. But because a vote for Kinky was a vote against politicians. I hope you didn't mean anything by that other than a legitimate question, but I don't vote for religion, I vote for stance on things that are important to me.

So, and this goes for anyone who voted kinky...the racist stuff didn't bother you?

[Texsox]

So, and this goes for anyone who voted kinky...the racist stuff didn't bother you?

 

It didn't bother me.

 

I guess I missed any religious bias in the race. Kinky produced the "My Governor is a Jewish Cowboy" bumper sticker, so I guess he was the first to even mention religion. I never thought twice about it, I couldn't tell you for certain what denomination any of the other candidates are.

 

I started out just being amused by Kinky and some of his speeches. Then I became intrigued because in between the one-liners he was making a lot of sense.

[Balance]

if you consider porn an "ok" thing... your hypocrisy isn't the thing we should be worried about.

Curious.

 

So, you're taking the position that anyone who considers porn "an OK thing" we need to worry about?

 

Please expand on that position. I'm interested to find out why you think that.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Curious.

 

So, you're taking the position that anyone who considers porn "an OK thing" we need to worry about?

 

Please expand on that position. I'm interested to find out why you think that.

 

It would be naive to think that the majority of pornographic images were taken for the significant financial benefit of the person that appears in the images. Certainly there are plenty of women who choose to take their clothes off on their own accord and make a great money, however, my estimation is that's probably the minority by an incredibly disproportionate amount.

 

So yes, if you find nothing morally bankrupt with looking at nude women taking their clothes off as long as their getting VERY WELL compensated for this, then sure, have at it. We know this isn't the case most of the time.

 

 

I won't sit here and claim the moral high ground, or at least perfection. I know first hand what is out there and the ease of access to that stuff. The evidence is there to show that pornographic images destroy marriages and many time is the gateway to sexual related crimes.

 

Not only do I believe that pornography is not just a bad thing to ingest for the viewer, but think about the person who is being photographed. I'm not talking about those who make thousands of dollars off of their nudity, etc, these people are business minded women/men/other who justify their actions to make a living (a different argument for another time). I'm thinking about the people who are suckered into taking their clothes off for chump change, or lured to believe that "this will be their ticket to star dome", or simply forced to pose or they'll be x, y, or z by the photographer.

 

So ask yourself the next time you're looking at these girls/guys/other, am I supporting the abuse of that person? whether its physical, emotional, financial abuse depends, but the point is there.

 

I'm not saying "I'm right" and "you're wrong." I'm saying that people don't think about it. They don't think about the people it effects, whether it's themselves, someone close to them, or a person on the other side of the world making dimes to humiliate themselves.

 

 

That's what I think about that...since you asked.

[NorthSideSox72]

It would be naive to think that the majority of pornographic images were taken for the significant financial benefit of the person that appears in the images. Certainly there are plenty of women who choose to take their clothes off on their own accord and make a great money, however, my estimation is that's probably the minority by an incredibly disproportionate amount.

 

So yes, if you find nothing morally bankrupt with looking at nude women taking their clothes off as long as their getting VERY WELL compensated for this, then sure, have at it. We know this isn't the case most of the time.

I won't sit here and claim the moral high ground, or at least perfection. I know first hand what is out there and the ease of access to that stuff. The evidence is there to show that pornographic images destroy marriages and many time is the gateway to sexual related crimes.

 

Not only do I believe that pornography is not just a bad thing to ingest for the viewer, but think about the person who is being photographed. I'm not talking about those who make thousands of dollars off of their nudity, etc, these people are business minded women/men/other who justify their actions to make a living (a different argument for another time). I'm thinking about the people who are suckered into taking their clothes off for chump change, or lured to believe that "this will be their ticket to star dome", or simply forced to pose or they'll be x, y, or z by the photographer.

 

So ask yourself the next time you're looking at these girls/guys/other, am I supporting the abuse of that person? whether its physical, emotional, financial abuse depends, but the point is there.

 

I'm not saying "I'm right" and "you're wrong." I'm saying that people don't think about it. They don't think about the people it effects, whether it's themselves, someone close to them, or a person on the other side of the world making dimes to humiliate themselves.

That's what I think about that...since you asked.

I'd like to see some evidence that porn is a gateway to sex crimes. And not just someone saying "most sex offenders have viewed porn", because frankly, that's like saying "most bus drivers have viewed porn". Has anyone ever produced a compelling theory backed by evidence showing causality? I doubt it. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

[Soxy]

I'd like to see some evidence that porn is a gateway to sex crimes. And not just someone saying "most sex offenders have viewed porn", because frankly, that's like saying "most bus drivers have viewed porn". Has anyone ever produced a compelling theory backed by evidence showing causality? I doubt it. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Nuke and I had a big debate about his in the old ACLU thread about porn. I cited a couple of scholarly studies about pornography. So, you could always look that "gem" back up.

[BobDylan]

I'd like to see some evidence that porn is a gateway to sex crimes. And not just someone saying "most sex offenders have viewed porn", because frankly, that's like saying "most bus drivers have viewed porn". Has anyone ever produced a compelling theory backed by evidence showing causality? I doubt it. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

 

Most, if not all my male friends would be criminals if porn were a suggestion of a criminal "personality". I'd be on death row. But I only watch the stars, so I guess it's morally okay.

[Soxy]

Linkage

Bishops may alter language on gays

Baptism urged for kids of same-sex parents

 

By Manya A. Brachear

Tribune staff reporter

Published November 13, 2006, 5:59 AM CST

 

While continuing to stress that same-sex relationships are immoral, America's Roman Catholic bishops may approve new guidelines this week that absolve gay Catholics of any obligation to try to alter their sexual orientation.

 

The guidelines for ministering to homosexuals, to be reviewed when bishops convene Monday in Baltimore for their annual fall meeting, also will urge clergy to baptize the adopted children of gay couples who agree to raise them Catholic.

 

"We are trying to find a language that does not betray the teaching of the church, but will perhaps express it in ways that are not so offensive," Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview last week.

 

"The conclusions are the same," George said. "The language will be less painful than sometimes the language has been in the past."

 

The bishops also plan to remind parishioners how to prepare themselves for Communion, laying a foundation that would make it easier for clergy to deny the sacrament to Catholics at odds with the church, including politicians.

 

The issue surfaced during the 2004 presidential campaign when some bishops threatened to deny Communion to Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights.

 

"That started a conversation that wasn't resolved, but brought up this other thing--worthiness to receive Communion on everybody's part," George said. "It shouldn't be automatic. There's personal scrutiny and examination of conscience that should take place."

 

Missing from the meeting's agenda is any mention of the war in Iraq, an absence that irks parishioners who believe the bishops should focus on that issue rather than homosexuality.

 

"We hate to see our moral teachers squandering their moral teaching authority when there are important issues they should be dealing with--poverty and social justice and the war," said Sam Sinnett, president of Dignity USA, the nation's largest gay Catholic organization.

 

"They're much more concerned with whether two homosexuals are going to get married or not," he said. "They've lost focus on the needs of the human race."

 

Opposition expected

 

The documents on ministering to gay people, drafted by conference committees, could encounter opposition from some conservative bishops. Recent Vatican directives bar most gay men from pursuing ordination and prohibit priests with "homosexual tendencies" from teaching or running seminaries.

 

Since issuing those injunctions, Pope Benedict XVI has implied a connection between homosexuality and the clergy sex abuse scandal, declaring a need to "purify" the church.

 

This won't be the first time bishops have addressed the issue of gay Catholics. A pastoral letter drafted in 1997 counseled parents to love their gay sons and daughters and encourage them to live a chaste life.

 

Though the letter did not stray from church teaching, its advice stirred too much controversy and did not pass. The current guidelines try to balance doctrinal language that condemns homosexual relationships with inclusive pastoral language.

 

"You can't have pastoral care without it being founded on theological moral principles," said Rev. Thomas Weinandy, executive director for the conference's doctrinal committee. "You have to have principles on which you base pastoral care."

 

Sinnett said the document certainly does not sit well with gay Catholics who find its tone unwelcoming. He also said he was dismayed to learn that bishops had been working on it for four years without consulting the nation's largest gay Catholic group.

 

On Sunday, Dignity USA issued its own update of pastoral guidelines the group had issued in 1987 in response to a condemnation of homosexual relationships issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now pope.

 

Weinandy said bishops steered clear of input from advocacy groups to "avoid the appearance of taking sides."

 

Guidelines praised

 

Rev. Tom Reese, a Jesuit scholar who wrote a book on America's bishops, praised the new document for carefully distinguishing between homosexual activity and orientation, leaving the debates about origins to science and not insisting that gay Catholics take part in therapy.

 

"No scientific consensus has been reached regarding the effectiveness of various therapies," the document says. "Thus, the church does not endorse one particular theory of the genesis of homosexuality or one particular therapy over another. ... Some have found therapy helpful. There is, however, no moral obligation to attempt it."

 

The document on Communion does not directly address Catholic politicians or instruct bishops, but it does define what makes a person unworthy for communion. "Inevitably," George said, "that will be translated into a political framework."

 

If someone "publicly known to have committed serious sin or to have rejected definitive Church teaching" takes Communion without reconciling, the document says, it would encourage others to follow their lead and engage in sinful behavior. That means a politician who violates church teaching by voting in support of abortion rights would lead to further violations, Weinandy said.

 

Stephen Colecchi, director of the conference's office of international justice and peace, said bishops might take up the issue of withdrawal from Iraq even if it is not on the schedule. In January, bishops called for a responsible transition in Iraq and last month implored Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to protect Iraqi Christians and other religious minorities.

 

"Although the bishops had raised grave moral questions about the decision to go to war, the U.S. has a new set of responsibilities ... to help Iraqis stabilize their country," Colecchi said. "The human and moral consequences of what is happening certainly mean the bishops will take that into account."

 

Other business at the meeting includes the creation of a uniform hymnal for the American church. The bishops also are expected to channel funds toward a landmark study on the causes and context of the clergy sex-abuse crisis. The first phase of the study will explore whether clergy sex abuse corresponds with overall social patterns of deviant behavior during the last half-century. If the patterns differ, investigators will look into "ministry-specific factors."

 

George said bishops expect to generate the most comprehensive data in the nation on the issue and hope to garner additional financial support from outside sources for the multimillion-dollar study.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think that is all we can expect from the Roman Catholic Church on the matter, and actually better than I'd expected for now. It's still siboptimal because it sticks to the idea that it's not a sin to be gay as long as you are not sexually actively gay, but I can't see them doing a whole lot more.

 

Gay Catholics are still better off parting ways with the Church, imo.