nextDayDelivery:
The third is easily demonstrated by finding a list of the most batshit crazy christian ideas and beliefs that come straight from your bible. You know, the racist, homophobic, misogynist bits. If you worship a pathetic, nasty and vindictive god as described in the bible, the one who drowned everyone on earth save one family, the one who killed all first born sons, the one who allows pain and suffering and leukemia in children and dementia and the one who had his own son tortured and killed as an offering to himself then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and question who you're looking up to.
Do please refer to my posts concerning sola scriptura and prima scriptura and the difference between the two:
'Prima scriptura' asserts that the word of God as found in OT and NT is part of the 'deposit of faith', the foundation of sacred Tradition of which there are other elements, with the bible the primary part but not the only one.
The bible as we know it in the RC church (it is different from the KJV) was recognised as the divine word and put together by the early church, with the Gospels and epistles added as they were written, after consideration and a process of discernment, by church leaders who claimed apostolic succession and whose claim was acknowledged and accepted by the church. These also became part of the deposit of faith.
The point where the RC church parts company with others on the topic of what to do with that deposit of faith is in its claim to continued apostolic succession and thus the right to authoritatively interpret the bible. In most post Reformation denominations, individual interpretation is urged. Individual interpretation alone informs conscience. This is the concept of 'sola scriptura' - scripture alone with no mediator.
So Catholics do not normally refer to the bible as the informer of their consciences, but to the RC catechism, which is a long distillation of scripture, sacred Tradition, theology, and philosophy, and to Papal encyclicals. (If at all).
In your focus on the bible as a stick to beat Catholics with, you are (a) barking up the wrong tree, and (b) revealing yet again your complete ignorance of Catholicism.
It's interesting that so much of the bible needs to 'age appropriate'. At what age do you swap easter eggs for crucifixion?
Easter eggs are not technically speaking anything to do with the Christian celebration of Easter at all. You could easily celebrate Easter without a single bite of chocolate. But heyho.
You seem to object to children learning about crucifixion. Why?
Do you object to children learning about wars or the Black death or infant mortality in centuries past or the Princes in the Tower or life for children in Victorian England or any kind of historical injustice as part of history?
You've let your bigotry surface with comments about needing to be of an appropriate age to teach about homosexuality proving in this case at least, religion poisons everything ie. you.
Au contraire - and you have once again revealed your ignorance here.
Children of 4, 5, 6, 7, need a lesson on homosexuality or heterosexuality or any other sexuality like fish need bicycles.
They need lessons and well designed programmes to counter bullying and the urge to bully and the dynamics of bullying. They all need to feel completely secure and valued as individuals in school. You do not need to teach young children about human sexuality in order to impart the values of tolerance and open mindedness and mutual respect.
.................
Listen carefully pigeon Math. Asking your opinion on whether homosexuality is a sin requires no information on my part to ask. I'm not sure you understand what misinformed means.
I am completely au fait with the definition of 'misinformed'.
To paraphrase another poster, you appear to be so misinformed that you are not even aware how misinformed you are.
I know 'misinformed' when I come across it.
I recognise it because I am well-informed, no thanks to experience of any RE curriculum but because of my academic background in history, and a quick compare and contrast exercise involving what I know to be fact with your rantings here tells me all I need to know.
“Such persons [i.e. gay people] must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Accepted doesn't mean you don't think they're going to hell and if you do think they can get through the pearly gates then you've misread the bible. You can be a good christian or a good person, remember. The bible's clear with what it thinks about homosexuality.
You have decided not to let facts get in the way of the flow of bile.
You are entitled to your opinions of course.
You are not entitled to claim to enter into someone else's mind and condemn them for what you imagine you find there.
You are not entitled to misrepresent any organised religion to further the purpose of spewing hatred and intolerance on the internet.
I do understand why churches are ignoring those bits of the bible which are most abhorrent though
Let me again refer you to the information on sola scriptura vs. prima scriptura.