And so to another remix; still thinking Shep Pettibone.

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

^^^ It is to 'indulge' in self-deceit to be depending on "indulgences".

Just like even though some say: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
it may bring to other people's mind: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists on this thread went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer. (PS this is unlike them because normally they are belligerent and cantankerous)

It is also amazing that some people can be unaware of important Christian truths perhaps because they have been misled by their leaders (or something called the 'magisterium') or because they themselves do not read the Bible and content themselves with reading e.g. bulletins!

Another thing, one person was comparing the apostle Paul to Roman Catholic "popes" However, it is well known that some of these "popes" have been seen by many as despicable historically - fact; also the idea of "papal infallibility" associated with "popes" is considered by many people even including some Roman Catholics to be rubbish - fact)! Now, this particular chap was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. However, such an action seems to be displaying ignorance.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."



Postscript https://www.nairaland.com/1575747/sooooo-what-reaaaally-religious-intolerance

Moderator, recommend for frontpage https://www.nairaland.com/1575814/thread-pray-roman-catholics-reform

Reyginus: Lol. I sense a holy war here.

Bros, make we try for no fight war today o! Make we try for spread the lurrrrrrrve!

OK, abeg we fit continue later or anyone else interested fit continue.

Make I fess go jollificate new yam, erm new year celebrations small!

Our Roman Catholic friends say that the Virgin Mary is "co-mediatrix" and "co-redemptrix"!

Perhaps they mean well; perhaps they are just misguided; perhaps something else ...........................

Anyway, we know that the Bible says the following (among others):

1 Timothy 2:5

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"


Hebrews 9:15
"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."

Prayer point: pray that our Roman Catholic friends will come to a true understanding that the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the only redeemer and the only mediator.

EDIT: this thread has its genesis here https://www.nairaland.com/1575747/sooooo-what-reaaaally-religious-intolerance#20588843

The purpose of this thread is not to "bash" Roman Catholics or to engage in "Religious Intolerance: insulting Catholics"! Rather it is to help our Roman Catholic friends, relatives etc to reform some of their more controversial doctrines and practices and to pray for them.

I start with this example; it is actually an important example because it focuses upon the fundamental issue of salvation.

Whereas as outlined by the Roman Catholic "pope" Boniface VIII, Roman Catholic teaching is that people must submit to the Roman Catholic "pope" before they can achieve salvation, we will be helping our Roman Catholic friends to point out that Jesus said that salvation is to be found only in Him!

Compare for example

Roman Catholic Church

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)


It is hardly worth pointing out that "pope" Boniface VIII should not be compared to Jesus Christ even if Boniface was a saintly person. Worse, "pope" Boniface was far from a saintly person. He is believed to have forced or manipulated the previous "pope" to resign. What is more he soon imprisoned that previous "pope" who died 10 years later in the incarceration at the age of 81! This same Boniface is the one reputed to have said that to commit adultery or to sleep with young boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands!

Prayer point: that our Roman Catholic friends may realise that Christians should follow Jesus rather than people like "pope" Boniface.

And finally for now!

Supposing I make a thread titled: “A Thread to Pray for Catholics and Help Them to Reform" and I say – the thread is not to bash Roman Catholics; rather it is to point out and correct "in love" things that may be contrary to biblical teaching and to help and encourage our Roman Catholic relatives, friends, acquaintances and other Roman Catholics generally.

Wait a minute --- let me actually go and make the thread!

Deep Sight: You were banned for that post

Oh very yes, oh very yes indeed!

But I saw it coming as I said here https://www.nairaland.com/1568827/current-moderator-religion-section-cannot#20457617

The point being that the post above is a modified version of an earlier one (reproduced below) which was also deleted and for which I was also banned.
------------------------------------------------------

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the normally belligerent and cantankerous noisemakers went quiet after it was shown that from the Bible Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their despicable "popes" who came up with the rubbish idea of "papal infallibility" and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course is a pure ignoramus.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

Now a quick question: who really is a "Catholic"?

1. Members of the catholic Church? Well, erm this would include erm even myself as it refers to all Christians, everywhere whatsoever and of all eras whatsoever, and of all denominations, in fact some might even be Roman Catholics!

2. Eastern Orthodox people i.e. the Orthodox Catholic Church? Many would argue that these are the real "Catholics" as they were the ones who started "the Catholic Church", gave it the name "Catholic" and so on and so on. See for example: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

3. The Oriental Orthodox people? They too were part of the original "the Catholic Church"! See for example: https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

4. The Roman Catholic Church denomination or organisation? Because these ones are declaring everyone else anathema all over the place?

5. Independent Catholics?

6. Sedevacantist Catholics?

O ga oh!

Ajibam: were you banned??
happy new year oo

Oh very yeah -- but only in the Religion section though!

Happy new year and every blessing to everyone on the thread --- now or later!

Deep Sight:
Happy New year Enigma. I wish you a prosperous and rewarding 2014.

Happy new year brah, wish you all that is good and desirable even from your own perspective.

Anatomy of a post that was allegedly guilty of "Religious intolerance: insulting Catholics".

So let us break this post up and identify which part is "Religious intolerance: insulting Catholics"

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

Above is part of someone else's post that my own post was replying to. So below the post in parts and with commentary.

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

So this part says that it is self deceit to be indulging in indulgences. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

So this part basically says we don't believe those who claim to only honour Mary and not worship her and it uses a rhetorical device and making a comparison of not lying but not speaking the truth. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists who are normally belligerent and cantankerous went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

So this part has as its main point that Roman Catholic apologists went quiet after certain things from the Bible were pointed out. It has the subordinate point that these Roman Catholic apologists are normally belligerent and cantankerous. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

OK this part does make two digs i.e. some people are ignorant because they are misled and the people only read bulletins. But then How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

For this one, let us do a comparison: if someone says "all you ever read is your Bible - not science or intellectual books" -- is that "religious intolerance" and how reaaaally insulting is that?

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their "popes" (some of whom are despicable historically - fact) who came up with the idea of "papal infallibility" (which many see as rubbish - fact) and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course was simply displaying ignorance.

Now this one is interesting: first, the main point is that someone was comparing the apostle Paul to Roman Catholic "popes" on the issue of "papal infallibility".

Then there are three statements within the point/paragraph that can be considered worth looking at further:

1. That some Roman Catholic "popes" are despicable historically. This is a statement of fact and it is true! There are Roman Catholic "popes" complicit in the murder of the one before them, some guilty or complicit in murder even as "pope", some inc.estuous, some even declared heretics. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Compare this statement: some Nigerian heads of state are despicable historically (e.g. they looted or even committed atrocities including killings) ------ is this statement an "insult"?

2. That many people see the idea of "papal infallibility" as rubbish. Well, it is a fact and it is true that Christians of all traditions even including some Roman Catholics see the idea of "papal infallibility" as rubbish! How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

3. That the person who compared the apostle Paul to Roman Catholic "popes" was displaying ignorance; that was because the person was implicitly undermining the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use a little wine for his stomach. Well, that was shown to be a fact by the paragraph that follows below. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

This chunk is making the same point and has been taken together. It explains that the use of alcohol to treat stomach problems has a long historical scientific recognition even up till the modern day. It says that even Erasmus who was a reform-minded Roman catholic also used wine for his stomach. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Finally we have this gem; maybe it is the biggest problem! How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Me soon come!

Now Edit: I reproduce below a post that was deleted. In the manner in which it is reproduced here, it is not directed at anyone and is not "insulting" or "religious intolerance". Rather, it can help the good ol burghers of this Religion section to identify the boundaries of "Religious intolerance: and insulting Catholics". That is the point of this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists who are normally belligerent and cantankerous went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their "popes" (some of whom are despicable historically - fact) who came up with the idea of "papal infallibility" (which many see as rubbish - fact) and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course was simply displaying ignorance.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

debosky:

This is still a strawman - the real bottom line is that the permissibility or otherwise of sex.ual relations with animals involves two different species - it is not a parallel to homosexuality in any way.

Justifiable to who and what basis? I guess that's the key question.

The question is whether or not the term marriage should be reserved just for males and females, and whether there is any justifiable basis for this, beyond 'traditional understandings'.

This is probably the same argument the whites made about giving blacks votes -what about the rights of the whites? Won't giving all these black folk the vote devalue the worth of an individual white vote? It is a baseless argument.

If what some gay people do devalues your union, then your union never had much value to start with.

When you begin to compare same sex relations to relations between different animal species, you lose the argument. As I said earlier, the whites in America who opposed giving the votes to blacks made similar arguments - give it to the blacks and who next? The apes? The latter view has inherent in it, a view that homosexuals are less/not as worthy as other humans. We'll tolerate them, but they better not overstep their place, which we - the heterosexual majority - have decided. That may not be your express intention, but that's what your position ultimately conveys.

This post above is entirely misconceived and you have completely missed the point altogether. Let me demonstrate in very simple terms the point being made by me and a couple of others.

1. You want homosexual relationships to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
2. You want homosexual relationships to be considered equal to heterosexual relationships? OK we grant you that.
3. You want homosexual marriages to be recognised? OK we grant you that.
4. You want homosexual marriages to be considered equal to heterosexual marriages? OK we grant you that.


Now having granted all the above, we then pose the following questions to you:

1. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised?
2. Why should a relationship between a brother and sister not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
3. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised?
4. Why should a relationship between a father and daughter not also be recognised (especially if they do not want biological children)?
5. Why should a relationship between a man and a dog not also be recognised --- afterall they are both animals (what with the man being an ape)?

Syncan:

Hahahaha, someone I know was once given that advise in bold, as he was encouraged to molest a lady. It is not in all circumstances should it be taken, especially not when it is coming from a trouble maker


Let me get off this thread for now, I think my presence is drawing traffic to it

If you are wise, you will try and become a man, grow a backbone and stop the crying like a baby!

Sal C: @Enigma
Lol so now people intentionally bring trouble on themselves just to enable them complain.

Bro tell that to those who know you not because i know you are fond of doing that. When your post is hidden you turn round and repost it.

If you intentionally did that, your purpose of creating this thread has been defeated.

You dont intentionally commit an offence inorder to report a mod.

^^^ You are still demonstrating what I said about you! Who is complaining about being banned?

You don't know the difference between complaining and .... doing something else!

Or you know and you are just being duplicitous -- in the style of Roman Catholic "fathers"?

^^^ Good morning to you too; try and become a man though (just another free advice, you might find helpful).

Sal C:

like Syncan told you, you actually brought this on youself so chill.

Your attempt to see another person ban got you double of it.

Though i never liked your, but hiding your post is only fair.

So when is your ban expiring?

Missing those emoticons of yours already

You are still being thick!

I have said "I brought it on myself" deliberately --- for a purpose.

In my posts, I said I knew I would make this thread at least three days ago.

One day, you will learn to read with comprehension -- though I don't think I can expect any more than that!

Sal C: Lol you were expecting it yet you complain when it finally came.

As for you Op, i reported the first to be hidden after your first ban, yet you came back to re-post it using thesame detestable words, i wanted to report it again but i was in christmas mood.

Take thesame advice you gave to Syncan when you caused his ban.

Of course I always knew that you people were thick --- and so you can't really understand! You still do not understand that I knew I would be banned even before posting and that there is a purpose for doing what I did.

And like with Roman Catholic "fathers", I could not expect anything less than double face, could I?

Tgirl4real: Me I don't understand the big big grammar on this thread o

Don't worry about it jare, my dear sis. Merry Christmas and happy new year!

DrummaBoy: @Enigma

Thine attention needed on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1565571/inviting-rudedough-discussion-god

I noticed that this thread has been moved to the General section from Religion. You must have really gotten under the skin of that moderator. I hope these Catholics will not call for your head soon via a 21st Century Inquisition Process

Merry Christmas and happy new year bros; I will look at the thread although I doubt I will post --- let it feel that I am truly under a ban jare.

^^ You people are not observant and not sufficiently perceptive.

Look, before he banned me the first time I knew he was going to ---- because one of your "friends" (an atheist) instigated him.

Before he knew he would ban me this second time, I had long anticipated it. In other words, even before I made the post, I knew he would hide it and ban me.

Finally, if you guys are perceptive you might have calculated that a potential beneficiary of this saga is one of your Roman Catholic brethren.

Oh, and merry Christmas to you too.

Notes

1. The Moderator probably did not notice the differences between the two posts

2. If he did or if he does now, he probably does not have the capacity to understand the subtle but significant differences

3. The Mod is not clever enough to understand that the post contains materials and several phrases that will lead search engines and Internet users to Nairaland

4. The Mod does not have a sense of perspective --- else he will know there is much much worse on Nairaland including his Religion section --- even at this very minute.

------------------------------------------------------

End of main points that needed to be made!

Ishi, I actually expected this one!

Ok, now the post above is a revised version of this one below with the supposedly "offensive" bits removed. So, play "spot the difference".
-------------------------------------------------------

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the normally belligerent and cantankerous noisemakers went quiet after it was shown that from the Bible Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their despicable "popes" who came up with the rubbish idea of "papal infallibility" and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course is a pure ignoramus.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

I anticipated that I would create this thread since about two days ago!

Here is a post that I made in the Religion Section that the Moderator has deleted and for which he has again banned me!
-----------------------

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences". smiley

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists who are normally belligerent and cantankerous went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their "popes" (some of whom are despicable historically - fact) who came up with the idea of "papal infallibility" (which many see as rubbish - fact) and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course was simply displaying ignorance.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

1. Statements that an animal cannot "consent" to sex with a human are often shortsighted. Sometimes there is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously) to cover up for the shortsightedness by talk of "reasoned consent" or "informed consent". But of course when a dog "consents" to sex with another dog --- is that "reasoned consent" or is that "informed consent"? But here is a thing, the same "consent" to sex that a dog gives to another dog, the same dog can indeed give to a human! I have myself seen a female dog make a gesture of invitation or submission to sex towards a male human.

Bottomline: there has to be a basis beyond "consent" for opposing "bestiality"; oh, and what about zoophilia even?


2. Marriage by definition has historically, culturally (and etc 'allies') been understood to be a union between males and females. It is true that a word can be redefined to suit new circumstances but generally there have to be justifiable reasons for the redefinition. It is amusing that some people are willing to accept impose a redefinition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. BUT point out to them that atheism, or at least some forms of it and especially evangelical atheism, is indeed now a religion, the more myopic demur and some foam at the mouth on descent to some form of apoplexy.

3. In the case of "marriage" between homosexuals, the question needs to be asked whether even a committed union between homosexuals should be called "marriage" (i.e. marriage plainly at all) or should be known as something else. In the UK for example, there is something known as "civil partnership"; this did not gather as much opposition as that towards extending the meaning of "marriage" to include homosexual unions. Other suggestions can be made e.g. create a new category of union e.g. "gay union" or "gay marriage" so that they can be distinguished from traditional understandings of "marriage".

4. It is all well and good to speak of the "rights" of homosexuals to unions --- but should it be at the risk of taking away the rights of heterosexuals? It is all well and good to give "value" to the unions of homosexuals --- but should it be at the risk of devaluing the unions of heterosexuals. There is a legitimate argument that to extend "marriage" per se as known to homosexual unions would devalue the "marriage" of heterosexuals as understood. Well, maybe scientists will prove zoophilia at some point in the future to the extent that we can ask: why can "marriage" not include a union between a human and an animal? Come to think of it, some would tell us that man is an animal too, or that man is an ape. So what is intrinsically wrong in marriage between one animal and another? What is intrinsically wrong in marriage between an ape and a dog, say?

5. Again, even if homosexual unions or homosexual 'marriages' are legalised or even if homosexual unions are seen as "marriages", should religious institutions be compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions? Will it be taking away from the "rights" of homosexuals if religious institutions are not obliged to perform such unions? How does it affect the "rights" of religious institutions and their members if they are compelled to perform ceremonies for such unions.

6. Nowadays, some countries are moving towards a situation where po.rnography (at least certain forms of it) is blocked by default by Internet service providers; thus a user has to opt for it. Does it not make sense that even if a country legalises homosexual unions, the law rules by default that religious institutions cannot under any circumstances be required to perform ceremonies for such unions ---- unless a particular religious institution opts in i.e. opts to perform them?