Offical Catholic Doctrine On Homosexuality

I don't actually see where you're going with it...

Humans discover things at the same time because of the nature of information sharing, societal trends of reserach, and working off of each other's reserach.

Like when Copernicus decided the sun was the center of the universe. It was kind've a trendy thing to be figuring out at the time, and he wasn't the only one to come up with it. Just the first to do so conclusively and publish on it.

Ok now that I reread that and thought again about my response I get where you were going.

Orginally a religious sense explained the natural world to early humans; eventually it became a mode to control basic group behaviors; the rise of the village/farm brought about a whole new set of non producers called priests; now religion was supported by the people by supporting the priests.
the rest is easily read history thought to be fair in the late primeval/early medieval world where your warlord could change in a day having one set of rules to abide by; no matter who was hanging out at the castle; provided a single set of rules to follow all the time.
It is outdated now.
It's time for change and for some people change comes hard.

Guest.

Are you going to answer our questions now? I see you're back on here.

Sorry, will come back to you now marvel

Just because some of the writings of the saints are considered to develope preexisting doctrines enabeling them to be defined by the church it does not mean their entire works are to be considered doctrine of the church. It is the role of the magestirum to declare what is and is not doctrine, this is based on scripture and tradition, the writings of the saints deepen our understanding of a preexisting belief enabling it to be defined as doctrine.

As for whoever it was who was comparing the pagan religion of mithras to catholicism i will say this, yes there are similarites but it is often regarded that The Church adopted these things from paganism, as for the feast days we did use times close to pagan festivals but in thiscase of mithras, if you do any sort of research into the early church fathers you will see that the Christians accuse the pagan mithras religion of mimicking Christianity, I think St Justyn Myter proclaims the cup of blood/wine in the mirtha religionas "the cup of devils" Christianity was the fastest growing religion in rome it is not inconcievable that many pagans copied many of the Christian beliefs and ritual.

How did British pagans (for example) find out about Christian traditions? Before the missionaries got there, I mean.

Rome came to britain before Christianity.

Heheh. The end of that made me giggle XD

It is pretty much true. XD

Progress on everything was halted for centuries, and most of this delay was because of the Church. The printing press was heavily criticised at first, because the Church didn't think Bibles should be that easy to access.

Medicine practically flew back to prehistoric levels until the Renaissance, when people decided to forget the Pope and dissect people anyway. And lo and behold, a lot of assumptions about anatomy turned out to be wrong, because the definitive research before then was done by a man named Galen back in the days of the Roman Empire, and he'd learned everything he knew from dissecting pigs. Which are nothing like humans.

I'm actually learning a lot about renaissance anatomy right now because my term paper's subject is on the development of realism in renaissance painting

Isn't it awesome?

I have this huge fascination with the development of medicine, because I took Medicine Through Time as part of my History GCSE (a high-school qualification). Although the Renaissance is really hard to revise for because so much progress happened with so many people, I love it because there's so much development and discovery packed into that relatively short time. *such a geek*

You have to understand that not everything a man says is from the Holy Spirit, There are other writings of the apostles not included in the Gospel becuase not all of the documents are inspired by the holy spirit. The Church is able to declare what is and is not doctrine because it has been Given the gift of the holy spirit to do so, "I will send you the spirit of truth, who will guide you into all truth, reminding you of everything I have said" So if you had the spirit, you could look at something and say, well that is spirit inspired, this is good theology but its not spirit inspired.

Actually guest there are 'writings' from unknown authors in this bible of yours. If the author is unknown how can you say it was written by god? The author is unknown.

"Actually guest there are 'writings' from unknown authors in this bible of yours. If the author is unknown how can you say it was written by god? The author is unknown. "

because the magistirum of the Church has declared the works contained in the bible are inspired by God

How do they decide what's holy and what's not? Is it just the stuff they agree with?

Like I said, I'm not even remotely acquainted with the workings of the Catholic Church, so I'd honestly like to know.