The Ordination of Homosexuals

[rocka21]

Celibacy is against Christianity? Where does it say that every Christian must have sex?

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry ( priest), and commanding to abstain from meats( sounds like some friday thing to me), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


So why does Celibacy and the priethood have ANYTHING to do with one another?

the first " pope " Peter was married.

so i did not say a christian must have sex, but a christian should not tell another christian you can't be a priest or a pastor and be single.

so we need to take that " as long as they are celibate" statement out.

 

[Quiddity]

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry ( priest), and commanding to abstain from meats( sounds like some friday thing to me), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


So why does Celibacy and the priethood have ANYTHING to do with one another?

the first " pope " Peter was married.

so i did not say a christian must have sex, but a christian should not tell another christian you can't be a priest or a pastor and be single.

so we need to take that " as long as they are celibate" statement out.

I wonder who you're talking about?

You know where to find me if you have a question and wish to inform yourself.

 

[MaddLlama]

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry ( priest), and commanding to abstain from meats( sounds like some friday thing to me), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


So why does Celibacy and the priethood have ANYTHING to do with one another?

the first " pope " Peter was married.

so i did not say a christian must have sex, but a christian should not tell another christian you can't be a priest or a pastor and be single.

so we need to take that " as long as they are celibate" statement out.

I think you misunderstand.

This isn't about celibacy to attain the priesthood, this is about homosexuals being celibate so they won't be labeled as "living in sin".

 

[rocka21]

I think you misunderstand.

This isn't about celibacy to attain the priesthood, this is about homosexuals being celibate so they won't be labeled as "living in sin".

i did misunderstand.... sorry

 

[rocka21]

I wonder who you're talking about?

You know where to find me if you have a question and wish to inform yourself.

I aready know your answers. ( my dad is catholic and i was raised catholic.)

but thanks,:angel2:

back to topic.

 

[Quiddity]

I aready know your answers. ( my dad is catholic and i was raised catholic.)

but thanks,:angel2:

back to topic.

From the looks of your post, I highly doubt it.

But yes, let's move on.

 

[Mike182]

wow, i am the first person to vote "i am between on this issue"

i think that if the moral teaching of the religion is that homosexuality is immoral, for what ever reason, then they should keep to that teaching, so if that means gays can't lead their church then that is fine.

however, i also think that it would do all the denominations good, in todays western culture, to start working on bringing in and including gays in the leadership and administration of the religion.

it's up to the individual denominations to decide for themselves

 

[joeboonda]

I voted no. The Bible condemns homosexuality. It would be like a black man wanting to be a leader in the KKK.

 

[rocka21]

I voted no. The Bible condemns homosexuality. It would be like a black man wanting to be a leader in the KKK.

but Joe! but Joe! don't you think its " time " for a black leader in the KKK?:sarcastic

 

[Quiddity]

I voted no. The Bible condemns homosexuality. It would be like a black man wanting to be a leader in the KKK.

Nope...what is condemned are homosexuals who act on it. By "act on it" I don't mean that they go to the grocery store, sleep, or watch TV, but live an intimate life with someone of the same sex. This is probably a distinction without a difference for many homosexuals, but for the Christians that do make the distinction it makes the world of difference.

After all, there are homosexual priest currently in the Catholic Church.

 

[lilithu]

the funny thing is, that they that are celibate conflicts christian beliefs. go figure.

Celibacy is against Christianity? Where does it say that every Christian must have sex?

Actually, according to St. Paul, the Christian ideal IS celibacy and marriage is only given as an acceptable option for people who can't cut the celibate life. See I Corinthians, chapter 7.

It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, according to St. Paul, the Christian ideal IS celibacy and marriage is only given as an acceptable option for people who can't cut the celibate life.

Jesus wasn't so big on family values, either. But see, the parts of the Bible that say it's better not to marry, or you should leave your family to serve God, those parts aren't meant to be taken literally. The parts that are meant to be taken literally are the ones against homosexuality.

You can always tell what parts God meant to be taken literally and which ones he didn't mean to be taken literally by what the church people feel comfortable with. Whatever church people are comfortable with, that's God's will. Whatever they're uncomfortable with, God hates that. It's remarkable how infallibly the preferences and prejudices of the church people reflect those of God; it's a sort of miracle, really.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I voted no. The Bible condemns homosexuality. It would be like a black man wanting to be a leader in the KKK.

It's interesting of you to compare Christianity to the KKK.

James

 

[Sunstone]

It's interesting of you to compare Christianity to the KKK.

James

Actually, I didn't read it that way, as a comparison of Christianity to the KKK.

 

[rocka21]

It's interesting of you to compare Christianity to the KKK.

James

i think he was saying that it does not " fit".

black man leading the KKK.

Homo's leading the church.

i think that was what " he" was saying.

 

[Vassal]

Actually, according to St. Paul, the Christian ideal IS celibacy and marriage is only given as an acceptable option for people who can't cut the celibate life. See I Corinthians, chapter 7.

It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Umm... what translation is that? I'm looking at 10 literal translations and they all say "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". In light of the rest of the passage, and the fact that God said in Genesis that it is not good for man to be alone, and the fact that God would, in effect, be setting the human race up for extinction if he didn't want people to be married, it is obvious this verse means "It is ok if a man does not want to marry". And verse 2 "But even so, every man should have his own wife to avoid fornication." It would make no sense at all if it was saying "It is good for a man to not marry, but he should". That would be contradictory. The purpose of this passage is to refute the idea that people are required to marry.

 

[lilithu]

Umm... what translation is that? I'm looking at 10 literal translations and they all say "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". In light of the rest of the passage, and the fact that God said in Genesis that it is not good for man to be alone, and the fact that God would, in effect, be setting the human race up for extinction if he didn't want people to be married, it is obvious this verse means "It is ok if a man does not want to marry". And verse 2 "But even so, every man should have his own wife to avoid fornication." It would make no sense at all if it was saying "It is good for a man to not marry, but he should". That would be contradictory. The purpose of this passage is to refute the idea that people are required to marry.

They're saying the same thing. The ideal is that a man not touch a woman - ie - remain celibate. So the ideal is to not marry either. Paul is NOT saying "It is good for a man to not marry, but he should". Which is why he says "I say this as a concession, not as a command." Paul is saying that he realizes that not everyone can be like him (celibate), and so the institution of marriage is a concessions that allows people to have sex in way that is not sinful (fornication). The ideal is still celibacy.

How do you interpret "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" as anything other than celibacy? (Unless you want to argue that Paul was advocating homosexuality, which we both know he was not. )

 

[michel]

"yes I feel strongly that we should "

Male homosexuals (in my experience) are far more caring and gentle in manner than the average "testeronic" hetero. I don't know if I know any women who are gay (apart from those who have declared themselves on the forum), but as I am not in the habit of asking every woman I am introduced to whether she is gay or not, I honestly don't know..........:cover:

 

[joeboonda]

but Joe! but Joe! don't you think its " time " for a black leader in the KKK?:sarcastic

Lol, good point. I just can't translate it to homosexuals leading the church, although I'm sure in this day many would be all for that.

 

[joeboonda]

Nope...what is condemned are homosexuals who act on it. By "act on it" I don't mean that they go to the grocery store, sleep, or watch TV, but live an intimate life with someone of the same sex. This is probably a distinction without a difference for many homosexuals, but for the Christians that do make the distinction it makes the world of difference.

After all, there are homosexual priest currently in the Catholic Church.

I see your point. It is like an alcoholic, I suppose. If one were a "practicing" alcoholic, the sermons would be interesting I suppose, but, well...Anyway, I look at homosexuality as being a deviation of the natural way God intended, a perversion, which I would think, as there are cases of it, could be fixed with the help of the Lord. I'm not Catholic so I don't believe a priest, well, pastor, must be celibate, but only married to one wife if they choose to marry. I think people in leadership roles in the church should be at a certain level of Christian maturity as the Bible points out, not brawlers, quick to anger, given to much wine, etc. etc. Anyway, I just was giving my answer to the poll.