Jesus is not and was not the prophesied Messiah defined in the Tanahk. He didn't come from the correct familial lineage, among other signs Jews have been watching for for millennia. So what he may or may not have said can be seen as nothing more than a very good teacher, much like Gandhi or The Buddha.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Pope on women and gays
- Thread starter JoStories
- Start date
Christ himself drank wine as it is written in the Bible so your assertion that alcohol is prohibited does not really hold water there. True, most Christians realize that gays are no different than you are. We are humans who were born gay, just as I suspect you were born heterosexual or did you choose your sexuality? Circumcision is a personal choice and most couples today recognize the detriments to having the procedure done. It leads to problems with ED as well as urinary issues in later life. It is not needed if the parents simply teach the boy proper hygiene. True, many Christians have affairs. I have always found that one a sticking point with that faith. But sin is sin, according to the three Abrahamic faiths and while I don't believe in sin, most heterosexual couples are the ones to commit this alleged sin and not gays.
Respectfully, if you wish to create a thread about the perils or detriments of Catholicism, as you see it, please create one and let this thread be about the topic that was in the OP. Thank you in advance.
kepha31
Active Member
The following media outlets reported, either in the headline or in the story, that the pope said the Catholic Church owes gays an apology:
New York Times, AP, Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, USA Today, New York Magazine, Slate, NPR, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, BBC, Daily Mail, Reuters.
They are all wrong.
After the pope initially said, “I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness…to the gay person who has been offended,” he quickly clarified what he meant. He pointedly said that “when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners.”
In other words, the teachings of the Church are not the problem—the Church is “holy”—it is the words and deeds of those Christians who have sinned that is the problem.
Why is this important? The headline in today’s New York Times says it all: “Gay Catholic Groups Want Vatican to Act After Apology.” This is a game: The media, led by the New York Times, misrepresents what the pope said, thus teeing it up for dissident and ex-Catholics to demand reforms. This is dishonest—the premise is false to begin with. The pope drew a distinction between the institution of the Church and the individuals who comprise it. Ergo, no action is required.
In most cases, both the news headline and the text of the story got it wrong. In some cases, the story correctly offered the pope’s clarification, but the headline was wrong. No matter, the public is being deceived and the truth is being distorted.
http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-remarks-about-gays-distorted/
Last edited:
kepha31
Active Member
Three men over six feet tall invaded a women’s bathroom in Atlanta, scaring the daylights out of young African-American girls. The victims’ mother, Maya Dillard Smith, is furious. What makes this so newsworthy is that Ms. Smith is the interim president of the ACLU’s Georgia chapter.
MEN INVADE WOMEN’S JOHN—FUROR ERUPTS
Is that why the Pope met face to face with transgenders? Nobody is damning you but you, Frank. Everybody sins. It's no excuse to excommunicate yourself.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's really not the same, nor should it manifest itself in the direction of hating another person or group and acting out that hate. The Pope's message is not of hating the person, but we shouldn't expect the church to change its basic theology when they justify it in biblical terms. I don't agree with it, but I understand why they believe and teach it.
Why it's inappropriate?
And? He wasn't Muslim, either.
He never said "I am God" or "I would die for your sins too"
I disagree with sects , but you agree .
So why Christians being selective?
ok
The Bible said "gays should be killed,"so why you using it ?
He is scholar,he may be right or wrong,we don't obligated to follow all of his opinions.
I meant,most of Muslim countries don't punish the gay by death.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I don't know about that. Iowa pastor Phillip Kayser suggested at a GOP conference last November that the death penalty should be used to put gay people to death in the U.S. As recently as last February, Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp said the same thing basically...that the U.S. government should be putting gays to death.
I didn't hear anyone shouting these two down. On the contrary, they have a lot of local support.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/death-penalty-gays-literature-right-wing-conference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/kansas-pastor-curtis-knapp-gays-death_n_1556061.html
How exactly do you think I'm excommunicating myself?
Oh, and "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun.
True. :/
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
It's such a stupid argument that Jesus was silent on sodomy. He called out 'sexual immorality' and he quoted Leviticus which means he considered it authoritative. It's dishonest to say that Jesus defined 'sexual immorality' any way other than how the Old Testament defines it
He did speak on homosexuality, just not in the way that you would expect:
“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.” Matthew 19:12.
"Context of the Terms Used:
Here, Jesus refers to three exceptions to the requirement for heterosexual matrimony, all “eunuchs.” What are “eunuchs?” Eunuchs were highly ranked, but socially “deviant” men in charge of protecting and caring for female royalty. To be best at being a eunuch, one could never slip into a relationship with one of the female heirs, for all in the kingdom’s lineage could be compromised. Biblical historians speak of how eunuchs had many feminine, emasculate qualities, which societies back then detested for these men had little to no interest in sexual relations with females. While this was a very different zeitgeist than now, one can see a correlation between how eunuchs were seen and how gay males are seen by society.
In this passage, Jesus Christ list three exceptions to the command for Christians to engage in heterosexual matrimony:
(1) eunuchs born that way;
(2) eunuchs made that way by man;
(3) eunuchs who promise their lives to God.
Castration was a common practice among eunuchs. While many people believed that all these non-virile men were castrated, various biblical dictionaries go into detail on how castration was not the only way to become a eunuch.
Here, Jesus first says “eunuchs born that way” are exempt from heterosexual marriage. Since eunuchs are supposed not have “relations” with female heirs, and these eunuchs were born without attraction to woman, gays, bisexuals, and lesbians should use Jesus Christ’s exemption of “innate eunuchs” from heterosexual matrimony to speak for all gay people. In essence, here, Jesus Christ tells his disciples that people born without the innate attraction to the opposite sex should not marry people of the opposite sex."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford03.htm
Back then, "eunuch" was a broad category for any gender-variant male. It would've included effeminate gay men as well as what we'd call transgender/transsexual women and third gender people.
The centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant was probably in a sexual relationship with him, as well.
Unfathomable Tao
Student of the Way
I think the acceptance of gay people into the church life is a much bigger issue than making the church feel as though they should marry gay couples. Even I might think that unrealistic. Since there are so many Catholics in the world though, and Catholicism is such a family thing/identity for so many- obviously not accepting gay people into the church as people who should love and be happy is a big thing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have attended mass weekly with my wife for almost 50 years now, and I have never seen nor heard of a single gay person drummed out, including the current choir director at our church in the LP.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I understand, I've just never been particularly impressed with the idea of "hate the sin, no the sinner" as one still is left with residual hatred within themselves borne out of a false sense of moral superiority.
Unfathomable Tao
Student of the Way
I don't doubt your word here, but is that the tolerance and love of lay Catholics, moreso than the teachings of the Church? I thought the teachings of the Church is that gay people are to aspire to celibacy? I would think that was much like telling a straight person that wants to love and find happiness they must be celibate.
An excellent point there. You would never hear someone, nor hear the Church ask of someone who is heterosexual being asked to remain celibate simply because they are hetero. Its ludicrous and would create apoplexy within the Church within hours. Its the arbitrariness of this argument that makes it unfathomable. Just because someone was born gay they are seen as lesser than. Or wrong headed or a 'sinner', a term I find to be one of the most misunderstood and misused in today's language. According to a book written by men, in some cases 3000 years or more in the past, I am considered an abomination and for what? For loving both men and women? You would be hard pressed to find a man who has not fantasized about two women in bed with him. It took me well over 50 years to come to terms with the fact that not only was I born this way but my father was as well and so what? We are damned because of a book. Well, so be it then. At least this pope is a bit more forgiving then the rest of Christendom.
That is very true but don't you think that this pope is at least trying to come to a more modern view of gays? Even if the RCC and by extension, this pope, still sees being gay as a 'sin', again a word I simply loathe, is not approaching the community of gays and asking forgiveness for past treatment a step into more modern thinking? I see it as such and maybe one step closer to them stopping this ridiculous mindset that gays are somehow flawed from birth.
That is pretty unusual , you have to admit, particularly for the stand on gays by the RCC. Is your choir director within a committed relationship with his or her partner? Or are they remaining celibate owing to the standards of the RCC? It is this double standard that makes the entire issue seem arbitrary to me, particularly when based on a book written so long ago, its no longer germane in many respects. We clearly know the earth is older than 6 thousand years and that rabbits do not shew their cuds. Do we accept that these were mistakes written by men but continue to adhere to the laws about gays? Therein lies the arbitrariness of this issue that troubles me.
I personally would not ask the RCC to have married myself and my late partner. She would have liked that as she was from Cuba and was very Catholic but she also knew that the RCC had this stand and was realistic enough to understand they would not acquiesce. But I do think that acceptance of gays as people who are just as normal as the next guy is clearly a step in the right direction.