Problem is misconception or not, the blanket condemnation of homosexual expression is pretty much the institutional view of the Church as it is today, and as it's been for centuries. Whether they got an ancient teaching "wrong" or not is pretty much irrelevant. It's Today's Church we have to deal with and they spell it quite simply: If you're not in bed with Rome's blanket condemnation of homosexual expression then you've effectively separated yourself from the mainstream of Catholic thought. (Then again the American Churh is so divergent, I'm anticipating a Henry VII style split any decade now.)
No, then they'd just be another bunch of Protestants. Brand loyalty is the thing.
To my fellow posters,
The first rule of the boards is don't be a jerk. So what is the point of this thread/topic? It surely brings out the jerkiness in some.
I don't appreciate Christianity being dragged through the mud.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my fellow posters,
The first rule of the boards is don't be a jerk. So what is the point of this thread/topic? It surely brings out the jerkiness in some.
I don't appreciate Christianity being dragged through the mud.
The child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was not the reason he was naked.
Society says that it's okay to be gay.
The Bible says that it's not.
Christians choose to follow the Bible, rather than society.
But Christians (of which I am a fervent one) should also follow the other things the Bible says, which would include not persecuting others, or committing violence upon them. As an example, the instructions to care for the last, the lost and the least. It's why there are FAR more Christian-run food banks in my city than government ones. And why my church has sent multiple relief teams to Haiti. One member was killed there, but his wife said she'll continue their efforts. That's Christian works.
To some degree, every Christian fails to live up to the example of Jesus. Romans 3:10 says, There is no one righteous, not even one.
Those idiots at Westboro Baptist are, well, idiots. But Christians also shouldn't forsake Jesus' teachings to follow society's norms, either, whether that meets some man-constructed standard or not.
|
Sodom was destroyed due to lack of concern for the poor, not because they were gay (see Ezekiel 16:49). Paul was condemning people who were born with one sexual orientation, but acted another (Romans 1:26 uses the word 'fusiko<beta>' (Greek) which means 'inborn'). This verse condemns people who are born gay, but act straight. It does not condemn people who are born gay and act gay. 1 Timothy 1:8-10 uses the word 'arsenokoites' (Greek) which early Christian writers (John IV of Constinople, in particular) said that some men were arsenokoites with their wives (so, arsenokoites does not mean 'homosexuals'). The only verse that condemns homosexuality is the Levitical code (the same code that makes cheeseburgers a sin and orders parents to stone their disobedient children). The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.
Three of the most active supporters of gay rights I know personally are Christian ministers with substantial congregations.
This thread is not dragging Christianity through the mud. I do not believe that the three Christian ministers I just mentioned would, in any way, be offended by what this blogger wrote.
It does, however, challenge so-called "Christians" who try to hind behind their religion in order to treat gays as second class. It points out that their religion doesn't give them the cover/license/excuse they think it does and it challenges these so-called "Christians" to get their act together and live more like God wants them to.
I do not believe that this blogger is dragging Christianity through the mud. If anything, he is extolling Christianity. It is the so-called "Christians" that are going to feel offended by this blogger's post. Christianity, as a religion, comes out doing quite well by his writings.
Actually Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were wanton rapists, thieves, and murderers with an extremely low concept of morality (as in none). The rape part in particular (of men, women, children, and farm animals) is somewhat edited out of the Christian Bible, but not ours (the Torah). This turned into a negative, paranoid view of homosexuality for the tribes which made being gay unacceptable cannonically in Judaism, which is why its "evil" in Christianity.
I haven't gotten up to Ezekiel yet, but even in Genesis what makes God chuck out the whole "the city will be spared if you can find ten good men" deal was the Sodomites trying to forcibly have butt sex with the visiting angels.
As for being thieves and murderers with a low moral conception--compared to who? The Biblical Hebrews?
[Laughs so hard I pass out]
Sodom was destroyed due to lack of concern for the poor, not because they were gay (see Ezekiel 16:49). Paul was condemning people who were born with one sexual orientation, but acted another (Romans 1:26 uses the word 'fusiko<beta>' (Greek) which means 'inborn'). This verse condemns people who are born gay, but act straight. It does not condemn people who are born gay and act gay. 1 Timothy 1:8-10 uses the word 'arsenokoites' (Greek) which early Christian writers (John IV of Constinople, in particular) said that some men were arsenokoites with their wives (so, arsenokoites does not mean 'homosexuals'). The only verse that condemns homosexuality is the Levitical code (the same code that makes cheeseburgers a sin and orders parents to stone their disobedient children). The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.Actually Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were wanton rapists, thieves, and murderers with an extremely low concept of morality (as in none). The rape part in particular (of men, women, children, and farm animals) is somewhat edited out of the Christian Bible, but not ours (the Torah). This turned into a negative, paranoid view of homosexuality for the tribes which made being gay unacceptable cannonically in Judaism, which is why its "evil" in Christianity.
In the middle of these two lies the actual answer. Sodom & Gomorrah was already partaking of the ill action well before it was destroyed. What was the catalyst? When the Emissaries of the Lord came down and experienced it first hand (rather than hearsay or "looking down from above in the Heavens") for themselves by being in the path of those individuals until Lot opened his door and granted them sanctuary from them.
The main offense was that the citizens lacked hospitality due to their vile nature. But as Maccabee pointed out, it is within the scope of Christianity that the crime was made out to be homosexuality; which was an erroneous charge that still remains to this day.
Yeah, like I said. Forcible butt sex.
Sodom was destroyed due to lack of concern for the poor, not because they were gay (see Ezekiel 16:49).
So Yawey solved the problem of the poor.... by dropping a fiery mountain on their heads and killing them all?
The main offense was that the citizens lacked hospitality due to their vile nature. But as Maccabee pointed out, it is within the scope of Christianity that the crime was made out to be homosexuality; which was an erroneous charge that still remains to this day.
The citizens of Sodom were willing to be QUITE welcoming to Lot's guests
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Gen 19:5 (know being biblical speak for intercourse)
Yeah, like I said. Forcible butt sex.
Right. The key word being forcible; non-consensual.
The main offense was that the citizens lacked hospitality due to their vile nature. But as Maccabee pointed out, it is within the scope of Christianity that the crime was made out to be homosexuality; which was an erroneous charge that still remains to this day.The citizens of Sodom were willing to be QUITE welcoming to Lot's guests
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Gen 19:5 (know being biblical speak for intercourse)
I suspect you're being satirical / exaggerating.
Sure, they were willing. For their own selfish needs w/o concern or equivocal reciprocation from their guests. Bad hosts.
|
|
I haven't gotten up to Ezekiel yet, but even in Genesis what makes God chuck out the whole "the city will be spared if you can find ten good men" deal was the Sodomites trying to forcibly have butt sex with the visiting angels.
As for being thieves and murderers with a low moral conception--compared to who? The Biblical Hebrews?
[Laughs so hard I pass out]
Really, you want to start with the blatantly anti-semitic commentary vs. keeping the conversation on an even keel? Oh wait...I see troll in your name. Stopped caring now...
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.This is straight out of Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)
You can't get much clearer than that. It says very specifically,
To ignore that statement and, instead, try to guess what the sin of Sodom was (when the Bible says absolutely nothing about that sin being homosexuality) is to play games.
So I suppose we have to embrace whole heartedly that one line of the bible, and then ignore the aformentioned bit with the angels,
Jude 1:7
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[a] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
In your own quote theres
50 And they are haughty and do abomination before Me, And I turn them aside when I have seen.
So its not an either or proposition.
As for God wiping out in entire city (including the poor and needy) because people were not concerned for the poor and needy, we don't really know that there were poor and needy in the city. They may have lived in the surrounding area - unable to afford to live in the city.
Right. Because the poor and needy go out into the countryside to beg....
The Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is often widely misunderstood by the general public, even though it has been clearly explained in the Pastoral Letter to Homosexuals, published in 1986 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2357 to 235. This is due, it seems, to the interpretation given to the Church's statement that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered."
One must note that the Church's concern rests on freely consensual acts and not on a tendency or inclination. To have a tendency or inclination does not involve the moral order. It is neither morally good nor morally wrong.
As for the word disordered, which is borrowed from classical morality, it is used to describe a general behaviour held to be deviant in relation to the moral norm. The norm considered here is that sexual relations are carried out by two people of opposite sex. Therefore when the Church speaks about homosexuality as an "objective disorder", it is speaking not of the tendency but of genital acts between people of the same sex.
The church recognizes the dignity of all persons and neither defines nor catalogues them according to their sexual orientation. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith mentions, "every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace his child and heir to eternal life." All human beings are precious in God's eyes. The love that one person has for another is a gift from God and implies observance of his law by all people regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone must move towards an ideal, even if it is only gradually attained. (Cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34).
The Church is consistent with its doctrine in affirming the dignity of homosexuals. The Church has always taught that the sexual (genital) expression of love is found, according to God's plan of creation, uniquely in marriage, that is, in the permanent union between a man and a woman. Consequently, the Church can in no way put a homosexual partnership on the same footing as a heterosexual marriage. Finally, the sexual (genital) expression of love must allow for the eventual creation of new life. For these reasons, the Church does not approve of homosexual genital acts.
By its mission, the Catholic Church is called to present in every age a demanding vision and ethic of marriage and sexuality. The Church is however conscious that its teaching can sometimes be difficult to put into practise. Also, when faced with failures, the Church must exercise its pastoral sense: it cannot reject those who are confronted with failures, but should help bring them to a better understanding and acceptance of the doctrine given to it by God.
The church recognizes and defends the human rights of each person. However, it cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the homosexual community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from the Church.
And we don't appreciate people being persecuted, which I'm sure Christians can appreciate all too well.
Jerkiness in full display in the above post.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What's so jerky about pointing out the persecution of Christians over the centuries and comparing it to the persecution of homosexuals?And we don't appreciate people being persecuted, which I'm sure Christians can appreciate all too well.Jerkiness in full display in the above post.
I think "the above post" maybe meant the post right before his, rather than what he quoted. But I didn't read that post, so I'm just guessing.
The church recognizes and defends the human rights of each person. However, it cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the homosexual community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from the Church.
Replace the references to homosexuality with Christianity. Tell me if heard an atheist talk to you like this, would you feel respected?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ATTENTION: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED
EDIT: The bible is fraught with contradictions, quoting from it will not support any opinion
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The church recognizes and defends the human rights of each person. However, it cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the homosexual community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from the Church.Replace the references to homosexuality with Christianity. Tell me if heard an atheist talk to you like this, would you feel respected?
Here, lemme make it easier:
Atheists recognize and defend the human rights of each person. However, they cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the Christian community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from atheists.
Atheists recognize and defend the human rights of each person. However, they cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the Christian community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from atheists.
Bolded for emphasis.
I found that kind of funny, actually. I understand the context of where you're getting at, but as an atheist, being referred in the pastoral sense seems comical. :)
Many so-called "Christians" in my experience have stressed their ability to cherry pick the Bible over their ability to read the Bible through the lens of the fruits of the spirit. That's wrong.
Speaking of fruits of the spirit ... I know a guy that knows a guy who's great at turning water into wine. Was a hit at a wedding at Cana. Was good at parlor tricks, too. But I don't know what he had against figs, though. I think they're tasty.
;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've seen many atheists jump at the chance to assert that belief in God is inherently toxic and wrong headed and engage in 'pastoral care' to 'liberate' people from such a 'backwards' belief.
I admit that this is anecdotal, but I can't help noticing that in my own experience, every atheist who fits that description has been a gamer and/or internet-farer. I don't think I've ever seen such behavior from an atheist outside that subculture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, yet, not too far off the mark. I've seen many atheists jump at the chance to assert that belief in God is inherently toxic and wrong headed and engage in 'pastoral care' to 'liberate' people from such a 'backwards' belief.
Each social / secular / sectarian groupings have their own militants / extremists / what-nots. I'm more of the apathetic type. So, if you want to choose to (dis-) believe in something, that's fine and dandy. It's your right to (not) do so. Just don't force your opinion on others as law. That's where I draw the line. Otherwise, if you're doing good works; I'm not going to stand in the way. People genuinely need help and should take it from whomever is sincerely offering it w/o having to be concerned about proselytizing from either sides.
I've seen many atheists jump at the chance to assert that belief in God is inherently toxic and wrong headed and engage in 'pastoral care' to 'liberate' people from such a 'backwards' belief.I admit that this is anecdotal, but I can't help noticing that in my own experience, every atheist who fits that description has been a gamer and/or internet-farer. I don't think I've ever seen such behavior from an atheist outside that subculture.
Sadly, I have. I do have some 'militant' friends out there and I tend to disagree with their tactics, if not the spirit of their intent.
But keep in mind that what I'm expressing as 'militant' isn't in the traditional sense of the word. Perhaps more socially engaged with a sense of being disruptive. But hardly the types to be toting around guns or bombs. I'd have to smack them over the head with a book by that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, you want to start with the blatantly anti-semitic commentary vs. keeping the conversation on an even keel? Oh wait...I see troll in your name. Stopped caring now...I haven't gotten up to Ezekiel yet, but even in Genesis what makes God chuck out the whole "the city will be spared if you can find ten good men" deal was the Sodomites trying to forcibly have butt sex with the visiting angels.
As for being thieves and murderers with a low moral conception--compared to who? The Biblical Hebrews?
[Laughs so hard I pass out]
Either you believe in the divine nature of the story of The Books of Moses, in which case the Tribes of Israel were so immoral that God made the earth swallow them up and afflicted them with plagues and leprosy and then made the survivors march around the desert for 40 years until they were all dead minus two, or you don't, in which case all that slaughtering of boy children and sexually-experienced females in Numbers and Deuteronomy (my apologies for not knowing their names in Hebrew) is a little eyebrow raising.
Regardless, criticizing the behavior of the Jews in The Bible is as about as indicative of anti-semitism, as going "Gee, you know, Odysseus and Achilles weren't really all that nice" makes me anti-Greek.
The trolling part is accurate, though.
When I go to the spirits and alcohol store, I don't see 'fig wine'. So, I don't think figs are fruits of the spirit.Many so-called "Christians" in my experience have stressed their ability to cherry pick the Bible over their ability to read the Bible through the lens of the fruits of the spirit. That's wrong.Speaking of fruits of the spirit ... I know a guy that knows a guy who's great at turning water into wine. Was a hit at a wedding at Cana. Was good at parlor tricks, too. But I don't know what he had against figs, though. I think they're tasty.
;-)
The mentioning of figs were anecdotal. But I do hear that they're infusing vodka with flavors such as bacon these days.
What a waste of swines running over a cliff to their doom. *sighs*
And, yet, not too far off the mark. I've seen many atheists jump at the chance to assert that belief in God is inherently toxic and wrong headed and engage in 'pastoral care' to 'liberate' people from such a 'backwards' belief.Atheists recognize and defend the human rights of each person. However, they cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfilment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behaviour. For sure, the Christian community is not an exception to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from atheists.Bolded for emphasis.
I found that kind of funny, actually. I understand the context of where you're getting at, but as an atheist, being referred in the pastoral sense seems comical. :)
I know it's not far off the mark, which is why I said what I said. If a person has something that is pillar of their identity, to have it called immoral, regardless of context, will always be insulting to that person. That Catholic letter calls people immoral, which is insulting to them, at the same time it calls for their treatment with respect and dignity.
And I go back to what was said months/pages ago, when you call people immoral, that is an excellent first step in the process of dehumanizing people. If the Catholic church were serious about treating homosexuals with respect and dignity, it would start by not calling them immoral in any way, shape, or form. As such, that letter is a half-assed attempt.
|
|
To my fellow posters,
The first rule of the boards is don't be a jerk. So what is the point of this thread/topic? It surely brings out the jerkiness in some.
As OP, I'll return to this and answer.
The point was to share an interesting article I enjoyed reading, in the hope that others would enjoy it as well. Your complaint about jerkiness should not be directed at the topic, but the people who cannot discuss the topic without being jerks.
To my fellow posters,
The first rule of the boards is don't be a jerk. So what is the point of this thread/topic? It surely brings out the jerkiness in some.
As OP, I'll return to this and answer.
The point was to share an interesting article I enjoyed reading, in the hope that others would enjoy it as well. Your complaint about jerkiness should not be directed at the topic, but the people who cannot discuss the topic without being jerks.
Hee hee! TOZ, don't even bother. As much as Citizen Aretas is my favorite new poster, his post would be akin to me going into threads and crying about all the politics.
Also, forcible butt sex is bad!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And I go back to what was said months/pages ago, when you call people immoral, that is an excellent first step in the process of dehumanizing people.
I recall another thread from a similar time period where someone said "Religion is dangerous. Faith is bad." Funnily enough, the general response was "lolz so true" instead of protesting the dehumanization.
This thread (at the moment) is being much more civil. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you really not see the difference between saying that religion is bad and a group of people are bad?And I go back to what was said months/pages ago, when you call people immoral, that is an excellent first step in the process of dehumanizing people.I recall another thread from a similar time period where someone said "Religion is dangerous. Faith is bad." Funnily enough, the general response was "lolz so true" instead of protesting the dehumanization.
This thread (at the moment) is being much more civil. :)
"Homosexuals are immoral."
"Homosexuality is immoral."If you're okay with the second statement, then I'll answer your question.
The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.
Do I remember correctly that part of the reason the Levitical code is ignored is that some of the old testament is modified by the coming of Christ and the new message? I can't remember where I heard this, and my Biblical scholarship is obviously lacking, so this is a real question... I don't mean to offend anyone.