New Pope condems gays

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

It is interesting to note that statistics indicate no more than 4% of the population claims to be gay.. so triple that, just to account for those still in the closet and still, you have only 12%.. now, look at the impact an estimated 12% has on the rest of the public.. either in fad-like acceptance or in intolerant persecution, you have to admit that such a small percentage has an enormous impact.. Why? Because they are willing to stand up for their principles and use their economic influence to support their community.. same as the neo-con-religists.. interesting connection.. But, there are much more important issues simmering and capable of irreversable harm, that slip by unnoticed or not given their worth.. we struggle with the deception of smoke and mirrors.. the gay issue is a distraction from more sinister agendas....... be aware!

Be well..

[TonyM.]

Bingo! I love it when people really understand what is going on.

[ZIM]

Because they are willing to stand up for their principles and use their economic influence to support their community.. same as the neo-con-religists.. interesting connection...

Religious traditionalism is almost always a reaction to a *perceived* tendency towards the abolishment of a religion's views. Whether one agrees or not, there are quite a few who hold that the liberalizing, secularizing agenda threatens their traditions mortally. With that in mind, one can approach an understanding for their views, an understanding of their reactions. I hold that understanding, not necessarily agreement, is generally a good thing.

From their POV the secularists are trying to abolish traditional religious beliefs & replace them with their agendas. Interestingly, KC Elbow's first statement "First, we share the world with catholics", tends to reinforce that opinion because it implies that since he believes in a certain way, others must also. Perhaps you'll see why this can sound sinister.

Traditions are formed over generations, not overnight. Too many seem to think that changing the basis of the churches is just a matter of declarations - it isn't. The reforms some seek may come about, but it'll be a move measures in decades maybe centuries. No, that probably doesn't sit well with many. Too bad. The reality of how traditions work is different than what you'd want, that's all.

Meantime, yes - we may disagree on what threats are which, but I'll agree that looking at this issue in exclusion to others is missing the broader picture.

[mantis108]

Hi Zim,

I admire your intelligence. Really, I do. It's refreshing to see someone standing up for the religious cause whether, they are a believer or not with good informed opinion. Personally, I am going to be burned in Catholic Hell for all enternity anyway but then if I don't go to hell who would?! But first, show me this place called Hell (not that town in America).

I wonder why would anyone in their right mind believe that there is a special someone on earth as a human being have "authority" over him/her? What's worst is that this shadow of fear is reinforced by ritual rite such as Baptism. I mean no offence but is it really purification of sin or marking or territories? New born child has no say in it and to me it looks more like marking of a property which was pretty "normal" way back when. Just like women were property of men until arround the '50s then things starting to change. I have known people who were Baptized when they were badies and they just end up "become" one not because of they truely believe in everything Catholicism represents but because they have the guilty that their parents have envisioned them to be or not to be. I guess that's why "family" is some important to the Church. How else are you going to get more and more paying customers?

The biggest turn off for me is all these fear of God, original sin, and notion of guilt and suffering (practically what Americana Bushism is about, go go Team America!). Oh, almost forgot a little brain washing too (pun intended). BTW, it does affect everyone especially when we are paying more than $50.00 USD a barrel of black gold.

I wish everyone luck in founding peace and enlightenment especially to those who believe that they are own by someone or something else.

And on the lighter side .... We used to only have to worry about one person in the dating game. Now we have to deal with at least 4. She, her may be boyfriend/husband, her may be girlfriend(s); He, His may be girlfriend/wife, His may be boyfriend. It's just too complicated. lol...

Regards

Mantis108

PS Lu Bu glad you figured it out early in the game.

[brothernumber9]

Royce would own you,

and then choke out Satan.

[KC Elbows]

My interest in asking the question was based on my observation that most of you are either atheists or philosophically Buddhist, Taoist, etc. The Pope has no authority over you, and since he was talking about *gay marriage* in this case, all he really said was "we catholics won't be marrying gays".

Incoreect, he is interpreting the judgement of God on ****sexuals. Major difference.

There are other denominations, you know.

I know, I mentioned one such branch becausde I felt some posters were unfairly caustic to catholics on this issue when the worst tendency I've ever seen is among southern baptists.

Different churches, some with apostolic successions and everything, will do so. The Episcopalians are almost on the verge of schism because they do it & the Presbyterians, Lutherans have their own very liberal views. One branch of Judaism will perform same-sex marriages.

With the exception of the Judaic branch, all of these denominations are suffering losses in membership while they cater to an admitted minority's whims.

Cater to a whim? Really, please reiterate your source for sodomy being related to ****sexuality in any chirch pre-10th century, because this is actually an issue of interpretation, not whim.

If the Episcopalians do schism [and they'll likely take the Anglicans of Canada with them] that will end a historical era, since it will break up a worldwide communion that has existed since the 1600's.

How is that relevant to this topic?

There are repercussions from bowing to the public's whims that are very different from those a government might suffer. I'm not going to fault the Pope for adhering to his church's teachings & reining in those elements within it who would do it damage by changing things around thoughtlessly.

Speaking of thoughtless change, care to pin down a date at which the church began it's stand against ****sexuality? Cause it wasn't anywhere near the beginning, was it?

Your second point: I said, clearly, that being gay was not a sin.

I never said you did. You said that having gay sex was, which directly brings into question the use of the term sodomy, since you are clearly referring to biblical referrence to the sodomites. As such, I asked you to support your supposition that it was a sin in the eyes of the early church, something you will not be able to do because they did not approach it from that view.

It was common throughout the ancient world to see mistreating a guest as horrible, to actually rape one was the sin of the sodomites, and so the sin was that. By your interpretation, had the angel been raped vaginally or orally, the sin would be that. Had it been a hand job, the sin would be that. Do you see why that interpretation is spiritually meaningless?

Its a fine point, I'll admit, but it should've been an easy one to grasp. Your 'challenge' is not one I'll raise to, thank you very much. If you want to revise the Bible, go right ahead. There's entire cottage industries devoted to it.

I didn't revise it, I suggested you find a case pre tenth century where the word sodomy is read by the church as "the sin of anal sex". You won't, whether you rise to the challenge or not, because that was not how the text was interpreted then.

For your second post:
Puh-lease. Are you playing the 'persecuted gay' card?

No, I was summing up the past as briefly as possible. If you are saying that is an inaccurate statement, then please share what sources you use for the history of the church and gays.

I've already stated: They can get married elsewhere. Meantime expend your energies where they really are persecuted: The Middle East, where they are killed by law.

No. Your whole premise that the pope's decrees are simply a recommendation for catholics is incorrect.

[KC Elbows]

Interestingly, KC Elbow's first statement "First, we share the world with catholics", tends to reinforce that opinion because it implies that since he believes in a certain way, others must also.

Now who's playing the persecution card? Nothing is sadder than whining about "the secularists".

My statement implies no such thing. It implies that if an opinion about other people is based on so much ether, it fails to deserve respect. Should it ever be otherwise?

For instance, the poster who stated that ****sexuality is against nature. Losing argument, right away. ****sexuality is prevalent within the animal kingdon, as long as there is overpopulation there is a place for it. Within much of the animal kingdom, "gay" animals also raise the young of animals who have died. Whoops, the natural argument just went down the drain.

[David Jamieson]

well, we share the world with gays as well.

why can't the catholics get along with the gays? After all, there are so many gay catholics and apparently a lot of undeclared nambla members in their preistly ranks.

I guess that's an aspect of catholicism?

You know, all that "know thine enemy" stuff from the 10th century.

But then, intolerance has been a hallmark of the Catholic Church for so long, why should they stop now? How many "thou shalls" are in the ten commandents? I think it's 2 and they really are thinly veiled shalt nots when you look at it.

Now all you gays out there don't worry about pope benny, he's just sounding off for teh benefit of the old guard he comes from. they really don't like much at all of this new fangled acceptance stuff. It's the fear you know.

[ZIM]

Thanks for the compliment, first. I myself am not catholic, although my mother's family is. I stand up for Christianity because I view it as a valid spiritual path rather than as simply a collection of dos & don'ts. And I don't view a church as merely a community center, either, which is where conflicts such as this one arise, I think.

I wonder why would anyone in their right mind believe that there is a special someone on earth as a human being have "authority" over him/her? What's worst is that this shadow of fear is reinforced by ritual rite such as Baptism. I mean no offence but is it really purification of sin or marking or territories? New born child has no say in it and to me it looks more like marking of a property which was pretty "normal" way back when. Just like women were property of men until arround the '50s then things starting to change. I have known people who were Baptized when they were badies and they just end up "become" one not because of they truely believe in everything Catholicism represents but because they have the guilty that their parents have envisioned them to be or not to be. I guess that's why "family" is some important to the Church. How else are you going to get more and more paying customers?

Here, you seem to be espousing a more Protestant viewpoint, or even 'independent catholic'. A lot of these same arguments were part of the Congregationalist movement, especially baptism, and for the exact same reasons you're saying here.

[ZIM]

Actually, I didn't want to get into a Biblical/early church argument at all. I find they tend to not solve any thing and, to be honest, I don't much care about the early church.

But here we are. I'll agree to disagree on the meaning of the Pope's statement, OK? And the relevance of the Episcopalian church's possible schism is of paramount importance to it's members. They're witnessing their beloved church disintegrate before their eyes. Would you insist on the destruction of every church just to prove a point? If so, how is that a respectful stance?

When I said 'cater to the whims of a minority', I meant it. This is all just so much PC nonsense and if the RCs want no part of it, that's their business. Again, the Episcopals are doing every bit of the program that progressives want - and its causing them to lose members & break apart. Here's a real-world case for the experiment & it doesn't work. That's called evidence.
The RCs are not condemning gay persons - which I'm now repeating for the third time - which is evident since they have self-identified gay priests, monks, etc. The problem is the act, not the identity.

You are to be congratulated for knowing about the possiblity that Sodom was destroyed for it's inhospitable, selfsh & uncaring folk. There is evidence that linguistically it could mean that, as well as this passage:
"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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

However, this does not solve the case. A brief survey -

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.

Matthew 19:3-7. Specifically: "for this cause [marriage, reproduction, family] shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh...what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [Seems to condemn same sex marriage, but YMMV]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" shall not inheret God's kingdom. Looking at the original Greek used for these words, Paul speaks of both participants involved with ****sexual intercourse.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12. neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Romans 1:26-27. Paul condemns those who are "without natural affection" and who leave the natural use for "that which is against nature"

But I'll give you another, because I'm such a swell guy.

Luke 17-34-35: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

What's interesting to me is that 1] this is Christ speaking 2] Luke was a Greek, so he was likely the only one of this group of nice Jewish boys who knew what in blue blazes was being referred to here.

I solve this issue by coming back to Confession - the entire point of that is make contrition for fault in order to obtain forgiveness. Why is one taken to heaven, the other not? I'd say it has to with forgiveness versus rebellion.

This is what separates Christianity from every other religion: Grace. The free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/grace

But hey, if Christianity is not your spiritual path or if you don't take it seriously, then why bother with any of this? Its all just barracks-room lawyering otherwise.

[ZIM]

Now who's playing the persecution card? Nothing is sadder than whining about "the secularists".

I was careful to emphasize the word "percieved", as in 'a percieved threat'. Please read my responses more carefully.

Other than this, you animal argument fails because its basically:
1. Animals do it.
2. ????
3. It's okay for humans to do it.

On that logic, I can eat my kids.

To KL/David-

Most of your post was anti-Catholic slagging. The only portion thereof I would care to address is with a question: Why should the catholic church be required to accept gays?

[lada]

well, we share the world with gays as well.

why can't the catholics get along with the gays? After all, there are so many gay catholics and apparently a lot of undeclared nambla members in their preistly ranks.

I guess that's an aspect of catholicism?

You know, all that "know thine enemy" stuff from the 10th century.

But then, intolerance has been a hallmark of the Catholic Church for so long, why should they stop now? How many "thou shalls" are in the ten commandents? I think it's 2 and they really are thinly veiled shalt nots when you look at it.

Now all you gays out there don't worry about pope benny, he's just sounding off for teh benefit of the old guard he comes from. they really don't like much at all of this new fangled acceptance stuff. It's the fear you know.

Have you ever considered that you are being fed lies in order to weaken you or your family or your society? That kind of thing does happen. Read some history books.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church as been an opponent of other world societies for control of the world. I find it interesting that in the entire world, only the Catholic church seems to have this problem of child abusers in their ranks. What is the liklihood of that?

I think it is much more likely that the Catholic church is the target of a plot to destroy their power. This has already taken place. Look at how much money the Catholic Church has paid out for these claims. Look at how most of the public views Catholics. As child abusers. Millions of people painted with the actions of maybe 20 of them.

Look at that book by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code. Isn't it about a secret Catholic Society that is up to no good? They are called Opus Dei. I have read that both Opus Dei and the Catholic Church both feel the book has damaged them.

What is intriguing? Dan Brown wrote another book. In it, the Illuminati were the guys up to no good. That book was not very popular. It did not sell well. How convenient for the people traditionally associated with the Illuminati that Dan Brown changed his villians from the Illuminati to the Catholic Church. One of the opponents of the Illuminati.

I think the Catholic Church is trying to help society with it's pronouncements about gays. I think that when ****sexuality becomes widespread, that it does damage society. ****sexual people are unbalanced, that is why they are ****sexual. One sided. If there are too many of them, they make the entire society unbalanced. That is why they need to be "repressed".

Don't take that too strongly. Gays always have and always will be around. I don't believe in persecting anyone. What I am saying is that the popular culture glorification of the gay lifestyle will cause damage to society at large. This is what the Catholic Church is warning against.

If you think in terms of good and evil, I think evil has the upper hand at this point in history. I think evil is spreading lies about everything in order to cause maximum pain and destruction to the human race at large. I think evil is behind the massive media campaign that plasters ****sexuality across every print, movie and TV outlet.

Catholicism is a religion. How can a religion be as bad as people say? It is like Bush calling Amnesty International, Shamnesty International. Amnesty International has been a good, high status, respected organization for as long as I can remember. They accuse Bush of Guantanamo being a Gulag and suddenly, every media outlet in the USA is calling Amnesty International terrorist sympathizers.

I think the Amnesty International head even had to apologize. Or what about the Newsweek story about the Quran desecration? Newsweek has been around for decades and everyone respects them. Suddenly Newsweek is described as being full of hacks and being terrorist sympathizers.

Lies are everywhere, right here, right now. Gay is OK is one of them. If you wanna be gay, that is fine. But don't believe it is healthy and fine because it is not. You will be different from a normal person in very specific and identifiable ways. I think it makes you less. People really don't like it when I say that.

[Christopher M]

Seriously. ****ing Catholics should all burn in hell. That'll teach them for being intolerant. The Jews too. And the gays.

No, wait...

[KC Elbows]

I was careful to emphasize the word "percieved", as in 'a percieved threat'. Please read my responses more carefully.

Other than this, you animal argument fails because its basically:
1. Animals do it.
2. ????
3. It's okay for humans to do it.

On that logic, I can eat my kids.

It wasn't my argument. One poster brought up that ****sexuality was "against nature", which is pure rubbish, and I showed that. Nature has no complaints about a lot of behaviors. And the reason you cannot eat your kids is more practical than not: who has a crock pot that big?

[KC Elbows]

But hey, if Christianity is not your spiritual path or if you don't take it seriously, then why bother with any of this? Its all just barracks-room lawyering otherwise.

I come from a large and influential catholic family. Who happen to have utter disdain for those who spend one second casting stones that could have been spent doing works. My parents always foster premies, and my parents are really too old to be doing that. My father spends every day at the children's hospice lightening up the lives of kids with cancer. They have the time to do that because they don't waste their time voting down gay marriage. They have real world priorities and a sense that God is not a total moron. Anytime a spiritual pursuit involves worrying about what other people do that bothers you(not meaning you, you get the wording) more than what you are doing for other people, it's missing the high point of religion.

When my dad comes to a family function crying because he just that afternoon watched a kid who he has cheered on for months finally pass on, it just seems to speak more of the power of God than when some guy speaks against gays because someone commited the irony of sodomizing God's faerie.
One act is the selfless devotion to helping each other to find peace, the other is flat earthing your way through your religion. Flat, center of the universe earthing, I should say.

So when the pope makes my kind, selfless father look like a dink, the pope deserves what he gets. That's why I see it as my business.