New Pope condems gays

[David Jamieson]

Here comes the fear and hate, fear and hate, fear and hate, whoa, hey, shadooby.

Catholic slagging? lol
Fed lies? Everyday man, I just don't swallow em.

some of you dogmatic dudes gots to chill a little.

[ZIM]

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.

That was a good post, KCE, it explained a lot. Thanks.

FWIW, nothing that the Pope says would affect your father being kind & selfless. Worrying about 'looking like a dink' is as immaterial as 'worrying about what other people do that bothers you more than what you are doing for other people'.

For your father & family, the church itself might be the cross you're intended to bear, who knows?

WRT the nature thing: I suppose thats the risk of long, involved posts. I hadn't realized it was in response to another poster. When I got off-line, I reconsidered it. I wondered whether or not that factoid really had a place in the argument, you know?

Here's my thinking: Yes, the animal world probably does have evidence of gay sex [I've read about it, thanks. I only wonder if the evidence hasn't been exaggerated for the cause] but we're talking about church law, which is a human construction and quite apart from nature.
Even if we accept that nature has a voice within church law, we have a further issue to be mindful of: Using nature as a source of revelation is a pagan concept. I've already shown that Scripture speaks clearly on the topic. To accept a revelation overturning that from the natural world would be Apostasy.

KL/David-
I haven't promoted any hate or fear. But I did ask you a question, hoping you'd answer seriously, without slagging. Its alright if you don't want to answer, I guess.

[David Jamieson]

zim speakest thusly and asked this question out of the blue: Why should the catholic church be required to accept gays?

To which I reply: I don't know? Why should they? On the other hand, is it really necessary that they speak out against them? Tit for tat though. Really, one can't make a papal pronouncement that ostracizes a huge portion of the population of the world and not expect some backlash from that group or it's supporters.

The catholic church doesn't have to participate in sanctifying gay marriage if it doesn't want to. Any more than married gays have to be catholic.

Can I ask why you asked me that question and how you gleened from my posts anything even remotely close that I thought the catholic church "should" support gays?

[David Jamieson]

Oh and I also wonder why the catholic church doesn't publicly and loudly condemn the following:

1. Child poverty in industrialized nations or elsewhere
2. Slavery and endentured slavery practices
3. Arms dealers who feed civil wars and destabilization of developing countries
4. War as a solution to political problems
5. Child abuse by their own members
6. Child abuse in general
7. Familial abuse

and so on. The whole gay, condoms, sex thing is so "who cares" it is staggering to see such a powerful organization being so myopic about what problems there are in the world. Unfortunately, this same religious organization has the ear of roughly a billion of earths inhabitants.

For shame, for shame...

[ZIM]

Can I ask why you asked me that question and how you gleened from my posts anything even remotely close that I thought the catholic church "should" support gays?

Because you had written

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?

That's all.

[ZIM]

Oh and I also wonder why the catholic church doesn't publicly and loudly condemn the following:

1. Child poverty in industrialized nations or elsewhere
2. Slavery and endentured slavery practices
3. Arms dealers who feed civil wars and destabilization of developing countries
4. War as a solution to political problems
5. Child abuse by their own members
6. Child abuse in general
7. Familial abuse

They do, actually. You don't hear very much about it in the news because its the nail sticking up that gets the press.

In the case of 1, 6 & 7, the church maintains family services in every parish that provide for counseling, safe houses, legal aid, food, financial assistance, clothing, etc. It could be done better, but they are in place.

As for 3 & 4, Pope JPII was a vocal opponent to the war in Iraq, placing him alongside your views. He believed that pressure applied in the name of simple humanity was best. No Pope in modern times has vocally supported war as a solution, IIRC, even in WWII [to their eternal shame - see it works both ways].

I can't respond to 2 in any adequate fashion, but it possibly falls under their calls for human rights which come out periodically. Mabe others have more info.

5. The wall of silence on this issue is shameful. You are 1 for 7. Congrats!

[David Jamieson]

They do, actually. You don't hear very much about it in the news because its the nail sticking up that gets the press.

In the case of 1, 6 & 7, the church maintains family services in every parish that provide for counseling, safe houses, legal aid, food, financial assistance, clothing, etc. It could be done better, but they are in place.

As for 3 & 4, Pope JPII was a vocal opponent to the war in Iraq, placing him alongside your views. He believed that pressure applied in the name of simple humanity was best. No Pope in modern times has vocally supported war as a solution, IIRC, even in WWII [to their eternal shame - see it works both ways].

I can't respond to 2 in any adequate fashion, but it possibly falls under their calls for human rights which come out periodically. Mabe others have more info.

5. The wall of silence on this issue is shameful. You are 1 for 7. Congrats!

Ge thanks zim, without your approval whatever would i do with my days!

lol

[TonyM.]

Correct. No pope in modern times has publicly supported war. This is why they have cardinals to do it. Do your homework on "Spelly's War" Also no pope is EVER going to give someone else authority over Roman Catholics. As for their human rights record check out Argentina where my cousin is the bishop of Santiago. He spends more time as an apologist than doing anything real. Don't drink the kool aide.

[ZIM]

Don't drink the kool aide.

Something oddly funny about that in the context of a conversation about catholicism.

Guys, its looking like this thread has about had it, at least for me. If someone else wants to take it up, go right ahead.

It was fun & interesting.

[FatherDog]

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.

Leviticus 11:10-12
But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.

When will the Pope speak out against the horrible practice of shrimp-eating, which is far more widespread than ****sexuality?

All of which is completely immaterial anyway, since A) Leviticus is instructions specifically for the tribe of Levi, and inapplicable to other Hebrew tribes, let alone Gentiles, and B) Old Testament Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians, as per Acts.

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.

Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context.

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

As KC already noted, none of the early Christian thinkers interpreted this verse as referencing ****sexuality - it was believed to refer to heterosexual non-procreative sexual acts (by Clement of Alexandria, Anastasios, and St. Augustine, among others.)

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."

This is completely immaterial; it's talking about the Rapture. No credible scholar, even those who believe that ****sexuality is condemned by the church, considers this to refer to homsexuality - it is a reference to people being taken up to heaven when the Son Of Man returns. Which would make NO sense if it were referring to ****sexuals.

[KC Elbows]

That was a good post, KCE, it explained a lot. Thanks.

No problem, it's always difficult online to truly understand where people are coming from, and thus, where things are leading. I'm hardly religious, but I am hardly a bitter athiest, either.

FWIW, nothing that the Pope says would affect your father being kind & selfless. Worrying about 'looking like a dink' is as immaterial as 'worrying about what other people do that bothers you more than what you are doing for other people'.

The problem is that it's the pope, therefore my father is required to silently disobey a senseless proclomation that inspires no one with the glory of God.

For your father & family, the church itself might be the cross you're intended to bear, who knows?

You need to go to confession for that one.

WRT the nature thing: I suppose thats the risk of long, involved posts.

One risk among many, as I should have been washing the dishes.

I hadn't realized it was in response to another poster. When I got off-line, I reconsidered it. I wondered whether or not that factoid really had a place in the argument, you know?

I wasn't suggesting that you had anything to do with that argument, I should have clarified.

Here's my thinking: Yes, the animal world probably does have evidence of gay sex

Could you run that by me again, I was startled by the neighbor dogs sodomizing each other.

[I've read about it, thanks. I only wonder if the evidence hasn't been exaggerated for the cause]

The science says no at this point, so there's really no way around it.

but we're talking about church law, which is a human construction and quite apart from nature.
Even if we accept that nature has a voice within church law, we have a further issue to be mindful of: Using nature as a source of revelation is a pagan concept. I've already shown that Scripture speaks clearly on the topic. To accept a revelation overturning that from the natural world would be Apostasy.

Exactly, and further, the fact is that civilization is created by the suppression of some natural tendencies.

I would submit that the natural tendency toward intolerance can be shown to have set back the causes of civiliation(Auschwitz, Rwanda, Nanqing, et al), but it's much harder tomeasure whether ****sexuality ever has, since most arguments in support of that are based on hyperbole and bad biology(reproduction is the only use of life, et al). In otherwords, there's a definite lack of serious science regarding the costs of tolerance toward gays, since those most interested in there being such a cost would never buy a book with gay in the title.

Sorry, trolling with that last one. Someone should ban me.

[ZIM]

Exactly, and further, the fact is that civilization is created by the suppression of some natural tendencies.

I suppose a relation might be found with animals killing/driving off the offspring of other males & child abuse by step-parents, too. Stuff I think about in my off moments.

Sorry, trolling with that last one. Someone should ban me.

Ever notice the distinct lack of centrist trolls? Except for possibly merryprankster, they're exceedingly rare.

Fatherdog-

I wrote awhile back that I find biblical/early church arguments to be entirely too circular. I still find that to be true. I also wrote that I was done with this thread and I meant that. Since you're addressing me, I'm tying up the loose ends.

I could answer you and I do have answers to at least half of what you're saying and could go into it. None of it would end the discussion either way & to be honest I haven't regarded this particular thread to be about biblical interpretation but about catholic church doctrine & tolerance for the same.

You may view it differently or wish to talk about that. I don't, others might.

In that spirit: You've obviously thought a great deal about the subject & are convinced of your views. I possibly come from a different theological ground than you, and - notably - haven't really gone into what precisely my beliefs are. Both of us, presumably, believe we've interpreted correctly.

I hope & will [if it doesn't offend] pray that you'll find a church or congregation [if you haven't already] that reflects your views. And I'll wish the very best in it.

And, well, this is a kind of tolerance. I'm not about to insist that you believe in the way that I do, nor would I pound you over the head with my beliefs. I could only hope that you'd hear them with respect, as I have heard yours, and afford me the same tolerance, the same space to believe as I would.

======

I can hear the howls already: What about the what the Pope said then?!

I'm not a catholic, but I tolerate catholic views in the same way - I just don't adhere to them, try to understand them and would never insist they change to suit me. To me, doing so is a fundamentalist mindset, whether liberal or conservative in goals.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I'm not a catholic, but I tolerate catholic views in the same way - I just don't adhere to them, try to understand them and would never insist they change to suit me. To me, doing so is a fundamentalist mindset, whether liberal or conservative in goals.

Good words.. To the degree that someone else's beliefs do no harm, i respect their right to believe as they choose.. this is a great technology that permits us to share our understandings of our beliefs, a potential for tolerant understanding of others.. to use ithis technology to advance personal or religious agendas is a poorly conceived notion.. i do not assert that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is without intentional harm, and i fault them on that point, but i also recognize that many of their faithful do good works, and contribute to the welfare of society.. broad generalizations or myopic focus obscure many of the more subtle but important aspects of a religion's contribution to its culture..

My experience leads me to believe that religions are merely various cultural interpretations of simple spiritual awareness.. subsequently manipulated into the "business" of spirituality.. that each of us has an inherent "knowing" that we are part of some greater process.. that process interpreted according to the cultural context of which we have our reference base.. It is noteworthy that among people that keep spirituality generic, there is little conflict.. those that define it culturally, name it and codify it seem to become intolerant and evangelical.. I say, worship nothing, but.. maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things..

Be well..

[KC Elbows]

I suppose a relation might be found with animals killing/driving off the offspring of other males & child abuse by step-parents, too. Stuff I think about in my off moments.
Ever notice the distinct lack of centrist trolls?

The reason for that is simple. People with reasonable views wouldn't understand the internet.

[FatherDog]

I wrote awhile back that I find biblical/early church arguments to be entirely too circular.

Early church arguments are immaterial; the fact is that your interpretation of the Greek is wrong.

In that spirit: You've obviously thought a great deal about the subject & are convinced of your views. I possibly come from a different theological ground than you, and - notably - haven't really gone into what precisely my beliefs are. Both of us, presumably, believe we've interpreted correctly.

I hope & will [if it doesn't offend] pray that you'll find a church or congregation [if you haven't already] that reflects your views. And I'll wish the very best in it.

Since I'm an agnostic, I rather doubt that there exists a church or congregation that reflects my views. I am, however, a student of religion and history, and it irritates me when people make assertions about same that are incorrect.

And, well, this is a kind of tolerance. I'm not about to insist that you believe in the way that I do, nor would I pound you over the head with my beliefs. I could only hope that you'd hear them with respect, as I have heard yours, and afford me the same tolerance, the same space to believe as I would.

I don't have much respect for beliefs that are factually incorrect.