Divorce, Gay life: who is without sin among you, let be the 1st to throw a stone! H.H. Francis

The peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

Today in a Historic step never before done by any of his predecessors H.H. Pope Francis I has called the entire Catholic church
to show consideration, compassion and acceptance in favor of all the members that are living facing the aridity of Divorce, and the challenges that masculine and feminine homosexuality still represent in a world polluted by intolerance and lack of comprehension.

Please check:
www.cnn.com...

The Holy father has called humanity to accept that there are imperfections in the world we are living right now, if we are obsessed with the idea that uniformity, monotonicity of homogeneity is the rule in nature, something that is highly controversial since there has been always also diversity present in this world, we are not all called to perform the same role in society.

There is people naturally skilled for heterosexual marriage, but they are also others that were born unable to perform in a stable relationship with anybody, also there are the ones that are naturally asexual, homosexual, or even bisexual, and they must not be blamed for that, because that is their nature, nor forced to carry out lives for which they were never called to.

These are the aspects reflected in the way modern human society looks today, in all the different ways people is right now relating each one the others.

Revelation 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb.

This not really a new message, but a reaffirmation of a Christian posture that is as old as this faith is, based on Jesus actual teachings that no body has the right to condemn and to prosecute or harass other people believing that such an attitude is going to repair society in any aspect. Christ came also for the ones that have had the courage to affront not the easy and popular path of family life, but the challenging one of to try to find affection in other kinds of love, or after to have suffered deep pain and discrimination.

St Matthew 19, 11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

This attitude in my opinion is nothing more than the application of the most pure Christian Charity to accept the people as they are and not
to condition our love to make them something entirely different than what their nature dictates.

The Agenda of Pope Francis I once more is showing that he has come to save what it was lost, to repair what it was broken and to build a new Church open for all, embracing all the possibilities of the human condition.

The thread is opened to the free discussion to all the interested members, please remain in topic in your posts and always respecting the guidelines of the norms of decorum in the replies, no personal attacks are justified.

St John 8, 6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Ten years ago, I started carrying a smooth, rounded stone in my pocket. Judgement doesn't belong to me, and I know it. One the occasion where I hear judgement, I take the stone from my pocket, present it to the person, and I say, "you're without sin, you cast it."

Thus far, nobody has taken the stone from my hand.

Pope Francis is, imo, doing what is truly required from his God. That is, to leave judgement to Him. That's appropriate, as God made lesbians and gays and transgendered folk, in my humble opinion. Why should he not love them?

a reply to: argentus

If you give the stone to a disturbed person (not gona lie, me) and he kills someone with it, would that make you accessory of murder?

Aren't you judging people by given them the stone?

a reply to: Indigent

LOL !

Oh you devil's advocate you...

a reply to: The angel of light

Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic, but accept pretty much everyone, in my opinion... (Found my own spirituality as far as I'm concerned, though, but I may claim Catholic, if I have to claim an institution, so I like this "revelation.")

I like pointing out hypocrisy, so:

I wonder how long until people who like to use the church's own words and rules against them (pretty easy, I know) starts quoting or referencing this guy now...

a reply to: Indigent

No. That would be him or her taking the stone of their own volition. Nothing to do with me. Y'see?

Besides, this is a stone. something that fits easily in my pocket. Good luck trying to repeatedly brain somebody with it to the point that it killed them.

Interesting query though

ETA: No, I don't think I'm judging them. I admit that I hear language that sounds like judgement to me. I'm just a guy with a strange hobby, what do I know? I'm giving them the choice to acknowlege judgement or not. I don't feel about it one way or the other.

a reply to: argentus

Yeah I was think throwing the stone real hard,not smashing the head

But you get the stone to collect evidence and you reach a conclusion depending if they take it or not. That's judgment and you make it happen.

Aren't enoght stones in the floor if someone want to trow one, why tempting if not for you to draw conclusions.

It's the way I see it, not necessarily the correct way, just my way

a reply to: Indigent

That works for me. I see it as an avenue for possibly taking folks out of their normal framework.

I've done a lot of screwed up things in my life. I know judgement doesn't belong to me. When I hear it posed toward others, I think it's a fine thing to show people another point of view.

Know this: If somebody every actually took the stone and wound up as if to clock somebody with it, I would take them to the ground. That would be a righteous judgement.

a reply to: The angel of light

There is people naturally skilled for heterosexual marriage, but they are also others that were born unable to perform in a stable relationship with anybody, also there are the ones that are naturally asexual, homosexual, or even bisexual, and they must not be blamed for that, because that is their nature, nor forced to carry out lives for which they were never called to.

This resonates to me as "born to the sexuality that you are." I think that's true. I know that I've never weighed the odds or benefits of this or that sexuality. I just knew.

a reply to: argentus

You and me got excellent taste in avatars, no reason to argue my fellow reptilian

Seriously I like your avatar but I don't get many chances to compliment a mod in friendly terms

originally posted by: The angel of light
Divorce, Gay life: who is without sin among you, let be the 1st to throw a stone! H.H. Francis

10 Bible Passages That Might Be Totally Bogus

listverse.com...

2 The Woman Taken In Adultery

Christians who oppose the death penalty frequently quote John 8:7, in which Jesus makes a famous challenge to the accusers of a woman caught in adultery: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” It’s a powerful moment, but did Jesus really say it?

Most scholars are now agreed that the story of the adulteress was not originally in John. The newest versions often contain marginal notes making readers aware of its spurious nature. Typical is the note in the New International Version informing readers that “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”

No surviving Greek manuscript before the fifth century contains the story. Its first attestation is in the Codex Bezae, which has a habit of adding things. Early texts also tend to move it around. In some, it is found at the very end of the Gospel of John, or in the margin near 7:52. Some even locate it after Luke 21:38. Byzantine scribes indicated on the margin beside the text that they were doubtful of its genuineness. Church Fathers such as Origen and Chrysostom never referred to it in their verse-by-verse commentaries on John’s Gospel.

At the start of the fifth century, St. Augustine was so bothered by the large number of copies without the story that he offered this explanation: “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, ‘sin no more,’ had granted permission to sin.” Modern supporters of the story are of the same opinion.

But if it was edited out, why were the inoffensive verses 7:53-8:2 deleted as well? In the end, the manuscript evidence, the stylistic differences between the story and the rest of John (17 percent of its words cannot be found elsewhere in the Gospel), and the break in the flow of thought it creates between 7:52 and 8:12 make an overwhelming case for inauthenticity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, back at 'me';

The Love that Jesus said distinguishes 'his followers' is;

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

Nothin' in there about judging (original forbidden fruit/Pride) and persecuting gays and atheists and Jews, etc... etc... etc... etc... etc... oh, did I forget --> etc.. at every legal (and many illegal) opportunities!!

the pope could be much bolder after 3 years of "reforms". And of 2 Synods that were predominantly liberal for greater liberties.

The kind words released now, towards sexual minorities and divorsed ones, are good to know they exist in pope's mind and perhaps, in his closest circle. But they do not necessarily constitute a reform, that again is granted back to local bishops. Some of them are quite conservative, to say the least.

If Francis dies tomorrow, the current conservative group that still holds key positions, wouldn't let it go further. Far not only for the gays.

Still, That letter might appear as a major step forward. Towards WHAT?

That is the question that observers can't answer already 3 full years.

What is the reform that Francis came to do and that all want to be done, including those cardinals who voted for him in that night?

When, if his life, as well as ours, have their biological limits?

Or never, not before the cataclysm predicted by so many. All of that may be just buying more time

Let Francis prove it otherwise. What he is doing is good, but also too little, too late. He may remain in history as such. The pope of the failed expectations.

If he wants to have any continuation of reform, and doesn't just buy time in the face of imminent catastrophe. Let he appoint new people with fresh ideas, as well as LAY CARDINALS who are not part of the system. Nothing stops him to appoint 300 or more such cardinals, one for every 10 bishops. To assure what is started will irreversibly go forward.

And please notice, I am not speaking of gays here, but first and foremost for the reform that should see the Church going back to its roots in 1st century AD. New books should be revealed, to see exactly what Jesus did in his earthly life. Was he married, did he have male friends as we are told of John and Lazarus. A complete reread of Gospels (including the banned ones) should start without any further delay. Centuries old dark paradigms of how the Son of God should act and think, must step aside to open room for the authentic texts that speak how the Son of God did and talked in his real life. Not in a nightmare medieval saga, but in flesh and blood for 33 years on earth (not only the 3 last years). How was possible for a man at his age to be non married at the era when everyone was married including the prophets. the solitude life was not known with very rare exceptions as John the Baptist. The Gospel talks clearly that Jesus didn't follow the way of John the Baptist, instead he ate and drank and befriended the fallen women and the tax collectors. The unreal image of the textbooks should give space for the image of the real Jesus/Joshua who lived on this planet. We have enough records already made public to recompose the picture. if there is a will for that.

Let not await the next pope to do it. It might be too late for many. Or if this pope is incapable of crossing imaginable red lines, let he assure worthy transition and succession. Perhaps this pope still has what to give to the world. Only, i don't see it yet, 3 years after his election, not in the pace I'd like to see it.

Time is a factor, as we know of countless prophecies speaking of the times upon us. Therefore, again, will Francis make the change, or should we wait for someone else instead?

What an awake thread
It seems every other pope was a liar did not represent God was false and spoke
For satan
Now we have a true pope who welcomes practicing homosexuals into the church ???

All the popes this one as well are liars
Christians from day on should love sinners and not accept sin

Stop worshiping a man use your own brain

My 5-year-old is a complete beast. I thought about trying to teach him the fundamentals of right and wrong, but then I felt that little stone in my pocket and realized ... who am I to judge?

There are times when we are absolutely supposed to discern right from wrong and we are absolutely to call each other on it. After all, after everyone had left and she hadn't been stoned to death ... He looked at her and asked her if she had done what they had accused her of and when she said "yes," He said "Go and sin no more." Which is pretty much an admonishment and judgment of wrongdoing right there.

a reply to: ketsuko

After all, after everyone had left and she hadn't been stoned to death ... He looked at her and asked her if she had done what they had accused her of and when she said "yes," He said "Go and sin no more."

In the story of the adulteress, Jesus never asked for a confession.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

In the Bible, I don't recall Jesus ever teaching the need to confess your sins, either to a man or to God.

a reply to: windword

He still told her to sin no more which basically implies she had committed sin, and if you read the incident in context, indeed, she had and they ALL knew it.

The Pharisees set a trap for Jesus. The woman they brought before Him was caught in the act.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

John 8:2-4

Basically, they caught her out. She was in flagrante delicto or the equivalent for her time. There was no question, nor could there be because they wanted Jesus to let her off, so they could get Him too. They wanted Him to stop preaching and this would give them an excuse to condemn Him too. So they were basically using the woman to try to kill two birds with one stone.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

John 8:5-6

In other words, they were committing their own sin of attempting to use legalism, something Jesus preached mightily against, to try to catch Him up and condemn Him in addition to her, and it's debatable about how much they even cared about condemning her except as a means of getting rid of Jesus.

And that is the set up for this incident. They are troubled by their consciences because they, one and all, sought to trap him using legalism. Had they not done so, I would guess most of them likely considered themselves righteous in the law and would have stoned her.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8:10-11

This, of course, is how it ends. No one needs her to confess because what she had done was already told, and she was told to sin no more implying that the judgment is that she has sinned. I note that she does not contest that sex is normal and natural and nothing to be guilty about.

a reply to: ketsuko

He still told her to sin no more which basically implies she had committed sin, and if you read the incident in context, indeed, she had and they ALL knew it.

I'm not saying that within the story she wasn't guilty, I'm just saying that Jesus never required confessions.

I think another question to introduce into the story is why her partner wasn't also standing accused. It does, after all take to to tango. Could that have been a component to the adage "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", in that Jesus also "knew" that her accusers had also been "with" her, and were just a guilty as she was? Maybe that's why her accusers walked away?

Can you show me in the Bible where Jesus himself ever requires or advised that his followers needed to confess their "sins" to someone, in order to be forgiven? I'm only asking because you, perhaps subconsciously, added it to the story, so you must think it's an important facet of faith.

a reply to: Indigent

No worries. It's not an argument we're having, but a discussion. I think you thought my 'stones' story to be a tad preachy, and that's fine. Perhaps it was. I'm prone to such indulgences.

What is important -- at least to me -- is that Pope Francis has looked in his heart and engaged his profound wisdom and compassion and has done something that is truly historic. He has said, simply, that people should live. All people. He has said that God made us all, and that we all have the right to love whom we choose. Of course, what I just said is an extropalation on his words, but is what I said inconsistent with Pope Francis's statements? I don't think so.

(editorial) Good Lord, why do people persist in caring about who loves who, or cares about or sleeps with?? A 'couple' is not defined as anything other than two people who are united. If you are lucky enough to be loved and love, you are lucky enough. What could it possibly matter to me the gender of people who are united? Get married? Sure! If your commitment is strong and you both wish it, it is none of my business and all of your own.

I hope before I die, that I see this issue a thing of the past. I will do all I can within my power to make it so. I suspect you will also. You and me were jousting, and that was fun, but I think we're in the same ballpark.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What makes homosexuality a sin? Which book and chapter?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

What makes homosexuality a sin? Which book and chapter?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick
The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often. But when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

I dont consider homosexuality any more or less serious as a sin as lying, stealing or what ever sin you care to mention.
In fact if its two consenting adults, I believe its not really my business and I dont see it as particularly as heinous as some that interfear with anothers human rights

All said and done, it is labelled a sin in the bible, as a christian I happily wont be partake