It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: [post=23421671]
No. Why do you blame God for what mom and pop did? Homosexuals were not created by God. All people since Adam and Eve were procreated by their parents. God did a perfect job on Adam and Eve. They then screwed it all up by themselves just like all the moms and pops since then have done.
originally posted by: toms54
Don't be concerned about the Catholic Church including these extra books. I've read most of them and the vast majority are not compatible with the Catholic doctrine. Maybe you believe they are all true. You can read these works in most any library. A lot of them are gnostic writings that teach a very different view of God, Christ, and reality in general. Nothing is stopping you from starting your own church.
Matthew 19:12
For there are eunuchs who have been born that way from their mother’s womb [making them incapable of consummating a marriage]; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men [for royal service]; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
originally posted by: toms54
originally posted by: 2012newstart
When St John Paul II said that the masturbation is not always a mortal sin, the local priests jumped up that he didn't mean that,... Later on, some priests said it would be OK to masturbate and wouldn't need to be confessed any longer.
I wonder, why don't all those priests and bishops admit Publicly, that they too masturbate... and in many cases they have sexual relations with Adults. What is the motivation for a young man to choose Catholic priesthood and deprive himself of sexual relation for all his life?
Apparently, what has been kept hidden inside the monasteries in the past, now becomes public. 1985 years Church history in which the homosexual minded people were given a privilege place of consecrated service, only kept secret from the public.
And let say it with all honesty: What was the relation between Jesus and John the beloved disciple? How could he lean on Jesus' breast (just imagine the pose, they didn't have chairs they sat on the floor). Why so many books later were banned and burned? Because they said inconvenient truths. Not just the Gnostic ones that somehow survived. Mary Magdalene, and so many other questions pop up. When will we be told the truth? After our death may be? Enough of waiting!
Pope Francis makes a shadow doctrine with his interviews... I don't think we have the physical time to wait all those cardinals to admit what was known for centuries. The doctrine is not a dogma and did change in history. Peter was married for example. It is a time for a new doctrine of the Church, if that Church has a future. We all know what happened on Nicaea council under the dictate of the Roman emperor, and why we have this doctrine and not another one. Let there be a new revised Nicaea council Now!
It has been suggested that the Si in the title of the old irish air Si Beag Si Mor, is derived from the medieval Irish siod, meaning "fairy hill" or "fairy mound;" And they also say that the story of the Ancient High king's of Ireland The Tuatha de Danann bear similiarities to those told of fallen Angels back in Biblical times.
In a Book entitled My Name is Lilith, she questions as to the truth about what really happened in the Garden of Eden.
There is no denying that Bibles are innacurate and Gospels are missing, but I think we are living through the transition of changing times. I really believe that the truth has started to come out and that scares the Church. And they can't escape it this time as it seems to be coming from all angles.
But what I also belief is that the Catholic Church has a future. Who would have thought that a simple story about Love would last for over 2000years. If it's keeps that core belief, Love I think it will survive for the next 2000+, but there are some serious issues that need to be addressed. Homosexuality being one of them
However, I actually like this Pope, he seems to have what it takes
Si Beag Si Mor
www.youtube.com...
originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: Seede
Hello Seede etal.
Are there any good-reasons why persons debating subjects such as Homosexuality in 'the Bible' obnoxiously refer to the male clan-god of post-exilic Yisro'el as 'god/God/G-d' when the actual name of this clan-god is in fact 'Yahweh' (Heb. YHWH) which actually refers to a single post-exilic Levantine clan-god with his own name in competition with so many other male Middle Eastern clan-gods worshipped by the majority in the ancient world and who were referred-to by their worshippers as 'God' (e.g. El-Elyon, Baal-Berith, El-Shaddai, Ashur, Amun-Ra, Ba'al, Chemosh, Marduk, Enlil, Tammuz (=Tannuz/Attanuzi/Adonis), Bull-El, Hadadu, Shamash, Sin, Nergal, Nabu (=Nebo), Melekhart, Wusir (=Osiris), Djechuti (=Thothis), Set, Anubu, Ptah etal.) ?
If persons on these threads wish (specifically) to refer to YHWH in his post-Exilic 'divine-name-form' (post 587 BCE) i.e. without 'his Asherah' (i.e.his divine Consort), then they should use either 'YHWH' (or 'Yahweh') to refer to him alone, to avoid confusion with other pantheons in antiquity.
Constantly referring to this specific post-exilic Yisroelite clan-god as 'God' would be tantamount always to use the term 'The President' with a specific implied sole-reference to the US President Millard Fillmore, when in fact there have been something like 45 US Presidents besides old Millard that have served in that office in the US since 1789, including such important political leaders as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln & Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
By using the correct terminology with respect to the post-exilic levitical cults involving YHWH moving forward in these discussion-threads, there will be a far more educated and nuanced light shed on the facts underlying the convoluted (and often contradictory) narratives in both the post-Javneh 'canonical' Hebrew Scriptures as well as the canonical post-Athanasian ('New Testament') Greek scriptures.
Until then I see on these potentially-thought-provoking threads a series of mindless 'circular-arguments' that can lead nowhere at all.
Just my $.02
originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: DpatC
Hi there, DPat--
What part of my earlier post don't you understand, exactly ? If someone is talking about one of the gods of the pre-exilic Hapiru/Yisroelites they must mention which one of the divine Ugaritic pantheon they are in fact referring (e.g. Ba'al, Asherah, Chemosh, YHWH, EL, Shaddai, Molech, Hadadu, Dagon etc.).
If they are referring (more narrowly and specifically) to the single male post-exilic clan-god (i.e. the god that was worshipped as The One Elohim in post-monotheistic reforms beginning prior to 587 BCE) they must use the term YHWH (or 'Yahweh') otherwise when they write the word 'God' they might as well be speaking of Vishnu.
Using 'The LORD' for YHWH only muddies the water, e.g. 'The LORD our God, The LORD is One' is grammatically impossible in English. The paleo-Hebrew is more accurately translated into modern English as: 'YHWH is our clan-god, YHWH alone.' In other words, no other clan-gods besides YHWH.
Clear as mud ?
Are there any good-reasons why persons debating subjects such as Homosexuality in 'the Bible' obnoxiously refer to the male clan-god of post-exilic Yisro'el as 'god/God/G-d' when the actual name of this clan-god is in fact 'Yahweh' (Heb. YHWH) which actually refers to a single post-exilic Levantine clan-god with his own name in competition with so many other male Middle Eastern clan-gods worshipped by the majority in the ancient world and who were referred-to by their worshippers as 'God' (e.g. El-Elyon, Baal-Berith, El-Shaddai, Ashur, Amun-Ra, Ba'al, Chemosh, Marduk, Enlil, Tammuz (=Tannuz/Attanuzi/Adonis), Bull-El, Hadadu, Shamash, Sin, Nergal, Nabu (=Nebo), Melekhart, Wusir (=Osiris), Djechuti (=Thothis), Set, Anubu, Ptah etal.) ?
originally posted by: 2012newstart
originally posted by: toms54
Don't be concerned about the Catholic Church including these extra books. I've read most of them and the vast majority are not compatible with the Catholic doctrine. Maybe you believe they are all true. You can read these works in most any library. A lot of them are gnostic writings that teach a very different view of God, Christ, and reality in general. Nothing is stopping you from starting your own church.
what you call catholic doctrine, is not a dogma., it changed over time, many times.
two synods last years debated should the divorced receive communion. the church has that power to call synods and councils. I only wonder, was THAT the biggest problem of 21st century catholic church? in the orthodox sister churches that is allowed up to three times to remarry. Let it be known to the readers who are not necessarily educated in the matter, thatthe church has the right to change doctrines and rules. Only the dogmas are the things that do not change.
Peter was married, the first pope so to speak, as well as the rest of the apostles except for John. The church did change that in centuries, with its different branches adopting different view. There are married priests in the Catholic church, only they are not in the Roman rite but in the Eastern rites.
Let alone who Mary Magdalene truly was. And that is not just a Gnostic thing of banned and burned books by those who took the control of the early church with the help of the Roman emperors (whom they followed so closely). It is something quite important for the everyday life of the Christians today, to know how our Lord lived His life on earth. And how about His intimate friendship with John? Why nobody speaks about THAT? it is being read every year, not only in the Holy Week. Or even those friendships will be forbidden, because they sound too gay for a puritan sect within the catholic church that pretends to hold the truth?
Let call the things with their names. Jesus and the apostles didn't live and teach the way the church leaders live and teach. Quite different. For everything. From money matters to love matters.
I wouldnt enter into that discussion, if it didnt concern the deep problems of the catholic church and christianity as a whole.
The fact is ,most clergy are gay in their thoughts, if not in their deeds. It is better they admit it. Let choose another wording if necessary. That thing does exist. Not necessarily to be sexual. Call it friendship in the example of John and Jesus. Look at your own families to realise you have examples there too. Or we love only one wife/husband, and do not love anyone else in our lives? Sure many people we love are of the same gender as we are, and there is nothing wrong, as far as it doesn't become sexual.
1 John 4
20 If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And we have this commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well
The pope already walked out of the gay approval, but it won't make the headlines. This pope must resign, now. A convenient moment would be, the consistory on June 29th. he did what he could. Apparently his power to reform things for better, ends here. He is powerless to set in order his own home (the Vatican) , what to say about the 1.2 bln church, and even to pretend for moral authority over the world. Let follow the example of his predecessor and retire with dignity.
We don't need Apocalypse now, not even only a Rome apocalypse.
originally posted by: whitewave
Leaving God out of the argument for a moment.......
Has there ever been a society that has openly accepted/embraced homosexuality that has prospered?
Rome? Greece? Sodom?
There are certain behaviors that are not conducive to an orderly society.
Sorry for any confusion. But try to avoid using the generic term 'God' when discussing YHWH (or ELOHIM or EL SHADDAI or EL ELYON for that matter, all of whom are confusingly referred to in blurry, blanket-terms as 'The LORD' and 'God ' - it will make your arguments more cogent, and that applies to all others on these discussion threads. The various ancient gods of the Levant have names: use them !
originally posted by: whitewave
a reply to: Gandalf77
A civilized and orderly society has rules PREVENTING people just doing whatever they want without fear of condemnation and discrimination. You're not allowed to whiz on public walls, defecate in the street, walk into others homes uninvited, or kill your employer. We condemn and discriminate against all sorts of things. Two consenting adults cannot have sex on the highway. Two consenting adults can not sell their offspring to the highest bidder. Two consenting adult may not force themselves on animals. None of that is acceptable for any number of reasons. Being "accepting" of the individual is a sign of a democratic civilized society but acceptance of certain acts/behaviors is a sign of chaos and lack of respect for self as well as others.
originally posted by: whitewave
Leaving God out of the argument for a moment.......
Has there ever been a society that has openly accepted/embraced homosexuality that has prospered?
Rome? Greece? Sodom?
There are certain behaviors that are not conducive to an orderly society.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Sigismundus
you should try to contribute to the thread instead of trying to derail the thread. What is your opinion on this thread?
Sigismundus and Seede
let me start by saying that I am actually impressed that folk with this level of study
and understanding have took the time to comment on an issue that was initially about The
Catholic Church and homosexuality.
But from reading your posts regarding the names to call messiahs and Gods, im sorry but.....
You see in beliefs such as my own the phalic symbol is venerated,the sun worshiped and where old statues of reptilians suckling children on their left breasts are displayed under Glass cases. It's a understanding of Light where god's and devils are equals adressed directly by their names.Everyone on their own unique journey of understanding.They are not summoned commanded or ordered There are no secret words or handshakes involved. That moment when you first see life exist as Light and know that that it was not of your hand nor of your creation.The unquestionable belief in something higher.
But I realise that my basic understanding of a belief based on a Penis and a Sun may seem primitave and insulting to Folk of your learnings. But in defense it's a very old and simple belief that predates a time before Thuban.I suppose you could classify it under the belief in Light and the regenatrive compoents of Life.
John Martyn didn't want to know about evil
www.youtube.com...
Nor do I
In 2008 a person named Hidden Hand posted a very intresting thread to this forum. In my personal opinion he got a few things right and some other stuff compleatly wrong. Nonetheless, and I quote, he said that
"the Infinite Creator designed a blueprint based on the finite principles of Free Will of Awareness and sub-level Creations, which in turn, could become aware of themselves, and seek to experience themselves as Creators. And so the "Russian Doll" style experiment was 'stepped down' and down and down. Levels of Creation within levels of Creation."
He also attempted to explain Logo's unfortunately though love is a very complicated issue
I welcome discussions about GOD.Anything that will assist in my learning of something I have'nt a clue about
I don't think folk are trying to de-rail this conversation because at the end of the day, there is this
= 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
= (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ...
= 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...
= 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ...
= 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
= 1