The Pope on Homosexuality

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.

If people we perfect they wouldn't screw up and if God didn't know they were going to catch The Gay then God isn't omniscient and therefore not God.

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.

NB - I may repost these comments in a new thread, as I believe there is a larger conversation to be had, encompassing quite radically different interpretations of a Christian view on sexuality. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the OP:


I am in agreement with certain aspects of the Pope's responses, even though in general I believe the Catholic church to be utterly infiltrated & corrupt at the upper levels.

There is a particular scriptural quote from the New Testament which, I believe, supports the view that the Lord considers the heart & soul of a man or woman of far greater importance than whatever simple human comfort they found in the arms of a loving person who made them feel happy, safe & sufficiently courageous to love according to what seems natural (as opposed to forcing themselves into a life of repression, denial, ill-advised coping strategies to deal with the cognitive dissonance which stems from the base conflict operating in their heart, mind & soul due to supposedly 'erroneous' patterns of emotional/romantic ideals, with self-condemnation cycling round & round due to their literal inability to choose what 'society' or family seemingly wants them to choose. This dissonance is fuel for the fire of waywardness in the form of drink, drugs, wild living & infidelity, actions causing pain to others, risks of crashing out of career opportunities, of losing the sense of dignity, happiness & positive interpersonal connection that every morally reasonable, decent, honourable person should be entitled to as a de facto 'standard' of experience within the parameters of good mental health & the necessity for mature self-reflection & self-acceptance, if one is to be a productive member of the human race.

Dissonance-induced anger, frustration, repression, empathetic cauterisation & fear can potentially cause & exacerbate vicious cycles of various forms of abuse, with the most noxious end of the scale resulting even in such abominations as inter-generational satanic cult organisations, which operate under the cover of respectable society (as epitomised in shows such as True Detective). Even on the lighter end of the scale of fallout from repression which involves the children of formerly 'closeted' people who may have fathered/ birthed children whose worlds are, in any number of ways, eventually rocked or even destroyed by the revelation that one of their parents is actually not who they thought them to be.

Whether or not the issues of 'atypical' (beyond natural gender roles) sexuality are necessarily a part of the repercussions & aftershock of such revelations (IE - if a personal moral judgement is levied by the child or the ex-partner/spouse; if there is anger, even hatred between feuding partners) - any & all negative outworking damages the child's psychological development. Even just the fact of the child becoming aware that a conscious, willful, very long-term deception has been instigated & perpetuated by the closeted parent (despite no malice being intended), continuing over the course of the child's life to that point of realisation, then that fact alone is capable of causing emotional wounds which do not heal, which cause psychological damage which incapacitates the child when he or she enters the world of adulthood. All of this can go on, and on, and on.

So we need a solution, but not a lunacy-driven Bill Nye-type perversion agenda which devastates all ordinary societal & cultural norms of decent communal behaviour between members of a society.. I believe that the conversation - such as it relates to moral conscience, Christian values of charity, forgiveness, integrity, honesty, respect, love & fellowship, etc – begins with a careful consideration of one particular scriptural quote, which has been overlooked & misunderstood, as I perceive it, yet with all simplicity it opens the door for respectful & reverent fellowship no matter one's orientation.

One way or another we need a solution. There is a scriptural quote from the New Testament which suggests that the fact of being homosexual is not considered by the Lord to be 'a sinful personal choice', but instead something which is latent since conception, since the womb. Quite possibly, the context of the quote suggests that there is a call to holy discipleship in as great a measure as can be maintained by each person who is seeking to better understand him or herself in the context of a fallen world, in the context of a risen saviour, in the context of truly blessed & beautiful human relationships, communities, fellowships, professions & ministries - in the context of all manner of various outworkings of 'the Fall', in all sorts of areas of life, affecting every single person on the planet. This extends to the heterosexual & the homosexual alike, as you will perhaps see from the next post below.

(Continued...)

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.”

A number of points seem clear as interpretive opportunities here, and although it is correct that the literal reading provides some useful idea of the meaning of Jesus' instructions on the matter, there is a layered effect which seems, I believe, to indicate something which would have been implied as an unspoken memorandum of understanding between Jesus & all listeners gathered around him. In those days, eunuchs were commonly found running sensitive operations for the King & his staff, handling the harem, serving visiting diplomats & making 'hospitality' arrangements on behalf of the King. Naturally, he would need to be entirely trustworthy in the context of close dealings with the King's wives & concubines - it seems highly likely therefore, that the total lack of testosterone & deliberate training/ subjugation beneath powerful royals, soldiers, ministers & dignitaries, would have invariably sought close friendship & normal human comforts in the company of men who were in a similar situation to themselves. Indeed if they were selected in advance for a role of this nature during their youth, this would have been arranged by the King's officials & existing eunuchs by identifying young men who were naturally effeminate due to whatever natural & environmental factors had converged during their upbringing to help in shaping their character (of course, other attributes would be deemed equally necessary, but that's not overly relevant to the point I'm making).

The implication of Jesus' words therefore - the unspoken truth which all present would have immediately fully understood, would be that there are multiple reasons for the nature, character & personal relationship status of those who were "..made eunuchs by men". He then went further in making a statement which would, I believe, have carried the exact same gravitas in the ears, minds & hearts of all present with Him at that moment, in exactly the same manner as had occurred at the incident with the woman caught in adultery ("..let him who is without sin cast the first stone")

Note also that Jesus states that some are born eunuchs "..from their mother's womb".

Wait - what? He considered that the (astronomically unlikely) possibility that a man will be born with a mutated DNA 'misprint' (meaning he enters the world without the genitalia which would be necessary in order to consummate marriage with a woman) a socially & statistically significant subset of th eoverall population, such that He felt the issue required His specific counsel, in a measure equal of import as regards other 'eunuchian' circumstances? (I think I just invented a word). Jesus seems to be suggesting that in terms of men as 'born eunuchs', that sort of person can be considered equally prevalent in the relatively large population of eunuchs crafted by the (surely unpleasant) actions of the royal household officers in those times. That simply cannot be true. Was there a ravaging plague afflicting the ancient near-east which caused boys to be born without their tackle on a regular basis? OF COURSE NOT. So why did Jesus state that His guidance applied equally to men who were 'born eunuchs' & thereby unable to consummate marriage with a woman?

I think it is clear that, if one reads between the lines (& we know the Lord spoke in parables & 'riddles' almost constantly during His public ministry & when mentoring of the disciples) - it becomes clear that 'men who are born unable to consummate marriage with a woman due to some naturally occurring causative principle which is an innate, inherent characteristic of their character/ psychological constitution FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR CONCEPTION' are included as natural beneficiaries of the Saviour's unconditional love for all Mankind. But what does He mean, if not that there was somehow an anomalously high percentage of males born without genitalia, apparently being 'eunuchian' since conception?

The only large enough subset of males who are born with some natural, inherent & latent quality of personhood preventing them from consummating a marriage with a female, is those males who grow up as (generally) sensitive, perhaps slightly effeminate/ genteel - those who are literally not attracted to women & thus cannot naturally consummate marriage with a woman (in terms of an honest & loving partnership/union for life) BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY NATURE/ THEIR CREATOR MADE THEM, and/ or, (if we admit any atypical spirit-related cause whatsoever), perhaps we could say that it's because that's the way in which the consequences of 'the Fall' disrupted the regular & 'predicted' pattern of our natural human 'soul expression', with crossed wires somewhere which cause some people to have drives & feelings of a sexual & romantic nature, which are perfectly normal in one sense - but in another sense, don't quite tally with the pattern of 'nature's plan' in accordance with the binary gender 'either/or' option assigned by our DNA.

I hope that makes sense.

Regardless of whether I did a good enough job explaining this, I hope it gives you food for thought, because I sincerely believe that the unconditional love offered by Christ, is available to everyone. Now what does cause problems, regardless of whether it is expressed by a heterosexual or homosexual person, is willful hedonism, general debauchery, wild living (including alcohol & drug abuse, poor choices affecting the ordinary course of life, character development, reputation, etc) - and of course physical, psychological or sexual abuse of any kind which is in any way encouraged, enforced, ignored/ covered up, or laughed off. Pressures to conform to a stereotypical exuberant, fashionably attuned & generally zesty, snappy, sometimes lewd or garish 'faux-personality pattern' is largely applied & coordinated through corrupted media back-channels (by elite-level abusers, when all is said & done, to benefit from 24hr party people opportunities for hedonistic abuse). Addictions, negative influence upon the impressionable minds of youth, dangerous personal impulse control & mental health problems are the result, if one persists in them. People can most assuredly be 'naturally homosexual', if that's the pattern of their biochemical/soul makeup. In almost all cases, it cannot be exorcised or trained out of a person (unless the person is naturally heterosexual but was subject to abuse which conditIoned them into homosexual behaviour patterns).

In any case, no matter who you are in your own true self, you've been that way since your time in the womb - a seeker after the truth will find the answers they are looking for if they look to God in deep reverence & honesty, casting off prejudice, bitterness, anger & so on. Seeking with humility before Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ (anointed one), who is the High Priest of this Universe & all of Creation beyond it - that's the only way to go in terms of obtaining legitimate understanding concerning the love of God, the will of God & the power of God in our lives. And we all must make our choices according to our conscience.

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...

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: 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

Fair play a man who seems to know something about God but to be compleatly honest with you I haven't a clue as to what you are going on about but I have a question for you, are God and the infinite Creator the same person?

You see in my simple understanding God's are a bit like branch managers for companies like Starbucks. They do a job for a specific region and than report back up the Chain to senior management .

In certain circles they simply refer to this person at the top of the chain as Dad

I nhave two books sitting on my window sill, Karen Armstrong on building the case for God and The History of God by same author. One day I may get around to reading them, and perhaps than we can have a more enlightened discussion on the work of Heraclitus

The floor is open and I welcome additional insight into such an interesting subject matter.Perhaps a suggestion a topic that will not lead to mindless 'circular-arguments'. Any suggestions? In the meantime here is a great track from UB40 about a ivory madonna

www.youtube.com...

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 ?

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 ?

The work of mathematician Georg Cantor. Born in the land of Gauss and of Riemann in 1845, Cantor spent the majority of his lifetime in Germany. Unfortunately though Germany was also the land of another mathematician Leopold Kronecker. He was a arsehole who would go on to hound Cantor into a mental institution.

However underneath Cantor's conflict with Krocnecker was a vision of the infinite, a vision that can be best described with a simple puzzle. Imagine that there is a large football stadium filled with people and you want to know whether there are more seats,more people or an equal number of both. You could count the number of people and than count the number of seats and than compare the the two numbers, but that would take alot of time. There is a much cleverer way. Just ask everyone to sit down in a seat. If there are empty seats, then there are too few people. If people remain standing, there are too few seats. If every seat is filled and nobody is left standing, then the number of the number of people and seats are equal

Cantor generalized this trick.However I am not going to go into detail as to what he did as it involved irrationals and that get's complicated very quickly but basically he proved that at the top of the chain sits an ulitmate infinity that engulfs all other infinities, God, the infinity that defies all comprehension

Kronecker disagreed. He believed that God would never allow such uglyiness as the irrationals

So no it's still not as clear as mud. For exsample En-men-lu-ana ruled Sumeria for 43,000 years, how does that fit into your understanding?

a reply to: Sigismundus

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.) ?

Yes there are good reasons that I do not use the name YAHUSHA [Jesus] or YAHUAH [YEH] [THE MOST HIGH EL] as my understanding of my deities. The first and foremost would be that it would distract from certain conversations with certain people. In order to not rail the conversation with my understanding, I have learned that when you use the slang of the culture, your points are more complete.

A good example would be that if I were talking to a Muslim and used the moon deity [Sin] to describe his/her understanding of Allah, It would more than likely offend the Muslim and distract his/her understanding of the entire conversation. The Muslim more than likely will not connect the two simply because most all do not believe the connection that their entire religion is founded on the moon god Sin.

I noted that you did not list Allah but did list Sin. That suggests to me that you believe the moon god Sin is Allah or that you simply forgot the worlds second largest religion. If your assumption is that Sin is indeed Allah then you had best make that point clear if you discuss the Muslim faith with educated Muslims. You see how this entire situation unfolds in your own understanding? I believe you are as guilty as all people are. Nevertheless, knowing that one is a Muslim I would understand if that one would simply say God, Allah, or Sin. It would not distract my understanding at all.

As when I am among my own circle, I have no distraction when we use our understanding of YAHUSHA or our God YAHUAH. There are certain Hebrews that will not write or speak the name of THE MOST HIGH EL because His name is forbidden to them to utter or write. If a matter is a sin to you then it becomes forbidden to you. That is your prerogative. lol

a reply to: Seede

Hi Seede--

You wrote

QUOTE

'I noted that you did not list Allah but did list Sin. That suggests to me that you believe the moon god Sin is Allah or that you simply forgot the worlds second largest religion...'

UNQUOTE

If you look back on my comment, I did write &tc (Lat. 'et cetera', lit. and others) following the list of ancient Levantine clan-gods, otherwise I might have to list 250 of them or more.

'Allah' is not as ancient a cognomen as e.g. EL or Elohim or Eloah (the clan god used throughout the poetical sections of the Book of Job beginning in chapter 3); I was referring to a list of ancient clan gods that were in common worship by the time the Hebrew Scriptures were finally edited-down to what we recognize to-day, c. 400 BCE, not the reorganization of the ere-Islamic Arabic cult shines after 600 CE.

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 !

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: 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.

Pope Francis is amazing.
Why should he resign?
He’s walking the walk, which is more than I can say about a lot of Christians these days, sad as that is.

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.

It seems to me that "acceptance" is quite conducive to an orderly and prosperous society--especially a democratic society where consenting adults should be able to do what they want without fear of condemnation and discrimination.

Amor vincit omni.

a reply to: Sigismundus

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 !

The English word god continues the Old English god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, *gud in modern Scandinavian, god in Frisian and Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is derived from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.

I believe that the OP was written with the discussion of "The Pope on Homosexuality" and with that understanding I see no need to insist upon any description of a deity. I believe all people here on this forum knows exactly who the Pope is and what his deity is. The word God is used in almost all events here in this forum by almost all participants. If we start to insist upon opinionated names of Deities then we wind up as the Jehovah Witnesses do with their silly game of my name is right and your name is wrong. I have seen many threads derailed with this very same silly game you are playing. I would almost guarantee you that if you used the old English word Gub or Gudis it would derail the entire subject that is being discussed.

Catholic Encyclopedia:
Etymology of the Word "God"
(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda ...).

God can variously be defined as:
The proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship; the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

In lite of this you should try to contribute to the thread instead of trying to derail the thread. What is your opinion on this thread?

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
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.

You’re painting with a pretty big brush there.
To elaborate:
If two consenting adults are doing things behind closed doors, and those things aren’t harming or threatening someone else and/or their property, it’s none of our business. Period. Those examples you list clearly violate that principle. Hence, we have laws against them.

Just because we don’t understand homosexual behavior or the acts repulse us, doesn’t make it wrong or immoral.

They’re just people, and the God I believe in made them that way and loves them just as they are.

Pope Francis is right.

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.

So, let me get this straight are you saying that homosexuality was a contributing factor to the downfall of some great Civilisations and that homosexual behaviour is not "conductive to an orderly society" ?
May I bold and suggest that you take 10 minutes our of your schedule to watch the following video by by the Irish Gay activist Panti Bliss

www.youtube.com...

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

Sexuality Does Matter.

Now, let me say thing extremely important thing for all knowledge seekers - Lies Are Prevalent in this World!

There are many many atheistic type people in this world - and Everybody who does not believe in a Just Creator has ZERO reason to be truthful. The very reason why spiritual people are Truthful is because they believe that being Truthful is a Law of God and that if we are not Truthful we are breaking a commandment of God through the Torah and we are sinning.

This keeping of truth can be stemming from decades of beliefs justifiable to themselves, the tactics being very manipulative to the very law itself. The lies spoken from the Liar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that was when it all started on a public scale, and in the last few decades it has increased in the media.

Now when we are dealing with spirituality, we have the people who have been attaining to these feelings for many years. The ways in which they act are used as replicas to the hidden secret techniques that are carried out through which they think is justified. When righteousness comes is where envy originates, but they will not understand, because the very is reason is due to the Law of God, which is based on truth and what is Just, not by human terms but what us actually just by laws of the creation much much deeper than the consciousness of a human being.

It is so bad that just about any topic in religion released by any faction of the media in society from a web page to a book to a news conference, every bit of information and questioning and learning around the discussions will be based on lies and falsehood. Even in the notion to think that the same species of human beings have different Creators - as if there was a God for the Jews, a God for the Muslims, and a God for the Christians. No matter what religion you are in - Do You Have Enough Wisdom To Understand That God Would Be Angry Over That? The fact that human beings cannot even agree on there being ONE GOD means that people are still ignorant as a whole. Different races do not want to come together - but God knows what is deep inside of them.

You have different groups of people following traditions from their ancestors and because their whole religion has formed principles that do not exist in other groups and cultures, all of a sudden the notion that the same God created us all disappears and people argue over who is right in religion - when in religion you have a huge amount of criteria that has been developed for 1,000s of years and why would you say that everything of that tradition is righteous when truth can be found in their doctrines and telling that God is mysterious. You condemn the beliefs of others when you have forgotten that the belief in God means that we are all created by the same universe and this relationship we have with the infinite and intimate is very personal and deep. We can judge others - only by the fruit of their actions - we give others respect without earning it.

The most important thing in this world is Truth. Sexuality is pleasure, human beings can lust after pleasure, they can seek pleasure, and in Christianity that is not advised because it is selfish. But God is a giving God. It is not a sin to have sex - if you become married and you are faithful to one man or woman for your whole life - that is how it was meant to be by God. So let us look deeper into the mental chemistry of man. Let us find that maybe a man by natural means contains gratification from testosterone, and he is attracted to the same sex. That is no different. It is a natural manifestation of reality. God has claimed that sex was unclean through the prophets. Now if a gay man sleeps around, that is a sin. But it is the same sin as if a straight person sleeps around. It is something that hinders salvation. But let us look deeper. What is even more of a sin - is to reject the truth. The truth is from God, is made by God, and is meant by God. So little is it known - the demons and the satanists and evil people all wish highly to abuse the truth as it is a direct attack. It is a powerful weapon they have in sin to cause God to become angry - which they are so ignorant for doing - to dispise your Creator. To lie to another person, like telling them that they are wrong, when they are right, is an evil and some people get joy from causing this very injustice of untruth but it will be undetected. So the end point is that it is the man who is going beyond to deny his the man that creates more sin than the gay person who is normal and who is dealing with their issues. So it is not all black and white but many shades of grey. But the overall poin is that the more you are going against what God wrote in stone - which is the truth - the more you are sinning. So if you were born a man and choose to be a woman - that is a complete sin. But i you were born a man and you are gay, it does not mean you are going to hell.

But again this world consists of people who are everything bad.

They are prideful, stubborn, and arrogant. God asked us not to be these things very early because God is very mysterious and is so immense compared to us, that we do not know God as we are the students, therefore we should never think that we know it all when it comes to spirituality. The mind state to have is always, "God I am nothing more than clay, nothing more than dust that you molded in your creation, you word shall sustain me and your word shall show me the Way." not to be saying "Oh I know more than you muslims or that You are going to hell because you are gay."

They are liars. Jealousy plays a huge role in life. People work hard for where they are, so when they see somebody who they do like gain more success from what they have worked for, it just adds on to the hatred and negativity. Especially if somebody gains success from being honest, and the untruthful person sees this - it will cause envy because of the righteousness that the dishonest person lacks. Then they will most likely lie more and manipulative more to empower themselves. But that power that they think they want - it just turns into guilt because again - TRUTH is the very most important thing of the Law of God. I have seen so many people, many very religious, tell manipulative lies by injustice and they didn't think twice about it. They claim to love Christ but they have no intention of telling other people the truth. Christ asked us to follow the commandments, but for some reason they don't equate listening to the requests of Christ and doing them - they just think that if they love Christ everything will be find and they don't have to act in anything. I wish people have investigated to the levels I have so it can become clearer that religion has been implemented with the utmost lies on this planet in order to keep people at odds with each other, and to prevent them from salvation - but in hate and pride, people would much rather argue with other people about who is right rather to to simply agree that the Same God Created Everybody. And the fact that the evil Elite have been filling religions with lies for so many centuries people are going to keep it up because they don't understand that they are both deceived.