The Pope on Homosexuality

a reply to: ketsuko

Get a life marriage is for all consenting adults.
God doesn't have to do with it at all.
Your religion does not own marriage never has never will.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
When's the last time you saw God sin or make an excuse or cause man to do anything against his own will?

Who are you to pass judgement on something you have no belief in nor understanding of?

You are free to disbelieve and or hate God...
Is that him or you deciding to do so?

You're making a whole lot of leaps of logic and presuppositions there captain.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can marry folk now but I'm just going to marry all my gay pals.
Lol let's get them as miserable as I was.

originally posted by: Gemwolf

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
...
The act of homosexuality is a sinful act. ...

What is the "act of homosexuality"? And why is it a sin?

The lazy answer is "sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex", right?

Wrong.
Homosexuality - or human sexuality - is a lot more complex than just sex. It's emotional, romantic, affectionate, tender and harsh, warm and cold, exciting and boring, infatuating, intimate and hormonal. It is a relationship. It is love.

So, again - in context of the Bible and the parts it's mentioned: Why is it a sin?
Theologically and culturally speaking you'll find the answer exceptionally stale.

Why do you ask a question then answer it yourself as if you know what answer I will give? And tear apart that answer?

What is the definition of a strawman argument? Oh yeah...

Anyways, you are wrong. The sin in question is not about the emotion, it is about the physical act. If a man+man or woman+woman engage in physical sexual activity, that is a sin per the Judeo-Christian dogma. I don't expect everyone to respect that, but it's not a secular mandate now is it?

Why is it a sin? Because God said so.

This has nothing to do with the emotional urges people have. We all have urges to sin. Sin tends to be fun. Sin tends to feel good. Temptation to sin is normal, and most of the time it requires discipline to avoid.

The ultimate definition of sin (from the Judeo-Christian perspective) is to disobey God and act in a way that drives a barrier between Him and yourself.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ketsuko

Get a life marriage is for all consenting adults.
God doesn't have to do with it at all.
Your religion does not own marriage never has never will.

Marriage has always been (and will always be) the union of man and woman/women, or woman and man/men. It doesn't just change on a whim to include man+man or woman+woman because some progressives with little or no life experience and/or historical education say so. I know it's seems 'edgy' and 'rebellious' to say differently, but the entire history of mankind in multitudes of successful cultures outside of Europe and the Middle East (with much less taboo towards homosexuals) also came to the same conclusion that a man can be happy with another man or a woman with a woman, but it is not a marriage and should not be treated as one.

Calling their pairing a Civil Union or Partnership, Lygeny or Ligandy doesn't reduce those people's worthiness or humanity in any way, but the union of same sex simply is not how our species is intended to associate whether you look at it from a religious or secular/evolutionary perspective.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually from an evolutionary perspective same sex unions would be doing our species a favour.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Hi visited--

So I take it you don't dare to cut your hair either. Remember 'cutting off the forelocks' is considered 'Toq'ebah' ('ritually disgusting') to YHWH (the post-exilic clan-god of Yisro'el) and can get you stoned to death.

Just another thought.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
It doesn't just change on a whim to include man+man or woman+woman because some progressives with little or no life experience and/or historical education say so. I know it's seems 'edgy' and 'rebellious' to say differently, but the entire history of mankind in multitudes of successful cultures outside of Europe...

There are documented cases during the Roman Empire of two men getting married.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually from an evolutionary perspective same sex unions would be doing our species a favour.

That's kind of insulting to gay people, don't you think?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
It doesn't just change on a whim to include man+man or woman+woman because some progressives with little or no life experience and/or historical education say so. I know it's seems 'edgy' and 'rebellious' to say differently, but the entire history of mankind in multitudes of successful cultures outside of Europe...

There are documented cases during the Roman Empire of two men getting married.

You want to bring a lunatic like Nero into this? Not sure it's the best direction to take...

a reply to: Teikiatsu


It was more than just one case with Nero, there were more as was recorded by Juvenal.

originally posted by: [post=23427451]Teikiatsu[/post

Marriage has always been (and will always be) the union of man and woman/women, or woman and man/men. It doesn't just change on a whim to include man+man or woman+woman because some progressives with little or no life experience and/or historical education say so. I know it's seems 'edgy' and 'rebellious' to say differently, but the entire history of mankind in multitudes of successful cultures outside of Europe and the Middle East (with much less taboo towards homosexuals) also came to the same conclusion that a man can be happy with another man or a woman with a woman, but it is not a marriage and should not be treated as one.

This union of man and woman/women, or woman and man/men, I am trying to understand that. I'm just not familiar with different cultures. Say an Islamic man marries 4 wives. Are each of these wive a separate marriage? Or are they all five in one big family? That is, are the women now all married to each other? And if they are Islamic, would the Bible even apply here?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually from an evolutionary perspective same sex unions would be doing our species a favour.

Why? It doesn't produce offspring. I thought evolution was all about reproduction, passing on your genes.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually from an evolutionary perspective same sex unions would be doing our species a favour.

You mean, extinction and prone STD?

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: visitedbythem

Hi visited--

So I take it you don't dare to cut your hair either. Remember 'cutting off the forelocks' is considered 'Toq'ebah' ('ritually disgusting') to YHWH (the post-exilic clan-god of Yisro'el) and can get you stoned to death.

Just another thought.

Yeah, and maybe the pope is gay

I love Pope Francis. He’s doing a great job of irking the conservatives. Those Jesuits are such wonderful troublemakers.

And I think he’s absolutely right: God loves that man just as he is.

People love to run their mouth about what the Old Testament says regarding homosexuality. The problem, as I see it, is that the OT just describes the laws for Jewish people, & many scholars have pointed out the homosexuality merely amounted to a categorical violation—i.e., lying with a man the way you’re supposed to lie with a women. Lots of old laws that nobody seems to get worked up about either. Glad nobody wants to stone people for wearing Levi’s to Joe’s Crab Shack.

And then there’s the words of Jesus: he had NOTHING to say about it. But he did have a lot to say about the evils of money, welcoming strangers (ahem, immigrants), feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. But you never read letters to the editor from the fundamentals railing about those things. Go figure.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope not anymore society has evolved for the better.
You like others are using religion as an excuse for bigotry.
I know gay Christians and most Christians have moved on from being gay is a sin etc like they have with wearing two types of cloth.

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!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Why do you ask a question then answer it yourself as if you know what answer I will give? And tear apart that answer?

What is the definition of a strawman argument? Oh yeah...

Anyways, you are wrong. The sin in question is not about the emotion, it is about the physical act.

Don't you find it ironic that you accuse me me of using a "strawman argument" and then go ahead and respond exactly as I predicted?

If a man+man or woman+woman engage in physical sexual activity, that is a sin per the Judeo-Christian dogma. I don't expect everyone to respect that, but it's not a secular mandate now is it?

Actually you'll find that in the original texts there are no references to female and female sexual activity. The texts that supposedly refer to homosexuality only refer to male and male sexual activity. So in the world of "LGBTQ" only "gay is a sin"... Lesbianism is just fine according to the Good Book.

It is unfortunate that (some) people think homosexuality is just about sex. It's like saying any relationship is just about sex. It simply is not true, and anyone that's under this impression will never have a meaningful relationship.

Why is it a sin? Because God said so.

Did He? Ah, but He did. Shall we refer to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Well, there it is in black and white, and it's pretty serious: Death to them!

However, shall we take a moment to consider what else God "said" with regards to sexual relations?

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:24

One man. One woman. How romantic. A nuclear family.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.
And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.
Gen 38:7-10

So Onan was expected to do the dirty with his brother's widow, because she didn't have any children. Onan didn't like this. God didn't like the fact that Onan didn't like this and Onan was killed. A bit harsh if you ask me, but apparently God wants men to have sex with their brother's widow if she is without child. (See levirate marriage.) Not doing so is a deadly sin...

And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:19
He [Solomon] had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.
1 Kings 11:3

And many more examples... So, apparently polygamy is not a sin. It is frowned upon - but, don't worry it's not a sin. So is having concubines perfectly fine.

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

So if a man rapes a virgin (unmarried woman) and he is caught in the act, then he must pay the father for "his loss" and he must marry the woman. Whoa. A woman is raped and must then marry her rapist? Doesn't sound very fair, but hey, God said so.

So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.
Gen 16

Apparently it's perfectly fine to have sex with your wife's slave. (Shall we address the fact that God apparently didn't have a problem with slavery or just pretend that didn't happen?)

...and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife... After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Deuteronomy 21

Yep, it's perfectly fine to marry a (female) prisoner of war. She must submit sexually.

If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.
Exodus 21:4

So a slave owner (damn, there's the "s-word" again) can give a female slave to his male slave; she must have sex with the male slave and their offspring will also be the property of the master. Nothing wrong with that. God said it's just fine.

I can go on, but I'm sure the point has been made. When it comes to sexual relations, apparently God was fine with many practices that is considered illegal and gross violations of human rights today.

Shall we address the other verses around the "kill the gays" verse in Leviticus?

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.
Leviticus 19:19

No one is bothering with any of that, are they? Yet God explicitly said all of that is a sin.

Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
Leviticus 11:13

So many people are going to hell, just because they like crayfish...

When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:19

You're not allowed to touch your wife within 7 days of her menstruating. It's a sin.

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.
Leviticus 25:44

Slavery is a sin... Oh wait. Sorry, no. Slavery, perfectly fine.

Leviticus 21:18-: For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.

So basically anyone with anything that might resemble a disability is a no-no in the eyes of God. Not very PC, but that's what God said.

Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not let your hair become unkempt and do not tear your clothes, or you will die and the LORD will be angry with the whole community. But your relatives, all the Israelites, may mourn for those the LORD has destroyed by fire.
Leviticus 10:6

You'd better wash and comb your hair and you'd better no tear your clothes. God will smite you with a great ball of angry fire, and he will be angry with all your friends and neighbours.

(…continued)

Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.
Leviticus 10:9

No wine in the House of God. So you’d better not be drinking any Communion wine because God clearly says it’s a sin. Forever!

“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” Exodus 21:17

Remember that time your parents didn’t want you to go to the party, and in an angry fit of rage you slammed your door screaming “You never let me do anything! I wish you were dead!”… Well, God said you should be killed for that. God expect parents to kill their child. Murder. A. Child. Really? Yep. God said so.

We can go on like this for many more pages, but the point has been made. If you want to use Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as an argument against homosexuality, then you will have to apply Leviticus in its entirety. That means you cannot condemn homosexuality if you have a tattoo, have eaten any crustaceans or if you wear clothes made from two different materials. You cannot pick two verses out of the old Testament claiming that homosexuality is “an abomination” and disregard all the other verses because they are outdated and not relevant anymore.

We shouldn’t be so eager to use a text or verse without knowing who wrote it, to whom it was written, why it was written, and what the conditions at the time were, i.e. context. Leviticus is a perfect example of the necessity to apply this rule of thumb.

Basically, God was living with the Israelites in the Tabernacle, during their travels through the desert, and the Leviticus laws were the set of rules by which the Israelites could approach Him and have relationship with Him by being “good enough” to do so. These laws were next to impossible to keep so, to stay “pure” in God’s eyes, the Israelites would sacrifice animals as substitute for their own sins.
This all changed from a Christian perspective because God provided Himself as the penitence sacrifice, carrier of guilt, in the person of Jesus, who through the crucifixion removed the need for the Law completely. The new deal, so to speak, was that every individual – irrespective of their nationality or culture: Exchange all the necessities, confines and restrictions of The Law simply by accepting the reality and purpose of Jesus.

The Laws of Leviticus have no influence nor bearing on Christians who have accepted Christ. The “unfairness” of the Leviticus Laws are gone. Women (on their periods), people with disabilities, people with tattoos, people that enjoy crayfish and pork, people that trim their beards and even homosexual people are all equal before God and Jesus Christ.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrew 8:13

If you want to hold on to the notion that God said “(male) Homosexuality is a sin”, then you’ll have to consider ALL that God said was a sin (or not a sin – see: slavery and rape). You can’t cherry-pick one or two in support of your agenda, and then discard the rest as outdated.

This has nothing to do with the emotional urges people have. We all have urges to sin. Sin tends to be fun. Sin tends to feel good. Temptation to sin is normal, and most of the time it requires discipline to avoid.

The ultimate definition of sin (from the Judeo-Christian perspective) is to disobey God and act in a way that drives a barrier between Him and yourself.

Why are natural urges a sin? Did God create humans, but thought to Himself, “I don’t want to make life easy for them. I’m going to give them all these feelings and urges and then send them to eternal damnation if they falter.” Does that really sound like a loving God? Does that sound like a God anyone would want to worship? Oddly enough people do worship this notion of “angry God”.

The Catholic church decided to use the carrot and stick method of gathering followers. Follow these impossible set of rules and you’ll live forever in heaven. Don’t and you’ll suffer for all eternity in hell. OK, OK, the rules are pretty impossible to follow, so just confess your sins and you’re back in.

God didn’t create humans without understanding our emotions, urges, wishes, dreams, feelings or human nature. Jesus made it pretty easy when asked, so what exactly is important to God?

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, “Love others as much as you love yourself.”
Matthew 22:37-39

One basic word. Love. And, you may not believe this, but homosexuality is love as well. Yes, just as with heterosexuals, there are lust as well, but most homosexual relationships are based on love. And God does not say that love is a sin. He says quite the opposite.

Which brings us a full circle to what the Pope said: “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”

Love.