Archbishop Tutu 'would not worship a homophobic God'

South Africa's Nobel peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu says he will never worship a "homophobic God" and will rather go to hell.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Well played Des he has compared homophobia to the racism in South Africa saying "I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level,"
Hopefully people around the world listens to this man and takes a page from his book.
Again Desmond your the man

That was very brave and the right thing to do. I hope he doesn't face any repercussions for his statements. He has gone against the mold and stated an opposing viewpoint to the one held by the institution he serves. I hope he doesn't retract his statements, nor apologize for them.

Moreover, I understand that he was a long shot to be the Pope; however, now I wonder if he would have made similar statements if he had been appointed. Somehow i doubt that.

reply to post by Pistoche


He's not Catholic. The Anglican/Episcopal church doesn't condemn homosexuals. They also have women clergy.
He's Church of England. The Henry VIII-style Protestants.

reply to post by wildtimes


Ah, my apologies, that makes more sense. Not being a Christian, I am not too well-versed on the divisions within the Church. Thank you for pointing that out for me. If it is accepted by his church, why is this even big news?

reply to post by Pistoche


I suppose it's more of a protest to Catholic doctrine. Lots of people left the Roman Catholic Church for their prohibitive policies, such as no divorce (which was the impetus for Henry VIII, who started the Church of England and declared himself head of it - he wanted a divorce from his Catholic (Spanish) wife, and the Pope refused to give him one). The RCC excommunicates people who don't follow their rules.

I'd probably have been born into Catholicism if they didn't have the "divorce" prohibition. My grandmother was Catholic, and my grandfather had been divorced, so she couldn't marry him in the Catholic Church. She switched to Anglican (Church of England) so that they could be married, and therefore, that was the religion my mom was exposed to.

C of E is the "closest" of the Protestant religions to Roman Catholicism (Orthodox are a separate thing, too). Some call it "Catholic Lite". "High Anglican" church services are barely discernable from the more traditional Roman Catholic services, with the incense, in Latin, etc. Regular Episcopal churches are less so. But there's still much pomp and mass is pretty much the same.

reply to post by boymonkey74

he will never worship a "homophobic God" and will rather go to hell.

about time that God was labeled a homophobe, althought strictly speaking God wouldn't be afraid of homosexuals
also its strange to assume any quality for God based on a certain social/cultural upbringing.
God forbids interest and just because its common now does not mean that someone can come up and say "i won't worship a interest-phobic God.."

God never told to judge others, if someone is a homosexual let them be and practice their sexual preference in private. Rubbing it in the face of others or forcing them to like it and be philic rather than phobic is just disgusting!!
I consider it wrong and i won't do it, whats with trying to make me change my mind?
Trying to remove homophobia is done by promoting homophilia and it would be seen as an attack on religious beliefs of people who are religious.

reply to post by wildtimes


You can be divorced and married in the RCC. I know for 100% certain. My X was divorced. There were some things we had to do and she had to have her previous marriage absolved. Now, had she been married in a RCC on her first marriage, that would have been different but since she was not, it was ok.

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by wildtimes

 

You can be divorced and married in the RCC. I know for 100% certain. My X was divorced. There were some things we had to do and she had to have her previous marriage absolved. Now, had she been married in a RCC on her first marriage, that would have been different but since she was not, it was ok.

Actually, that's not exactly correct.

Unless one had an invalid marriage, you're considered to be married by the Roman Catholic church, regardless of whether it was in a Catholic church or not. The marriage has to be annulled in order for a Catholic to remarry. Under most circumstances (though not all) annulments are granted, on the basis of evidence that the marriage was invalid (such as one person being coerced into it, or one or both not intending to have children,) and therefore, while there was a civil marriage, there was not a religious one (because the two Sacraments at the service of communion, Holy Orders and Marriage, can only be performed once.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by wildtimes

 

You can be divorced and married in the RCC. I know for 100% certain. My X was divorced. There were some things we had to do and she had to have her previous marriage absolved. Now, had she been married in a RCC on her first marriage, that would have been different but since she was not, it was ok.

Actually, that's not exactly correct.

Unless one had an invalid marriage, you're considered to be married by the Roman Catholic church, regardless of whether it was in a Catholic church or not. The marriage has to be annulled in order for a Catholic to remarry. Under most circumstances (though not all) annulments are granted, on the basis of evidence that the marriage was invalid (such as one person being coerced into it, or one or both not intending to have children,) and therefore, while there was a civil marriage, there was not a religious one (because the two Sacraments at the service of communion, Holy Orders and Marriage, can only be performed once.)

It has to be correct. I was married Roman Catholic. No other way.

My X had two children from a previous marriage. There was no special circumstances. Though, the only thing that could possibly make a difference in what you mentioned was that they were not married in a church but by a justice of the peace... She wasn't even Catholic.. and Athiest actually, though I dont think we divulged that tidbit. She had to agree to a few things, and we were told that we couldn't have sex until marriage. We lived together so we were told to do our best in this case. heh

Either case.. this was a very Catholic ... old fashioned hard core RCC.

Though.. I did find it strange that they moved the crucified Christ from the center behind the alter and replaced it with Mary, from how it used to be all during my services as a child. Hmmm Some things change I guess...

Originally posted by theRhenn
There was no special circumstances. Though, the only thing that could possibly make a difference in what you mentioned was that they were not married in a church but by a justice of the peace...

That's your "special circumstance" -- she wasn't married in a church, so it was a civil marriage, not a religious one.

If she'd have been married in a church, no matter what her belief was, she'd have a religious marriage which would have to be annulled before you could be married in a Catholic church.

We're not supposed to condemn homosexuals. Their sin, is their sin. As our sins are our own until we come under Christ and he washes them away. I wouldn't turn a gay person away from my church, church is exactly where a sinner needs to be so they can hear the words and the Holy Spirit call them to repent.

reply to post by adjensen


I already said.. it was annuled. But it wasn't in a church prior. It still had to be annuled or (obsolved is what I said in the first post).

Why are you correcting me about my religion? You're basicly repeating what I said the first time.

Adjensen is correct about the married/divorced/annulment situation with the Catholic Church.

As for Archbishop Tutus statement .... I don't think God is homophobic but the people who wrote the bible were. Those are two different things ... those who wrote the bible and God ... not one in the same.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Not a sin according to the Arch bishop.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well said Flyers, I just can't understand why modern religious people do not understand this...Oh wait I can they too are homophobic using their religion as an excuse to be so..

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Not a sin according to the Arch bishop.

That guys church doesn't follow the basis of the law from which it was created.

Now what about this.. If Donnies Pizza had the best pizza in town, and his son or brother who also worked there, decided that he didn't want to sell pizza... he wanted to sell chicken... So he went off and made his own place and called it Donnies Pizza... Though it sold chicken... Is that right?

You do realise, this order broke off from the main vein because they didn't agree on what the ORIGINAL belief system stood for.

Let's say there is one original religion.. Doesnt matter what it is. You're going to always have sects that will water down the original to best suit themselves so they dont have to follow all the rules. Hell, our own country has been doing that for years. It's called liberalism. Liberty from rule, ironically, making their own "rule" that someone, someday will be changing to be more liberal than the one before.

reply to post by theRhenn



I know the history thank you.
Iam just glad that the CoE broke away from the homophobic side then and that here in the UK people follow it and hopefully take note from this guys book.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by theRhenn

 

I know the history thank you.
Iam just glad that the CoE broke away from the homophobic side then and that here in the UK people follow it and hopefully take note from this guys book.

You're intitled to your opinion.

Some of us enjoy as close to original as possible. For some of us.. there are very REAL penalties after this. Why else would one follow such teachings if it were not for something hereafter?

so.. I have to ask. "What If"? What if you're wrong? It's not like you can change your answer in the end.

reply to post by theRhenn


I was raised CoE but I don't follow any mans interpretation of the big questions because no man knows the truth, I can only go with what I think in my heart is correct.
Like Des I will prefer to goto Hell (don't believe in it anyhow, again man made) than follow a homophobic God.
Religion is rules of man, not God and in my heart I know God does not punish those for loving others.
Religion has to keep up with modern society If it doesn't it will die and that is what is happening more people are looking within themselves to find the questions, not what was written by man 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by theRhenn

 

I was raised CoE but I don't follow any mans interpretation of the big questions because no man knows the truth, I can only go with what I think in my heart is correct.
Like Des I will prefer to goto Hell (don't believe in it anyhow, again man made) than follow a homophobic God.
Religion is rules of man, not God and in my heart I know God does not punish those for loving others.
Religion has to keep up with modern society If it doesn't it will die and that is what is happening more people are looking within themselves to find the questions, not what was written by man 2000 years ago.

We agree on much of what you said. I just dont agree on the "God's ok with homosexuals". I do, however, agree that we should treat all as we want them to treat us and no man should judge another. That's for the Great Judge. How you judge is how you will be judged. We should love no mater what the affliction of another. We should love all sinners, even if we shy away from the sin.

Religion may have to stay with the times to survive, but that still doesnt make it right. Better it die than to be watered down? Perhaps this is what we are waiting for. It's said that in the end, most people will not follow religion. What if it means that they simply wont follow the original beliefs. That means the same as people being Godless, especially if they are not following his original intentions.