Archbishop Tutu 'would not worship a homophobic God'

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by theRhenn

 

Actually, no, the question is whether your statement that "homosexuality is wrong" is representative of "homosexuals are wrong", which I, as an orthodox Christian, utterly reject, and which is rejected by the vast majority of Christian denominations, or whether it is representative of "homosexual sexual acts are just as wrong as heterosexual sexual acts which take place outside of marriage," which is a statement that is accepted by most Christian denominations that I am aware of.

That's where Desmond Tutu, and Pope Francis, who made a similar statement today, are coming from -- it is no sin to be a homosexual, and it is not for us to judge anyone on that basis.

The only answer I have for you is: I believe that only the act and thought of homosexuality makes one a homosexual. By that, then yes, homosexuality is a sin. The act and thought of man with man.... according to the bible. That's where I stand. If a priest says otherwise, then he's not following scripture.

the pope is on the same page, but tutu is off his rocker. I don't see how they are saying the same. One is saying that it's ok, while the other says that those seeking forgiveness for that particular sin can find it, but that, like all sins on the RCC point of view, have to stop or there is no real point in looking for that forgiveness if one actively seeks to continue.

reply to post by adjensen


I had to make this 2 posts because of the length of information involved.

Based on the next part of your response about adultery and how it is seen via married or not.

Here is a decent tid bit from wiki.

Biblical sources[edit]

Main article: Thou shalt not commit adultery

The Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh or Old Testament) prohibits adultery in the sixth of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14). Adultery in traditional Judaism applies unequally to both parties.

For instance, the Old Testament prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman, though not for adultery between a woman and a married man.


And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:10).

Furthermore, the Bible prescribes stoning not only for female extramarital sex, but also for female premarital sex in the case where the woman lies about her virginity.


If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, … and say, / I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid. / … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: / Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. (Deut. 22:13-21).

The Bible even prescribes the same for engaged women who lay with another man, under the premise that if she allows the action without protesting, this indicates willingness.


If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; / Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. (Deut. 22:23-24).

Christianity[edit]

See also: Extramarital sex#Christianity

See also: Christian views on marriage, Christian views on divorce, and Pauline privilege

Adultery is considered by Christians to be immoral and a sin, based primarily on passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. Although 1 Corinthians 6:11 does say that "and that is what some of you were. But you were washed", it still acknowledges adultery to be immoral and a sin. The sixth commandment (seventh in some traditions) ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") is also a basis, but see also Biblical law in Christianity.

Jesus taught that indulgence in adulterous thoughts could be just as harmful to the soul as actual adultery, and it is clear that both carry the same weight of guilt:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)
and he also says:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.(Matthew 5:32)
Some churches have interpreted adultery to include all sexual relationships outside of marriage, regardless of the marital status of the participants.[30]

Rabbinic Judaism[edit]

Adultery in traditional Judaism applies to both parties, but depends on the marital status of the woman (Lev. 20:10). Though the Torah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the legal procedural requirements were very exacting and required the testimony of two eye-witnesses of good character for conviction. The defendant also must have been warned immediately before performing the act.[31] A death sentence could be issued only during the period when the Holy Temple stood, and only so long as the Supreme Torah Court convened in its chamber within the Temple complex.[32] Today, therefore, no death penalty applies.[33]

At the civil level, however, Jewish law (halakha) forbids a man to continue living with an adulterous wife, and he is obliged to divorce her. Also, an adulteress is not permitted to marry the adulterer, but, to avoid any doubt as to her status as being free to marry another or that of her children, many authorities say he must give her a divorce as if they were married.[34]

According to Judaism, the Seven laws of Noah apply to all of humankind; these laws prohibit adultery with another man's wife.[35]

So you see.. My stance on sin vs sex might differ greatly from yours. I dont see sex as a sinful act. I see adultery as a sinful act but it does not include sex between unmarried persons. Orgies... yeah that I can see as sinful. Sexual conduct between two unmarried consenting adults, not sinful, but I guess it would depend on the details. Sex was supposed to be use for children only based on some doctrines.

In the end, I guess it depends on what you pull out of the scripture and what you understand them to say. Much is simple and easy to understand, some not so easy due to lack of detail.

Originally posted by theRhenn
The only answer I have for you is: I believe that only the act and thought of homosexuality makes one a homosexual.

Well, you're welcome to that belief, but it is not borne out by facts and observation. Celibate homosexuals are not heterosexuals.

the pope is on the same page, but tutu is off his rocker. I don't see how they are saying the same.

"I would not worship a homophobic God" -- he's saying that God would not hate one of his creations simply on the basis of how they were created. Homophobia is the fear or hatred of homosexuals, so if God is homophobic, then he is not all-loving of all of his children, so a homophobic god is not the God described in the Bible.

Not sure where the disconnect is there, sorry. You can condemn the sin, but to condemn the person outside of the sin is not Christian teaching.

reply to post by adjensen


I hear and understand what you're saying. It's difficult because of a few reasons but you also do make sense. This is what I mean by that, though.

The bible says that acts of homosexuality is sinful. We can agree on that. The act is the sin.

The bible also says that if you think about the sin, be it murdering someone or adultery, then you've commited the act in your heart, therefore it is a sin.

Perhaps you can understand where I'm coming from with this.

The pope is just saying that these acts should be forgiven.

Tutu is coming of as though the act, be it by thought (label) or by act are both ok with his god. At least that is exactly the way I'm perceiving it. I will have to go back and reread the article and find his exact wording and context. It's been a bit since this news clip came out and my memory isn't that great lol

reply to post by adjensen


According to the clip...

The retired archbishop was speaking at the launch of a UN-backed campaign in South Africa to promote gay rights.

This is basicly saying that he's ok with it. he's promoting it.

I agree we should not kill or harm gays in any way. We should treat them as humans first, no matter the act. We should treat them as brothers and sisters. I've said this before. That does not mean we should condone the activity. Condoning the activity is saying it's fine, keep doing it and do it with all the rights a male and female couple have, making everything related to it ok. That's wrong in my beliefs. That's wrong by the bible. That's wrong by any religion basing their beliefs from the bible.

There are no loopholes.

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by adjensen

 

According to the clip...

The retired archbishop was speaking at the launch of a UN-backed campaign in South Africa to promote gay rights.

This is basicly saying that he's ok with it. he's promoting it.

What is he okay with?

According to that bit that you've quoted there, he's okay with equal rights for homosexuals. How is that a bad thing? Do you think that a gay person should be refused employment because they are gay? Or that they should not be able to go to hospital and visit someone that they love as much as you might love your spouse, simply because they are gay?

I don't promote homosexuality, and I agree that homosexual acts are sinful, just as heterosexual acts can be, but I see no reason to make someone's life miserable simply for who they are. I think that, if you really think through what Jesus taught, you'd agree that he would most likely be in favour of equal rights for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation -- to conclude otherwise is to believe that God picks favourites and is capable of hating and wishing misery on some of his children for reasons that they cannot change.

reply to post by adjensen


I dont disagree with you. I plainly stated that there should be no harm and equal in the sense of treating them like human beings. marriage is another issue altogether. Gay rights encompases a wide range of things including marriage. When he said he would not go to a homophobic heaven, he's saying that his heaven is full of lesbian and gay people. I have a problem with that. The words I read restrict the activity.

You can't say that there is a diffrence based on the absense of act. We all know that 99.9% do not and we know that they are not refering to the 0.1% here. Cmon now.

This whole thing wreaks.

I dont agree with what is happening in africa. But what tutu stands for is more than just the killing of gays there.

At the same time, he's using the word homophobic. How would God fear homosexuals? ,,,if you want to use word play, that is...

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by adjensen

 

When he said he would not go to a homophobic heaven, he's saying that his heaven is full of lesbian and gay people.

I don't see that, at all -- he's saying that he doesn't like the idea of God hating on people, and I don't see where you'd take offense at that.

You need to separate the concepts that he's talking about from the actions that you're inferring from those concepts.

I am not homophobic, and neither do I support those who are, but in that position, I am not saying that gay people should be engaging in sinful activity.

reply to post by theRhenn

The bible also says that if you think about the sin, be it murdering someone or adultery, then you've commited the act in your heart, therefore it is a sin.

Perhaps you can understand where I'm coming from with this.

Perhaps adjensen does, but I do not. "thinking" about things IS NOT equivalent to doing them.

I'm SO SICK of "the Bible says"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how many 'versions' of "the Bible" there are? EVERY ONE of them is different. I saw a website page the other day that listed all the 'major' versions of the Bible.....and MOST of them don't mention 'hell' as a punishment at all....

were you aware of that? If you'd like the source, let me know.

Originally posted by wildtimes
I saw a website page the other day that listed all the 'major' versions of the Bible.....and MOST of them don't mention 'hell' as a punishment at all....

Any "Bible" that removes references to Hell is not a legitimate Bible. Though it was treated differently in the Old and New Testaments (for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion,) it is a theme that exists throughout the Bible. Christ referenced Hell quite frequently and did not shy away from saying that those who rejected God would be condemned. So if Hell is removed, as you say, you are reading a "I wish it were this way" kind of Bible that someone has changed to reflect their personal theology, similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible or the Jefferson Bible.

Though we may have a spirited debate about what "Hell" really is, there is no denying that the concept is present, and largely prevalent, in Christian theology.

reply to post by theRhenn

The bible also says that if you think about the sin, be it murdering someone or adultery, then you've commited the act in your heart, therefore it is a sin.

If you read what Jesus says closely, what he is talking about is that thought is the parent to actions. The thought is the beginning of temptation. It is the thoughts you have to resist because thought leads to desire and desire leads to temptation and temptation usually leads to sin.

I'm SO SICK of "the Bible says"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how many 'versions' of "the Bible" there are? EVERY ONE of them is different. I saw a website page the other day that listed all the 'major' versions of the Bible.....and MOST of them don't mention 'hell' as a punishment at all....



Do they say anything about outer darkness and wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Originally posted by guitarplayer
I'm SO SICK of "the Bible says"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how many 'versions' of "the Bible" there are? EVERY ONE of them is different. I saw a website page the other day that listed all the 'major' versions of the Bible.....and MOST of them don't mention 'hell' as a punishment at all....

This is the second time a claim of Bibles that have deleted hell from them has been posted in the past few days. What translations of the Bible are you citing? "MOST" is an indication that you have a large number of translations.

Desmond Tutu is better off worshipping a "Heterophilic" God. .....

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by guitarplayer
I'm SO SICK of "the Bible says"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how many 'versions' of "the Bible" there are? EVERY ONE of them is different. I saw a website page the other day that listed all the 'major' versions of the Bible.....and MOST of them don't mention 'hell' as a punishment at all....

This is the second time a claim of Bibles that have deleted hell from them has been posted in the past few days. What translations of the Bible are you citing? "MOST" is an indication that you have a large number of translations.

That was not me I screwed up when I reposted it in response to wildtimes she did not add the word hell in the original post since she could not find hell in the bible I was asking her if she found the term outer darkness. So if you want to rant rant at wildtimes the post is a little bit up on this page.

reply to post by guitarplayer

Um, I happen to agree with being sick of "the Bible says"!!! Sick to death of it!
Because there isn't one "standard" Bible.
You want to rant at me? I haven't read ANY Bible all the way through - I have no use for ANY of them spiritually - they serve only as a phenomenon of the human condition and anthropology. I have read many, many books on the history of religion, the history of the various religions, and scholarly works.

You might try the classic The Varieties of Religous Experience: A Study in Human Nature by William James, circa 1900, if you really are interested in what makes me tick. I'm into "psychology" and "sociology" and "anthropology" - and religion is one of the most fascinating aspects of humanity as a species.

Save your rant for the people who change around the Bible to fit their whims (or power-mongering). I don't deserve it.

she did not add the word hell in the original post since she could not find hell in the bible

What? What the hell are you talking about? The OP is not mine - it is boymonkey's. And my post DID contain the word hell.

HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS MISTRANSLATED TO MEAN HELL

This is actually not the same source where I first saw the data, but it will do for now. All you need do is Google (or Bing or whatever) "Hell in the Bible", and you, too can see that not all versions contain Hell, and that it is a mistranslation from the get-go.

Let us clearly demonstrate that Bible translators, who are experts in the Hebrew and Greek languages, disagree immensely about the number of times hell is mentioned in the Bible by considering the following comparison table.

Number of times the word ‘Hell’ occurs in the following Bible Versions

Year A.D. BIBLE VERSION OT NT Total

400 The Latin Vulgate 87 24 111
1611 King James Version 31 23 54
1884 Hanson’s New Covenant n/a 0 0
1891 Young’s Literal Translation 0 0 0
1900 Twentieth Century New Testament n/a 0 0
1901 American Standard Version 0 13 13
1902 Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 0 0 0
1903 Weymouth’s New Testament n/a 0 0
1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible OT 0 n/a 0
1942 Emphatic Diaglott Greek /English Int. n/a 0 0
1952 Revised Standard Version 0 17 17
1976 Restoration of Original Sacred Name 0 0 0
1978 New International Version 0 14 14
1982 New King James Version 19 13 32
1983 Concordant Literal NT n/a 0 0
1998 Tanakh/The Complete Jewish Bible 0 n/a 0
2004 Holman Christian Standard Bible 0 12 12

reply to post by wildtimes


That would seem to indicate that the word "Hell" is absent from some translations, but that doesn't mean that the concept isn't still there. Whether it's "Hell", "Sheol" or something else, it's still portrayed as a place that people who will be punished are to be found after death.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

I thought that you meant that they had cut whole passages, like that one, out of the Bible.