Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[The Ant]

It relates precisely.
Who you refer to as bigots is seen by them as unwilling to change by the name callers.

It's a difference between those of us who are in Life and those in death.

You could use similar justification to discriminate against people of colour, women, the disabled, followers of different religions. In each case we would describe that as bigotry.

 

[Occams Barber]

WOW...
OK
There's this set of books called the Old Testament that helps explain the Other set of books and letters called the New Testament.

In the Old Testament in the book known as Jeremiah chapter 18 there is a symbolic tale of a potter working clay.
And it is a representation of transforming our lives to become more acceptable to God.

Low, heavy walled vessels are for very common purposes. They never hold high dollar products like wine or oil. (Wine is a symbol for Joy and oil is a symbol for Holy Spirit)
A Potter makes no real money from poor quality clay products. The taller and thinner a piece of clay is formed (like a pitcher or cruette) the more money per piece He makes. (All is done as fast as possible)
Most Christians desire to be filled with wine or oil. People are typed by clay in this narrative. Some clay is better than other clay and not just a different color... although blending clays is absolutely beautiful when done well.

Self inflicted pressure to grow as well as external pressure from God can make tall, thin walled vessels.

That's what I was alluding to.
If someone doesn't want to grow in the grace and knowledge of God they are a proverbial bedpan of Christiandom... filled with excrement instead of joy or holy Spirit.

And from most people's experience most homosexuals don't want to leave their sin of homosexuality behind them. They want to continue. But they aren't the only ones... this board is full of people wanting to know if they can continue in sin and still be counted as being one of "us".
The answer is always "no".

This is new concept for me - Christians as crockery

OB

 

[JohnDB]

You could use similar justification to discriminate against people of colour, women, the disabled, followers of different religions. In each case we would describe that as bigotry.

Nope. Can't do that.
We have seen people from all over the world, of every nationality, race, and creed repent and engage in sanctification.
And that's the cut. A change in behavior.

 

[The Ant]

Nope. Can't do that.
We have seen people from all over the world, of every nationality, race, and creed repent and engage in sanctification.
And that's the cut. A change in behavior.

Nope. Black people can't "repent" and become white. Women can't "repent" and become men. A Muslim is just as likely to "repent" and change his religious affiliation as you are.

It isn't about 'repentance'. Its about treating people who are different to you with fairness and equity. Bigotry is what happens when people, borne out of whatever justification, fail to do that.

 

[JohnDB]

Nope. Black people can't "repent" and become white. Women can't "repent" and become men. A Muslim is just as likely to "repent" and change his religious affiliation as you are.

It isn't about 'repentance'. Its about treating people who are different to you with fairness and equity. Bigotry is what happens when people, borne out of whatever justification, fail to do that.

Nope...
It's all about repentance which is a term that reflects actions and attitudes about sinful lifestyles. It isn't a sin to be a race/color God created.
God didn't create sin. God did create the races and colors of people.
I've worked with Christians from all over the world and every nationality and color that I consider brothers and sisters. But I don't consider those who refuse to give up sinful lifestyles expressly forbidden by God to be a family member. I might tolerate them but I don't accept them.

 

[The Ant]

Nope...
It's all about repentance which is a term that reflects actions and attitudes about sinful lifestyles. It isn't a sin to be a race/color God created.
God didn't create sin. God did create the races and colors of people.
I've worked with Christians from all over the world and every nationality and color that I consider brothers and sisters. But I don't consider those who refuse to give up sinful lifestyles expressly forbidden by God to be a family member. I might tolerate them but I don't accept them.

If you think that being homosexual is a ‘lifestyle choice’, then you are sorely misinformed. In the same manner that being black, or female, or being born blind is a part of that person’s identity, most gay people I have spoken to explain that their sexuality is likewise part of who they are. It’s a question often asked, but did you or I make a conscious decision that we would be heterosexual? So it is for gay people.

And if you are right and your god made some people black or female or blind, then presumably he also made some people gay.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And if you are right and your god made some people black or female or blind, then presumably he also made some people gay.

Some people are born with an innate attraction to horses. Do I have to believe as, a theist, that God made and blessed them that way?

 

[The Ant]

Some people are born with an innate attraction to horses. Do I have to believe as, a theist, that God made and blessed them that way?

Thats entirely up to you. If, as a theist, you believe that your god creates all life as we witness it, then I guess the answer for you would be yes?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Thats entirely up to you. If, as a theist, you believe that your god creates all life as we witness it, then I guess the answer for you would be yes?

No one has ever thought about this within the Church, like in over 2000 years. Move over Thomas Aquinas, the Ant is now the Doctor of not only the Catholic Church, but dare I say, all Christendom?

I don't mind when atheists want to talk about theology, but at least have some knowledge about it and Christianity :/

 

[The Ant]

No one has ever thought about this within the Church, like in over 2000 years. Move over Thomas Aquinas, the Ant is now the Doctor of not only the Catholic Church, but dare I say, all Christendom?

I don't mind when atheists want to talk about theology, but at least have some knowledge about it and Christianity :/

How odd. I make no pronouncements about Christendom. But I do think I have a reasonable handle on bigotry.

In fact Iggy, you could do a service and educate me. Please show me in any of your books where it is forbidden to be homosexual. Thanks in advance.

 

[JohnDB]

How odd. I make no pronouncements about Christendom. But I do think I have a reasonable handle on bigotry.

In fact Iggy, you could do a service and educate me. Please show me in any of your books where it is forbidden to be homosexual. Thanks in advance.

Chapter 1&2 of Romans Paul explains that homosexuality is a self imposed curse as a result of sinful lifestyles.
It is a dreadful thing to be cursed with moral turpitude in such a fashion. Because they can't/won't repent from their self imposed curse.
They claim that God made them this way but God doesn't make sin. Mankind makes sin. And where this wasn't the goal of their sins it definitely became the results. Removed from the gene pool by means of inability to repent.
Then there's the studies that show that over 80% of Homosexuals are actually bisexual. Meaning that they are truly guilty of moral turpitude despite any other claim to the contrary.

 

[hedrick]

Chapter 1&2 of Romans Paul explains that homosexuality is a self imposed curse as a result of sinful lifestyles.
It is a dreadful thing to be cursed with moral turpitude in such a fashion. Because they can't/won't repent from their self imposed curse.
They claim that God made them this way but God doesn't make sin. Mankind makes sin. And where this wasn't the goal of their sins it definitely became the results. Removed from the gene pool by means of inability to repent.
Then there's the studies that show that over 80% of Homosexuals are actually bisexual. Meaning that they are truly guilty of moral turpitude despite any other claim to the contrary.

This is not even good conservative exegesis of the passage.

Homosexuality is, by definition, a condition where a person is attracted solely or primarily to others of the same gender. This is not the same thing as same-gender sex, because that can be done even by heterosexuals, e.g. commonly in prisons. Indeed the most explicit treatment of it in the Bible — the Sodom story — shows it as being threatened by people who are not homosexual (since it’s the whole population) and who clearly were using it as a show of dominance. (More literally, rape, but I think in this context that's what the threatened rape was. Unfortunately that's not as uncommon as it should be.)

First, there’s no sign that the Bible deals with homosexuality at all. The laws in Lev are about same-gender sex. The claim in this passage is that it is a result of idolatry, not “sinful lifestyles.” Because of their idolatry, God allowed their thinking and morals to become confused, and they gave up their natural intercourse for unnatural. The giving up natural part indicates that the people involved are not seen as inherently homosexual.

The cause is idolatry (worship of images) and it looks very much like God actually caused them to be confused and turn to same-gender sex, as a punishment. That’s not actually an impossible understanding, since 1st Cent Jews thought same-gender sex was so obviously a bad thing that it is conceivable it could be used as a punishment. (I’m depending here upon Gagnon’s explanation of 1st Cent attitudes. He is hardly a fan of accepting homosexuality.) The text pretty much says that: "received in their own persons the due penalty for their error", the error being idolatry. Note that AIDS didn't exist in this time period. Same-gender sex itself was seen as a penalty. Surprisingly, same-gender sex actually isn't on the list of evil things for which 1:32 says people deserve to die. Did the author think it had already been dealt with sufficiently, or was it been spoken of as a punishment rather than an offense?

 

[JohnDB]

This is not even good conservative exegesis of the passage.

Homosexuality is, by definition, a condition where a person is attracted solely or primarily to others of the same gender. This is not the same thing as same-gender sex, because that can be done even by heterosexuals, e.g. commonly in prisons. Indeed the most explicit treatment of it in the Bible — the Sodom story — shows it as being threatened by people who are not homosexual (since it’s the whole population) and who clearly were using it as a show of dominance. Using sex for that purpose is not as uncommon as it should be.

First, there’s no sign that the Bible deals with homosexuality at all. The laws in Lev are about same-gender sex. The claim in this passage is that it is a result of idolatry, not “sinful lifestyles.” Because of their idolatry, God allowed their thinking and morals to become confused, and they gave up their natural intercourse for unnatural. The giving up natural part indicates that the people involved are not seen as homosexual.

The cause is idolatry (worship of images) and it looks very much like God actually caused them to be confused and turn to same-gender sex, as a punishment. That’s not actually an impossible understanding, since 1st Cent Jews thought same-gender sex was so obviously a bad thing that it is conceivable it could be a punishment. (I’m depending here upon Gagnon’s explanation of 1st Cent attitudes. He is hardly a fan of accepting homosexuality.)

No...just "no".
Idolatry may seem to be the worship of images to those who don't know any better but the reality is much different.
The image is only a symbol much like an ancient execution device is a symbol for many.
Christians don't worship the device...they worship who was placed on the device.
Same thing with idolatry.

Idols in the bible all had the same name of either Baal or Ashteroth.
Today these idols have much more modern names of sex/greed and violence/revenge. The bible never used their actual proper names but instead always labels them as one of these two. (Nothing new)

Molech is a "new" one mentioned. But basically it is child abuse.

Also if you really knew scriptures and the Hebrew language you would know that Hebrew is a highly metaphoric language. Hebrew also contains no bad words for such things as "thief" or "prostitute". They had to use a euphemism to explain these concepts.

Dog is the term used for homosexual. It's used frequently. As in "a dog returns to it's vomit".

 

[stevevw]

Okay, but weather you know it or not You made a contrast between traditionalist and progressives. As if being a traditionalist was a bad thing.
Regardless. In this proclamation is acceptance. It goes without saying that one would acknowledge said laws, see that they exist. But what one should be proclaiming is I see this law, acknowledge it, but will never accept nor recognize it.

Sorry if it came accross that way. I never meant to make out that traditionalist were any less a person. It may have been just a communication problem rather than any critizism. I am not sure that there are traditionalists and progressive believers per se in that they take the same position on all issues but rather that people may have traditional and prgressive views on issues depending what the issue is. So called traditionalsits may be forward thinkinng on some issues while progressives can take a traditional view on others while they both may take similar positions on still other issues.

I think the idea of secular laws like civil unions and divorce for example have been a part of society for years now. They may have first been strongly opposed but gradually people came to accept that as Christians they live in a secular society where some rules and laws are opposed to their belief but they have to accept that this is part of living in a secular society. I think there may be many policies that both political parties may hold that are against a persons belief but one live with those policies as part of existing in a secular society. That may sometimes mean going along with them as a means to an end.

For example I work for a local community centre that has an inclusive policy on gender, same sex relationships ect. So I have to accept that and work as best I can with that. Just because I have to go along with those policies doesnt mean I am promoting them. My concern is helping the disadvantaged regardless of race, religion, gender, lifestyle ect.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How odd. I make no pronouncements about Christendom. But I do think I have a reasonable handle on bigotry.

In fact Iggy, you could do a service and educate me. Please show me in any of your books where it is forbidden to be homosexual. Thanks in advance.

You made the lamest theological argument in history and resort to calling your opponent a bigot. I think it's reasonable to mock your idea that simply because God made someone that therefore we must support their desires.

You don't need books on homosexuality. You need basic books on theology itself. God read Augustine's city of God or literally anything.

 

[The Ant]

You made the lamest theological argument in history and resort to calling your opponent a bigot. I think it's reasonable to mock your idea that simply because God made someone that therefore we must support their desires.

You don't need books on homosexuality. You need basic books on theology itself. God read Augustine's city of God or literally anything.

I’ll try again. Can you please show me where your holy books condemn people for being homosexual? Because, like hedrick, I see only pronouncements about certain sexual behaviours. The pope seems to recognise this distinction.

 

[Robban]

Interesting article from 2013.

Alan Turing,
British mathemation who helped crack Nazi Germany's "Enigma" code and laid groundwork for modern computing,

was perdoned on Tuesday, six decades after his conviction for homosexuality is said to have driven him to his suicide.

I did not note the source,
I just tapped in,
Mannen who broke enigma code.

 

[JohnDB]

I’ll try again. Can you please show me where your holy books condemn people for being homosexual? Because, like hedrick, I see only pronouncements about certain sexual behaviours. The pope seems to recognise this distinction.

The Pope does not.
And you can agree with hendrick all you want... doesn't mean that it is true.

There are a bunch of people who believe that Trump will still be president in 30 days... doesn't mean that is true either.

 

[HIM]

I’ll try again. Can you please show me where your holy books condemn people for being homosexual? Because, like hedrick, I see only pronouncements about certain sexual behaviours. The pope seems to recognise this distinction.

1Cor 6:9 Or do you* not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor perverts, nor homosexuals,
1Cor 6:10 nor greedy people, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cor 6:11 And these were some of you*: but you* were bathed, but you* were sanctified, but you* were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.

1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
1Tim 1:10 for fornicators, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false swearers and if any other thing that is antagonizing to the sound teaching;
1Tim 1:11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted.

 

[Strathos]

The word used there doesn't correctly translate to 'homosexual'.

You can be homosexual and Christian as long as you are abstinent.