Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[HIM]

That makes no sense. You can be homosexual without acting on it. Just like you can be heterosexual without acting on it.

A admitted homosexual has not been delivered. They still think they are a homosexual. They are still of the sin.

 

[Strathos]

A admitted homosexual has not been delivered. They still think they are a homosexual. They are still of the sin.

Simply having the orientation isn't a sin. Acting on it is.

 

[HIM]

Simply having the orientation isn't a sin. Acting on it is.

A adulter. A fornicator, a homosexual still have the tendencies in their hearts. If the desire is not there they are not such, they have been delivered.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Strathos]

A adulter. A fornicator, a homosexual still have the tendencies in their hearts. If the desire is not there they are not such, they have been delivered.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That applies to everyone, not just homosexuals. Are you trying to say that anyone with heterosexual temptations can never be a Christian either?

 

[The Ant]

A adulter. A fornicator, a homosexual still have the tendencies in their hearts. If the desire is not there they are not such, they have been delivered.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Why should I pay heed to another man’s views on sexuality? What makes Matthew (whoever he was) and Paul experts?

 

[HIM]

That applies to everyone, not just homosexuals. Are you trying to say that anyone with heterosexual temptations can never be a Christian either?

If we are lead by the flesh, a heart of sin we are of sin. It is a sin to be a fornicator and aldulter in the heart. A homosexual is lead by the flesh, their desires. They have not repented. If they had they would not be a homosexual.

 

[Ophiolite]

A adulter. A fornicator, a homosexual still have the tendencies in their hearts. If the desire is not there they are not such, they have been delivered.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I am curious as to whether or not you consider self-righteous, merciless indignation to be a sin. Yes? No? Other?

 

[SilverBear]

Sin is the issue regardless what it is, it is an offense to God. Homosexuality included.

just like racial equality is an offense to God, at least it is according to racists

 

[Kylie]

He makes out that homosexual "couples" are in a genuine family.

The man is a heretic. Flat out.

The old joke response is "Is the Pope Catholic". Well the answer is now "Not anymore".

I was under the impression that the Pope was the leader of the Catholic church. If he chooses to lead the church to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

 

[The Ant]

I was under the impression that the Pope was the leader of the Catholic church. If he chooses to lead the church to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

Nice call Kylie

 

[Redac]

I was under the impression that the Pope was the leader of the Catholic church. If he chooses to lead the church to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

Because that's not how it works.

 

[IceJad]

I was under the impression that the Pope was the leader of the Catholic church. If he chooses to lead the church to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

I was under the impression that Mr. Turnbull (formerly) was chosen to lead Australia. Why are Australians criticising him about how he handled Timor-Leste? If he chooses to lead Australia to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

 

[Kylie]

I was under the impression that Mr. Turnbull (formerly) was chosen to lead Australia. Why are Australians criticising him about how he handled Timor-Leste? If he chooses to lead Australia to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

That's a bit different. The whole thing with Papal Infallibility.

 

[IceJad]

That's a bit different. The whole thing with Papal Infallibility.

By that line of thinking you would be fine if the next Pope does a 180 because of Papal Infallibility. All Popes are fallible humans including the first, Peter the Apostle. And that's not how all Catholics think and act.

 

[coffee4u]

Sure it's comparable. The same arguments and rhetoric are used to justify both.

What people say or use as an excuse to justify something doesn't matter. That's human judgment and it's meaningless. It changes given the country, the culture, and the time we are born into.
Just because a group is large doesn't make their views any more just or right than a smaller group. It's only just or right when the view is taken from God's Holy Word. God alone sets down what is good and right and just. We may not even like it. Sometimes it would be so much easier to go by society standards. Forgiving people is hard-we are suppose to do so. Being celibate is hard-we are suppose to be so. He counts it as adultery if a man lusts after a women he sees, not just having an affair.

A hundred years ago people views prejudice and discrimination based on skin color to be perfectly normal and moral and that prejudice was backed up biblically.

That is actually a really good example of how changeable human judgment and society views are. They claimed it came from the Bible, but did it really? Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true.
What chapter and verse says to discriminate based on someones skin colour? If it's not in the Bible then they didn't get it from the Bible, they were simply using the Bible as a handy excuse.
The only verses I know of, are about not discriminating, dozens of them.
Verses about how we judge others is how we will be judged, verses about not looking down on the young, nor flavouring someone wealthy.

Mark 12:30-31


30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
That sums up God's law of the New Covenant. It would be quite a different world if people took those two things to heart.

 

[SilverBear]

What people say or use as an excuse to justify something doesn't matter.

sure it does. It is damaging to Christianity when people use the religion itself to justify hated and discrimination.

That's human judgment and it's meaningless. It changes given the country, the culture, and the time we are born into.
Just because a group is large doesn't make their views any more just or right than a smaller group. It's only just or right when the view is taken from God's Holy Word. God alone sets down what is good and right and just. We may not even like it. Sometimes it would be so much easier to go by society standards.

This is what racists do, they justify their prejudice with the bible. At one time, not that long ago their view we the view of the mainstream, they were the large group pushing their agenda of discrimination as an enactment of God's word. Just as today the same agenda is being pushed it's just the minority being targeted has changed. The hate is the same as is the rhetoric and the claims of such behavior being the will of God.

That is actually a really good example of how changeable human judgment and society views are. They claimed it came from the Bible, but did it really? Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true.

why is your biblical interpretations and claims of following God's will correct that the interpretations of the racists wrong? I can already guess that your justification as toe why you are right will have already been used by racists.

What chapter and verse says to discriminate based on someones skin colour? If it's not in the Bible then they didn't get it from the Bible, they were simply using the Bible as a handy excuse.

there are historic books filled with such interpretations. Go educate yourself.

Yes, using the bible as an excuse to prejudice is a horrible thing no matter who that prejudice is directed agaisnt.

The only verses I know of, are about not discriminating, dozens of them.
Verses about how we judge others is how we will be judged, verses about not looking down on the young, nor flavouring someone wealthy.

Mark 12:30-31


30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
That sums up God's law of the New Covenant. It would be quite a different world if people took those two things to heart.

yes, there would be a lot less anti-gay prejudice and discrimination

 

[SilverBear]

I was under the impression that Mr. Turnbull (formerly) was chosen to lead Australia. Why are Australians criticising him about how he handled Timor-Leste? If he chooses to lead Australia to this, how can anyone say he is wrong?

does Mr Trunbull claim to be morally infallible?

 

[Strathos]

If we are lead by the flesh, a heart of sin we are of sin. It is a sin to be a fornicator and aldulter in the heart. A homosexual is lead by the flesh, their desires. They have not repented. If they had they would not be a homosexual.

Again, that makes no sense. You can't change your orientation at will. All you can do is refuse to act on it.

If a man discovers that he has lustful thoughts about other men, but he dedicates himself to Christ and refuses to act on these thoughts, and prays to God for forgiveness, then in my view that man is a good Christian.

 

[coffee4u]

Again, that makes no sense. You can't change your orientation at will. All you can do is refuse to act on it.

If a man discovers that he has lustful thoughts about other men, but he dedicates himself to Christ and refuses to act on these thoughts, and prays to God for forgiveness, then in my view that man is a good Christian.

100% agree. A good Christian and a good man.
There are at least people here on CF who said they are celibate for this reason. I greatly admire that, especially when the world is encouraging them to sin.

 

[coffee4u]

sure it does. It is damaging to Christianity when people use the religion itself to justify hated and discrimination.

I didn't mean like that, but of course it's damaging towards Christianity.

This is what racists do, they justify their prejudice with the bible.
there are historic books filled with such interpretations. Go educate yourself.

You are the one claiming that people can use the Bible for racial prejudiced, so its up to you to show where and how.