Read the bible again
?
Pretty sure Paul explicitly states in Romans that, to put it kindly, homosexuality isn't kosher in the church.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pope Francis: "Who am I to judge gay people?"
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
?
Pretty sure Paul explicitly states in Romans that, to put it kindly, homosexuality isn't kosher in the church.
They teach that it is equally sinful, but they generally don't devote equal teaching time to it. Especially when you consider what the likely composition of sexual sins in the Catholic flock is in terms of acts between same-sex vs. complementary-sex partners.
In order to be forgiven for sin, you must repent of the sin. This means (hypothetically) that if you want to be saved, you must regret and discard your feelings of joy in sharing physical intimacy with the person you love.
No, that's 'saving yourself for marriage'.
Hah! Nice.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yep. And it's not just "gay sex" either. Kissing, holding hands, loving, etc. someone of the same sex is considered a sin.
Nathan Muir
Member
It's important to care about what this backwards-oriented organisation is thinking because 17% of the world's population is Catholic. That instantly makes the issue very relevant. Here in Argentina it is 92% of the population. It's not an issue that can just be ignored when there's such a history of political power in the Church, and there's also such a widespread following and submission to its ideals. When bigotry is what manifests as the result of a set of biblical interpretations and social mandates, you can't turn a blind eye.
Though, what I'm seeing so frequently here in Buenos Aires now is that nearly every student at a university level is abandoning the Church. So, I suppose, you could remain passive and wait for the inevitable revolutionising within a few centuries in attempt to remain relevant and recapture control (be it social, political, or otherwise). The Church eventually will need to adapt its social stances or face marginalisation and lack of control. For me though, it's important that we do what we can now to teach people compassion and acceptance.
Hari Seldon
Member
They hammer in the premarital sex thing way more than homosexual sex. There is no pro premarital sex lobby making a stink about this in the media, especially because most parents, even non-catholic parents, agree with this point of view haha.
Fenderputty
Banned
This does mean something, because it will always be seen as a sin in the Church. This sort of talk might eventually lead to views of homosexuality being seen as on par with other sins like premarital sex and such in the eyes of the followers. That would be a huge step forward. More prominent religious leaders need to speak up and let their followers know that it's wrong to judge.
This is pretty false in my experience. I attended parochial school as a child up until high school and no sex before marriage is hammered harder than pretty much any drum once you hit about the 5/6th grade. I think people on the outside looking in don't think emphasis is placed on it due to how big the whole gay marriage thing has gotten, yet it really can't be further from the truth. It's just after a certain point it just becomes one of those understood things. Hell back in HS two of my (catholic) friends had sex, were found out, and the male was nearly disowned by his parents over it.
Just because the media doesn't cover it as much doesn't mean it isn't a big deal internally.
Yeah this is wrong
Not to attack you specifically, but this very prevalent Internet trope - that nothing is ever good enough.
change starts with small steps, evolution eventually brings us the ideal, or something closer to it at least. So dismissing something as relatively massive and important as Francis speaking openly about this issue, and even tolerantly, is missing the point. It's not enough to achieve change on its own, but it is a powerful and important step in the right direction.
And this is a pope who has already done more to garner the love of the common catholic people in the first few months, than Palpatine did in his entire reign.
The Albatross
Member
Kissing, holding hands, and 'loving'* is fine -- but specifically, fornication, which does include premarital sex and a lot of heterosexual relations. Hell, even married, loving couples can practice sexual relations wrongly. That being said, it does not barr premarital holding hands and kissing, and the Church does not interpret it that way -- although some individuals have (usually not Catholics, but sometimes).
*loving -- Loving is actually required, explicitly, for everybody in the world. Whole 'lotta lovin going on in the Bible.
(edit, changed to fornication, said the wrong thing initially)
I disagree with you here. The Church spends far more time teaching against hetereosexual premarital sex than it does against homosexual relationships. First, to be accurate, there are almost no sanctioned catechism classes teaching about sexuality as a regular part of theology, and if there are it's very uncommon. But, for any classes or teaching on sexuality, almost all of it focuses on premarital sex, abstaining from sex, and guarding your sexuality, not on homosexuality.
Where there is an imbalance is with people -- usually not the Church but individual Catholics (and more often than not, non-Catholics) -- who feel the need to proselytize against homosexuality, usually while they're committing plenty of equally forbidden acts themselves.
As long as it is seen as a sin, people will always look down upon/judge people for it.
Trinity.
That's what I meant, though I worded it a bit badly to be honest. It would be nice if we could just ignore the Catholic Church, but as it is right now, we can't.
The Albatross
Member
The Trinity, Mary, the Sacraments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
Fenderputty
Banned
Do you feel like if you repeat the same point the person I quoted made it will somehow make everyone posting this point less silly? They'll never say homosexuality isn't a sin. Just like they'll never say it's OK to murder or take the Lord's name in vain. Just like they'll never say premarital sex isn't a sin as well.
IMO, the only reason its easy for religious people to point he finger at homosexuality is because they can't empathize with the sinner. Everyone has premarital sex and has lustful thoughts about other people. So I just think it's easier for people to point the finger. That makes it all the more important that religious leader point out the hypocrisy and don't condone such actions.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
billy beane
Banned
This Pope is fucking dope. I'm gonna become a Catholic again.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
This will be an unpopular opinion but I'll offer it nevertheless. While I would prefer Christians be much more welcoming to gays, lesbians, and transgender people and not 'judge' them, they are following a literal reading of what the Bible says regarding non heterosexual sex. Personally, it's one of those areas where I interpret it differently. But my issue isn't with Christian's views of non-hetero sex but rather taking their religious view and trying to force that into the sexular sphere of society.
Religion doesn't have a place in law IMO. Many Christians will continue to believe and preach that gays are sinning. They have and should continue to have that right. What needs to change is the church trying to force their theological views into the political sphere which robs gays, lesbians, and trans of their Constitutional and human rights.
Religion doesn't have a place in law IMO. Many Christians will continue to believe and preach that gays are sinning. They have and should continue to have that right. What needs to change is the church trying to force their theological views into the political sphere which robs gays, lesbians, and trans of their Constitutional and human rights.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Great answer!
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Not really. We can go back to the earliest of Church Fathers and you'll see that Jesus was viewed as God incarnate, eternal. Regardless of what certain sects argue we know what the earliest of church fathers wrote. The view of Jesus being fully God existed centuries before the RCC became the representative of the Western Church. Look at Origen, Tertullian, Ignatius, Irenaeus to name a few.
well, for the record, sex outside of marriage is a sin so I think most of us are already at hell's door
I'm wondering why they argued over months about this back then if it was so obvious and accepted then.
That's where Pope Francis is drawing the line - who is he or anyone else to say that you are at the gates of hell for it?
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
There was Arius and those that agreed with him who saw Jesus as a creature which led to the debate between Arius v. Athanasius. Realize that for the first couple hundreds of years the Roman Church was one of many metropolitans within the Church. Eventually Athansius' side won but this notion that the Church 'changed' it's doctrine is false. They ended up solidifying and deciding on official dogma but nothing was 'changed'. It wasn't as if the Chuch had believed Jesus was a creature ala Arius and then changed to say he was God.
Think of it as closing Biblical cannon. the four gospels we have today had always been seen as 'the gospels' for most of the Christian community. Though there were countless other gospels in existence (James, Thomas, Mary, Peter, Paul, etc.) the four of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had been accepted as the true gospels, even though it took hundreds of years to form into cannon.
I'm not arguing whether Jesus is God/a god, that's a theological debate. What I am arguing is that there was no 'changing' of who he was within or by the RCC.
You guys could end the argument between the bible lecturers, once and for all. The bible is more clear about sex during the menstruation as a sin which should be punished by death.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Glad you pointed this out. I get what you are saying now and believe you are right about this.
Roland1979
Junior Member
But the funny thing is the church teaches about hell while there are no references of hell in the bible (king James) as far as i know. The closest thing is a lake of fire where satan (and friends?) would be tossed in. So instead of killing him quick and painless the merciful god decided to torture him. Not for weeks. Not for years. Not for hundreds of years. Not for millions of years. For eternity. OT: revengeful god. NT: merciful god. And they are divided to the bone. This path and teaching is better then this, this church is better then this, it's reformed vs Catholic vs protestants vs... I'm sorry but i just can't take anything they do or say really serious. But, no doubt Jesus was a very compassionate man.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Hell is referenced in the Bible. Again, not getting into a moral debate but in terms of hell being biblical, yes it is.
One of the issues that the Catholic church will face, at least in the West, is that what the church preaches about gay people and gay marriage is largely at odds with the general feelings of its parishioners, who are becoming more and more likely to support gay rights and gay marriage. It's a delicate balance that they'll have to keep playing over the next few decades. I doubt the core tenants of the church will ever change without another schism, but we'll see.
A lot of Western religions will need to temper their vitriol on homosexuality to stay relevant.
A lot of Western religions will need to temper their vitriol on homosexuality to stay relevant.
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
"Being gay is a sin, but I'm not judging." :/
At least it's a step in the right direction, I guess.
At least it's a step in the right direction, I guess.
So this is utterly meaningless. "I can't judge them, but they still shouldn't have equal rights."
Fucking get over it. Let your religion evolve. The church stopped punishing people for wearing different types of fabric at the same time, cutting their hair, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, and working on Sunday. Those are ALL in the Bible as punishable offenses.
But the church can't get over homosexuality. Sad.
Roland1979
Junior Member
Tell me where please, i mean which book, section, etc (from general accepted bible of course). And indeed let's not get into a debate. Plus no one can prove there is no god.. But i'm not a fan of the church system, let's keep it at that.
I'm not familiar with the latter, but Origen most definitely didn't put god and jesus on equal footings.
Nevertheless, the concept of a triune god was certainly not canon until Nicea, and there is very little support for it in the bible. Creation ex nihilo is another one, originally this wasn't the predominant view at all. So the point is, there is nothing "eternal" in the teachings of christianity, they have certainly changed a lot over time.
edit: it's getting way OT. Anyway, I don't see how these are baby steps. It's nothing new at all, and still the same bullshit than "I don't hate the sinner, I hate the sin". It makes no sense to say that it's OK to be homosexual but not to have intercourse with a person of the same sex. It'd be like a vegetarian saying "I'm OK with non-vegetarian people, as long as they don't eat meat".
So people that shave their beards and cut their hair should also have their rights taken away, right?
It's in the bible.
Book of Leviticus 18 and 20.
Roland1979
Junior Member
I'm not gonna read them entirely, please tell me where it says that (and something vague like a underworld/realm of the dead is not necessarily a hell). Which sentences say that a hell exists.
Roland1979
Junior Member
A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand (translated form Dutch version).
really like pope francis. given that he's operating within the constraints of a large, dogmatic institution heavily wedded to tradition, i don't suddenly expect radical change. yet his empathy and consideration in how he's gone about working within his role so far have been far better than i expected and will hopefully have a positive impact.
Pope Francisco is the antichrist confirmed.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
What do you define as the church punishing them?
Vatican II loosened the restrictions a bit, but the major tenants of sin are still there unscathed after centuries. Those haven't changed, homosexuality is one of them. Equating it to getting a hair cut when a direct corollary like premarital hetero sex exists seems pretty weak logic.
The Pope saying what he said is, from a theological standpoint, lumping heterosexual people in with people who practice premarital sex/cohabitation. The church isn't beating down that group's door trying to make them repent, but much like homosexual people they won't marry a straight couple who live together. I'd say that's about as big a step forward as the Catholic church has made on anything in quite some time, seeings how the organization is only just now recognizing that condoms might not be a horrible idea in African nations with HIV problems, still consider masturbation period to be a sin, and not too long ago argued that homosexuality was a mental disorder that required treatment.
Having the Pope of all people say he's not one to judge gay people is a pretty meaningful re-positioning of the goal posts on his part.
This is pretty much the best we're going to get from a Catholic official. Unless the Bible changes somehow, homosexual acts will never cease to be a sin. I am glad he put forward the obvious message though: "who are we to judge?". This is pretty much in line with New Testament's teachings (e.g. "let he without sin cast the first stone"), and it surprises me how many supposed Christians jump to bigotry and judgement despite that.
Pope Francis seems like a positive force in all of this.
Pope Francis seems like a positive force in all of this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked