Support NeoGAF

[Sylver]

I'm not gonna read them entirely, pleas tell me where it says that. Which sentences say that a hell exists.

Just reread the conversation I thought you were talking about the bible condemning homosexual acts, not the hell existence.
About the hell exitence there tons like Lucas 16:23-25 book of revelation 20:11-15 or 20:9-15 book of Mark 9:43-48, and some more if you use google.
Don't get me wrong I'm atheistic but it's prety hilarious this efforts from catholic church to get more members meanwhile the most radical islamic doctrine getting wide and wide...

 

[11redder]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon. Basically, in the eyes of the Church people of all sexual persuasions are filthy sinners.

I hope all believers are as equally familiar with the Bible's teachings on persistent mould and mildew problems as they are with its teachings on sex, lest they wish to suffer eternal damnation. (Lev 14:33 for those interested in saving themselves).

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Book of Leviticus 18 and 20.

He was asking about hell, not verses dealing with homosexuality.

Roland:

Jude 7
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns around them indulged in sexual immorality and ⌊pursued unnatural desire⌋f in the same way as these, are exhibited as an example by* undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Peter 3:19
19 in which also he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,

That was re Jesus going to hell after his death preaching to those inprisoned.

 

[UrokeJoe]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon. Basically, in the eyes of the Church people of all sexual persuasions are filthy sinners.

This.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon. Basically, in the eyes of the Church people of all sexual persuasions are filthy sinners.

I hope all believers are as equally familiar with the Bible's teachings on persistent mould and mildew problems as they are with its teachings on sex, lest they wish to suffer eternal damnation. (Lev 14:33 for those interested in saving themselves).

To be fair many of the 613 Mosaic laws were specifically given to Israel and not the nations.

 

[Demon Ice]

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.

No, because those things I listed were also considered sins at one point. So I am demonstrating the fact that the definition of "sin" is fluid as far as the church is concerned. This is specifically in response to the people in this thread that seem to think this is the best possible thing the Pope can say about homosexuals because it is somehow physically impossible for the church to stop considering homosexuality a sin.

The church could very easily stop considering homosexuality a sin just as they stopped considering the consumption of shellfish or the cutting of hair as sins. What they can't do, it seems, is get with the times.

 

[Devolution]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon. Basically, in the eyes of the Church people of all sexual persuasions are filthy sinners.

I hope all believers are as equally familiar with the Bible's teachings on persistent mould and mildew problems as they are with its teachings on sex, lest they wish to suffer eternal damnation. (Lev 14:33 for those interested in saving themselves).

Even sex for procreation was viewed as sinful just a "necessary evil."

The Penitentials prohibited sex between husbands and wives during the first three days of marriage, as well as Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, the three Lents, the weeks following Easter, the days preceding the Pentecost, the two months around Christmas and hundreds of other holy days not to mention during a woman's pregnancy, lactation or menstruation. At best that left about four days a month. Even then there were strict rules. Sex was never to take place during the daytime and there was to be no fondling or lewd kisses ever. No sexual positions other than the missionary, male on top variety were allowed, because they were animal like and too stimulating. Oral and anal sex were punishable by up to twenty-five years of fasting and abstinence. After sex took place, more-over, people were expected to vigorously wash themselves and avoid going to church.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Even sex for procreation was viewed as sinful just a "necessary evil."

The Penitentials were an order of monks in ~600s, that was never official church doctrine. In fact, they were sentenced to burning in the 800s haha.

 

[Raist]

.

The defense of the unity of God against the Gnostics led Origen to maintain the subordination of the Logos to God, and the doctrine of the eternal generation is later.[50] Origen distinctly emphasised the independence of the Logos as well as the distinction from the being and substance of God. The term "of the same substance with the Father" was not employed. The Logos (and the Holy Spirit also) however, does share in the divinity of God. He is an image, a reflex of God, in which God communicates his divinity, as light radiating from the sun.

And I've read similar things in Karen Amstrong's book. Arius' stance was neither new, nor an isolated heretic's. Eventually elevating Jesus to a divine status was christianity's major problem, because it directly contradicted the historical argument for their god being unique, the one true god. Instead of keeping Jesus' status to a more reasonable level, they had to come up with a triune god, because there was no other option but monotheism. That, at least, has been fairly consistant.

 

[Devolution]

The Penitentials were an order of monks in ~600s, that was never official church doctrine. In fact, they were sentenced to burning in the 800s haha.

Yeah but they did manage to punish people all the same for sodomy and lewd acts for a while. Plus you had guys like Bartholomew who thought all sex was sinful.

 

[mantidor]

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.

Pretty much.

I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but I would assume the Catholic Church to be the first taking the step out of all the other Christian churches, and even Islam. They are too dogmatic an the absurdity of following the Bible/Koran literally will keep them behind.

 

[Drek]

I like what this Pope is doing and saying, but its starting to feel like he is PR.

What more is the Pope truly capable of? He could make a more declarative statement and be made a pariah within the church, achieving nothing. That's about it. He doesn't make every church decision on a day to day basis and he can't change dogmatic law on his own by any means.

You also greatly underestimate the importance of PR on this matter. The Catholic faith around the world is pretty partisan on the issue, where many moderate and liberal Catholics would be fine with homosexual marriage while the the conservative side of the isle (quite literally in this sense) believe homosexuals are a threat to them, their marriage, and their children. The Pope saying something like this takes a lot of the fervor and evangelizing power away from the later partisan sect who are the ones actively fund raising for political action campaigns and the like.

Not to mention that this will very likely lead to a softer line of teachings in the developing world regarding homosexuality, where there are still huge issues that make marriage inequality look positively benign.

The Pope is a slightly more relevant spin on the Queen/King of England. He can't make sweeping changes, but he can move the goal posts on the conversation ever so slightly to tip the scales.

 

[UrokeJoe]

What more is the Pope truly capable of? He could make a more declarative statement and be made a pariah within the church, achieving nothing. That's about it. He doesn't make every church decision on a day to day basis and he can't change dogmatic law on his own by any means.

You also greatly underestimate the importance of PR on this matter. The Catholic faith around the world is pretty partisan on the issue, where many moderate and liberal Catholics would be fine with homosexual marriage while the the conservative side of the isle (quite literally in this sense) believe homosexuals are a threat to them, their marriage, and their children. The Pope saying something like this takes a lot of the fervor and evangelizing power away from the later partisan sect who are the ones actively fund raising for political action campaigns and the like.

Not to mention that this will very likely lead to a softer line of teachings in the developing world regarding homosexuality, where there are still huge issues that make marriage inequality look positively benign.



The Pope is a slightly more relevant spin on the Queen/King of England. He can't make sweeping changes, but he can move the goal posts on the conversation ever so slightly to tip the scales.

I'm just not a fan of PR, it's usually not very genuine. That said I do really like this guy and I hope he is genuine and not a church puppet.

 

[Platy]

I like what this Pope is doing and saying, but its starting to feel like he is PR.

It was ALWAYS PR =P

But this one is good on this to a point of feeling like almost feeling forced PR

Last one was one of the worst PR jobs I ever saw.

 

[teruterubozu]

As long as it's PR and not the Inquisition.

 

[UrokeJoe]

It was ALWAYS PR =P

True, just like with a President us simpletons always need someone to rail against or with.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon..

Slight misconstruction here. The Church asks that all sex be open to procreation, not that it's only for that purpose.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hell is referenced in the Bible. Again, not getting into a moral debate but in terms of hell being biblical, yes it is.

Not in the way that it's talked about now Hell is not in the Bible that way.

 

[wildfire]

This means nothing as long as the church insists that not believing in God doesn't allow you to go to heaven. Respecting other religions that exist even if they don't follow gods teachings is meaningless..

Just altering your words a bit to show how flawed it is to call his positions meaningless.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Not in the way that it's talked about now Hell is not in the Bible that way.

In the Tanakh (OT) you die and go into the ground. Beginning in the Second Temple period (Post return from Babylon) you'll find the concept of afterlife beginning to creep up in the Pseudepigraphal works of Judaism. This continues into the New Testament where one doesn't just die and go into the ground but goes into a waiting period of sorts (Jesus' illustration of the rich man and Lazarus which is an illustration of reality according to Scripture and not just a parable). Finally, heading into the late 1st century, one doesn't just die and face nothingness but instead they go to a waiting room of sorts and will wait until the return of Christ to face their judgment.

Hell is described as an actual place. One doesn't simply vanish into nothingness in the NT. I realize that you'll find certain sects teaching this such as the Jehovah's Witnesses but like many other biblical concepts they get it wrong. Again, not going into the theological aspects of it because that is a matter of faith. But if we're going to look at what the New Testament actually says then yes, hell as a place of torment is biblical.

 

[Crayons]

And then you have my uncle who is a priest in the Episcopal Chruch and is gay. He is in a blessed civil union and recognized legal marriage because he lives in Vermont. He's experienced hate in certain places he's gone, even had to quit a job a few months in because the chips were stacked against him by lay leadership, but overall it has been more acceptance and love for him and his husband.

Hm, never knew. Every gay guy I know is an atheist.

 

[Gabotron ES]

Technically, no. They consider homosexual acts a sin. So if you're gay, you just gotta be celibate and you're good to go.

lol what a joke

gays are ok but please don't have sex!

 

[jph139]

I got to a Catholic College and one of the priests - who I suspect is gay - talked about going to a church in San Francisco populated almost exclusively by gay Catholics. It was a weird overlap, I imagine.

One thing a lot of people misinterpret about Catholicism is that "committing a sin = going to Hell." Catholicism is like... really, really into sin. Everything is a sin. You're born in sin. Being jealous is a sin, being proud is a sin, having sex is a sin, thinking about sex is a sin. Everyone sins all the time. Sin is a fact of life. It's a redemptive religion. As long as you're sorry that you sinned your golden.

So I think academically there's not a huge gap between how the Catholic Church looks at homosexuality and how it looks at premarital sex or any other sort of sin.

Of course, in practice, there's a big difference - it's possible to be a by-the-books Catholic and be accepting of homosexuality, but I doubt most people are interested, unfortunately.

 

[MrSaturn99]

So uh...correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that it's okay to be gay so long as you don't perform homosexual acts?

Dude's an awesome guy, but I'm suddenly glad I'm totally apathetic towards religion.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

I'm curious how many of you would feel if religious groups in the U.S. ceased in their efforts to use their theological beliefs in tandem with their political lobbying/voting but still kept their belief systems as is.

So the Catholic Church would continue being against gay marriage as would evangelicals. They'd continue being against abortion, etc. But they wouldn't use their force in trying to manage the politics of this country and the civil rights of gays/lesbians/trans/women.

Would you be more accepting of that or would you still take issue?

 

[UrokeJoe]

I'm curious how many of you would feel if religious groups in the U.S. ceased in their efforts to use their theological beliefs in tandem with their political lobbying/voting but still kept their belief systems as is.

So the Catholic Church would continue being against gay marriage as would evangelicals. They'd continue being against abortion, etc. But they wouldn't use their force in trying to manage the politics of this country and the civil rights of gays/lesbians/trans/women.

Would you be more accepting of that or would you still take issue?

Quickly responding I would be for. Beliefs are one thing, its when they are pushed on others that I have a problem with, but then that is religion.

 

[Pau]

Its not just homosexuality or premarital sex that the Church views as a sin, its all sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation and it even extends to impure thoughts that go unacted upon. Basically, in the eyes of the Church people of all sexual persuasions are filthy sinners.

I hope all believers are as equally familiar with the Bible's teachings on persistent mould and mildew problems as they are with its teachings on sex, lest they wish to suffer eternal damnation. (Lev 14:33 for those interested in saving themselves).

Not what I was taught in Catholic school all my life.

Slight misconstruction here. The Church asks that all sex be open to procreation, not that it's only for that purpose.

Yup, this is more in line of what I was taught. Of course, all sex being: heterosexual sex that occurs in a marriage.

So uh...correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that it's okay to be gay so long as you don't perform homosexual acts?

Dude's an awesome guy, but I'm suddenly glad I'm totally apathetic towards religion.

Basically, yes. This has been the official stance of the Catholic Church for quite a while though. At least what I remember from school and going to mass.

 

[mckmas8808]

Even sex for procreation was viewed as sinful just a "necessary evil."

You understand that this is not supposed to be followed by Christians today. If more than likely those were laws created by men and not written in the Bible.

 

[mantidor]

Not what I was taught in Catholic school all my life.


Yup, this is more in line of what I was taught. Of course, all sex being: heterosexual sex that occurs in a marriage.


Basically, yes. This has been the official stance of the Catholic Church for quite a while though. At least what I remember from school and going to mass.

I'm almost certain sex for pleasure is now ok as long as it's in marriage. They worded it differently but I'm almost sure the last council did that.

 

[wildfire]

Reading another report it sounds like he's talking more specifically about gay priests, and this tone would be a shift from Benedict, who (I believe) said that gay people should not become priests.

So that would be a better stance for gay priests, but it would have no consequence beyond that.

Well priests aren't supposed to have sex in the first place. Silly it is taking this long for it to be ok to have ordained priests who lean a certain way.

 

[Aeonin]

Its also a sin to jack off - I don't see the entire male population up in arms about that.

And 11redder is right on the money.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Its also a sin to jack off - I don't see the entire male population up in arms about that.

And 11redder is right on the money.

It was wrong to masturbate with every donomination ive been a part of

 

[Aeonin]

It was wrong to masturbate in every church ive been to.

Nice stealth edit. lol.

 

[VARIA]

This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.

Pretty much.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Nice stealth edit. lol.

you got me lol

 

[gofreak]

Well priests aren't supposed to have sex in the first place. Silly it is taking this long for it to be ok to have ordained priests who lean a certain way.

I think for a long time it was. But Benedict seemed to rail against it. It wasn't simply that Benedict was against gay priests who had sex - obviously that's always not been kosher - but he was against gay priests fullstop, AFAIK.

 

[Deified Data]

Yer da freakin' Pope.

 

[mckmas8808]

In the Tanakh (OT) you die and go into the ground. Beginning in the Second Temple period (Post return from Babylon) you'll find the concept of afterlife beginning to creep up in the Pseudepigraphal works of Judaism. This continues into the New Testament where one doesn't just die and go into the ground but goes into a waiting period of sorts (Jesus' illustration of the rich man and Lazarus which is an illustration of reality according to Scripture and not just a parable). Finally, heading into the late 1st century, one doesn't just die and face nothingness but instead they go to a waiting room of sorts and will wait until the return of Christ to face their judgment.

Hell is described as an actual place. One doesn't simply vanish into nothingness in the NT. I realize that you'll find certain sects teaching this such as the Jehovah's Witnesses but like many other biblical concepts they get it wrong. Again, not going into the theological aspects of it because that is a matter of faith. But if we're going to look at what the New Testament actually says then yes, hell as a place of torment is biblical.

So this Hell that you speak of.....Is Satan down there too watching all the bad people burn? And check out Psalms 146:4 (His spirit goes out, he goes back into his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish).

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

So this Hell that you speak of.....Is Satan down there too watching all the bad people burn? And check out Psalms 146:4 (His spirit goes out, he goes back into his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish).

As I said, the concept of afterlife in the Tanakh of which the book of Psalms is part of agrees with you. The concept of afterlife in the NT doesn't. Why? Because the Jewish understanding of death and afterlife evolved after returning from Babylon.

As to your question about whether Satan is there? I don't know as the NT doesn't give a black and white exact location where he dwells. It only states where he will one day be.

 

[mantidor]

So this Hell that you speak of.....Is Satan down there too watching all the bad people burn? And check out Psalms 146:4 (His spirit goes out, he goes back into his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish).

I think the previous Pope already said hell is a state rather than a place.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Well, parts of being a Catholic is to follow a certain set of rules. There are always things you can do and things you can't. Things you can or cannot eat, and sexual practices you can or cannot do. If you declare such rules null and void, why would the religion even exist anymore?

How about to understand God? That's what the religion was originally about. Might want to give that another try without the bullshit arbitrarily made up rules that were CLEARLY based on the time period this religion was created as a means of control and has nothing to do with God.

Just my two cents.

 

[jediyoshi]

How about to understand God? That's what the religion was originally about. Might want to give that another try without the bullshit arbitrarily made up rules that were CLEARLY based on the time period this religion was created as a means of control and has nothing to do with God.

I think the last group this sentiment needs to be pointed towards is someone questioning the validity of trying to point out the lack of distinction between those two things.

 

[mckmas8808]

As I said, the concept of afterlife in the Tanakh of which the book of Psalms is part of agrees with you. The concept of afterlife in the NT doesn't. Why? Because the Jewish understanding of death and afterlife evolved after returning from Babylon.

As to your question about whether Satan is there? I don't know as the NT doesn't give a black and white exact location where he dwells. It only states where he will one day be.

And also that illustration of the Lazarus/Jesus account in Luke is a parable. But you are 100% right about your statement that I bolded. They were teachings learned from other cultures and religious beliefs.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

And also that illustration of the Lazarus/Jesus account in Luke is a parable. But you are 100% right about your statement that I bolded. They were teachings learned from other cultures and religious beliefs.

The illustration of the rich man and Lazarus is believed by many a theologian to represent a reality for a number of reasons. One big reason is its the only time that Jesus used actual people in a parable if you want to label it as such. Abraham and Lazarus. Also, throughout the NT the notion of burning/torment can found.

As to the bolded, the 12 apostles, Paul, and the rest of the first century Non-gentile Christ believers were Jewish. They read the Septuagint. They were familiar with the Pseudepigraphal stories. They believed in resurrection which wasnt a very prominent piece of dogma in the Tanakh. Shoot, the Sadducees outright denied it. Only the Pharisees accepted it. The entire concept of the afterlife was an evolving concept.

 

[Shaanyboi]

So don't discriminate them or act of out of prejudice. Just let them know they're going to burn in hell...


...i don't... hrmm... this...

atleast we're halfway there.... right?

 

[Raist]

So this Hell that you speak of.....Is Satan down there too watching all the bad people burn? And check out Psalms 146:4 (His spirit goes out, he goes back into his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish).

Hell is just Jerusalem's garbage dump. Literally.

 

[MartyStu]

]He's moving that 'tolerance' slider as far as he can, which is commendable. But there's a limit to it, set by doctrine.[/B]

Ultimately, the religion as written contains bigotry, even if all people involved have the noblest intentions...

Pretty much. He would be cast out if he said what we want him to. Baby steps.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

Hell is just Jerusalem's garbage dump. Literally.

In a literal sense, yes that is what the word ghenna refers to. The useof the word in reference to the afterlife is different.

1 Enoch 10.13
13 In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever.
J

1 Enoch 90.24
24 And the judgement was held first over the stars, and they were judged and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars of fire.

Per Anchor:

By at least the 1st century c.e. there emerged a metaphorical understanding of Gehenna as the place of judgment by fire for all wicked everywhere (Sib. Or. 1.100–103; 2.283–312). The judgment of the wicked occurred either as a casting of their soul in Gehenna immediately upon death or as a casting of the reunited body and soul into Gehenna after the resurrection and last judgment (2 Esdr 7:26–38; 4 Ezra 7:26–38; Ascen. Is. 4:14–18; cf. Sib. Or. 4.179–91). This understanding divorced Gehenna from its geographical location, but retained its fiery nature. Gehenna had become hell

itself.http://ref.ly/o/anch/13549582?length=85 via @Logos

And

All of the 12 references to Gehenna in the NT are used metaphorically as the place of fiery judgment. With the exception of Jas 3:6, which refers to the tongue being set on fire by Gehenna, all the references are in the Synoptic Gospels as sayings of Jesus (Matt 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43,29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5). Gehenna is preexistent (Matt 25:41) and its fire is reserved for the destruction of the wicked (Matt 5:22; 13:42, 50; 18:9 = Mark 9:43). Its punishment is eternal (Matt 25:41, 46) and the fire will not be quenched (Mark 9:43, 48). Other related NT expressions include judgment, wrath, destruction, Tartarus, fire, and lake of fire and sulphur (Heb 10:27; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 7; Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14; 21:8). Recently Milikowsky has cogently argued that the comparison of Matt 10:28 = Luke 12:5 and other passages reveals that both 1st century conceptions of Gehenna are found in the NT: Gehenna as a place of judgment for the soul of the wicked immediately after death is Lukan, and Gehenna as the judgment of the wicked in a reunited body and soul after resurrection and judgment is Matthean (1988: 242–44).

 

[EddieGordoAF]

Death and Hell will be thrown in the lake of fire. So hell/sheol/prison is not full of fire like people think. It is full of wicked beings however.

 

[Portugeezer]

No one should judge them. Someone being gay doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever.