The Pope to exclude gay priests

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Within the church will we see a move away from using scripture to
> justify it, in the same way that we no longer use it to justify slavery
> and racism . . .

Yes. In 50 years, after Vatican III clears up the issue, a future version of Pajarito will patiently post links to long documents that explain exactly why it's OK for gays to be priests, and how the biblical prohibitions against it are "ancient law" and not really meant to be followed. It will be obvious to anyone who considers themselves christian.

I'm not Catholic Bill...but that's beside the point. The wrongness of homosexuality with reference to the Bible is very clear and has been around for a lot longer than 50 years. The act of a Priest openly living a homosexual lifestyle is as wrong as someone in a church leadership role actively living an adulterous heterosexual lifestyle (assuming that Priests could marry and have a monogomous relationship; which I know they're not supposed to; just making a comparison). They're both sinful and a very poor example of someone trying to live a Godly life.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

[billvon 3,090]

>The wrongness of homosexuality with reference to the Bible . . .

You have explained to me ad nauseum how Leviticus is not to be taken seriously. From an old post of yours:

"That means that all the stuff that Billvon mentioned as being confusing about old Jewish law and that one could just pick and choose are all irrelevant and not binding. All one must do now, due to the new covenant, is to trust in Jesus. All else will fall into place (i.e. New Covenant.)"

So that neatly takes care of that problem. As long as he trusts in Jesus all is well.

The Corinthians quote, if you truly believed it, prohibits people who have ever had premarital sex or gotten drunk from becoming priests. The Romans quote is about how God punished people for thinking themselves wise (and not glorifying god) when they were in fact fools. It's not about the evils of homosexuality, as you know.

[kallend 2,117]

You are wasting your time. You know perfectly well that somewhere a learned Christian has written a detailed explanation that, given the uncertainties of translation, the nature of the intended audience, and cultural context, black actually means white and up means down in the Bible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sinker 0]

Quote

You are wasting your time. You know perfectly well that somewhere a learned Christian has written a detailed explanation that, given the uncertainties of translation, the nature of the intended audience, and cultural context, black actually means white and up means down in the Bible.

who's wasting their time here? um, could it be someone who spends an inordinate amount of time and energy hating all things christian?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

I gave sinker his turn, now yours:

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#ICorinthians6:9


And sorry, you either accept ALL of Levitucus or you don't. They either are JUST Jewish law that is not applicaable today (because of that HISTORICAL context you love to shout about) or they are not. Jesus said he was not here to overturn the law, did he not?

JESUS, not Paul or Thimothy, never said, "Hey, drop all that stuff about women being unclean from the rulebook, but you know them gays? Keep that one, cause I hate them"

You don't get it both ways.

Unless of course you decide the Bible is just a guide and not the Word of God...the latter of which you have already stated you believe.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

You are wasting your time. You know perfectly well that somewhere a learned Christian has written a detailed explanation that, given the uncertainties of translation, the nature of the intended audience, and cultural context, black actually means white and up means down in the Bible.

who's wasting their time here? um, could it be someone who spends an inordinate amount of time and energy hating all things christian?

I ma not wasting MY time. I learn stuff everyday!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Considering I've mentioned David and Jonathan at least twice on this forum and no one has ever tried to debate it I've put down the present mindset to selective ignorance.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Considering I've mentioned David and Jonathan at least twice on this forum and no one has ever tried to debate it I've put down the present mindset to selective ignorance.

not selective ignorance, just haven't finished reading about it yet (but I am, believe me...)

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Considering I've mentioned David and Jonathan at least twice on this forum and no one has ever tried to debate it I've put down the present mindset to selective ignorance.

Wait for it....

wait for it...

can't you hear it?!?!

Its the sound of links being made!!!

If the Bible itself is so complex that the absolute believers need to refer to others to understand it, something is wrong. It would seem to me that the only method to understand a book with no errors or contradictions would be to read it. No more would be needed. We certainly would not need apologists to tell use why what we can plainly see is wrong. We would see it for ourselves.

Nor would we require to have historical context explained to us. For, in a perfect book of God's Law, historical context should have NO meaning. Law is Law, now or then. An timeless and immutable object (as the Bible is perported to be) stands outside the application of historical context. That is the very meaning of timeless.

But since I DO think it is complex and not necessarily perfect, I CAN give a link (ha, that was fun).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I'm not sure I agree. I think the book can have relevence in a real way, and in some churches it does. I think the majority of the problems come from trying to make sense of it all very literally, something which it was not designed for.

Context has much meaning. Understanding that the Jews were beaten and exiled, that the northern Jews and southern Jews had very different attitudes towards royalty, or even that the Eloists were monotheistic vs Yehwah as a tribal deity actually allow the early texts to make sense in a way that reading them off the page does not.

Knowing that chronologically Paul's letters were the first written, and which ones are undoubtably authored by him vs his followers vs possible fakes shed light on early christianity.

Knowing which gospel was written first, which ones editorialized it, which ones drew from the Quell documents and which were an amalgamation of several texts lets you see how things were progressing in the Christian church.

I think that Christians tend to be blinded by their scripture, they dont seem to really pay attention to those parts of it that dont fit with their view of what their religion is. Belief tends to dull critical thinking. The Bibles a large book and guidance from peer groups and clergy play a large part of a new Christian's introduction to the religion (or indoctrination if you'd prefer).

I also think stagnation is the larger issue. The Christian church has become a fragmented mess, some have regressed into literalism, some believe that God no longer talks directly to us but left a book (I will NEVER work that one out !), and some desperately cling to the past as I mentioned earlier. Above it all they all claim to be part of the same religion (and will justify it by explaining they all believe in Jesus) even though their interpretation of scripture is radically different. While the believers remain blind to it the non-Christian s see it's divisions clearly, and because they have no allegience to the book they are also able to see the contradictions, the outdated concepts, historical and scientific errors. The Church, by vigorously denying any such thing continues to look redundant and irrelevent to the majority of modern society.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I'm not sure I agree. I think the book can have relevence in a real way, and in some churches it does. I think the majority of the problems come from trying to make sense of it all very literally, something which it was not designed for.

No no, you misunderstand me. I BELIEVE in context of the writing because I do not find the Bible to an immutable set of laws and rules. So to understand the rationale for diferent items, I believe Context is quite important.

My problem though is that often the excuse when some one points out a contradiction within the text is the easy one: "You are not looking at the context in which it was written."

I say that I am. I say that the laws of Leviticus were appropriate for the people and times they were in. I say Genesis is a perfectly acceptable view of the creation of the world for a people with no concept of higher level physics.

I feel it is a MUST to look at the historical context to understand why different rules were made and ideals held.

It is when the idea of context is used by those who believe the Bible to be the absolute Word of God. If it is simply that, then what need is context? If it is the Word of God and applies to EVERYONE at ALL times, historic contextual meaning moves to 0. One who believes the Bible is the Word of God simply should not use context to try to explain why one portion applies and another does not. The Bible either applies to none or all of God's Children; their is no middleground from this view in my opinion.

Luckily, I do not hold that view.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Ooops, sorry about that. You're right. We agree.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Ooops, sorry about that. You're right. We agree.

In a nutshell, he (and I and you I suspect) is critical of those who want it to be both fish and fowl at the same time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.

I read this in Leviticus as well. It is interesting that only MALE homosexuality is forbidden. Lesbianism isn't mentioned.

And it isn't because the writers were just ignoring women, or not writing for them. In the next verse, they prohibit bestiality, and say it is forbidden for both men and women. But in terms of homosexual sex acts, women are left out.

So apparently two lesbians going at it was just fine with the Bible writers....I wonder why.


but as has been mentioned before, since priests are celibate, it shouldn't be an issue anyway. they're not having hetero or homo sex.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AlexCrowley 0]

I seem to recall that when Queen Victoria was presented the bill to criminalize homosexuality in the UK she refused to believe that women would lower themselves to such acts and had all references to lesbianism removed before she would let it be passed into law.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[britboynz 0]

Wow, 12 pages of mostly pedanticism.

As one of the boards few homos, I can categorically state:

I was born this way. Boobies repulse me...seriously!

Had faith once, but lost it big time (around about the time I learnt about the big bang, I think)

Believe that the bible is a good source of toilet roll...but watch out for paper cuts

As Keith said - the church needs to leave us alone. We aint going anywhere. And as Agent Smith said in the Matrix - there will be more of us. Lots more.

and IMHO religion will be irrelevant in a few years, something that only a few crackpots follow. Oh wait, just like in the US bible belt right?

Oh, and Ratzinger really *DOES* look like something out of a B-movie horror film...have a look!

Love n kisses

Russ

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Ooops, sorry about that. You're right. We agree.

In a nutshell, he (and I and you I suspect) is critical of those who want it to be both fish and fowl at the same time.

Mmmmmm - turkeycarp

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Wow, 12 pages of mostly pedanticism.

You're obviously new to Speakers Corner if that comes as a shock to you.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ooops, sorry about that. You're right. We agree.

In a nutshell, he (and I and you I suspect) is critical of those who want it to be both fish and fowl at the same time.

Mmmmmm - turkeycarp

See and I say eww to the turkeycarp.


We must now FIGHT!!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

See and I say eww to the turkeycarp.

We must now FIGHT!!

Choose your weapon - owwww, anything but dueling gloves

HA HA, my brother's karate is more effective HA HA than your master's karate HA HA

Ha, ho, parry, spin, block, ho, parry, spin, thrust, HA, BOING? Disthpicable.

Brave Sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail an fled, Sir Robin,,,Brave Sir Robin

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

See and I say eww to the turkeycarp.

We must now FIGHT!!

Choose your weapon - owwww, anything but dueling gloves

HA HA, my brother's karate is more effective HA HA than your master's karate HA HA

Ha, ho, parry, spin, block, ho, parry, spin, thrust, HA, BOING? Disthpicable.

Brave Sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail an fled, Sir Robin,,,Brave Sir Robin

I choose hands wrapped in swathing, dipped in honey and candy (I choose sprinkles)

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

See and I say eww to the turkeycarp.

We must now FIGHT!!

Choose your weapon - owwww, anything but dueling gloves

HA HA, my brother's karate is more effective HA HA than your master's karate HA HA

Ha, ho, parry, spin, block, ho, parry, spin, thrust, HA, BOING? Disthpicable.

Brave Sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail an fled, Sir Robin,,,Brave Sir Robin

I choose hands wrapped in swathing, dipped in honey and candy (I choose sprinkles)

I would like to counter with Victoria's Secret Lingerie models (dipped in honey and sprinkles per your request) Dibs on TYRA!

I think that's a fair compromise.

Now, to battle!

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants