jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (71 posts)

Pope Francis on Gay People

  1. LauraGT profile image87
    LauraGTposted 4 years ago

    Pope Francis' statement today about gay people: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?" is not revolutionary, but certainly strikes a new tone.  Even without any official change in church doctrine, do you think this new attitude from the pope will help others be more accepting?

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i think this new pope stands a chance of turning many people on thier heads,... he ruffles the feathers of his (my) own church more than he does the protestant or non-christian world,.... from washing the feet of a woman,.. to this new interview comment(s) on homosexuality,... he seems to take the words in red more litteraly than perhaps some are used to.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image86
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good.

        It's about time a Christian leader aids the poor and makes an effort to include everyone--you know, like Jesus would have done (if he were real, but that's another topic).

    2. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I've read several Christians here state emphatically they don't care what the Pope says, they have their own views, hence we'll probably still see the same bigotry from the very same folks.

      1. stclairjack profile image80
        stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +10 ...yup

      2. Disappearinghead profile image84
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        More yup.

      3. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The pope's decisions don't affect my life to a major degree, being a protestant, but my church teaches that we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God, and that God loves us all. There is a man at my work that I adore. He said he feels that he is a woman in a mans body, but he says he has been celibate for 20 years. He loves the Lord and is the nicest, funnest, funniest, quirkiest person I know... and I would be honored to wash his feet.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AMEN to that!
          I know people similar to that!   At least, if you mean that the celibacy is in deference to God's condemnation of homosexuality.   I highly respect those who are determined to deny their physical desires and live for the Lord!  smile   One of the most talented and fervent Christians I know does exactly that.

          And there are whole groups of people like that.   I know of one called "Ex-Gays Protecting Traditional Marriage", and I'm sure there are others.   Just because Exodus dropped the ball and caved in to the whinings of liberal activists doesn't mean the fight to get help for the dilemma of homosexual temptation isn't alive and well..........and growing,  and indeed originating from some of the very people (ex-gays) who are being alternately either shunned or persecuted by the homosexual agenda activists!

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, your church preaches lies and makes people feel worthless and bad. Of course, when someone is told they are worthless and bad, they will act accordingly. Very sad that these institutions are allowed to exist. They accomplish nothing but conflict.



          So what? If he didn't love the Lord, you'd probably have nothing to do with him.

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Again with the insulting personal assumptions.
            I have another dear friend who is bisexual and as far as I know has nothing to do with God.
            I just love him b/c he's him. You seem to be the one who needs to evolve. If all Christians are the same, then it stands to reason all Atheists are the same.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, my dear, these are insults...

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Insults or facts? lol
                You are a bit of a bully. What's going on in your life that you seek out ppl to harass everyday? I thought you liked to golf. Do you demean and belittle the ppl you golf with?
                "That was the worst slice I've ever seen! My grandmother has a better swing than that. Im pretty sure you killed every gopher on this green with that swing. Did you even hit the ball?" lol

                You really should try being less combative. You could have actual discussion instead of the constant berating you give anyone who disagrees with you.

    3. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's possible that the Pope is simply saying Love the sinner but hate the sin,  and y'all are trying to see approval of homosexuality in that.............

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Those are your words, not the Pope's.

      2. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think what he's saying is that you don't need approval to life whatever life you want as long as you are a good person who seeks God.

      3. LauraGT profile image87
        LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda: I don't think anyone is saying that he approves of homosexuality, but this is a very different tone than past popes who have vehemently condemned it. I think it's a reflection of the larger trend to be more accepting.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          More accepting of the sin, or more accepting of the sinner's dilemma?

          1. stclairjack profile image80
            stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            i dont presume to know the mind of a pope,... we are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin,... and i'm prety sure we can all agree thats the over riding point.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not so sure about that.
              I'm pretty sure the liberals are looking for capitulation from the religious community,  meaning acceptance of homosexuality itself, not just sympathy for the sinner in need of repentance/forgiveness.

              1. stclairjack profile image80
                stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                i'm not realy sure whats worse at times,... the militant liberal who intentionaly miss-interprets the words of others,... or the deffensive conservative who pre-emptively does it for them.

                at least let sadam gas someone in real time before you invade iraq,... oops,... too late.

                (i dont mean to sound like an arese here, i'm realy a conservative myself, but i cant help letting the zinger fly when it comes to me,... so please dont take that as a personal attack,... i just couldnt resist the twisted giggle,... i love playing devils advocate)

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Careful.   There are a lot of devil's advocates around here already.   
                  And mine wasn't a preemptive strike.   Haven't you seen how far the homosexual lobbyists have already gone, and pushed gay "marriage" into the legal system?   Sadam already "gassed" lots of people;  let's not pretend he wouldn't have continued doing so.
                  Also, read the online headlines and articles.   The liberal groups are trying to put the Pope on the defensive, to make HIM subject to THEIR approval, not the other way around.    Surely you can tell that,  so why pretend you don't know it?    Of course, the Catholic Church is an easier mark than most Protestant ones, because Protestant Churches don't have to answer to the liberal agenda for how their leadership is set up;  their Churches usually don't have leaders who are supposed to remain celibate and unmarried and therefore are trying to deal with sexual tension that has no outlet with another person.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
                    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sigh......

                  2. stclairjack profile image80
                    stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    so the entire catholic church and all its problems are because of church structure and sexual tension????? seriuosly?????????????

                    so your saying that a re-structure and a good piece of ass would cure it all???????????????

                    i realize im being a bit hyperbolic but wow

          2. LauraGT profile image87
            LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think people are just happy that someone in such a religious leadership role is using less hateful and harmful speech than many of his predecessors.

    4. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What he actually said was he will not judge a homosexual person, but he will judge them if they participate in a homosexual act.

      Big deal!

      It's worth noting he also said ordaining women was completely out of the question and then went on like a politician about we need to give women more powerful/managerial roles in the church.

      Big deal!

      Same old stuff.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "but he will judge them if they participate in a homosexual act."

        Are you sure he said that? I'm sure he realizes that many of the homosexuals he's not judging are participating in homosexual acts.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, he did, basically.  It is a far more nuanced position than many people realize as I guess they did not read it in full.  While he is pretty radical for a Pope, he is still a Pope, and homosexual sex is still a sin in his eyes.  But homosexual orientation is not--this has been Catholic dogma for a while now.  He just phrases it in a more appealing way.

        2. stclairjack profile image80
          stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          for what he said,...
          http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/po … am-i-judge
          consider the source but they are at least full quotes on the subjects

        3. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Francis defended gays from discrimination but also referred to the Catholic Church's universal Catechism, which says that while "homosexual orientation is not sinful homosexual acts are".

          1. stclairjack profile image80
            stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            agree completely, and weather or not you agree with the churches stance on this, at least francis is honest about it while seeming to posses a bit more compassion and tact about it,..... i think its interesting how SOME straight so called christians love to point the acusatory finger at homosexuals as if they have the market cornered on piety, if for no other reason than "we're not gay"..... its the same effect that the next "horrible TV mom" case has on the american public,... we all feel better in comparison to the woman who drownd her three kids in the bath tub after doing a line on the kitchen table and selling her eldest into prostetution,.. (like spending an hour at walmart and walking out feeling good about your waist line and fashion sense)..... but in reality there is no measurable difference in the gravity of the sin of the homosexual act, than if it were measured against say,..... hetero sex outside of marriage,.... or adultury,....

            all of the sexual sins carry the same weight,... weather your madly hopelessly in love with your opposit sex, your same sex,.. or your goat,... the sexual sins are measured the same,....

            so i fail to see how a homosexual relationship deeply offends the sences or piety of some one elses 4th hetero-marriage.... on the other hand,...

            it is the churches job to deffend marriage,.... or is it?..... if marriage were the all encompassing foundation of moral life on earth,... wouldnt it be strong enough to withstand the preasure of a couple fellers or gals who just want to be happy and left alone?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "What he actually said was he will not judge a homosexual person, but he will judge them if they participate in a homosexual act."

        I couldn't find that. I repeat: the Pope is smart enough to understand that the people he's not criticizing aren't celibate.

  2. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 4 years ago

    I'm not Catholic or even Christian, but I really like this current Pope. I think he actually has his head on his shoulders straight.

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      it says a lot when someone admires the leader of a faith they don't belong to,... and its a tremendous + to the new pope to have achieved such a thing, isn't that the best form of evangelization?.... rather than convert or die,.... or convert or be condemned, marginalized and harassed.

  3. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 4 years ago

    The Pope is, from all I have seen and heard, a good man who actually cares about people. It doesn't matter what he approves or or doesn't approve of - he *cares about people*. That comes first.

  4. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    He said he was no one to judge.  Which is correct biblically, the judge of a person is not another person.  The judge of a human can be God alone.

  5. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Happy to see the Catholic church easing up a little on their anti-gay stances. 

    This is just words though.  I'll be more impressed when I see action.

  6. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 4 years ago

    So, it's bad for people to have sexual tension with no outlet with another person:

    But all homosexuals are supposed to be celibate and endure that for their entire lives?

    Think about what you're saying.

    Now, I actually agree that the Catholic church has a lot of problems caused by the celibate priesthood, chief amongst them a significant shortage of priests with all the issues that causes.

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i think that the church has come a long LONG way in how it treats homosexuality, and how it treats homosexuals (two different things btw)... and still has a very long way to go on both subjects.

      the celibacy of the religious life is not up for debate right now in the church,... as much as some of us would like for it to be,... its one of the subjects that the church is rigidly attached to, and it has its merits in its own right, none of which seem to interest the world.

      homosexuals in the priesthood have nothing NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the church over the last 20+ years,.... there is NO LINK between being gay and being a pedophile,... and we do a great disservice to our brothers and sisters with same sex attraction in lumping them in together with child molesters.

      horny men with unsatisfied sexual desires do not magically one day become pedophiles,... like im hungry for a cheese burger,... i'm realy craving a cheese burger,... screw it i'll eat the first small dog or cat that comes along with BBQ sauce nearby,..... pedophilia is far more complicated than that,... its not born out of a Donner party cannibalism experience.

      the churches problems are NOT linked to celibacy,.. they ARE linked to the church power structure,.... the churches albatross is NOT that it has to contend with abhorrent human behavior, but in HOW it deals with it.

      the secret shuffle of covering every ones arse while keeping everything under a veil of secrecy is what has hurt the church, the power structure within the church has no check to it,.... the confessor has no confessor himself......

      in addition to that, the arch dioceses and greater world wide organization of the church make it a better target for lawyers and lawsuits,.... little small 70 person congregations of Baptists in the Ozarks hills have no deep pockets to sue,.... but they have the same rate of child abuse within their ranks,... its not uniquely catholic,... its just better news fodder for networks than "pastor Jim-Bob fathers three children with half of church youth group, film at 11" ....because you'll never hear that story on TV,... when that happens its often delt with by the church community in which it happened, the louse is run out of town, black balled by the church association, or even burned out by some childs dad,... even when the law gets involved it doesn't make national news because there isn't a lawyer waving dollar bills around,....... it doesn't sell as well as "lawyer sues catholic church for 17 million"

      I know I've rambled, but there is a lot more love within the faith than the world realizes,..... and faith is a delicate sharp edged tool,... it can be used like a surgeon to heal, or like a butcher to destroy

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    I wish the Pope would instruct parish priests to stop their parishoners from using, extreme intemperate language in their protests against abortion, e.g., "stop murdering children" and so forth and promote more respectful and rational discussion of the subject, including pre-natal and post natal care and anti-poverty measures. Every month or so hundreds of anti-abortion protestors line Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak, Michigan, outside the Shrine of the Little Flower. Many of them are waving "abortion is child murder" signs which I assume is with the approval of the parish priest, in the despicable tradition of the infamous Father Coughlin.

    1. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +++

    2. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      agree with you whole heartedly!

  8. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    The Bible identifies homosexuality as a sin.  It is that simple.  However, if you read the beatitudes over in Matthew 5-12, you'll realize that every human is guilty of having a corrupt heart.  The focus is all wrong: sin are those things that remove us from God's nature, and they are UNIVERSAL.  It also says in the Bible that God judges the heart of a man/ woman.  Your personal relationship with God, and your sin nature are your own business.  You can practice whatever you want, and you will recieve the consequences of what you're about, for good or ill. 

    I personally don't believe the lifestyle is healthy, because that is what my faith dictates.  But you can choose as you please, and I certainly don't think any practicing gay individual is "worse" than anybody. 

    I personally am not convinced that the state should be recognizing or sponsoring marriage at all anyway.  That's at least, the perspective of this Christian libertarian. 

    What is frustrating, however, is how non-support for the gay rights agenda is considered tantamount to bigotry, or even Naziism.  Non-support and abuse are pretty far apart on the spectrum of actions, and I consider comparison of the two by advocacy groups to be irresponsible.  OR simple disagreement being thrown under the banner of "hatespeech." 

    I am an opened book, and would love to speak with anyone on this subject.  If anyone needs clarification, let me know!

    BigJules

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      probably some of the best words here, well said

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No.  It is not clear at all.

      ""Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

      Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior."

      "The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate."

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

    3. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion, you have the right to believe whatever makes the most sense to you.

      The problem is when people start saying that because the Bible says no, no one can do it.

    4. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm curious about what you think is unhealthy about being gay?

      1. BigJulesMags profile image87
        BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Has to do with spirituality.  If you are not particularly spiritual, you probably wouldn't understand.  As a Christian (what you may refer to as a charismatic, or spirit-filled), I fully believe communication and relationship with God through Christ is possible.  Sin nature (whether it's anger or unforgiveness, premarital lust or the like) obstructs that relationship, blurs communication, and brings your nature to a more earthly, compromising perspective.  It's a personal viewpoint from a personal relationship with God.  If you're not a believer in that sort of thing, you definitely wouldn't get it.

        My belief in the Bible being correct comes from years of trial and error, and experiencing enough sin to know that it's damaging for me.  I can only encourage or help others based on my experience.  So, I do not believe the gay lifestyle is good for a person.  Doesn't mean I care about them any less, though, or even find myself morally superior (I have my own issues that I am working out).  Does that answer your question?

        1. LauraGT profile image87
          LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not really.  I guess I'm hung up on this idea of a "gay lifestyle."  There are just as many straight "lifestyles" as there are gay "lifestyles."  There are promiscuous straight people and faithful gay people so it seems odd to focus on one facet of someone's being (that really only impacts them).  I don't at all equate the "sin" items you mentioned (anger, unforgiveness, lust, etc.) to being gay, which is a state of being. 

          Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to spiritual, rather than physical, health. But, I think what's healthy spiritually for one person often does not apply to others You mention that certain things are damaging for you spiritually. Obviously, a "gay lifestyle" would not be good for you, but for someone who is gay, being gay is likely spiritually healthy for them.

  9. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    Trying to bend words again with obscure interpretations.  "Paiderasste"- means "lover of boys." It is DEFINITELY meant for the Greek common practice of molesting boys as popularized by some lauded Athenian scholastic favorites- Socrates, Plato and the like. 

    Paidos- child, boy
    Erastes/Erastai - love/lover

    So this is particularly attributed to the sexual abuse of young boys.  We get the word "pederasty" from it.  Which, by the way, is a deplorable practice.  Arsenokoitai was descriptive of sexual activities, often of adult male prostitutes, in the pagan temples.  Many of these temples in Rome were pleasure centers- the closest thing they had to clubs today.  The word's relation to homosexual is less of a stretch than paiderasste. 

    I mean you no offense, but your interpretation is incorrect.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If this word is supposed to be about all homosexuality, why does it only refer to men?

      And it's not MY interpretation.  This interpretation is based on people who are familiar with Greek and New Testament history.

      Unless you think I wrote that whole entry I sent you.  If you think that, I am flattered tongue.  I did put it in quotation marks though, and provided a link.

  10. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno … ysterious/

    An excerpt:

    Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a “man-lier”). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, “Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus18:22and 20:13? Don’t do that!”

    The opinions are differing from biblical scholar to scholar.  You can get a conflicting opinion too if that is what you wish.  I submit that if you are Christian, then your own personal conviction will lead you to the true interpretation, whatever that may be.

    Have a good one, Sooner,

    BigJules

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If the opinions are different from biblical scholar to scholar, then the meaning is NOT clear.  It's up for wide debate.  My point still stands.

  11. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    I think you as well as I know that you can look at almost anything and yank what you really believe, or want to believe out of it.  Hence, the differing opinions.  I mean, you also are skilled with words.  It's really not hard to twist a meaning or pull something out of context.  Your interpretation will probably match what you already believed going into reading it.

    Hence, why I wrote this portion: "I submit that if you are Christian, then your own personal conviction will lead you to the true interpretation, whatever that may be."

    Either way, you're going to find out, and I'm not going to be the one to convince you.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I partially agree with that.

      But there are arguments for the different interpretations right?  And ideally, one argument will be, at least slightly better.  Sometimes there isn't a clear knockdown argument for a position on something like this.

      Like the fact Paul uses a word that doesn't even refer to females.  It doesn't make sense to claim he meant ALL homosexuality if his word is specifically focused on males.

      Then, we have other sources using the word, but in no way referring exclusively to homosexual behavior in general. 

      One could argue for context right?  And claim that homosexuality is clearly prohibited in the Old Testament, so Paul actually meant general homosexuality was wrong; he just bumbled a little in expressing the idea (though then one cannot necessarily hold to inerrancy).

      One could go to the Old Testament, but it's murky there too.  The prohibitions are again only on men, and...http://www.hrmcc.org/Resources/StudyDocuments/bibleand.htm

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm  What the meaning of abomination probably was aimed at.  It's the same word applied to many other prohibitions that are simply rituals.  So it may not even be legitimate to quote anything from the Holiness Code at all if it isn't first explained in the New Testament, since following it is no longer a moral issue for anyone but Jews.  And even a lot of Jews don't necessarily see it as completely binding.  There's debate there as well.

      So Paul's use of a word that applies exclusively to males, along with the context of the Holiness Code and what the context of the word "abomination" was used to prohibit, it's difficult to say for sure that Paul in any way meant a modern homosexual relationship.

      Add in a little about Jesus never explicitly mentioning homosexuality as a sin, though he did say one should get married to a spouse of the opposite sex, that doesn't necessarily imply that homosexuality was prohibited.  Since there was no word for homosexuality the way we use it today until long after Jesus was dead, perhaps the concept wasn't even available to him, or maybe some of the other options the articles I posted list are the reason for his not mentioning it.

      I just don't see a strong case for interpreting the Biblical passages as condemning current day homosexual relationships.

  12. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    But, for the sake of argument, here's one more verse:

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27 KJV)

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You were right that I had forgotten about this verse.  But it doesn't use the arsenokatoi Paul uses at other times. 

      Does that just refer to homosexual loving relationships?  It's not clear based on that verse.  Prostitution would be "unnatural" most likely.   I don't know what "natural use" means.

      If it means homosexuality is not natural, in the sense it's found in nature, the verse is false.  It's clearly documented that homosexuality is found in many other species, of which God is the creator.   

      Furthermore, the word for "unnatural" or "against nature" is "para physin," which can be translated most accurately as "unconventional."  It's the same word Paul uses to talk about men who have long hair!  Is a man having long hair of the same "immorality" as homosexuality?

      "These do not seem to be an accurate translations. They may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as:

      "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3

      The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

      "    In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.

          In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together."


      http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

  13. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    Without going into detail about the acts in an X-Rated fashion (which would render the Bible a less family oriented document, and it's already fairly graphic), I'd say that's pretty obvious.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Bible is filled with all kinds of contradictory, unscientific, out-moded claptrap.

      1. BigJulesMags profile image87
        BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And the statement you just issued contains zero supported facts.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image86
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ezekiel 28:21 would like a word with you.

          God destroys Tyre/Tyrus/Sour and says it will never be found again. I guess God is a liar, then.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are a Bible reader and should already be familiar with the "facts." But here are a few:
          "The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan."

          "God good to all, or just a few?

          PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."

          "JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."


          http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … tions.html

  14. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    I want to draw your attention, also, to the descriptive verbiage that you used "being" gay.  As in to disagree with homosexual acts puts the individual in question's very existence on trial.  THAT IS FAR AWAY from the job description of any Christian.  The acts fall under sin's umbrella, I believe mainly from that verse I quoted out of Romans. 

    The person, according to our faith, is a precious child of God regardless of action and is to be valued and loved unconditionally.  If you hear some weird redneck babble about hurting gays, that never came from someone who was a true follower of the faith. 

    God differentiates action from identity. 

    1 Samuel 16: 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

  15. BigJulesMags profile image87
    BigJulesMagsposted 4 years ago

    The empire like city states that they were are no more. 

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV

    So there it is.  It says nothing about never seen again. 

    Alright that's the last question I answer for a little while, as I want to go write a few hubs.  Much appreciated, discussion is always helpful and improves relationship if conducted with respect.

  16. profile image60
    TheWizardofWhimsyposted 4 years ago

    I like this Pope, certainly  much more than his inquisitional predecessor, but I still would never go back to Catholicism.  The hierarchy of hypocrites who oversee the Catholic church is the reason so many people have abandoned them.  I see truer Christianity taking place in the efforts of Catholic nuns  (like "Nuns On The Bus"), and look how they've been clamped down upon and silenced.  The institution is ossified with thugs and it's beyond all hope of redemption.

  17. Mark Johann profile image72
    Mark Johannposted 4 years ago

    Gays may refer to submission of one's feelings of being a female when you are male. This must not lead to being a female sexually when a male body is designed to be a male. It is a matter of self discipline and control. Everyone has things to discipline to be a perfect individual.

    1. profile image60
      TheWizardofWhimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You conflate physical anatomy and cultural conditioning with sexual gratification.  One can not choose one's desires, or how one is sexually gratified—one's nature determines that.  Nor is perfection possible for any of us—in case you hadn't heard. 

      To each his own and if the Pope won't judge, then what gives any of us the right to do so? Besides,  I don't see how or why Catholic dogma is relevant when it comes to civil liberties.

  18. MusadiqueKhan profile image60
    MusadiqueKhanposted 4 years ago

    Perfect!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Perfect crapola!

      BTW, welcome to HubPages! We need more people from around the world.

  19. SomewayOuttaHere profile image62
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    i read some of the posts.....catholics will make their own decision re homosexuality....i assume most think for themselves...some won't....cuz they can't think for themselves and will let someone lead them down the path ...to where ....i don't know....i did read sumthin' about 'hate the sin' bullshit....and that's what it is....bullshit......and btw how did flippin' politics get in the mix?.....that's bullshit too!


    ....was raised catholic....i think it is okay to be homosexual...what do i care what people do in their bedrooms? and i think it is okay to get divorced....cuz sometimes it just has to happen....especially for the kids...........and i think it is okay to have an......here it is.....drum roll..............................................an abortion................................lol

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      yea,.. and i believe it takes a lot of real courage to have an informed opinion and actualy voice it!,... three cheers to my northwest friend!

      the churches stance on divorce is antiquated, born out of social enineering that is far and away outweighed by human history, even in my own prudish USA we have a far more open minded history in practice on the subject than we like to admit.

      the churches position on abortion is narrow minded and childish,.... and logicaly conflicted, how does one believe in free will and then turn around and deny some one the excersize of it?.... abortion is regretable at best, and mentaly, spiritualy and phisicaly destructive at its worst. the mind of man invented the science to achieve a safe effective abortion, the knowledge will NOT just dissapear because some zelot prude willed it away,.... period...... heres a flash of wisdome,.... embrace birth controll and perhaps the desire/need for abortion wont be so great????..... hmmmm???

      good to see you SWOH!

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image62
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        good to see you too!

 
working