What the Church says about homosexuality

[quankanne]

don't think she meant to be snarky, Moose, just stating that man/human beings penned the writings collectively known as the Bible. That's how I read it.

 

anyhow, LR, I'm glad that you've been able to discern the things you have from this dialogue, and I hope that you find it easier to give support to your ideas/thoughts without the rest of us getting fussy! (I know what it's like having my words and actions clouded by anger – and having my message not delivered as hoped!) and please remember that while there have been a good number of bad things in the span of Christianity, not all Christians are bad. They're seeking just like you, and together we can help each other along our journey. ACKKKKK ... in a less flowery way, I mean!

 

back to the other thing, about the canteloupe incident. would anyone like to go into detail? Ladies?

[bluechocolate]

from quankanne

ACKKKKK ... in a less flowery way, I mean!

 

ah, but I like flowers....

[Moose]

don't think she meant to be snarky, Moose, just stating that man/human beings penned the writings collectively known as the Bible. That's how I read it.

 

Well, that's neither here or there for the reason I wrote that. I was just comparing that last post to a comical skit I saw on Letterman.

 

I apologize to everyone that may have gotten the impression that I'm pushing my faith on them. I try as hard as I can to make it known that these are just my beliefs, and my opinions. I'm not claiming to be right, and I'm not claiming to be wrong.

 

Just as so many feel as if they are advocates for their chosen cause, I do too. It's been explained over and over that not all Christians are judgemental, or bigots, or use quotes from the Scriptures to better their own cause. I'm guilty of it all in one form or fashion, so I'm not trying to defend myself. When anyone, no matter if it's here on the forum, or in real life situations, claims that what they've learned or what the facts say are something other than what I hold as truth, I would challenge them. It's just in me......and so it's in LR as well.

 

The main difference that I see into this is that I hate to be placed into a catagory of Christians that rape, kill, and mame for their cause, or even caused the human race to think differently, or to even hear that ANY Christian can act this way. It sickens me that my being a Christian, others could automatically place me among the ones capable of committing such crimes.

 

That's why I debated for so long and I'm sorry if any of you took any offense.

[moimeme]

I wish at least one of you would realize that Christianity is not one single religion. Not all Christians believe as Moose does. His is one of over THIRTY THOUSAND types of christians. SOME but not all insist on literal translation of the Bible - hey, Moose, stoned any of your kids to death yet?

 

SOME insist that you only go to Heaven through Jesus.

 

SOME insist that you aren't holy unless you prophesy and speak in tongues. Some insist that you do actual good works. Others insist you preach. Others insist you leave people be. It is a total fallacy to think that they are all the same or even similar.

 

There are thousands of sects, each with their own traditions and rules so to lump all Christians into the pile that has become the most-widely promoted, thanks to Bush&Co's PR people and the televangelists is to do all Christians a grave injustice.

 

There are a whole lot of sects who insist upon tolerance, on not judging, on love and acceptance.

 

So, LR in particular, but everyone in general, you would do the majority of the couple billion Christians a huge favour if you'd quit painting us all with the same brush.

[Pocky]

I wish at least one of you would realize that Christianity is not one single religion.

 

Many of us do, but continuously pointing that out becomes redundant. For those that debate religion on a regular basis it isn't necessary to separate the sects of Christianity when speaking on specific points of scripture. There are many universal themes within Christianity, which are easily discussed under one basic umbrella termed -Christianity.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Just because someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, does not make them a bigot!!

Once again, we disagree. Why does that bother you?

Originally posted by Moose

For everyone else who's not going to be subjective about every little word I type, it's against the intentions of God for man to lay with man, and woman to lay with woman.

I don't think you understand the context of Leviticus. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just saying that the book you're quoting is probably one you don't know enough about the author, original language, or intended audience.

 

Question: Is it against the intentions of God to eat pork?

Is it calling homosexuality wrong by saying that it's against God's intentions?

I think speaking for God's intentions is inherently wrong.

Just because someone is gay doesn't neccessarily mean we Christians are to place them in a catagory of lower stature.

...

I'm not holier, or in a better position than a gay person by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just as guilty of sin as the next guy.

In the name of Christianity, people are doing so anyway.

 

I don't care what your personal opinion is, I'm sure you're a wonderfully loving person who just goes around preaching the word in a nonjudgemental, jesuslike fashion.

 

I care about the textbook company in Texas making anti-gay textbooks.

I care about the Senator from South Carolina who insists gays shouldn't teach in schools.

I care about the people who base their political careers off of the idea that gays should be denied fundamental civil rights.

Originally posted by Moose

I guess the reason I don't believe in evolution is because...

It's because you don't understand evolution.

 

Thanks, Moose, for proving my point. A majority of creationists reject evolution because they don't understand what evolution is.

if man evolved from apes....why are there still apes?

Man didn't evolve from apes. Homo Sapiens and modern apes share a common ancestor.

But I believe man was created as man, not an organism that grew into a tadpole, into a frog, to a lizard, to a shrew, to a rat, and so on and so on until BOOM!!! There's a man.

There is no "BOOM!!!" evolution theory. Evolution works through natural selection.

 

Dude, you'd be so much smarter if you just learned more about the Bible, and more about science. I'm not attacking you at all, it'd be just, so empowering for you if you could speak about scientific theories and understand what you're saying--because there's nothing to be gained from totally misunderstanding a theory, and then speaking out against it. There's also nothing to be gained from picking out a piece of scripture, and saying "God says [blah blah blah]" without understanding the context of that scripture. Do some scholarship! I know you're the kind of person who could benefit from it, because you're so passionate about your beliefs.

[moimeme]

it isn't necessary to separate the sects of Christianity when speaking on specific points of scripture. There are many universal themes within Christianity, which are easily discussed under one basic umbrella termed -Christianity.

 

I don't agree. Most people on this board who are railing against 'christianity' are reading the Moose version and thinking that that's what christianity is about. Hence the arguments against the Bible being taken literally and LR's rants against the misdeeds of 'christians'.

 

The discussions here are about the practices of the various sects and the interpretations that some sects in particular claim are the 'true' interpretations of the Bible and they definitely differ between sects.

 

And the objection to Ultra-Right-Wing Christianity is that it is absolutely being used to discriminate and to dictate others' behaviour, from trying to prevent gay people from teaching to forbidding women from purchasing birth control. This is about using religion as a weapon against people and there is a great deal of harm in that.

[Pocky]

I don't agree. Most people on this board who are railing against 'christianity' are reading the Moose version and thinking that that's what christianity is about. Hence the arguments against the Bible being taken literally and LR's rants against the misdeeds of 'christians'.

 

LR knows that there are different sects within Christianity. Her problem is with Christians that participate and exhibit traits such as: intolerance, self-serving, judgemental, elitist, and pompous. Christianity as a whole tends to lean towards a few common themes. While some sects may have one or two, other sects may have several. Unless we're discussing Quakers, which is the most forgiving and understanding Christian religion I've ever studied, most Christian religions have one or more of the above themes.

 

Maybe it's the way I perceive the discussion or maybe it's because I'm a religion major - but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt that they know there are different sects in Christianity. If they live in the US, it'd be hard not to realize this.

[morrigan]

Even in congregations, there are variants of belief and teachings. A Methodist church I have attended is voting on whether to split into two separate groups---some of the parishoners being unhappy with the current minister and the activities of the church board. Some Methodist dioceses were wanting a schism due to beliefs on homosexuality/homosexuals being ordained as ministers.

 

The Bible is a lot of things--history, literature, philosophy, genealogical artifact. But I don't feel any individual's interpretation of it should be used politically.

[moimeme]

Maybe. It sounds to me like they're all being lumped together.

[loveregardless]

I'm glad to see I've sparked so much debate in my absence. Might I take the time to clarify my arguments now that I'm here. First of all, my saying "ok kids" was nothing more than a light hearted manner in which to name the post, I certainly did not mean it to be taken in any particular manner or with any negative connotations. Talk about overanalyzing every word, jeeze Moose. Other than that I think it was pretty sh*tty to attack my post, especially since all I did was admit my own mistakes and short comings. Don't know how it deserved to be insulted, but obviously it gave you some entertainment, I'll remember that the next time I'm trying to be genuine.

 

Next, the Bible was written by men. I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything else with that statement... but what is there left to explain about it Moose? It was written by men. There is a period at the end of that statement for a reason. Because thats the end of the sentence.

 

I'm glad that you've been able to discern the things you have from this dialogue, and I hope that you find it easier to give support to your ideas/thoughts without the rest of us getting fussy!

Thank you Quank, I did realize how angry and resentful my posts sound, that's why I came back online at home to post that last message. I was agreeing with you and Blue. I am very much a flawed human being like anyone else, and I have no problem admitting my mistakes.

 

and please remember that while there have been a good number of bad things in the span of Christianity, not all Christians are bad.

Of course they aren't. And I now realize that my issue is mostly with the Christian church in a historical sense and not with the current practicing Christians necessarily. Although I could not personally subscribe to a religion that had such a history to begin with, that is not to say that others would not. I do however have, again thank you Pocky, a problem with:

Her problem is with Christians that participate and exhibit traits such as: intolerance, self-serving, judgemental, elitist, and pompous. Christianity as a whole tends to lean towards a few common themes.

very much so.

 

Moi, I am not, and have not ever said that all Christians are THIS or all Christians are THAT, but for the purpose of religous debate, again thank you Pocky, there are many themes that are present in all sects of the faith, which I choose to argue against. These arguments are spread throughout this thread and others if you would like to go over them, for the sake of time, I should like to not have to repeat myself AGAIN.

 

you'd be so much smarter if you just learned more about the Bible, and more about science. I'm not attacking you at all, it'd be just, so empowering for you if you could speak about scientific theories and understand what you're saying--because there's nothing to be gained from totally misunderstanding a theory, and then speaking out against it. There's also nothing to be gained from picking out a piece of scripture, and saying "God says [blah blah blah]" without understanding the context of that scripture. Do some scholarship! I know you're the kind of person who could benefit from it, because you're so passionate about your beliefs.

Again, something I have said time and time again, but for whatever reason my delivery is always refuted with great fury. Whenever I say this my words are taken out of context and made to sound elitist and rude, when that has NEVER been my intention.

 

misdeeds of 'christians'

Moi, these sects that you speak of which are not so Right-Wing, are very infantile versions of the Christian faith. When I speak of such "deeds" I am speaking from a historical perspective. There were no Left-Wing Christian sects until recent centuries, and these themes which I discuss so frequently, were not only the foundations of the faith but were the actions of most all of the followers. How is it that I am unnessecarily "lumping" together all Christians with that statement? I am lumping together all of the original Christian sects, not the current hundreds of variations.

 

The main difference that I see into this is that I hate to be placed into a catagory of Christians that rape, kill, and mame for their cause, or even caused the human race to think differently, or to even hear that ANY Christian can act this way.

My apoligies for making it appear as if I see you or any other currently practicing Christian as any of the above adjectives necessarily. I have said this before but for clarification purposes I will say it agian. My problem is mainly with the historical actions of the Church. Historical facts cannot be disputed that yes, in the past, they did behave in such a way, and some still do on a smaller scale.

 

I hope that this has cleared up everyones questions about my "intentions."

[moimeme]

Question:

How is it that I am unnessecarily "lumping" together all Christians with that statement?

 

Answer:

 

And I now realize that my issue is mostly with the Christian church in a historical sense and not with the current practicing Christians necessarily

 

I am lumping together all of the original Christian sects, not the current hundreds of variations.

 

Well, we could argue the ills of historical humans until the end of time, however I'm not sure how that enlightens this discussion. Few people are tremendously pleased about any wrongdoing in the history of their organizations so there's not much point in harping on, for instance, the Crusades. There was something called Vatican II and there have been many changes since. So let's talk about today, shall we?

 

Moi, these sects that you speak of which are not so Right-Wing, are very infantile versions of the Christian faith.

 

I assume you mean 'recent' rather than 'infantile'.

[loveregardless]

Few people are tremendously pleased about any wrongdoing in the history of their organizations.

Few people acknowledge them at all, and if the history of any organization is this terrible you would think that maybe its followers should be aware of it and its subsequent effect on our world, no?

 

What's your point Moi?

 

I don't need an English teacher. I clarified my intentions, leave my choice of wording alone.

Don't be ridiculous just for the sake of being so.

[moimeme]

Few people acknowledge them at all, and if the history of any organization is this terrible you would think that maybe its followers should be aware of it and its subsequent effect on our world, no?

 

Not especially, particularly since that which you declare to be 'its subsequent effect on our world' happens to be your subjective judgement of what that was. Those horrid churches also were responsible for starting many, many hospitals, educational institutions, and charitable organizations to help people which continue to do good till this day. The Pope himself has been active in international peace negotiations many times.

 

What we are discussing in this thread is the role of certain sects of Christianity in fostering public prejudice against gays to the point where they are actively discriminated against. That missionaries two hundred years ago may have been misguided in their actions isn't germane to what's going on right now. It's only illustrative that humans who think they have a lock on what God wants all too often do wrong in His name.

 

don't need an English teacher. I clarified my intentions, leave my choice of wording alone.

Don't be ridiculous just for the sake of being so.

 

The reason that people need to learn proper English is that to use the wrong words creates misunderstanding. 'Infantile', were that what you meant to use, would be an insulting and rude term to use in describing modern churches.

[loveregardless]

I think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, but thanks for the concern. I don't think anyone would have misunderstood or been offended by misuse of the word infantile, which I still say conveyed my meaning quite well, as anyone who truly grasps the English languages understands that any word can convey any meaning depending upon the context in which its used. That's the beauty of the English language, the rules and definitions only hold true if your an English professor.

 

They wanted to help people while "spreading the word". I appreciate the effort, but if the true desire was to help, it would be helping without introduction of their religion. There are always secret agendas to the good works of any organization. That doesn't make their actions any less appreciated, but do not pretend as if they ONLY wanted to help; they wanted to spread their faith through good works. Other than that, stop telling me about the original intention of this thread if you are only going to continue to try and argue with me about the historical agenda of Christians. Drop it.

[dyermaker]

I didn't have the exact citation, so I remained silent on this front, but now I can share.

 

[Conscience is] the most secret core and sanctuary of a person... [where] we are alone with God... Conscience frequently errs from invincible dignity without losing its dignity.

 

Church in the Modern World, 16

 

Rome doesn't make moral decisions for Catholics. Catholics make moral decisions based on their conscience.

 

The bottom line for sin & conscience is this, Catholicwise:

 

1. God speaks to people through their conscience, it's the voice of God.

2. You must always follow the dictates of your conscience.

3. Ignoring your conscience is a sin.

4. If you follow your conscience in good faith, even if you later learn you were wrong, you are innocent.

5. If you violate your conscience, even if it was wrong, you're guilty.

 

In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right.

 

CCC, 1778

 

I work constantly to form my conscience, as all Catholics are called to do (CCC, 1793)--If I am going in the wrong direction, God will find a way to correct it if I am willing to do so, as I am--that's a Catholic belief.

 

It's my firm belief that homosexuals should not be denied the Sacrament of Marriage. God speaks through you, so you're welcome to dissuade me--but at this point, I know that gays are called to sacramental love, and i'm obliged to follow faithfully what I know the be just and right.

[RowanRavyn]

Romans 9:20-21~~

 

But who are you O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for "noble" uses and some for "common" use?

[Mr Spock]

I seriously don't care who's f*cking who in the ass, and the fact that religion does proves to me it's wanting control over each and every aspect of our lives.

[loveregardless]

haha, in for a shocker here, this is the first time I have ever agreed with you on a religous or spiritual topic. haha, break out the bubbly...

[moimeme]

the fact that religion does proves to me it's wanting control over each and every aspect of our lives.

 

Here we go again. SOME religions do.

[loveregardless]

I think we know which religion in particular she was referring to.

[Mr Spock]

Well, I certainly wasn't referring to the Holy Trinity of Ass F*ckers, that's for sure.