Homosexuality and the Church
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7797269.stm

Seriously? People believe this?

If there's anyone who agrees with the Pope, can you explain it for me?

*controversial thread*

It's the Catholic Church. Their beliefs differ by every member.

:tard:

Make that work.

And, Ghost I understand personal beliefs are personal beliefs, but I'm attacking the Vatican as the head of the church rather than the members.

I don't really see what the big deal is. Christians think homosexuality is immoral? Really? Come on. Not news.

Sure, but I'm saying it's retarded because the leader probably has a totally different stance then another guy who believes something else from this priest etc etc.

Seriously, Catholic Priests I've met are always so erratic.

Did anyone not know already that the pope is this utterly removed from reality? He's like (but may well be) a senile old man whose every word is valued by millions. It's genuinely terrifying, and I make no apologies by saying we would be better off without it.

We should replace him with an animal and see what happens.

Pope Turtle the first.

Mankind needs to be saved from religion.

Put THAT on a banner!

I know this was supposed to be a joke, but it's kind of true. I've got nothing against gay marriage, but my Priest is, well...he's such a hardcore Catholic that he said Santa (St. Nicholas) was dead during the childrens mass, because he thought they shouldn't get anything because it was Jesus birthday, or something along those lines.

Homosexuality is a sin, simple as. People in religeous authority who pretend it is not are not only lying to themselves; they are lying about God and doing serious wrong to the homosexuals.
We are told Biblically that we have to repent of our sins to get into Heaven. Telling people that their sins are acceptible will mean they will not repent and so will be condemned.
To be saved we have to repent; God will forgive us, even if we continue to sin. Homosexuals have to recognise that homosexual sex and 'marriage' is wrong in God's eyes if they are to be saved from death.

When I heard the news I was overjoyed that Catholics were actually getting it right for once.

Thread dies here.


And really, it should. This is what christians believe and if you didn't already know that then you have not been....paying attention. You have not been paying attention, paying attention, paying attention.

Simple as what? How is homosexuality a sin?

I'm not saying it's new OANST, I just thought they might have progressed beyond the whole "Homosexuality is a worse threat to humanity than global warming"

Splat, do you believe that people "Buy into" homosexuality, or are born that way? And do you consider it a sin to be born into another religion?

I am not starting up a big argument, I am meerly interested is all:)

Splat, isn't that kind of a stupid thing to say on this forum?

Actually, it's a fairly brave thing to say on this forum. Misled, in my opinion. But brave.


And I get what you mean Hobo but I think the pope's point is that peoples eternal souls are more important to the church than what happens to their bodies. Just to be clear. I am an atheist and in no way agree with the statement. I'm just not surprised or outraged by it.

Right. I mean, I was raised Catholic. I even went to a Catholic school, and I honestly think things are getting better than they use to be. The Catholic church now recognizes evolution, for example.

It isn't a stupid thing to say because what he says is true. In the bible it says that no man shall lay with another man as he would with a women (AKA, having sex). Whether or not that phrase was added later or not (as some claim, which is a different argument all together), it IS currently in the bible and thus the vatican has no choice but to preach those rules.

I agree with Splat that any christian who says 'It's okay to be gay, do your thing' is not a true christian. If things stated in the bible start to bump with your own morals you should start questioning the religion. Until then, they should be stoning gay people to death. You can't have it both ways.

However the above argument opens such an enormous can of worms that I recommend not going there.

Havoc or any affiliated websites, products, tv-shows, hair style products or pornography magazines related to Havoc still maintain their stance against religion of any kind. The above post was merely meant to describe the hypocrisy and stupidity of the vatican and religion in general.

Already had a horse for Pope, so why not give it a try?



Splat, I'm rather amazed by that post of yours. I have to say that. I also have to say I couldn't disagree more.

This isn’t news, and if it’s not a surprise it’s depressing.

As I understand it, there are individuals who benefit from spiritual faith, and while it makes me wonder what that could do to their perceptions of reality, I’m not worried about it. Until it comes to faiths that actively promote such evil, anti-human concepts as this. Sometimes I find it tempting to think that groups such as these should be banned from communicating until they repent their ridiculous views, but I like to think that people are capable of arriving at better opinions over time. In the meantime, it’s terribly frustrating, especially when you think of all the perfectly fine people being punished, chastised, even lawfully killed because of simply being normal and true to themselves.

Everyone is born with desires, such as straight men wanting to have sex with more than one woman, when the bible says the only woman you should do it with is your wife. A homosexuals desires towards the same gender is just the same as that. Its not actually a sin to be of that mindset, since the bible says you will be tempted towards those desires. What is a sin is acting on those desires. I don't personally believe being gay is a choice. I dont see why it would be a sin to be born into another religion since thats not your fault, and even if it is a sin, you can always convert, and be forgiven, as with every sin.

I realize this was Splat's question, but I dont care.

(EDIT: Daxter posted while I was writing this so I restate a little of what he said.)

Yes indeedy.
Sin, rebellion against God's rule, is a part of human nature and has been since Adam and Eve.
As for Max's point and Hobo's question about born into or learnt or choice or whatever, I don't know particularly. But homosexuality is the same as the temptation to lie or be selfish or look at pornography or anything else; people will wrestle with them all of their lives, myself on at least two of the ones I listed above, and we won't win every day. Homosexuals are no more or less guilty than heterosexuals. God doesn't ask us to be perfect; he asks us to try but he doesn't turn us away when we mess up. Being a Christian doesn't mean that the temptation to sin goes away.
The Christian jargon word is 'grace', which basically means that God doesn't accept us because of what we do (if that were the case, no one would have any hope or being saved from death); he accepts us because he wants to.

And also people are not born religeous. Whether your born into an athiest family, an Islamic family, a Christian family or anything else, you're born a sinner; an enemy of God. You're only saved from sin if you believe in Jesus, accept that you do wrong (that's a big bit in this debate) and ask forgiveness.


And yes, I know I'm opening a can of worms by doing this. It's not the first time. But at least I'm more able to hold a case now than a few years (or even months) ago.


And also, Christians accepting the theory of evolution (thanks Anonyman) is also a similar problem (split topic time, Max!).
'Micro-Evolution' means basically not species changing but characteristics changing, like the size of a species changing because all the little ones get killed, or new breeds of a creature like dog breeds mixing or bacteria or rats adapting to be immune to poisons or whatever. Denying Micro-Evolution would be like denying the existence of the Sun. It's there, it's in our faces, it keeps the world alive.
'Macro-Evolution' is the idea of a species changing into a totally seperate species. This is in direct conflict with the Bible and you can't believe the Bible's account of the Fall of Man (when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, alienating themselves from God) and Macro-Evolution at the same time; they contradict. If you don't believe the Fall then Christianity has no basis at all. I'm not trying to say that you can't be a Christian and believe in Macro-Evolution, but those who try are believing two contradictory ideas.

While there is plenty of current, visible evidence for Micro-Evolution, there is no current evidence or fossil evidence for Macro-Evolution. There are fossils for now-extinct species but none for any in-between stages; none at all! If Macro-Evolution were real then there would be millions.
Also, there's the simple question of two distinct genders of the same species to evolve completely seperate from one another and yet able to breed together. Our reproductive process alone is simply insanely, incredibly complex and sad to say, school syllabuses and scientific debaters really tend to leave out the complexities of our bodies when arguing for evolution.
If Macro-Evolution were true, we'd not even have reached the level of slime. We'd still be dust.


Just so you know, if this sparks a big debate, I fear I will be flooded out, and I'm sorry if that happens.
















I was gonna stop there but I think I need to give the details of the Fall and what God did about it. This is really what Christians believe, what I'm arguing for, and it explains my views. It's a somewhat un-summarised addition but I think the extra information may be required.

God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden; a place where they could live in a direct relationship with God. They could walk and talk to him, face to face. There was no pain, no suffering, no boredom and people never died. Adam and Eve were in a perfect relationship with a God who loved them as dearly as anyone could love.
God had created Adam first and told him to watch over and tend the Garden and all the animals in it. He gave him a job but it would be an easy one because back then the world was easy to look after. He could eat fruit from any tree in the Garden except the tree in the centre of the Garden, named the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', because if they ate that fruit, they would die. He was surrounded by fruit trees in all colours of the rainbow and had no reason to disagree.
Later he created Eve to be a companion to Adam. Adam passed on to Eve all the information God had given him.
Later on the Devil, Satan, took on the form of a snake and entered the Garden. Satan was once an angel but had tried to overthrow God, and so had been banished from Heaven.
Satan came to Eve and told her that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would make her as powerful as God. He told her that God had been lying and that the fruit would not kill her. The fruit looked good and she decided to listen to the serpent, believing that God had lied. She ate some and also gave some to Adam, who was with her at the time and had witnessed the whole conversation between her and Satan. He ate it, to (perhaps seeing that his wife hadn't been struck down dead instantly).

They did not become as powerful as God, but they gained Knowledge of Good and Evil, because before they had never experienced Evil. Now they had commited it in disobeying God. They then began to feel ashamed of what they had done and attempted to relieve it by making pathetic clothes for themselves.
Later on God came walking through the garden and couldn't find them. He called out and they came and he saw what they had done; he saw their shame and their fear.
Because they had disobeyed God, they had to be seperated from God. He sent them out of Eden. And their actions didn't just affect themselves; it affected the whole universe. It created emnity between them and God, between mankind and Earth, mankind and animals, and between people. Animals would from then on attack people, the Earth would become violent and growing plants for food would become difficult and labourious.
Worst of all, all people from then on would naturally be sinful. People would be born as enemies of God, by nature doing things against his laws, such as looking at pornography or practicing homosexuality. They would fight between one another and against the Earth. This was the cause of pain, of suffering, of war, of disabilities and also of Death.


God loved humanity so much that there are not words to describe it, but humans turned from him, rejected him and so could never be with him. The Old Testament (the bit of the Bible set before Jesus) describes his relationship with them (I'm referring to humanity in past tense, things have changed as you will see) sometimes like a Father whose child has turned away, and sometimes like a husband with a wife who constantly commits adultery. And because humanity turned from God, they could never, ever repay our sins enough to go back to him. They could be good but never good enough. God chose a small number of people, the Israelites (the Jews), and tried to work in them to save them. By sacrificing animals they could pay for their sins; the animals took the punishment that the Israelites deserved. But it didn't work that well; the Israelites were constantly rebelling against God.

Despite it all, God never stopped loving humanity. So eventually he sent his Son Jesus, into the world. Jesus spent two or three years at the end of his life teaching humanity a new way to live in preparation for what was coming. At last, he let himself be arrested and killed on the Cross. He died as a sacrifice, in the same way that the Jews had sacrificed animals to pay for their sins.
The difference between Jesus and the animals was that the animals were sinful; they were part of a sinful world. Jesus was born of God; he was a part of God and had never, ever sinned. He was the only thing since the Fall to be free of Sin. He was literally a perfect sacrifice, good enough to pay for the sins of every person in the world.
Not only that, but because Jesus was perfect, he didn't just die; he rose back to life! Death, as expained earlier, is the consequence of sin, of rebellion against God, but because Jesus had never sinned he was immune to Death.
As if that wasn't enough, Jesus has said to us that anyone who believes that he is God, that he was sinless and that he died and rose again, and who accepts that they sin and admits their sinfulness will be given a share of his sacrifice. God will effectively view them as sinless, and because we're sinless, we too will be immune from Death. After dying we will rise again and have eternal life with God in a paradise greater even than Eden.

Tell me where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Most people would interpret the biblical injunction as being against anal sex, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say anything about friendly masturbation, oral sex, kissing, relationships, loving another man or woman.

What denomination do you fall under, Splat?

The main problem I have with the mythos behind the fall is virtuous hypocrisy, if good people are only good because they want to enter paradise isn't this largely economically driven and counterproductive to the whole idea of the sacrifice?

If I died and came in front of the Gates of Heaven with God looking down on me and all I assumed was falsehoods turns out to be true, if He then looks at me and says 'You did not obey my commands, when seeing your love you felt lust, when seeing your achievements you felt pride, gluttony was riding in your bedroom and sloth was ever evident, you did not repent, you did not ask for my forgiveness, you do not deserve me. What do you have to say about that?' I will say to him simply that I lived my life by my own virtues and my own morals, using what I know and think by my faculties of reason and experience what is right instead of doing what others told me. I lived. loved, learnt and lost by the strength, power and wisdom that He himself gave me, and if that wisdom and strength of mind had to be sacrificed to do things written in a book, things my very self screamed against doing, things I knew were wrong as a memory in blood. Then He can keep His heaven, it's no place I'd find eternal happiness.

This thread, it displeases me.

Not only is the OP not at all shocking (I mean, how long has this 'Christianity frowning upon gays' thing gone on for? Jesus fucking Christ), but all arguments are invalid.

:|

It's not news but I am against this.
I mean seriously, get over it, how is being prejudiced against homosexuals seen as acceptable when racism isn't, it's still prejudice.
I can see the point how it is an act of lust since there is no child being born, and that would be a perfectly acceptable point, but it's only valid if the people holding the point don't find masturbation or sex without the purpose of producing kids acceptable.
But then the thing that destroys that point is that you're condemming people for sinning, but since we all do, that you have no right to condemn them, the bible after all, teachers you to forgive.

yeah, they kind of do, what with circumcision and their protest against birth control...

just btw.

I know, I was just stating the only point where I could find homosexuality a sin, or unnaceptable.
Then I stated below that even people that do condemn that sin themselves and so yes, they have no right to condemn it.
I'm sorry, I'm rushed at the moment, so I'm not too clear when I am, I'll try and sort out my posts when I have more time. (It is christmas eve)

Amen brother.

I just want to say here....

Rarely do I see this level of actual 'thinking' going in in a debate like this in a topic like this where someone doesn't get all butthurt and start making emotional-based comebacks.

As for the argument for whether being gay is a choice or whether it is something that one 'buys into', let's look at it this way:

Anyone who's anyone can put on a 'facade' of being homosexual IF they want to do so.... but those who are born being attracted to the same sex know it, and also know who they are.

Unfortunately, repression of these natural urges; repression of their 'true' selves is causing so much unnecessary stress, and in turn stress-related diseases by holding back. Homosexuality is not a disease and its time for us to use common sense and wake up to this fact. This goes for heteros as well, as even some heterosexuals feel 'repressed' and ashamed of their sexuality in general as they have been conditioned to feel so.

There are plenty of examples of 'instinctual' homosexual interaction in many walks of life. Look at animals and then we understand something about the background of our own nature.

Pilot: Splat is not saying that homosexuality isn't natural or innate. He just says that you shouldn't act out on your urges.

Who said that opening posts have to be shocking:p Maybe the thread title built it up a bit too much,but the content is interesting I feel

Oh, forgot to say before: I'll let BM knock down Splat's objections to evolution but I would suggest to all to read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I held opinions much the same as Splat's before I read that book. It was after reading it that evolution started making sense. I would even recommend the book to Splat, if he has a desire to debate with knowledge.

It's very easy to say "dont act out on these urges" but for some people, it isnt a sexual preference or an "urge". There's people who in fact don't want to be homosexual, but due to a variety of reasons and issues they are. Homosexuality isn't even always something you are born with. It can be something you are born with that you don't want.

...So I'm not a true Catholic? Right.

I dunno, I just find this people-are-going-to-Hell-forever and loving-someone-who-so-happens-to-be-the-same-gender-is-wrong stuff depressing.

If you claim to be Catholic and at the same time disagree with what is written in your holy book then no, you are not a true Catholic. A true Catholic would not doubt the word of god or the pope or the bible for that matter.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "Yes I believe in god and everything he does" and at the same time say "But I think he was wrong here, here, here and here."

Religion is not a democracy, you don't get to vote on issues that are forbidden and allowed. You are deemed to listen to the bible, to the pope, to jezus and to god.

Unless you could claim there are problems in translation and representation in your holy text, God is perfect in speaking his messages but misquotes would be a purely human error.

If you claim to be an adherent to a particular denomination but don’t actually subscribe entirely to its dogma, then no you’re not technically an adherent. But that’s not the only way to be religious. It’s absolute fact that the Bible has been modified by humans even if the details of that are contested, and you can hold whatever belief you like about the exact degree to which it is the absolute word of God. You can get outcast and bullied by the bigwig conformists, but your personal faith is no less valid from an objective standpoint. And if you want to be less evil in your beliefs, then I can only see that as a good thing.

Splat, I take two massive objections to your statements about macro-evolution. Firstly, there are many, many transitional fossils. Secondly, because of the incredibly biased nature of fossilization, it’s not true that the abundance of ‘transitional’ organisms throughout history would automatically result in the abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record.

But everyone knows BM is going to jump in here with the best arguments. That’s such a turn off to putting together a fuller argument.

As for splitting the thread, I don’t think that’s necessary, and I’m not sure it will be, or can be. Although in theory this topic comes with two components (Religion versus Science in describing the nature of reality; and Doctrine versus Not in describing the nature of temptation and sin), they are so highly involved in each other that for either to lose the other dramatically limits the valid points that can be made. We’ll see, but I’m not in favour of splitting.

Doubt is actually a huge part of religion. If you don't question what you believe, it's rather hard to tell whether or not you actually believe it. Of course, I'm a product of a Jesuit education, which is centered around questioning faith and morality, so I'm a bit biased. But the term "true Catholic" seems a little elitist to me. Who's to say religion can't have gray areas? You can believe in God and still dispute His teachings. Nobody's perfect, and Catholicism is all about forgiveness. If you're not offending the basic tenants of Christianity (i.e. committing mortal sins), you can still get into heaven.

Of course, I'm agnostic in a weird way, so it's hard for me to defend Christianity thusly.

And yeah, the Catholic church doesn't like gays. Sorry guys, as long as we're human, there's not going to be a world without prejudice. Roll with it.