Dolcevita, I agree with you. I think there are more important things to be concerned about. However, it seems to me that gay marriage as a topic is generally and broadly given mucg greater coverage than the present problematic state of Africa and other more pressing issues. I would even say that it has bypassed AIDS as the most talked-about issue concerning gays/ involving them. That is insane. The pope's comments seemed to be a response to those pressing for gay marriage. Proponents themselves have given the issue extensive coverage, certainly more than they have given to Africa or somesuch. So I'd say both sides need to check their priorities.

What is the actual problem with the pope saying "gay marriage is part of ideology evil"? I dont really understant it. Hardly any people are really religious these days, and as the Pope is Head of the Church/catholics (or whatever hes head of) he should have the final say on the situation, i think. :wink:

Depends on interpretation:

Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


St. Paul, btw. So the men commit an error in that they perform shameless acts. Had they not committed them, would they be due to receive punishment? No, since the act is what matters. In other words: it's ok to be gay for as long as you don't act out your wishes to have sex with another man. Or, even more extreme, for as long as you cease even considering it. But that's just one reading of one passage...

HUGE NOTE:


The idea of the homosexual as we have it today was a non-existent concept at that time. The term did not exist until the 19th Century, in fact.

What does that mean?

It means that straight or gay, doesn't really matter in that passage. If a man has sex with another, be he straight or gay, he will be condemned. So, a gay man as we define him who does not have gay sex is better off than a straight man who does have gay sex (for whatever reason).

Ok, that's an example. But you mean to tell me a couple people in their little homes is somehow THE MOST offensive and MOST important topic in THE WORLD to address right now. Maybe the pope thinks Iraq is great, shouldn't he be making daily statment supporting that he thinks its an attempt to free people from oppression. I don't mean that the number one thing he thinks about has to be something of condemnation (vs. support) but just that he thinks about whatever that is MORE. Seriously, I still can't believe how much air-time and thought this one topic gets in the spectrum of issues the church and the world are dealing with is all. There are alot of things I don't like. You know I don't like guns, however its just so low on my list of issues, and above that its plays second fiddle to privacy rights, etc, that I don't spend day in and day out ranting about someone going to a shooting range. Basically the maount of energy this topic gets justy makes me think it really is their number one issue, and I just think that is SAD. I think its sad that they would care to invest more of their energy, power, thought, and discussion into this than into the Iraq war (one way or another, support or condemnation) world poverty and disease (yes, even amongst good 'ol Catholics) and general problems of suffering. Gay couples sitting in their home don't lead to some kid in the inner city getting shot, some villager in Indonesia getting oppressed, or the spread of cancer. Again, its priorities, and clearly their hierarchy is retraded to me, ragardless of their position on the subject. Sorry, there are more important things out their today the church could be spending its time dealing with that have just as much to do with the moral hand (vs. the politicing one you referenced, though I don't htink they are inseperable).

Exactly.

I could talk about how it's not saying anything about gay sex/relatioships but people who use the bible as a way to show that homosexuality is wrong simple choose (ha!) to interpret it that way, but i've done it before and I never get one single comment from those people who say because those passages say homosexuality is wrong (it doesn't), it is.

and I don't have the energy to go into a debate about it anyway...

How od you know what Pope comes out for and against? Just because this is the only thing that the American news media reports on, does not mean that's the only thing he has an opinion on.

The Pope has come out against the war many times; he comes out against poverty, the use of condoms, abortion, child mortality, whatever else you wish. ANd among those many things he also comes out against gay marriages. You make it sound as if that's the only thing he ever talks about.

But the Bible has been grounds for various interpretations since the beginning anyways. In fact, much of the Bible IS a re-interpretation of the previous texts. Like: The New Testament in its entirety :razz: Or, Genesis, which has two authors, J and P, or, Isaiah, which clearly had plenty of add-ons from much later on, and so on.

Can you have an interpretation of the Bible that is friendly towards homosexuals? I think so. Currently, the liberal movement for some reason has been intimately linked with an anti-Christian sentimentality (mostly; Christianity is the big kid on the block, though other faiths have been confronted with this too). The most effective thing to do would be to have a re-interpretation of the Bible that suits this generation, but is true to the Word of God. If that clashes with those who refuse to change, schisms are the result. It happened with Protestantism, no reason why it couldn't (or maybe shouldn't?) happen again.

As I see it, the divsion will divide Europe, Canada, Australia, and certain parts of the US from other parts of the US, Africa, and L. America. And that's exactly what we're seeing now (gradually). Of course, divisions within those countries can result too, but Europe/Canada are clearly on a different level on this issue than the US. Poland, however, is decidedly traditional Catholic (75% of Polish people go to church, which is a record; Compare to a max 33% in Italy, 50-60% US [church and synagogue], 25% or so Israel, and dismal single digits in France and elsewhere]).

One thing I'm sure of: religion itself isn't going away; it's just changing. But it will stay.

Well excuse me, but I do read the papers here, so it could very well be all that they cover. However they wouldn't be able to write about a statement yesterday if he didn't make a statement yesterday, so the fact they have him talking about it everyday, probably means he talks about it everyday. If its amongst other topics is anyones guess. I actually agree with Box that it is also being pressed on this end. That the papers choose to cover it rather than anything else he says, that advocates about for it don't preach the gospel of broad human rights but pretty much just address their own desire to remain with Catholics and be married, its unfortunate too. I assign less blame on someone thinking about their immediate situation though (people wanting to get married that love eachother) than I do someone who is responsible for governing (in one sense of the world) for an entire following. Everyone presses for their immediate desires, but the Pope is supposed to be creating a hierarchy of managing everyone's immediate needs. Apparently, these needs outrank all others, and yes, I'm still skocked that this is considered part of "evil." Sorry, they don't hurt anyone, they don't starve anyone, they don't disallow money to enter wrecked tsunami villages, in fact they probably personally donated that money. You may not agree with it, you might think there is no place for it in your institution, but to go so far as to say its "Evil" and assign it the same level oif moral disdain as truly evil stuff (not to get melodramatic, but genocide, starvation, disease, etc) is just really blowing it out of proportion. Why not just say, hey, we don't want you, start your own church, thats what the protestants did, leave us alone. That's a bit different than saying you're evil for wanting a puppy two kids and a job just like everyone else in the world.

But that's exactly my point. How can anyone live their life/base their beliefs on something that can be reinterpreted every time society changes....and then still say it's God word even though ti's been change/"re-interpreted" over and over and over again. And now, because we ahve evolved the fact that the Bible says certain thing (men not shaving) means nothing but when it says something else APPARANTLY that "homosexuality is wrong" it's gotta be true. It seems TOO hypocritical.

So can anyone who actually believes this answer me (so that means, since you don't believe it, krem, you can't answer) :razz:

Various interpretations change, sure, but there are fundamentals that do NOT change, and haven't since the beginning.


For Jews ( and please correct me if I'm wrong):

- There is One God
- The Jews have a special relationship with God.
- The Torah lays out the law by which you must abide in order to be good in the eyes of God.

I think that more or less covers it. Thing is, the Torah is always acknowledged as the law (it means law anyways), but how its interpreted may change (it has, obviously, plenty of times). The fundamentals always remain.

For Christians:

- There is One God
- Jesus Christ is the Son of God, both man and God, who died for our sins and was resurrected.
- Only through Christ can one attain salvation --> be good in the eyes of God.

For as long as one holds those to be true, I think one can be considered a Christian. Thing is, to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God, is God, and to thus follow him and his teachings is to acknowledge that one's duty to one's neighbour is to love him/her. This has never changed.

Many people have taken advantage of the Bible or abused it in order to suit their own agenda (like with slavery), but those have been willful acts of ignorance that intentionatly perverted the central belief system of Christianity.

One shouldn't feel obliged to adhere to an institution if it is obvious to him/her that doing so is not in accordance with what Christ taught. In that case, leave that institution. If I was a homosexual Catholic dissatisfied with the Church, but don't want to give up Christianity, I would try to find some way to continue practicing my faith while disagreeing with the Church. The Church is an authority, yes, but only so long as that authority is acknowledged. They had a monopoly on the Bible for a long time until it was translated into the vernacular languages and until the printing presses, but nowadays everyone has access to the Word of God. Make use of it. If the Church's policy is clearly an inappropriate interpretation of the Bible to you, then leave. Or, if you really want to tough it out, try to change it from within. Good luck though. They didn't admit that Galileo was right until the late 20th Century.

As far I know the Pope does often say something about Africa, Hunger etc.

But what does make bigger buisness and sell more copies of your Newspapaer or give you some advertising money for your TV?????
I disagree in lot of things with the Pope (Gay sex, AIDS (which is a real big problem that becomes bigger and bigger and people should care about that again), Condomes etc...) Im not Catholic ...

But sometimes I have the feeling that some media also try to f*** up the pope and do what makes them the bigger buisness.

By the way, suppose they found out that Jesus was not resurrected, or that he was not born in Bethlehem, or whatnot. Or, to push this, that the guy who wrote the Da Vinci Code is right.

Would that spell out the death of Christianity?

Far from it. In fact, it could lead to an even greater acceptance. Why? Because all that would happen would be that another interpretation would take the place of the current one. The Bible would then be a symbolic account of Jesus' life, as it in many ways is now to begin with.

For example, when the Gospels mention that Jesus was born in Bethelehem or that he is from the House of David, that doesn't mean this has to be taken as concrete, literal fact. The idea here is that there is an attempt to find a connection between David and Jesus, that's it. The association is made on an intellectual level, not a physical one.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here. My point is: the Bible as we have it is unbelievably malleable and adaptable.

Thank you. The pope is so overrated. Seriously.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

I thought the pope was in the hospital. Is he out now?

I'm glad you two said it cause Im too scared.

But I do find it stupid to say certain comments are stupid and ignorant if someone says it, but not when someone else...the pope or whoever says it.

@Jon. Yup. Gone through all of those. (or at least most) and explained how they cuold be misinterpreted it. No one answered. I guess I'll post it for the third time but not right now, later when I have time to go look back through my posts. I'm sure I'll get the same reponse. Which is no reponse.

Very good find, Lyrik. This is why I am against homosexuality.

You're like 13 years old, right?

This is wholly depressing.

I'm glad you said that, actually, just to show how far ignorance and stupid,ness can go :wink:

Too bad I'm not advocating your cause. :laugh: And you need better fuel for your fire than that, because if you read those passages it says nothing about homosexuals, but homosexual sex. :laugh: :laugh:

cool

I can't believe someone found that old picture of me and my wife from last Halloween! =D>

Didnt you yourself post that recently?

He absolutely 100% has the right to say it. No on is denying him the right to say that.

And we have the right to disagree with him, too.

Just because someone is the head of a religion doesn't mean he is beyond criticism. Religion has been used for terrible injustices over the years along with great advances (just like government). No one should be above questioning or criticism.