Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd say it's 110% genetic and two spoons of sugar.

When you state, "X suggests", it means you're making **** up.

As opposed to the ramblings of delusional mystics

Apparently whenever someone says, "it's science" you must obey.

[Ben Kenobi]

so whats the sin in that verse?

Sex outside of one man and one woman in marriage. Also - not having sex at all in marriage. Conjugality is very important.

[Elok]

Okay, longer version: I could definitely see being less hostile to gays as a good thing. Because they're basically perfect for use as cultural (and political) whipping-boys, we tend to focus obsessively on them to the exclusion of everything else. Including heterosexual fornication, which does far, far more harm. But since going after them would be really hard, we've settled for the easy targets, and now we can't stop. It'd be swell if we could unclench our collective anus about them and focus on more important matters. Not to say "gay marriage for everyone"--sorry, but there's no patristic or scriptural grounds for such a thing--but toning down the hysteria, which is grossly unproductive in any case. I don't think it was going to happen here because conservatives suspected, perhaps rightly, that Francis was trying to get the camel's nose under the tent so the rest could follow later.

Re: engaging the culture, it would be good if we were able to encourage positive trends in society, but we still need to have the backbone to resist the negative. If we accommodate to the point where we are basically a religious-branded mouthpiece for the dominant secular culture, we surrender our autonomy--and become genuinely parasitic and superfluous. I'm not terribly concerned about homosexuality for its own sake, but if we can't stick to our guns on something as minor as that, how can we hope to stand up to the morbid consumerism, militarism, and addiction to the ephemeral that pervades modern society? All of those have powerful vested interests backing them up, to the point where they've basically co-opted large chunks of American Christianity.

I guess you could argue that, since we've gone totally belly-up on the big stuff, it doesn't much matter if we shrug and let two grooms have a wedding. But if we intend to recover our relevance, or even acquire the potential to be relevant in the future, we need to learn how to hold our ground against the culture. Preferably without being gigantic asshats about it. Otherwise people will continue to express distant approval for our tolerant, genial services right up to the moment where we have to sell the jumbotron and the drum set to settle our last debts before we close the doors.

[Elok]

Jesus didn't say homosexuality was a sin - and he could have if thats what he believed, but he did compare hatred to murder

IIRC, Jesus also said nothing about sacrificing to idols--because he was preaching almost exclusively to Jews, who were in little danger of doing either.

EDIT: He did, however, modify the Mosaic law on sexual conduct, and punishment for infractions of same, in a couple of ways. Just not for homosexuality.

[Ben Kenobi]

It'd be swell if we could unclench our collective anus about them and focus on more important matters.

Right now, we have a mayor in Houston, Annise Parker subpoenaing pastors for their speech requiring her consultation before they can be preached. Why? Because she's a lesbian and she can't have pastors preaching against her.

This HAS become the number 1 issue facing Christians today.

http://time.com/3514166/houston-pastors-sermons-subpoenaed/

[N35t0r]

Yeah, never mind that christians are being routinely massacred in the middle east, or that priests are abusing kids, that's clearly secondary.

[N35t0r]

Also, I like how you link the article and then lie about what it says.

[Berzerker]

Sex outside of one man and one woman in marriage. Also - not having sex at all in marriage. Conjugality is very important.

Jesus said being married and not having sex is a sin? The verse was about divorce, his answer was about divorce and why men should not dump their wives - because Adam didn't do that to Eve. He was not explaining who may or must have sex, but your interpretation would have us believe a man who neither married or had kids is lecturing the rest of us about marrying and having kids. Conjugality wasn't very important to him. You're reading way too much into his attempt to shame men for dumping their wives, your logic makes Jesus look like a hypocrite for not following his own advice.

IIRC, Jesus also said nothing about sacrificing to idols--because he was preaching almost exclusively to Jews, who were in little danger of doing either.

Jesus endorsed the 10 Commandments and it forbids graven images, but how did the Jews acquire an immunity to homosexuality?

EDIT: He did, however, modify the Mosaic law on sexual conduct, and punishment for infractions of same, in a couple of ways. Just not for homosexuality.

I dont see where Jesus mentioned gays, but he did oppose punishing adulterers.

How do you explain that, Ben?

How can Jesus support marriage laws you like when he didn't even want laws against adultery?

[Elok]

Yeah, never mind that christians are being routinely massacred in the middle east, or that priests are abusing kids, that's clearly secondary.

Actually, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world at present. India, China, parts of Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, central Asia, almost everywhere it's not a majority religion it's in trouble. Clearly we need to worry about an isolated brouhaha in one U.S. city.

[Elok]

Berz, you're giving some very good examples of why Sola Scriptura is wrong, but not doing much for homosexuality.

[Berzerker]

The burden of proof is on those citing Jesus as their moral authority to include homosexuals on their list of sinners. Other than asking for and verifying that proof what else am I to do?

[Kidlicious]

Right now, we have a mayor in Houston, Annise Parker subpoenaing pastors for their speech requiring her consultation before they can be preached. Why? Because she's a lesbian and she can't have pastors preaching against her.

This HAS become the number 1 issue facing Christians today.

http://time.com/3514166/houston-past...ns-subpoenaed/

maybe 1 in Houston.

[Kidlicious]

Jesus said being married and not having sex is a sin? The verse was about divorce, his answer was about divorce and why men should not dump their wives - because Adam didn't do that to Eve. He was not explaining who may or must have sex, but your interpretation would have us believe a man who neither married or had kids is lecturing the rest of us about marrying and having kids. Conjugality wasn't very important to him. You're reading way too much into his attempt to shame men for dumping their wives, your logic makes Jesus look like a hypocrite for not following his own advice.



Jesus endorsed the 10 Commandments and it forbids graven images, but how did the Jews acquire an immunity to homosexuality?



I dont see where Jesus mentioned gays, but he did oppose punishing adulterers.

How do you explain that, Ben?

How can Jesus support marriage laws you like when he didn't even want laws against adultery?

When Jesus commented on the Law He always had a higher meaning, one that escapes many people. Many times, during the period, men would divorce wifes when they got old. Only individuals and God know things like motivation for sins, like divorce. But Catholics, and others, sometimes think they know. A good example of what I'm talking about is when the Pharisees asked Jesus why His disciples eat food consecrated for Priests. He basically says the Law is for man, not against man.

[Elok]

Yes, but Berz, you're getting it all wrong. Jesus specifically got the crowd to not stone the adulterous woman (IIRC the whole incident is believed to be a later interpolation, but let's accept it as an oral tradition); he did not outlaw all punishments for all sexual misconduct under all circumstances. He also specifically told her to "sin no more," so if you're pointing at the story as an instance of indulging sin, you're off. Re: homosexuality, the Jews were in no danger of thinking homosexuality was acceptable, since the Law explicitly forbids it. If Jesus did not revise the Law as it pertains to homosexuality, but did revise it as it pertains to other sexual behaviors, why would you assume He was suddenly okay with homosexuality? And your reading of the "one flesh" bit is just Why would he be a hypocrite for opposing divorce but not getting married himself?

[Kidlicious]

The burden of proof is on those citing Jesus as their moral authority to include homosexuals on their list of sinners. Other than asking for and verifying that proof what else am I to do?

If your reason for believing He thought it isn't sin, that he didn't say it was, that's kind if a weak reason IMO. Of course He had His plate full with the hypocrite. His main concern was genuine servitude, not fake believers.