Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Sava]

Is god/Jesus not omnipotent and omnipresent? What Jesus was saying was not just to a few Jews in the time he was speaking, it was the basis for the bible which then spoke to two thousand years of Christians all over the world. If Jesus wanted to explicitly forbid homosexuality, why would he not do so, despite knowing that in the future this would cause endless problems and confusion? More to the point, if he knew that gay marraige would become legal all across the christian world as is now becoming the case, why wouldn't he have expressly banned it if that was his wish?

I always love religious arguments for this reason. The religionista can never actually be proven wrong. Interpretations of text are twisted to fit personal interpretations. This is why there can only be atheists, agnostics, and fundamentalists. Everyone else is just wishy washy middle of the roadkill... clinging to childish teachings because the task of thinking for oneself is too great to overcome.

[kentonio]

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?

Is god/Jesus not omnipotent and omnipresent? What Jesus was saying was not just to a few Jews in the time he was speaking, it was the basis for the bible which then spoke to two thousand years of Christians all over the world. If Jesus wanted to explicitly forbid homosexuality, why would he not do so, despite knowing that in the future this would cause endless problems and confusion? More to the point, if he knew that gay marraige would become legal all across the christian world as is now becoming the case, why wouldn't he have expressly banned it if that was his wish?

[Ben Kenobi]

I actually think it's a good thing. It's better than pastors just giving crappy sermons without anyone forcing them to. Hopefully it will stir some to passion.

Interesting perspective. Personally I'm counting on the Streisand effect. Now everyone will associate, "fat bitter lesbian", with her name.

[Kidlicious]

Berz, there's a difference between saying homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals should be stoned. He says, "let him without sin cast the first stone.". Don't you think adultery is a sin?

[Kidlicious]

Subpoenaing speeches for their content? And this doesn't concern you in the slightest? Sure as hell concerns me.

I actually think it's a good thing. It's better than pastors just giving crappy sermons without anyone forcing them to. Hopefully it will stir some to passion.

[Ben Kenobi]

He'd be hypocritical for telling people "Sex outside of one man and one woman in marriage. Also - not having sex at all in marriage. Conjugality is very important."

Uh, exactly how?

Are you arguing that everyone who chooses not to marry someone is sinning?

[DinoDoc]

I'm pointing to the story because if Jesus opposed laws for punishing adulterers (a violation of a Commandment) then he would not have supported laws to punish gays.

Jesus does not challenge the right of the accusers to kill the adulteress according to the Mosaic law, Berz. That's assuming the passage itself is genuine and not a forgery of course.

[Berzerker]

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.

I'm pointing to the story because if Jesus opposed laws for punishing adulterers (a violation of a Commandment) then he would not have supported laws to punish gays.

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?

I assume he was okay with it because he didn't mention it. Had the pharisees brought before him a lesbian, how would he have reacted if he stood up for adulterers? I see the story of the adulteress as a window into what he thought of sexuality in general and I dont see any logic in arguing he considered consensual sex a sin much less a crime.

And your reading of the "one flesh" bit is just Why would he be a hypocrite for opposing divorce but not getting married himself?

He'd be hypocritical for telling people "Sex outside of one man and one woman in marriage. Also - not having sex at all in marriage. Conjugality is very important."

Do as I say, not as I 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.

I have several reasons but they aint relevant - the burden of proof is on those claiming to speak for him. If he didn't say it, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

maybe 1 in Houston.

Subpoenaing speeches for their content? And this doesn't concern you in the slightest? Sure as hell concerns me.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

WTF?

How is it a lie? She's actually saying she has a right to tell pastors what they can preach in their sermons. Why? Because she's lesbian and she doesn't want them preaching that homosexuality is sinful.

Do you want me to read out Abbott's smackdown? It's open and shut breach of the constitutional rights of Christians to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Do you not see this, Nestor?

Or is this something you support?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?