T Nation

Pope Benedict XVI

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
MikeShank wrote:
First off, homosexuality is only mentioned in the old testament.

Sorry Mike, that’s inaccurate.

Try Romans chapter 1:26-27 (NASB)
" 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." – I think that’s pretty clear, but if you actually need the word…try these:

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, "

1 Timothy 1:9 “realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,”

You may make whatever call you like on homosexuality (for which I may disagree), but saying that the only mention of it is in the OT is certainly inaccurate.

Just a thought,
Matthew

[/quote]

It depends entirely on what version of the Bible you’re reading and what the translator wanted to see. The Greek/Hebrew/Latin words (respectively) for homosexuality are not used in the original texts. The closest occurance of a direct condemnation of homosexuality is in Leviticus and directly translated as “Thou shalt not couch with a priest as thou wouldst with a woman.”

It makes sense to interpret this as “do not kiss priests.” As a condemnation of homosexuality though? Bit of a stretch.

I agree with the poster who said that you shouldn’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe the doctrine/teachings. Since that’s true, according to a few legitimate political surveys I’ve seen, 74% of American Roman Catholics should leave the Church due to their stance on abortion. Even more on birth control (don’t remember the exact number, around 80%).

I wonder how the Church would react if it suddenly and rightfully found itself as the Christian minority sect.

-Dan

Wow, good post, buffalo! I was going to write a reply to Matthew9v9 myself, but you beat me to it.

Good thread everybody. Let’s keep it going, I’d like to hear back from some of the Catholics and other religious folks about this stuff.

[quote]dond1esel wrote:
I am sinning by having premarital safe sex. Ouch for me. Likewise, circumstances where abortion is necessary (I obviously count them few) make my stomach churn with uncertainty. Well, that’s what my church says.

I like celibate priests.

I don’t like women or gay priests.

I don’t like gay anything. I’m tolerant, and I will vote for gay marriage to avoid looking like George Wallace, but I won’t be smiling when I do it.

Ratzinger was no Nazi and damn smart, and an understudy of JP2.

I am happy to have a conservative pope selection as a conservative pope wouldn’t throw out the baby (first item) with the bathwater (other items).

Benedict XVI is a fine selection in whom I have the utmost confidence.

If you are Catholic and don’t agree, have faith. If you aren’t Catholic, get a life.[/quote]

from this does it mean that if you aren’t a catholic, you have no life?

I think it’s silly to get hung up on homosexuality issues. Doesn’t that whole coming back from the dead thing seem pretty odd?

[quote]miniross wrote:

does it mean that if you aren’t a catholic, you have no life?[/quote]

Yes. Exactly.

…I’m saying that if you’re not a Catholic it’s not your problem.

[quote]dond1esel wrote:
…I’m saying that if you’re not a Catholic it’s not your problem.[/quote]

So I’m not allowed to talk and conjecture about Catholics if I’m not Catholic? Well… excuuuuuuse me!

Not excused. So there.

[quote]dond1esel wrote:
Not excused. So there.[/quote]

Typical uppity holier-than-thou catholic response. Sorry for breathing, too, BTW. :slight_smile:

[quote]doogie wrote:
I think it’s silly to get hung up on homosexuality issues. Doesn’t that whole coming back from the dead thing seem pretty odd?[/quote]

Dude, that goes without saying. What we’re talking about in this thread is whether or not the new pope might effect any useful change, what that change could be, or if he is more of a placeholder/transitional guy until the next candidate comes along to really get crackin’ on this modernization.

I think it’s also interesting to hear the responses from the religious folks who are happy rather than disappointed in this new pope. It seems that there’s a bunch of y’all out there who want to keep the clock turned back. And I can understand that, too. I mean we’re talking about a kind of “spiritual security blanket” here, and you can’t just go and change it without upsetting some people. Even if it’s a change in the right direction… which is something that’s debatable here, too.

dond: hahaha I’m still talking about catholics! :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m finding that the Ass Worship thread has more accumulative brain power than the tired old arguments of this thread. Loth, I think you’re a good dude, but why do you keep trying to push the button of the “Faithful”?

Now, if you will excuse me, I think there is a Witch thread that I need to go take a look at. Got some souls to save…

Just to follow up on the point about I Corinthians 6:9; it is unclear what Paul meant in that context. In the Greek, Paul uses pornoi (prostitution), malakoi (lit. softness, but could be effeminacy, or moral weakness), and arsenokoitai, for which we have no good translation. This is complicated by the fact that Paul does not mention pederasty specifically (the relationship between a pubescent boy and an older man). Arsenokoitai may be translated as homosexual oppression, that is, not a consenting relationship between man and man, but the proof for that is outside of the scope of this discussion.

The Brits are calling him the Nazi Pope

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7586610/

for his membership (brief) in the Hitler Youth. Going to be an intersting tenure.

I am Catholic. I can not say whether or not this pope is a good selection yet. He has just been elected, only time will tell. One thing I will do is purchase a few of his books and actually read them so I can have a better idea of what he is all about. How many others will do this? One thing I will not do is let the media paint a picture of the man for me. Right now I have no doubt that this man is a much better man than I am, and for now he will get the benefit of the doubt.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

dond: hahaha I’m still talking about catholics! :stuck_out_tongue:

[/quote]

Seriously, how old are you?

[quote]bamit wrote:
I am Catholic. I can not say whether or not this pope is a good selection yet. He has just been elected, only time will tell. One thing I will do is purchase a few of his books and actually read them so I can have a better idea of what he is all about. How many others will do this? One thing I will not do is let the media paint a picture of the man for me. Right now I have no doubt that this man is a much better man than I am, and for now he will get the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]

I am sure that if i read, say stalins books, i would paint a specific picture of the man. in this i mean that in reading a source that is primary nature will give little insight as there is no objectivity.

Go ahead, i hope the money goes to a good cause. Also, why would this one individual be better than you? That is sad that you feel this way. i am sure he would be humble and state otherwise. This is what i hate about things like this, just because you may not be as “holy” or “pure” then there appears to be a weight of guilt.

Or is it that he can bench more than you?

Good luck on your search.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
Not excused. So there.

Typical uppity holier-than-thou catholic response. Sorry for breathing, too, BTW. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

No, it’s that if your choice is not to be a Catholic and think all of what we believe is nuts, have a grand old time… but honestly, we don’t really care. Have your own views or faith/lack of faith, but the amount of speculation that goes on about our Church is mind-boggling to us at times. We’re not just going to completely change the tenets of our faith just because people outside of our faith don’t agree with us. As a few people have pointed out, the moral principles of the faith were not meant to sway with whatever view may come with the times. There is certainly a place for change in the Church, but (and no offense meant by this), it’s not really up to people outside the Church to decide what that change should be or when it should happen.

Kuz

P.S. Dond writes great, well-thought out posts, so I can tell he is just in the mood to f with you. Try not to take it so seriously.

miniross,

Forgive my ingnorance, we should have elected you pope.

Lothario,
Good logic. And if you were starting a modern day religion you might have some beleivers. Its really a shame that the Catholic Church has carefully constructed doctrines that are hundreds of years old that explicitly prevent sex that doesn’t in procreation and union (of marriage). This marriage has traditionally been man and woman, but its really a moot point when compared to #1.

Homosexuals are fine. Acting on it is bad. Because purpose #1 can’t be carried out.

Condoms are bad because they prevent pregnancy.

I could potentially see an argument for condom usage if it wasn’t for the fact that these people were fornicating… Which is once again… Against Catholic teaching. It’d be like telling drunk drivers to wear seat belts. Very hypocritical on the basis of theology.

Your arguments make sense from a socio-political sense. They’re idiotic from a theological standpoint. You may think you know religion (and from your own expierence you do), but your knowledge of the Catholic faith is minimal and somewhat warped.

Sorry man. Maybe the Dalai Lama will switch to a more deist religion from that pantheism he’s got going on.

Lothario,

Dont you dare chide me that I dont have an open enough mind to grasp your statements.
Im not the one who claims to have all the answers.

Can I ask what you do for a living?

You see I started toward atheism after having been trained under Catholics all of my life.

Then I started working in law enforcement, and I started moving back to a more spiritual center. Its the kind of job that you might find religion real quick in. Same thing with soldiers.

Im not going to waste my time. You clearly have it all figured out. Just please answer my question.

[quote]Sniper99 wrote:
T-chick, no offense, but if you don’t believe how can you call it ignorant? I think it is VERY presumptuous of you to dismiss people of faith as ignorant - we aren’t. Also note that being against homosexuality has nothing to do with being against homosexuals as people - see my post in response to Aleksander on that point.

There is a saying - to a believer, no proof is necessary; to an unbeliever, no amount of proof is enough. That is the case here. If you don’t believe the Christian faith then obviously you are going to dismiss it as irrational. But don’t presume to know everyone who believes it is ignorant.[/quote]

I think I’m going to go right ahead and persist in thinking that it’s ignorant to believe in something for which there’s not one shred of evidence. It’s not a case of ‘no evidence being enough’ because i don’t want to believe; I would LOVE to believe that my soul and those of my loved ones is going to exist forever, and that there is a benevolent god that watches over me, but there is NO credible evidence to suggest this is true.