[Kerrigan]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully branded homosexual marriage an evil and denounced abortion and euthanasia as forms of "terrorism with a human face."

The attack by Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was the latest in a string of speeches made by either Pope Benedict or other Vatican officials as Italy considers giving more rights to gays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know we've been through this debate a hundred times, but is homosexuality evil by Christian moral standards? Or is it just gay marriage which is evil? Also, which churches tend to be most friendly towards homosexuals?

[Buckaroo]

All homosexual activity is evil.

[- - e r i k - -]

Satan is gay

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

All homosexual activity is evil.

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

[Kerrigan]

Well, that may have been a serious response (not that its reflective of his views, but it does sort of answer the question i posed)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

All homosexual activity is evil.

I bolded the key word for you. It is committing same-sex acts that is considered evil, not the state of being homosexual. In Catholic doctrine the approach to homosexuality is very much one of "Hate the sin, Love the sinner." So, while they will denounce homosexual activity (Hate the sin), they will simultaneously say that homosexuals (who practice abstinence) are fully welcome into the church (Love the sinner). The reason why they don't "Hate the sinner" as well is due to the belief in Original Sin. The Church believes everyone was born into sin, and, in their bizarre world-view, some people were born into the sin of homosexuality.

[Kerrigan]

There are certain divinely "approved" pleasures: sleeping, drinking alcohol, making love to your wife, etc. These things are considered wholesome as long as they are not twisted or misused for evil intentions. I have difficulty seeing how a gay person would be acting inappropriately by making love to his or her partner, so long as the relationship is monogamous and wholesome.

[wolfen]

I guess the Church took a loss on the recent sale of their Limbo holdings and are now out to attract buyers in their aging Hell community. Even the Church knows that sex sells.

[hyteckit]

i think the Bishop's outfit is pretty gay, but who am I to judge.

[Atomic Rooster]

The Catholic church is evil. It's missionaries in Africa preach non-use of condoms in the most heavily populated aids countries. All black of course.

That is genocide.

Plus they are a front for pedophiliacs.

And on and on. They should just shut up.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

There are certain divinely "approved" pleasures: sleeping, drinking alcohol, making love to your wife, etc. These things are considered wholesome as long as they are not twisted or misused for evil intentions. I have difficulty seeing how a gay person would be acting inappropriately by making love to his or her partner, so long as the relationship is monogamous and wholesome.

They're not acting inappropriately, but that isn't going to stop somebody from claiming that they are. You always have to remember that a lot of people will go out of their way to find fault with others before they'll look in a mirror.

[Helmling]

If only some religion would include something about not judging others...you know, lest they themselves be judged.

Pity there's no religion that follows the teachings of a man who would stand up and say that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If only some religion would include something about not judging others...you know, lest they themselves be judged.

Pity there's no religion that follows the teachings of a man who would stand up and say that.

A common distortion of religious doctrine.

There's a difference between judging a man (that he is evil, going to hell, is a worse sinner than the next guy, etc.) and judging behavior he engages in that has been deemed sinful by God.

Jesus most certainly judged sinful behavior and told people who engaged in it that they should stop. He did so often. That didn't stop him from loving the sinner or accepting them as his equal in the eyes of the lord.

Just FYI.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

sarcasm? Ha! Not this time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

The Catholic church is evil. It's missionaries in Africa preach non-use of condoms in the most heavily populated aids countries. All black of course.
That is genocide.

Encouraging propagation is genocide now? I'm always amazed to see how words are stretched to mean anything we want them to. I've never known genocide to include breeding for death, but uh... whatever trips your trigger. I suppose you'd be on board for a few abortion clinics though?

Plus they are a front for pedophiliacs.

Is this in their doctrine or something? I think NAMBLA is an official front for pedophiliacs right? I just want to make sure you're eyes are all the way open.

And on and on. They should just shut up.

Everyone has a say... yes even you.

[Dakarʒ]

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they call homosexuality evil.

Hitler, now that was evil.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they call homosexuality evil.

Hitler, now that was evil.

Invocation of Godwin's Law. Close the thread now.

[Dakarʒ]

Damn!

[lpkmckenna]

I used to be Catholic. Vatican statements like this reinforce my atheism.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I bolded the key word for you. It is committing same-sex acts that is considered evil, not the state of being homosexual. In Catholic doctrine the approach to homosexuality is very much one of "Hate the sin, Love the sinner." So, while they will denounce homosexual activity (Hate the sin), they will simultaneously say that homosexuals (who practice abstinence) are fully welcome into the church (Love the sinner). The reason why they don't "Hate the sinner" as well is due to the belief in Original Sin. The Church believes everyone was born into sin, and, in their bizarre world-view, some people were born into the sin of homosexuality.

Regarding sexuality, I believe the Catholic stance goes a step further, and states that sexual activity should be reserved whenever possible for procreation in the context of marriage. This doesn't quite explain the stance correctly, after all someone who is married but sterile due to a medical condition is not prohibited from having sex with his or her spouse. But it serves to explain, to some extent, why the church has a problem with condoms -- anything that blocks the normal procreation process is bad. It also explains why homosexual activity is bad, since it can never result in procreation.

I think this stance is sorely in need of updating, personally. It ignores the value of prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, even within the context of a marriage. It also ignores the concept that even with the Churches' teaching of no sex before marriage, not everyone shares that viewpoint, and some Catholics are going to do it anyway, so teaching the "lesser of two evils" is more prudent and, ultimately, more preserving of life. And, of course, there are a few priests who haven't got the "sex outside of procreation is bad" memo.

Calling abortion "terrorism with a human face" is a little over the top too, I think. Forced abortions. perhaps....

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I used to be Catholic. Vatican statements like this reinforce my atheism.

Crazy people don't speak for sane.

Embrace sanity.

[sek929]

The Vatican takes one more step into obsolescence.

When will people stop listening to the silly man in the big hat?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Crazy people don't speak for sane.

Embrace sanity.

What the hell are you going on about?

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What the hell are you going on about?

What you've said is the equivalent of "Statements my crazy uncle makes about deep sea wildlife convict me that the ocean floor is devoid of life."

Whether or not God exists, WTF would your religious upbringing have to do with it? Likewise the ramblings of a religious leader have nothing to do with it. I understand your disenchantment. I'm just encouraging you to examine your logic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The Vatican takes one more step into obsolescence.

When will people stop listening to the silly man in the big hat?

Likely when he stops repeating what the bearded man who was on the cross has already said. The Pope really isn't any worse that the guy whose message he preaches. If you don't like his message, you probably won't like the Pope's either. Until that guy comes back and tells us he's changed his mind, I don't think that the Pope needs to "update" his message.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Likely when he stops repeating what the bearded man who was on the cross has already said. The Pope really isn't any worse that the guy whose message he preaches. If you don't like his message, you probably won't like the Pope's either. Until that guy comes back and tells us he's changed his mind, I don't think that the Pope needs to "update" his message.

Let's take stock of this argument:

Jesus said NOTHING about contraception, homosexuality, or abortion. Nothing.

He certainly didn't advocate The Crusades, endorse The Nazis, or refuse to recotgnize the nation of Israel.

He never said that STD's were God's punishment on mankind.

Jesus said Do not call priests "father." There are a hundred contradictions and hypocrisies.

You can argue that Christianity messed up the message, but it's hard to argue it is congruent with what Jesus intended.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

What you've said is the equivalent of "Statements my crazy uncle makes about deep sea wildlife convict me that the ocean floor is devoid of life."

Umm, ok, except I don't think the Pope or any other Catholic official is actually crazy. Besides, you suggested that I needed to "embrace sanity," not the Vatican.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Whether or not God exists, WTF would your religious upbringing have to do with it?

Nothing, and I didn't say it did. I mentioned off-handedly that I was an ex-Catholic.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Likewise the ramblings of a religious leader have nothing to do with it. I understand your disenchantment. I'm just encouraging you to examine your logic.

My logic is fine. All religious statements sound like unfocused rambling to me, whether from leaders or not, and such statements reinforce my atheism.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

My logic is fine. All religious statements sound like unfocused rambling to me, whether from leaders or not, and such statements reinforce my atheism.

WHAT DOES ANY STATEMENT ABOUT GOD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT A GOD EXISTS?

nothing

You may not agree with Someone else's conception of a god. Fine. And the collection of stupid statements may reinforce your belief that these conceptions of god together do not fit with your idea of a God. Fine. But the idea that these statements relate in any way to the actual existence of an omnipotent being is illogical. It's fine as a personal preference, or whatever. But technically illogical.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Jesus said NOTHING about contraception, homosexuality, or abortion. Nothing.

But he did assert the authority of the prophets and the Law. Hence, he implicitly agreed with the laws against homosexuality. Hard to argue that "carry your cross" is compatible with abortion.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

He certainly didn't advocate The Crusades, endorse The Nazis, or refuse to recotgnize the nation of Israel.

I'm pretty sure he recognized the nation of Israel, since he actually lived there. I'm also pretty sure he recognized the authority of the Romans, who were just as bad as the Nazis, qualitatively-speaking.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

He never said that STD's were God's punishment on mankind.

No, but painful childbirth is?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

WHAT DOES ANY STATEMENT ABOUT GOD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT A GOD EXISTS?

Your capslock key appears to be stuck.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

You may not agree with Someone else's conception of a god. Fine. And the collection of stupid statements may reinforce your belief that these conceptions of god together do not fit with your idea of a God. Fine. But the idea that these statements relate in any way to the actual existence of an omnipotent being is illogical. It's fine as a personal preference, or whatever. But technically illogical.

Frankly, all arguments for the existence of God are pretty much alike, whether from the mouth of Catholics or not. Do I have to refute every argument for the existence of God from every possible sect, cult, denomination, variation, and permutation ever to meet your standard of logic?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A common distortion of religious doctrine.

There's a difference between judging a man (that he is evil, going to hell, is a worse sinner than the next guy, etc.) and judging behavior he engages in that has been deemed sinful by God.

Jesus most certainly judged sinful behavior and told people who engaged in it that they should stop. He did so often. That didn't stop him from loving the sinner or accepting them as his equal in the eyes of the lord.

Just FYI.

Yeah, HE was Jesus.

This guy isn't.

You aren't.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Frankly, all arguments for the existence of God are pretty much alike, whether from the mouth of Catholics or not. Do I have to refute every argument for the existence of God from every possible sect, cult, denomination, variation, and permutation ever to meet your standard of logic?

No...you just have to be open to the idea that any and all arguments are irrelevant. You still have to get over that logical hurdle. If every human being on the planet had a completely unique take on the matter it still wouldn't have any impact *whatsoever* on the existence of God. IT exists or IT doesn't, and human perspectives on the matter have absolutely no bearing. You are refusing to grasp that.

It's clear you've spent about 5 minutes getting comfortable with your decision and simply use the rest of your brain processing time to justify it. On the other hand, I've spent the past 25 years of my life investigating a wide variety of arguments pro and con, and can converse about these things in an open minded manner.

Finally, it's clear from your statements re:what Jesus said that you have virtually no real understanding of the Bible or theology. You've made your peace with your decisions, and now the universe will conform whether it likes it or not. Good luck with that.

[Monique]

I grew Catholic but realized soon enough that the Vatican do not at any times respect women as intelligent human beings and try to put them down all the times.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

No...you just have to be open to the idea that any and all arguments are irrelevant. You still have to get over that logical hurdle.

Um, ok, arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

If every human being on the planet had a completely unique take on the matter it still wouldn't have any impact *whatsoever* on the existence of God. IT exists or IT doesn't, and human perspectives on the matter have absolutely no bearing. You are refusing to grasp that.

Now you're just shoving words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

It's clear you've spent about 5 minutes getting comfortable with your decision and simply use the rest of your brain processing time to justify it.

Now you're just shoving more words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

On the other hand, I've spent the past 25 years of my life investigating a wide variety of arguments pro and con, and can converse about these things in an open minded manner.

Uh, didn't you just say that arguments about the existence of God are irrelevant? 25 years seems like a long time to waste on something you consider irrelevant.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Finally, it's clear from your statements re:what Jesus said that you have virtually no real understanding of the Bible or theology.

Translation: I can't prove my case so I won't even try.

Give it a rest, wolfen. All your posturing about being logical and open-minded is little but bad comedy.

[wolfen]

LOL...don't worry, LP. You still have my forgiveness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

I grew Catholic but realized soon enough that the Vatican do not at any times respect women as intelligent human beings and try to put them down all the times.

I left the Catholic Church because there are too many professional women in attendance there. I likes my women barefoot and pregnant and can't have them all reading and writing and acting all free and stuff. Suffrage... HAH!!! I've been sufferin' ever since I got me one.

All women should be barefoot, pregnant, and cooking up something tasty. If they're super-thin, I'll even let 'em wear a little teddy for me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Yeah, HE was Jesus.

This guy isn't.

You aren't.

Duh.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Let's take stock of this argument:

Jesus said NOTHING about contraception, homosexuality, or abortion. Nothing.

As it's been explained, by virtue of his teaching and the scripture he endorsed, Jesus has made reference either directly or indirectly to all those things mentioned.

You can argue that Christianity messed up the message, but it's hard to argue it is congruent with what Jesus intended.

I see nothing in this thread that was quoted that the Pope supports or claims (I myself am not Catholic) that goes contrary to the teachings of Christ and those he deemed prophets.

[cwosigns]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But he did assert the authority of the prophets and the Law. Hence, he implicitly agreed with the laws against homosexuality.

Well then...Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (the same word used to describe homosexuality). Since Jesus implicitly agreed with the prophets, why aren't there more protests at Red Lobster?

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As it's been explained, by virtue of his teaching and the scripture he endorsed, Jesus has made reference either directly or indirectly to all those things mentioned.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not really accurate. The things Christ stood for did, indeed, resonate with the old testament. But that's not to say that it ALL reflected His new message. Just like He wasn't advocating that menstruating women should be run out of town, or that people who ate shellfish were displeasing God. His focus was love and good works.

I see nothing in this thread that was quoted that the Pope supports or claims (I myself am not Catholic) that goes contrary to the teachings of Christ and those he deemed prophets.

That's why I provided the info to demonstrate the point.


The failure of Churchianity is that modern christians are inconsistent in their application of the book of Acts. They will gladly move the Sabbath to Sunday, allow women to speak in Church, and eat at Red Lobster. But ask them to convene a meeting about homosexuals and they get all crazy and whine "but the bible shows it's wrong" without even acknowledging that theyv'e changed a dozen other things that are in the Bible. They are just being stubborn.

None of this invalidates the message Jesus taught, or the hypocrisy presented by egotistical, self-righteous men.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by cwosigns 

Well then...Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (the same word used to describe homosexuality). Since Jesus implicitly agreed with the prophets, why aren't there more protests at Red Lobster?

Well could be because 99.9 to infinity of Christians don't even know how or by who or when Christianity started and that the bible they have not read was written by men and not Jesus or God.

Might as well read Grimm's Faerie Tales. They are about equally factual.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

IThe failure of Churchianity is that modern christians are inconsistent in their application of the book of Acts. They will gladly move the Sabbath to Sunday, allow women to speak in Church, and eat at Red Lobster.

Your argument falls on a misunderstanding of the different types of religious laws reflected in the Old Testament; moral law, ceremonial law and civil law and how Christ's "new covenant" changed how ceremonial laws are treated. There's isn't any "hypocrisy" in recognizing Christ's "new covenant" and not relying on the "old covenant" relied upon before Christ's arrival on Earth. It's simply a matter of you not understanding WHY certain things are done for different reasons.

[papadopolis]

Who are we to judge. It is left to God. Here is what I think.

Do you sin every day? Chances are Yes
Is Being "Gay" a Sin? Maybe. We dont really know
Do you ask God (or a priest if you are Catholic) for forgiveness for ALL your sins? Prob. not
In the Bible it says that all sins are equal. So being "gay" should be no worse that telling a lie.(by the Bible)

So IMO we all sin. we just need to accept that.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your argument falls on a misunderstanding of the different types of religious laws reflected in the Old Testament; moral law, ceremonial law and civil law and how Christ's "new covenant" changed how ceremonial laws are treated. There's isn't any "hypocrisy" in recognizing Christ's "new covenant" and not relying on the "old covenant" relied upon before Christ's arrival on Earth. It's simply a matter of you not understanding WHY certain things are done for different reasons.

I'm happy to see someone else who understands (perhaps) a little more about the OT than most. But what I've said doesn't contradict -- it just doesn't address all the details because it is unnecessary to address them here.

Your claim that Christ's sacrifice only ended ceremonial law is a preferential view for some, yes. But hardly an ironclad position that justifies your statement that I "simply" do not understand. I could just as easily say you don't understand the implications of the priesthood that ended. My statement about Acts stands: It is in man's hands how to deal with the information available. Anything can be rewritten -- and has -- if it is done by the unwritten rules of love of man and love of God.

[cwosigns]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your argument falls on a misunderstanding of the different types of religious laws reflected in the Old Testament; moral law, ceremonial law and civil law and how Christ's "new covenant" changed how ceremonial laws are treated. There's isn't any "hypocrisy" in recognizing Christ's "new covenant" and not relying on the "old covenant" relied upon before Christ's arrival on Earth. It's simply a matter of you not understanding WHY certain things are done for different reasons.

Actually I understand it all quite well. I have a Bachelor Degree in Biblical Literature (which included study of Hebrew and Greek texts) and I'm a former minister.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your argument falls on a misunderstanding of the different types of religious laws reflected in the Old Testament; moral law, ceremonial law and civil law and how Christ's "new covenant" changed how ceremonial laws are treated. There's isn't any "hypocrisy" in recognizing Christ's "new covenant" and not relying on the "old covenant" relied upon before Christ's arrival on Earth. It's simply a matter of you not understanding WHY certain things are done for different reasons.

Can you tell me where Jesus says what you're claiming?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by papadopolis 

Who are we to judge. It is left to God. Here is what I think.

Do you sin every day? Chances are Yes

I'd agree.

Is Being "Gay" a Sin? Maybe. We dont really know

Actually, based on what I know of the teachings of the prophets of the God of Abraham, the answer is "no". On the other hand, engaging in "gay sex" would be considered a sin and against God's plan.

Do you ask God (or a priest if you are Catholic) for forgiveness for ALL your sins? Prob. not

This is an area I think is debatable. I do think though that if you are a Christian, that you should regularly ask for God's forgiveness for your sins.

In the Bible it says that all sins are equal. So being "gay" should be no worse that telling a lie.(by the Bible)

So IMO we all sin. we just need to accept that.

True. But there is a difference between someone who sins and regrets it, and someone who sins without regret. If you are gay and have gay sex without remorse or without any attempt to stop sinning, that's different from someone who tells a lie, regrets it, and tries not to do it again and asks for forgiveness. The key is intent. God doesn't expect his followers to be perfect, but he does expect them to try I think.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Can you tell me where Jesus says what you're claiming?

Can you tell me where Jesus says you can't eat shellfish?

If you don't understand the meaning of Christ's "new covenant" that's fine. Google "Old Testmament" and "New Covenant" and you'll find dozens of web sites that explain why it is that Christ's coming issued a near era in biblical law.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Your claim that Christ's sacrifice only ended ceremonial law is a preferential view for some, yes. But hardly an ironclad position that justifies your statement that I "simply" do not understand. I could just as easily say you don't understand the implications of the priesthood that ended. My statement about Acts stands: It is in man's hands how to deal with the information available. Anything can be rewritten -- and has -- if it is done by the unwritten rules of love of man and love of God.

The entirety of all scripture is written by man. The idea is that it's divinely inspired. The scripture of the Old Testament was written by man - those chosen as prophets by God and inspired by those that followed them. The New Testament was done likewise.

If you want to go the route you are suggesting, you can just say that all the ceremonial laws could have been made up and not divinely inspired either. Based on the scriptures and reasonable interpretations, it's clear that there are different types of laws and requirements for how we, post Christ, can deal with them.

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who wishes to obey all scriptural laws - even ones that where intended for the "chosen" children of Isreal, with a purpose particular to them which weren't meant to apply post-Christ. I don't think there's a real credible argument though that people are being hypocritical for still obeying the moral code while lessening the importance of the old ceremonial laws (shellfish, etc.) where there is a rational reason for not doing so. Again, if anyone wishes to find out more as to WHY this is so, there are a gazillion websites that outline this matter in detail.

Now...back to the topic.

What is "evil"? What does that word mean? It's fairly easy to determine if something is a "sin" based on scripture, but is everything that is a sin, necessarily "evil"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What is "evil"? What does that word mean? It's fairly easy to determine if something is a "sin" based on scripture, but is everything that is a sin, necessarily "evil"?

This is a good question and I believe the only answer is the unforgivable sin; blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Denying the power of the Holy Spirit and claimiing its activity is that of the enemy. I believe "evil" is by design; intent. Were my intentions designed to bear fruit or destroy fruitfulness. i.e. am I being constructive or destructive.