Gays not welcome in Priesthood, says Pope

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

If you guys/gals want to know how God intervenes in the world that thats a secret you will have to join the priesthood to find out. Alternatively, you can get a book on Jewish/Christian/Islamic mysticism such as Kabballah or Sufism.

 

Confirmation bias, magical thinking, and wishful thinking. Probably more belief perseverance than anything.

Quote

Your existence is to bring pleasure to God by having a heart towards the rest of creation.

You tell a kid they can choose from A, B, and C. Then tell them that if they pick options B and C that you'll beat them every day, and then you'll beat the kids they have every day, and even when they die they will be punished for not choosing A. God didn't give us free will, we are nothing more than plaything to it. Good thing it doesn't exist or it doesn't care. 

It's when I read stuff like this that it goes to further my distaste for all abrahamic religions. Nothing more than a dictatorship. God so loved himself that he created other beings to tell him how good he is.

Edited December 9, 2018 by XenoFish

[XenoFish]

From what I gather baseline Christianity isn't a religion but more a spiritual philosophy. 

Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Do unto others as you'd have done unto you.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

When you pray do it in secret so that you might be rewarded openly.

Kindness, generosity. When it became a religion I think that's what ruined it. It may have started out as some very simply spiritual practice. Alas, it seems that so few Christians actually do what's asked of them. They judge, they hate, they are hypocrites. The priesthood became nothing more than a power structure. False authority.

[Duke Wellington]

35 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Confirmation bias, magical thinking, and wishful thinking. Probably more belief perseverance than anything.

You tell a kid they can choose from A, B, and C. Then tell them that if they pick options B and C that you'll beat them every day, and then you'll beat the kids they have every day, and even when they die they will be punished for not choosing A. God didn't give us free will, we are nothing more than plaything to it. Good thing it doesn't exist or it doesn't care. 

It's when I read stuff like this that it goes to further my distaste for all abrahamic religions. Nothing more than a dictatorship. God so loved himself that he created other beings to tell him how good he is.

And with that you reveal yourself as having issues with religion.

Would anybody expect anything other than a closed mind with a person like yourself?

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

And with that you reveal yourself as having issues with religion.

Would anybody expect anything other than a closed mind with a person like yourself?

I have never denied having issues with religion. Funny thing about that term, closed minded. Takes a far more open mind to consider the flaws in belief structure than to make excuses for them. That's called belief perseverance.

[Wistman]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

From what I gather baseline Christianity isn't a religion but more a spiritual philosophy. 

Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Do unto others as you'd have done unto you.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

When you pray do it in secret so that you might be rewarded openly.

Kindness, generosity. When it became a religion I think that's what ruined it. It may have started out as some very simply spiritual practice. Alas, it seems that so few Christians actually do what's asked of them. They judge, they hate, they are hypocrites. The priesthood became nothing more than a power structure. False authority.

My view:  Jesus of Nazareth's precepts stressing virtuous behavior toward others, compassion, anti-materialism, and congenial intentions was quickly judged to be too challenging for simple people and difficult to manage in a formal, institutionalized sense..which turned out to be so very important you see.

That's why, I think, the 'sacrifice' of the Mass was invented stressed by Paul and later honchos.  Something like: "Let's return to sacrifice, something the 'simple' can understand...only this time a modern version, without the messy chicken's blood and guts.  A nice clean sacrifice, pleasant.  They'll understand it, the little sheep.  They'll love it."  Forget those difficult behavior changes, the internal struggle and debate, the analysis of one's own intentions.  Forget talking to God without the necessity of priests...confess to us and eat the bread instead.  It's Jesus's body you see!  That's the ticket.  Now your sins are disappeared!

Jesus also explained that all are welcome and equal at the Lord's table, as distinct from the Hebrew tradition.  The church fathers saw to it that that part was kept.  Welcome, bring your coins everybody, one and all...do as we say and we'll save you!  Constantine sure got the utility of that part.

Yes, I'm cynical.

Might we bring up the Cathars now?  They didn't obey the Vatican memo, so sad.

[XenoFish]

When you start to take about various spiritual belief systems you can find the gold in them as well as the sludge. If anything the Jesus in the bible might have been nothing more than a jewish philosopher who had a different take on his faith. Made it simple. But that doesn't fill pockets does it. 

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Like a non-white wanting to join the klan.

That was a great movie. 

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So, in your opinion, gays can't have a religious calling?

Pretty much yes. It's self defeating. It's walking into a Lions den. 

11 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You see, being Christian and gay has to be painful. If you are not out, you live in fear of being discovered and the Christian world seems to have a very defined position of what's going to happen to you, regardless of how devoted and pious you are. For many Christians, gay = hell. 

If you are out, many churches will turn you away. And again, gay = hell.

That's my point, your damned no matter what, so why play their bigoted game? I feel its a very clear indication of how religion is deeply at fault. 

11 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Imagine the pain one must feel, when their priest/pastor/minister gets up in front of a congregation and tells them that certain people are evil and damned simply for who they love. Heartbreaking.

Exactly, I would stand up and say that none of it is true and walk out. In fact it might prompt others to stop hating for God. 

11 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I imagine people felt the same way when racist, bigoted priests took to the pulpit to condemn interracial couples as 'unnatural'.

I'm sure they did. But I still don't see why the best thing isn't to walk away. Any god who is such a bigot is offensive and morally corrupt. Why want to belong at all? It doesn't take much to see how deeply flawed religion is. Why keep propping up somthing preaching hate toward a minority group? 

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

In earlier times gay people sometimes became priests, monks or nuns in order to avoid a forced marriage or because the celibacy and office of a priest/nun/monk would offer them protection from persecution and at least some measure of comfort in their old age. Imagine being a homosexual woman in the 1200s, doesn't  being a nun, and thus relatively safe from male attention sound pretty appealing in that scenario? Or imagine being a homosexual male who isn't a noble. You won't have children, so there won't be anybody to look after you when you're old and sick, sure makes the idea of a monastery, where the acolytes will tend to you on your dying bed a lot more appealing than dying in the gutter.
Plus, in both scenarios you have a good chance of meeting other homosexual nuns/monks and have secret relationships with them, which reportedly happened.
And being a monk/nun/priest in those times also pretty much ensured that you were looked upon with respect and reverence, instead of having rocks flung at you.

And well...

There are many reasons why a gay person would wish to  be part of an organized religion. 
They might take comfort in the rituals and trappings (and tbh, where I live the topic of homosexuality doesn't really come up in services).Why should that be taken away from them because of something that is so much part of them as the colour of their eyes or skin?
There's also the thing that. No, those hate filled people can't just take God away from us. This naturally assumed (as do I) that the Bible is the words and work of men, not god. And the only time homosexuality is really criminalized is in Mosaic law, which, if you look at the gospels, Jesus declared void. So theoretically being a homosexual Christian is not impossible.
Then there's the fight against the Stigma of homosexuality that is still present. Not so long ago, Gay people weren't welcomed anywhere. So what, were we supposed to just hide in caves and never go anywhere because we were not welcomed? No, the older generations fought for our rights and we should not stop.
Religion can also be a great comfort in difficult times, and some people need that. And that shouldn't be denied to them, no matter what some old coot in Italy babbles while eating candy out of his gold dish.

Plus, heterosexual women are also reviled as the root of evil in many religions and pressured by the text to be servile. Yet there's liberated, modern, heterosexual women who are Christians. Do you think that's different from Gay Christians?

I don't believe the thread title broaches the historic relationship between the hat community and religion. Interesting ideas you have there but irrelevant to the thread title. 

The latter half of your post is more on topic. I simply don't understand how a gay person finds comfort in a place where one is considered an abomination. No matter what comfort one might draw at the end of a day, accepting religion mean at some point that person will have to recognise that God hates them for being how he made them. I just can't see how that would be helpful to anyone. The God idea faces greater scrutiny than ever due to modern discovery, and the concept isn't holding up well. There was a time when religious adherence could make a difference in getting a job or succeeding due to the same closed minded bigotry being spewed by the Pope in this thread title. Those times have changed. We dont have to support that outdated concept anymore. 

[Only_]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Pretty much yes. It's self defeating. It's walking into a Lions den. 

It's quite a ridiculus thing to say, given the fact that there are gay pastors who are perfectly happy within their progressive churches.

Quote

The latter half of your post is more on topic. I simply don't understand how a gay person finds comfort in a place where one is considered an abomination.

I agree. Only not all christians think as such. Jesus chosed to surround himself with drunkards, tax collectors, prostitutes ect. He kissed lepers. I highly doubt he would judge anyone based on their sexual orientation. In fact, I think Jesus would be right there marching at any Pride Parade.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Duke Wellington]

18 hours ago, The Wistman said:

My view:  Jesus of Nazareth's precepts stressing virtuous behavior toward others, compassion, anti-materialism, and congenial intentions was quickly judged to be too challenging for simple people and difficult to manage in a formal, institutionalized sense..which turned out to be so very important you see.

That's why, I think, the 'sacrifice' of the Mass was invented stressed by Paul and later honchos.  Something like: "Let's return to sacrifice, something the 'simple' can understand...only this time a modern version, without the messy chicken's blood and guts.  A nice clean sacrifice, pleasant.  They'll understand it, the little sheep.  They'll love it."  Forget those difficult behavior changes, the internal struggle and debate, the analysis of one's own intentions.  Forget talking to God without the necessity of priests...confess to us and eat the bread instead.  It's Jesus's body you see!  That's the ticket.  Now your sins are disappeared!

Jesus also explained that all are welcome and equal at the Lord's table, as distinct from the Hebrew tradition.  The church fathers saw to it that that part was kept.  Welcome, bring your coins everybody, one and all...do as we say and we'll save you!  Constantine sure got the utility of that part.

Yes, I'm cynical.

Might we bring up the Cathars now?  They didn't obey the Vatican memo, so sad.

The message is to have a heart with the way you treat the whole of creation (this includes other people and God) instead of simply yourself.

You are distorting human sacrifice to God.. In the Bible it tells you that God is pleasured when you make human sacrifices in his name. IT BRINGS HIM PLEASURE. Obviously people dont do that in modern society as its illegal (at least I hope they dont!!!).

[XenoFish]

God can go to Hell.

[Duke Wellington]

17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

God can go to Hell.

Let me guess... you are from a Catholic family and the nuns were mean to you?

Jokes aside you seem to hate religion not simply be against it. Whats the cause?

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Let me guess... you are from a Catholic family and the nuns were mean to you?

Jokes aside you seem to hate religion not simply be against it. Whats the cause?

I've personally experienced the psychological damage it can cause. Fire and brimstone all the way to heaven, just to praise a demon called God. 

[Duke Wellington]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I've personally experienced the psychological damage it can cause. Fire and brimstone all the way to heaven, just to praise a demon called God. 

Actually I too have noticed the psychological damage.

Everybody I have come across in life who is messed up also seems to be Catholic. I think its the mean nuns or neurotic parents who had a run in with the mean nuns.

Seriously, do you research. Everybody from Ted Bundy to Jimmy Saville. 99% of them are catholic. And of course theres the paedophile problem in the Catholic Church.

Edited December 10, 2018 by RabidMongoose

[XenoFish]

Southern Baptist not Catholic. 

[Orphalesion]

On 12/9/2018 at 4:20 PM, RabidMongoose said:

There are several layers of meaning in the Bible.

You cant see the deeper layers unless you become religious and are taught about them. For that reason you are treating God as a physical being and then wondering why he has never said anything to you. God is non-duality (what Buddhists called oneness) not a physical being.

Do you really think I was serious when I asked about God having a podcast? I was taking the p*** out of the original, laughable, post.

I also love how quick you are to deduce my entire spiritual life from one little post.

And parts of the OT completely treat god as a person. You can work with the later retcons that were necessary for a more sophisticated religion to form if you like. But when those early parts were written God was a very unpleasant and cranky sky daddy in the minds of the people that wrote them. And that's not a thing worthy of worship.
 

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The latter half of your post is more on topic. I simply don't understand how a gay person finds comfort in a place where one is considered an abomination. No matter what comfort one might draw at the end of a day, accepting religion mean at some point that person will have to recognise that God hates them for being how he made them. I just can't see how that would be helpful to anyone. The God idea faces greater scrutiny than ever due to modern discovery, and the concept isn't holding up well. There was a time when religious adherence could make a difference in getting a job or succeeding due to the same closed minded bigotry being spewed by the Pope in this thread title. Those times have changed. We dont have to support that outdated concept anymore. 

I agree with a lot of what you say, I really do.

But homosexual Christian Person works under the assumption (because really, all faith is hope, belief and assumption) that it is NOT their personal idea of "God" that hates them, it's people that hate them. And from that, a lot of comfort can be found.
So one part of the bible says homosexuality is bad. It isn't even said on page by "god" or "Yahweh" in that part. It appears in a list of laws that are claimed to be "pleasing to the Lord" by a bunch of Priests who likely wrote them down. Do we have to accept that? That those priests have the authority to speak for god? That the old guy in Italy has it? It's obvious when looking at the Bible that there is a lot of things there that are not true (in fact it would be easier to list the things that can be proven) so why not put Leviticus on the same, nonsense level as Genesis, Exodus or Esther?
And there are Catholic priests who are pro-homosexuality, I personally know one who has already assured me that when and if the time comes for me and my partner to tie the knot, he'd be happy to perform a blessing ceremony (I'm not Catholic, but that is mostly an option because I don't want to have my wedding at a federal office like in effing Soviet Russia)

Edited December 10, 2018 by Orphalesion

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

And parts of the OT completely treat god as a person. You can work with the later retcons that were necessary for a more sophisticated religion to form if you like. But when those early parts were written God was a very unpleasant and cranky sky daddy in the minds of the people that wrote them. And that's not a thing worthy of worship.

But homosexual Christian Person works under the assumption (because really, all faith is hope, belief and assumption) that it is NOT their personal idea of "God" that hates them, it's people that hate them. And from that, a lot of comfort can be found.

So one part of the bible says homosexuality is bad. It isn't even said on page by "god" or "Yahweh" in that part. It appears in a list of laws that are claimed to be "pleasing to the Lord" by a bunch of Priests who likely wrote them down. Do we have to accept that? That those priests have the authority to speak for god? That the old guy in Italy has it? It's obvious when looking at the Bible that there is a lot of things there that are not true (in fact it would be easier to list the things that can be proven) so why not put Leviticus on the same, nonsense level as Genesis, Exodus or Esther?
And there are Catholic priests who are pro-homosexuality, I personally know one who has already assured me that when and if the time comes for me and my partner to tie the knot, he'd be happy to perform a blessing ceremony.

With reference to the first comment the Bible tells you that God is one. That might have slipped you but it means no duality. No physical being can exist while there is non-duality.

As regards the homosexual comments there are actually 5 places where male on male relations are a sin. No where is lesbianism mentioned as a sin.

[Wistman]

5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The message is to have a heart with the way you treat the whole of creation (this includes other people and God) instead of simply yourself.

You are distorting human sacrifice to God.. In the Bible it tells you that God is pleasured when you make human sacrifices in his name. IT BRINGS HIM PLEASURE. Obviously people dont do that in modern society as its illegal (at least I hope they dont!!!).

Excuse me....who said anything about HUMAN sacrifice?  Not I.

And let me get this straight, we're symbolically fellating our god, basically, when we sacrifice an innocent animal, a sentient being.  Right.  And I should believe this.

Edited December 10, 2018 by The Wistman

[Duke Wellington]

5 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Excuse me....who said anything about HUMAN sacrifice?  Not I.

And let me get this straight, we're symbolically fellating our god, basically, when we sacrifice an innocent animal, a sentient being.  Right.  And I should believe this.

I dont recall the Bible saying anywhere that God enjoys it when people make animal sacrifices to him. It quite clearly says human sacrifices.

[Wistman]

@RabidMongoose

And yet the ancient Hebrews sacrificed animals regularly in front of Solomon's temple.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_offering_(Judaism)

Quote

During the First Temple and Second Temple periods, the burnt offering was a twice-daily animal sacrifice offered on the altar in the temple in Jerusalem that was completely consumed by fire. The skin of the animal, however, was not burnt but given to the priests respective of their priestly division. These skins are listed as one of the twenty-four priestly gifts in Tosefta Hallah.^[

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by The Wistman

[Duke Wellington]

6 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

@RabidMongoose

And yet the ancient Hebrews sacrificed animals regularly in front of Solomon's temple.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_offering_(Judaism)

 

Lets not forget that the Old Testament is Jewish in origin.

It went from human sacrifice, to animal sacrifice, to no sacrifice. At least I hope it has, I dread to think if the Pope is doing that behind closed doors lmao.

[Wistman]

1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Lets not forget that the Old Testament is Jewish in origin.

It went from human sacrifice, to animal sacrifice, to no sacrifice. At least I hope it has, I dread to think if the Pope is doing that behind closed doors lmao.

Nobody is forgetting that.  Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.  He didn't advocate a break from Judaism...just a revision of its old laws and its focus.

As I stated earlier, it seems to me that the concept of Jesus's self-sacrifice to save mankind was created after the fact by his followers to explain and build upon his crucifixion, while also 'streamlining' his message into a version of the burnt offerings at the temple, giving lip service to his exhortations of love, compassion, charity, and self-control over one's negative emotions...precepts rather lacking in the old testament.  So: embrace fully the concepts of the Old Testament which the little people were familiar with, mumble Jesus's challenging, new stuff...occasionally.

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Nobody is forgetting that.  Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.  He didn't advocate a break from Judaism...just a revision of its old laws and its focus.

As I stated earlier, it seems to me that the concept of Jesus's self-sacrifice to save mankind was created after the fact by his followers to explain and build upon his crucifixion, while also 'streamlining' his message into a version of the burnt offerings at the temple, giving lip service to his exhortations of love, compassion, charity, and self-control over one's negative emotions...precepts rather lacking in the old testament.  So: embrace fully the concepts of the Old Testament which the little people were familiar with, mumble Jesus's challenging, new stuff...occasionally.

I recommend having a trawl through pre-Christian religions all the way back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.

Lets just say everything from the Garden of Eden, to a Global Flood, to a Virgin Birth, a Messiah, and Crucifixion of that Messiah, has been recycled again and again. The only different with the New Testament is new characters have been used to fill the pre-existing roles that were that 1000s of years before Christianity of Judaism. 

[Only_]

5 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

But homosexual Christian Person works under the assumption (because really, all faith is hope, belief and assumption) that it is NOT their personal idea of "God" that hates them, it's people that hate them. And from that, a lot of comfort can be found.
So one part of the bible says homosexuality is bad. It isn't even said on page by "god" or "Yahweh" in that part. It appears in a list of laws that are claimed to be "pleasing to the Lord" by a bunch of Priests who likely wrote them down. Do we have to accept that? That those priests have the authority to speak for god? That the old guy in Italy has it? It's obvious when looking at the Bible that there is a lot of things there that are not true (in fact it would be easier to list the things that can be proven) so why not put Leviticus on the same, nonsense level as Genesis, Exodus or Esther?
 

Gay christians most likely don't take the Old Testament literally. But for Psyche101, in order to call yourself a Christian you need to accept everything in The Bible as incontrovertibly true. Because that's the only version of christianity he knows.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit