Christianity, Homosexuality and Greed

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How come so many Christians lash out at homosexuals while ignoring greed? Some of the greediest people I've met were members of the Religious Right.

Seems this conversation has devolved into a self aggrandizing and less than profitable, petty minded excursion into 'Operation Long Proboscis'. Failures, immoderations, all manner of covert and overt sins of believers in Christ are by definition a family matter. God the Father is more than capable of administering (warning, intensive and dying) discipline in His own good time for their benefit. Let's leave judgement of the shortcomings of family members in His hands... and say grace over our own.



..............................................................................

Originally posted by menace71
This is one of the great sins of the modern western church. The hypocrisy is in that while they go about bashing gays these same are gluttons or have sex out of wed lock or what have you. To me this is the hypocrisy.





Manny

It is, but that shows how the seriousness of those sins and others have gradually been forgotten. As each generation has come and gone and has gotten farther and farther from knowing God and learning and understanding what he wants from us and even understanding that what we do as humans either hurts him or makes him happy.
God is either not real to many of us or we don't have the correct knowledge of him or we've replaced him with such things as evolution or the love of money. And unfortunently evolution or the love of money teaches us nothing about love of neighbor, morals, God or the future.
And we see the loss of morals even in the churches as they look the other way in regards to serious sins. The punishment of such sins would not be the popular thing for them to do as that is not accepted any more.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What "same thing"?

I gave you the link, but I guess that wasn't good enough. Okay, here you go. This is what I asked you in that other thread:

Those who hold to an orthodox view of the Scriptures consider drunkenness, fornication and general debauchery as sins and follow the commands to cut off fellowship with ones practicing the same. Do you have a problem with that concept, as well?

Originally posted by bbarr
At least some of this has to do with the so-called "Prosperity Gospel" currently fashionable among some very influential and politically connected evangelical mega-churches. But it would be a shame to paint all evangelicals, or, more, all Christians, with this brush. That the really radical message of the NT has been commodified and packaged for folks alread ...[text shortened]... enced by a materialistic culture doesn't reflect poorly on Christianity, but on us generally.

Garbage in, garbage out. He keeps telling us to take of the bread and we keep protesting,"We just stuffed ourselves with ice cream!"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just because an organization has chosen to formalize their hypocrisy doesn't make it any less so.

I believe there are good grounds to distinguish grades of severity in cases of sin. I would argue that it is a foundational ground of any penal law. Genocide is obviously a worse moral crime than, say, a small fib about one's age and clearly deserves a far more substantial punitive response. The point is demonstrably obvious. So it is not in theory wrong to chastise Christians, or in fact anyone, when they decry one sin and not another.

As for the Catholic Church, your criticism is not warranted. The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed. It was in fact a major point of the Pope's latest encyclical. I know of many religious orders too which engage in social activism more than any moral preaching about homosexuality.

Originally posted by galveston75
No I can honestly say I have no desire or thoughts to be with a man and I actually find nothing about it appealing. And because of that I think I handle my sexuality just fine.

We all have the potential to become in touch with our "raw sexualities". We dont need to act these out, heaven forbid, but I'm pretty sure that there have been plenty of studies done on the link between sexuality and how it is only our limitations that we put on them that make them what they are.
ie. "I'm a str8 married guy faithful to my wife".Bullcrap!! While on the outside this may be true, rest assured on the inside we are all sexual beings,(unless it has been completely driven out of us).

The importance of sexuality is that we need to open our chakras to get those energies flowing, and the chakra related to sexuality is our base chakra. But thats probably too much mumbo-jumbo for you, so how about this: Do you ever think about other women while you have sex with your wife?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
We all have the potential to become in touch with our "raw sexualities". We dont need to act these out, heaven forbid, but I'm pretty sure that there have been plenty of studies done on the link between sexuality and how it is only our limitations that we put on them that make them what they are.
ie. "I'm a str8 married guy faithful to my wife".Bullcra ...[text shortened]... so how about this: Do you ever think about other women while you have sex with your wife?

Thats a loaded question and no matter what I answer you can turn it around if you so desired.
But as I answered before I have no desire what so ever to be with a man under any conditions as personally the thought of that disgust me.
And the love for my wife and the love I have for my God would never let me do anything to compromise that, period.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe there are good grounds to distinguish grades of severity in cases of sin. I would argue that it is a foundational ground of any penal law. Genocide is obviously a worse moral crime than, say, a small fib about one's age and clearly deserves a far more substantial punitive response. The point is demonstrably obvious. So it is not in theory wrong to orders too which engage in social activism more than any moral preaching about homosexuality.

As for the Catholic Church, your criticism is not warranted. The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed.

They just cover up the rape and torture of innocent, vulnerable children instead, and then look perplexed when the rest of civilised society looks on disgusted.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed.

It has?

How much gold and jewels are the Pope sitting on?
How much wealth has the Vatican state per capita? More than any other state I know per capita. With the pope in the centre.

And still the Pope deprive poor countries one mean to hold the population down and AIDS away.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]As for the Catholic Church, your criticism is not warranted. The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed.

They just cover up the rape and torture of innocent, vulnerable children instead, and then look perplexed when the rest of civilised society looks on disgusted.[/b]

They just cover up the rape and torture of innocent, vulnerable children instead, and then look perplexed when the rest of civilised society looks on disgusted.

I am not going to get into a debate about clerical sex abuse. It is unnecessarily emotive issue that has no bearing on the current debate whatsoever.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It has?

How much gold and jewels are the Pope sitting on?
How much wealth has the Vatican state per capita? More than any other state I know per capita. With the pope in the centre.

And still the Pope deprive poor countries one mean to hold the population down and AIDS away.

How much gold and jewels are the Pope sitting on?
How much wealth has the Vatican state per capita? More than any other state I know per capita. With the pope in the centre.

This is a myth. Firstly, the Pope does not personally own any of this wealth. It is part of the heritage of the Church, not belonging to any one person. Secondly, the archdiocese of New York alone has more stuff, more money and more in property than the Vatican (owning hundreds of schools, churches, halls, charities and offices for administration,.) Thirdly, for the past three years, the Vatican has repeatedly recorded debt.

And still the Pope deprive poor countries one mean to hold the population down and AIDS away.

Actually, I don't think the Pope has deprived poor people of any means to hold the population down. It is one thing to condemn contraception, quite another to ban contraception.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]How much gold and jewels are the Pope sitting on?
How much wealth has the Vatican state per capita? More than any other state I know per capita. With the pope in the centre.

This is a myth. Firstly, the Pope does not personally own any of this wealth. It is part of the heritage of the Church, not belonging to any one person. Secondly, the archdio ...[text shortened]... tion down. It is one thing to condemn contraception, quite another to ban contraception.[/b]

I wrote "the Pope", and you read it by the letter. Would you be more comfortable if I wrote "the Vatican", which of the Pope is the big guy and representing?

You compare the Vatican with "the archdiocese of New York" Did they say that they dont't like greed? As the Vatican did?

If the Vatican has depts they cannot pay, doesn't that mean they are bancrupt?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I wrote "the Pope", and you read it by the letter. Would you be more comfortable if I wrote "the Vatican", which of the Pope is the big guy and representing?

You compare the Vatican with "the archdiocese of New York" Did they say that they dont't like greed? As the Vatican did?

If the Vatican has depts they cannot pay, doesn't that mean they are bancrupt?

I wrote "the Pope", and you read it by the letter. Would you be more comfortable if I wrote "the Vatican", which of the Pope is the big guy and representing?

I don't care which. But the Pope and the Vatican would be keen to stress that they do not see themselves so much as owners of this wealth but as caretakers. Much of the artwork in the Vatican requires expensive maintenance and the Vatican depends on public donations for it. This is hardly avarice.

You compare the Vatican with "the archdiocese of New York" Did they say that they dont't like greed? As the Vatican did?

I imagine that the archdiocese of New York, as a Catholic archdiocese, would share the same moral values as the Vatican. The point, however, is that if assets alone are the measure of greed, then the Vatican is not the foremost candidate.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I wrote "the Pope", and you read it by the letter. Would you be more comfortable if I wrote "the Vatican", which of the Pope is the big guy and representing?

I don't care which. But the Pope and the Vatican would be keen to stress that they do not see themselves so much as owners of this wealth but as caretakers. Much of the artwork in the Vatican ...[text shortened]... f assets alone are the measure of greed, then the Vatican is not the foremost candidate.[/b]

You don't care which? You seem to care before? But okay, then "the Pope" it is.

So you say that they are the care taker? Like any other caretaker? They can easily sell the artworks to another to get money to help the poor in Africa or other places where the church has done so much bad? The new caretakers may be as good takecarers as the Pope?

Did any of "the archdiocese of New York" say that they were against greed as the Pope said? I didn't hear anything. So they are not hypocrites. They don't say one thing and do the other. The Pope does, right?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]They just cover up the rape and torture of innocent, vulnerable children instead, and then look perplexed when the rest of civilised society looks on disgusted.

I am not going to get into a debate about clerical sex abuse. It is unnecessarily emotive issue that has no bearing on the current debate whatsoever.[/b]

It will always be worth mentioning this heinous crime to be used as a yardstick in any discussion in which you defend the so called 'merits' of the Catholic Church.