Originally posted by howardgeeI'm fine Howard, certainly better than the Pope. How's life for you?
...organisation dies.
But enough about the pope, how are you all?
You know I don't think the Pope was a bad person. He seemed like a very loving, caring man who stood by his beliefs. My problem of course is with his beliefs. They're backwards. But that's a whole other topic.
I'll just say that I respected the man, but disagreed with almost everything he believed in.
Originally posted by wibLife is great at the moment thanks wib.
I'm fine Howard, certainly better than the Pope. How's life for you?
You know I don't think the Pope was a bad person. He seemed like a very loving, caring man who stood by his beliefs. My problem of course is with his beliefs. They're backwards. But that's a whole other topic.
I'll just say that I respected the man, but disagreed with almost everything he believed in.
I concur almost entirely with your e-mail.
However, if you are the head of a sexist, homophobic organisation and espouse their views, doesn't that make you a sexist, homophobic person?
You say he seemed like a very loving, caring man, but how much did he love homosexuals (not biblically of course!)?
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeI understand perfectly where you're coming from Howard. Believe me.
Life is great at the moment thanks wib.
I concur almost entirely with your e-mail.
However, if you are the head of a sexist, homophobic organisation and espouse their views, doesn't that make you a sexist, homophobic person?
You ...[text shortened]... but how much did he love homosexuals (not biblically of course!)?
You ask if somone is the head of a sexist, homophobic organisation doesn't that make them a sexist, homophobic person. Yes, indeed it does. But they had to be IGNORANT before they could become homophobic. They just haven't opened their minds yet. They haven't gotten their noses out of the bible long enough to see that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or sex, are equal.
A perfect example of that is my mother. When my brother finally admitted to her that he was gay she freaked out. Just went right off the deep end. Now my mom is a good, and very religious, Southern Baptist woman, and having a son admit that he's gay is a very traumatic event. But in time she realized she had a choice to make; stick to her ignorant beliefs or open her mind and let her son back into her life. At that point, after the huge falling out, my mother turned her back on my brother. So it took a long time to heal those riffs.
Slowly but surely they began to talk again and eventually my mother made the right decisions. But she wasn't homophobic because she's a mean or hateful person, she was just ignorant of homosexuality.
Anyway, I hope that made sense and actually made a point.
And I'm glad to hear you're doing well Howard!
5 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeWhat exactly do you think the Pope should have done for homosexuals? Have a Gay Pride cook-out at the Vatican pic-nic grounds? Condoned their lifestyle when the Bible expressly forbids such a lifestyle? He "loved" the sinners: homosexuals, heterosexuals, prostitutes, criminals, and others without embracing the sins that these people committed (according to the Bible and the Pope's beliefs)...what you were asking him to do is go against his beliefs in order to placate a group that, according to his beliefs, is living in sin....would YOU condone the actions of people having sex with dogs if it went against your beliefs? One CAN love a sinner, regardless if he/she is gay or straight, without accepting their behavior, and that is what the Pope did. That is what I do: love the sinner, hate the sin! I am no prude either. The Pope had the spiritual BAWLZ to stick to his beliefs when so many are compromising their beliefs in order to not offend others.....who may be the offenders in the first place...
Life is great at the moment thanks wib.
I concur almost entirely with your e-mail.
However, if you are the head of a sexist, homophobic organisation and espouse their views, doesn't that make you a sexist, homophobic person?
You ...[text shortened]... but how much did he love homosexuals (not biblically of course!)?
Originally posted by chancremechanic
What exactly do you think the Pope should have done for homosexuals? )...what you were asking him to do is go against his beliefs in order to placate a group that, according to his beliefs, is living in sin....
But the Pope was happy to ignore the Bible when he wanted to. Do you think he condones taking women as slaves and raping them (Deut 21:13)
Or that you can have two or more wives? (Deut 21:15)
Or that if a man dies the man's wife must have sex his brother (Deut 25:5)
Of course not. The Pope like all Christians picks and chooses which bits in the Bible to follow. Why should he follow the prohibition on homosexuality but not insist that sister-in-laws have sex with brother-in-laws.
Let's have a bit of consistency in your interpretation please!
Originally posted by MaustrauserThe RCC (not just the Pope!) has very different hermeneutics from a Bible literalist. Besides, the Church derives its doctrines as much from Sacred Tradition as it does from Scripture.
But the Pope was happy to ignore the Bible when he wanted to. Do you think he condones taking women as slaves and raping them (Deut 21:13)
Or that you can have two or more wives? (Deut 21:15)
Or that if a man dies the man's wife must have sex his brother (Deut 25:5)
Of course not. The Pope like all Christians picks and chooses which bits in ...[text shortened]... ave sex with brother-in-laws.
Let's have a bit of consistency in your interpretation please!
The book of Deuteronomy, in particular, is singled out by Jesus as containing concessions to the Israelites because of the "hardness of [their] hearts" (Mt 19:8). This alone should suffice to show that the literal precepts of Deutoronomy were intended for a specific people at a specific time in history. Further, many of the rules in Deutoronomy also serve a symbolic purpose in showing Man's relationship with God and the process of salvation (Jesus as Agnus Dei comes to mind).
That aside, your response had nothing to do with CM's post. CM never claimed that the Pope was only sticking to the Bible - something you ranted about.
Originally posted by wibI agree with nearly everything you say Wib, apart from "certainly better than the Pope"
I'm fine Howard, certainly better than the Pope. How's life for you?
You know I don't think the Pope was a bad person. He seemed like a very loving, caring man who stood by his beliefs. My problem of course is with his beliefs. They're backwards. But that's a whole other topic.
I'll just say that I respected the man, but disagreed with almost everything he believed in.
Have you see the TV Pictures, here is a clean shaven Santa Claus, lieing down with a secret smile on his face loving the adulation of millions of morbid tourists.
Lets face it the Pope wasn't allowed many illicit pleasures in life, so I think we should let him have some fun now he is dead!
Originally posted by MaustrauserIf I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on the New Testament. When Christ died, the Old Testament, although still used in Bible teaching today, was negated and Christian doctrine is now based on the New Testament. Is that consistant enough for you? 😉 I'm not Catholic, so I may be wrong, but correct me if I am...
But the Pope was happy to ignore the Bible when he wanted to. Do you think he condones taking women as slaves and raping them (Deut 21:13)
Or that you can have two or more wives? (Deut 21:15)
Or that if a man dies the man's wife must have sex his brother (Deut 25:5)
Of course not. The Pope like all Christians picks and chooses which bits in ...[text shortened]... ave sex with brother-in-laws.
Let's have a bit of consistency in your interpretation please!
Originally posted by lucifershammerThank you....🙂
The RCC (not just the Pope!) has very different hermeneutics from a Bible literalist. Besides, the Church derives its doctrines as much from Sacred Tradition as it does from Scripture.
The book of Deuteronomy, in particular, is singled out by Jesus as containing concessions to the Israelites because of the "hardness of [their] hearts" (Mt 19:8). ...[text shortened]... ost. CM never claimed that the Pope was only sticking to the Bible - something you ranted about.
Originally posted by chancremechanicThat's not an uncommon view.
If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is based on the New Testament. When Christ died, the Old Testament, although still used in Bible teaching today, was negated and Christian doctrine is now based on the New Testament. Is that consistant enough for you? 😉 I'm not Catholic, so I may be wrong, but correct me if I am...
But I don't think the NT makes sense without the OT. If not for the requirements set forth in the OT regard sin and redemption, Christ's death would not have had a logical purpose.
But clearly radical changes occurs the NT. Animal scarifices are out, all foods are clean, etc.