Pope likens saving gays to saving the rainforest | Lifestyle | Reuters »
Posted By david_nwpa 11 months, 1 week ago in ReligionPope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
Read Full Story at uk.reuters.com »
786 Views Share Story 34 Comments Report
Submitted By:
david_nwpa
Hello folks,
Welcome to my little corner of Propeller. I am also available as davidnwpa09 on Twitter.com. I have many followers on Propeller whom ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 199 (view all)
-
93%
david_nwpa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope has zero credibility when it comes to preaching about gays and lesbians. Since I am no longer Catholic, I frankly couldn't care much less what the Pope says. However, it his blind followers who vote in large numbers and sway public opinion. It is nonsense like this that leads people to vote against gays and lesbians from having civil rights. As I have said repeatedly, this pope has zero moral authority on any topic.
Reply-
25%
Redneck11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homosexuals have civil rights. They want to make a cultural change. They wish for us to applaud their behavior. If a person wishes to live single they have the same civil rights as any citizen. If they wish to live together (man and a woman) without marriage they still have civil rights. They can create a will, set up legal structures to have the same benefits as others. Homosexuals can do the same. It is not about heterosexual couples who are married having some added civil rights. We have several "classes" of people in our society with special rules for them or for which we have made special allowances. Racial minorities, (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc), the blind, and the physically handicapped. Handicapped persons have special parking spaces and we aid them in other ways. No one says those without handicaps are being slighted. Nor do they have more "civil rights than others. Marriage (one man and one woman) is a "class" to be advanced because it is the core foundational stone of society.
Reply
People who take on the task of creating the next generation and training them to be contributing citizens need help and should have advantages financially and otherwise. That is not a slap in the face of those who do not, any more than to fine a person who parks in a handicapped zone is. It is just a decision of the majority as to what they wish to promote and approve. We have that responsibility and privilege.
The reason society has set up protections for marriage (one man and one woman) is because it is beneficial to do so. It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm." -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23%
Redneck11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope has the obligation to give direction to his church. He would be remiss if he did not. He at least has the moral right to voice his objections to things which offend his conscience and the clear teaching of the Church Universal and that which centuries of civilized society have rejected.
Reply
As for "moral authority" the Pope has it and you do not. He has been vested with that moral authority by the people who have chosen to follow his leadership. The number of people who have vests him with vast moral authority. If one says a policeman who attempts to enforce the law or says you have broken the law has no "moral authority or Legal Authority" to do so because he beats his wife and yells at his kids and fights with his parents and.. and.. and .. You sir are WRONG. You will be arrested and thrown into jail for resisting a duly appointed authority!!
It is the position not the personal character in this case that is the issue!!! AND the consequences of ignoring a basic principle of both the Bible and life.-
93%
lvrofwolves11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anyone can ignore the bible, our constitution trumps the bible, nobody should be allowed to ignore the constitution in America.
Reply
The Pope protecting and turning a blind eye to the many Pedophile priests has done WAY more damage to their very own credibility, the church and society as a whole,then 2 consenting adults who choose to be together ever will.
As far as this Pope goes, the people's choice was wrong, just like the people who chose Bush for President. Both have an obligation, both were bad choices. It is the person that is supposed to represent the position, if that person is a bad representation, it puts a stain on the position in people's minds, as it should, how is that a good thing? -
83%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"of ignoring a basic principle of both the Bible and life"
Reply
The Bible says nothing about homosexual marriage. Nor does it say anything about homosexuality itself being a sin. It states that a certain male-male homosexual act is a sin, but that's it.
Considering that the next Chapter discusses under what circumstances it's okay for me to take a slave, in considerable length and detail (unlike the 'anti-homosexual act' portion so often quoted), one should consider whether or not to take into consideration Historical Critical Method and exegesis in examining a passage.
If you do that, you have to do that with each section and passage and not apply your method of analysis willy nilly.
I do agree that the Pope has moral authority for the Church. But the Church's stance on homosexuality is established dogma, not scripturally based revelation. To say otherwise is to intentionally misread the Bible to fit your agenda and is the work of the Adversary.
-
-
100%
jakesguile11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Two things:
Reply
1) Well this chickenshit has one thing right, the psychological textbook definition of Homosexuality is that it IS a deviation. But let's use this in context shall we? "A natural deviation in which one is attracted to another of the same gender" See..a NATURAL deviation, and really there's no other word to describe it, I'm gay and I'll admit, I deviate from straightness, but deviate is not deviant, get what I'm sayin?
2) Was Pope John Paul II this bad? I wasn't politically aware during his life (bein' only 20 and not awakening until late 17s) He struck me as a good honest man with a good soul, I CANNOT see him supporting this kind of hatred and utter insanity. But perhaps I'm wrong, does anyone have anything they can say to enlighten me to his positions?-
100%
jakesguile11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just checked Wiki for 2
Reply
It appears he was 'almost' as bad, he seemed to reaffirm the modern church standing that gay was okay but gay marriage wasn't (he didn't really go into details). I don't like his social policies but he "seemed" from the wiki as if he was more centrist than this pretender we have in here now.
I have to say I'm not surprised, I figured as much, it'd be a stretch for millions of catholics to start hating on the church for their actions against gay rights in every year but the years John Paul II was Pope, so I naturally figured I'd probably be outraged. It saddens me because I held the man in high regard and this tarnishes my image of him somewhat. I still hold him up there where I hold Bill Clinton, as a man of great charisma and inherrant goodness, but in the same breath I say I hold Benedick't in the same light I hold Bush in, unwise, petty, with a dark soul and inherrantly evil
-
-
0%
reallypsst11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems that humanity has taken a twist by extremes and our technology has been applied to validate the union,i have no problem with these couples who by choice or medical abnormality join in these unions,but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies.imagine if in the animal kingdom these tendencies occurred we wouldn't be speaking of this now.And what about procreation without our present medical technology.there are many issues that can be debated,you still need a male and female to exist!
Reply-
-
88%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies."
Reply
Gay men and women typically come from heterosexual unions/couples/partners/marriages and from all spectrums of wealth and education. Are you saying that all homosexuals had parents who instilled their homosexuality? -
100%
mesodude11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies."
Reply
--Are you asking this because you have evidence that being raised in "that environment" or with "that type of parenting" is harmful to children?
-
-
-
25%
KISA452a11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the Propeller-ites come out to demand that conservatives not speak. The Pope did not mention violence in any form and has spoken against it many times. To say he should not state his beliefs because some people might take it to incite violence is rediculous. How about saying the liberal gay-rights activists should not say anything because it might incite violence? No? That is because you think only those who say what "you" think should be allowed to speak. I hate to defend myself preventatively, but I've seen too many times that people on here can't read. I have never said the gay-rights activists should not speak, nor did I do so here. Free speech is for all not just those who agree with "you".
Reply
He has no moral authority? Did you say that when he opposed the Iraq invasion?-
-
100%
hamy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you don't think that saying "homosexuals will be the end of the Earth" doesn't incite violence against gay people, you are truly as ignorant as you sound.
Reply
I engage the people who protest at rallies. The problem is that their arguments, like yours, dry up very quickly and just become "it's wrong because God said so!" Any further scrutiny just reveals a personal prejudice 9 times out of 10.
He is allowed to say what he wants. I really don't care. It is the people who give what he says credence who should look at why they do it. Because he is talking politics though, shouldn't the Catholic Church go ahead and pay taxes though? If I am not mistaken, politicians still have to pay taxes.
-
-
89%
Kit11 months, 1 week ago
-
29%
Redneck11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A comment to all the above comments.
Reply
Our laws have restricted marriage to a man and a woman for more than one hundred years. All states have an minimum age requirement. These define marriage and restrict it. Society has the power and obligation to codify its mores. Can we say those who wish to have three mates (usually one man with three wives) have less "civil rights" than those who only choose to have one mate and have that marriage recognized in law? But even if persons who would have more than one mate do not march in the streets demanding the "right" to "marry" a twelve year old girl or to have five mates and claim that if their demands for this restructuring of society's mores or norms is a bigotry, hatred or some similar charge. There are few who will publicly stand up and defend those who insist it is their right or religious belief to have more than one legally recognized mate in the same way some demand homosexual unions be given that recognition.
Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage. Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions.-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned21 Replies
-
88%
pokydoke11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've read all these posts and I have to tell you R, you don't have a leg to stand on. You and the Pope are a couple of close minded socially conservative bigots. Your arguments are specious and ill conceived. Gay marriage has not and will not hurt society in any way shape or form. You need to realize that society is evolving and will continue to evolve despite your protestations.
Reply -
100%
Tangent00111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mores are codified into law because of demonstrable harm, not because 'God said so'. An ,albeit arbitrary, age of contest was determined because it is not at all clear when a child is truly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The argument against polygamy is less clear, but I would say a man marrying two women would essentially be saying one man was the equivalent of two women, and would be inherently unjust.
Reply
Neither of these arguments apply to same-sex marriage. Laws are primarily instituted to prevent demonstrable personal or societal harm. Where is the harm in gay marriage? -
100%
NoWayMan11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage."
Reply
The simple fact is that we are NOT required to live with the current defintion of marriage, or any defeintion for that matter. The defintion of what marriage is is fluid and has changed A LOT just over the last 200 years in America. In fact, WE'VE CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF MARRIAGE VERY RECENTLY by letting inter-racial couples marry, and we didn't fall into the pits of hell.
So, to think or believe that we are bound by some defintion of marraige is just not reality. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE when it comes to marriage. And we have very concrete examples to prove this.
and in this country, its the state that grants the privlige of marriage. not the church. when two people get married, they MUST go to the courthouse and sign papers in front of a state-appointed agent. the church has nothing to do with legalizing or sanctifying any marriage whatsoever. so to think the church has any real power in this case is wrong. a church wedding is simply for show or for "tradition" but isn't necessary in any real legal sense.
"Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions."
Marriage is an equal partnership. The age of consent in this country has been set and agreed upon. So, to have someone enter a binding, legal contract with someone else (and yes, MARRIAGE IS A BINDING, LEGAL CONTRACT) you must be of the age of consent to enter into this contract, or any contract for that matter.
and the arguement about polygamy is just stupid. first, when more people are added into the equation, the idea of an EQUAL partnership flies out the window. two is the only number wherein an EQUAL partnership can exist.
BUT, for all those bible thumpers out there (which you seem to be one of) the idea of polygamy is condoned big time inthe bible. so why aren't you in favor of polygamy since the bible says its a.o.k.? (and while we're at it, if you beleive inthe bible, are you in favor of child slavery?) .
but the real BOTTOM LINE is this:
this is NOT a religious issue or a social issue.
ITS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.
and above, I saw you made a post about gays getting rights but not being allowed to marry. thats called "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" and the supreme court ruled in Brown V. Board of Education that "separate but equal" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law.
my advice: get used to the idea of gays getting married. because its INEVITABLE. -
100%
mesodude11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our laws have restricted marriage to a man and a woman for more than one hundred years."
Reply
Nope. If it was restricted to men and women, why would you need to revise the Constitution to exclude gay people? Anyway, just because something was or wasn't done "hundreds of years ago" doesn't mean that it was just or that we should continue to do things the same way.
"Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage. Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions."
--Maybe you should explain it since you're the ones who're running around acting crazy and re-writing Constitutions to specifically exclude gay people. Why would you need to do that if this is all as clear cut as you continue to claim? ;-(
-
-
20%
Redneck11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A contrast in definitions of a single well worn word:
Reply
A very good one:
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
Thius one fits the thinking patterns of many on Propeller:
Ambrose Bierce
Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
My favorite:
Gilbert K. Chesterton
We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.
Wisdom has never made a bigot, but learning has.
Josh Billings-
100%
pokydoke11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.[5] Another quote from G.K.Chesterton.
Reply -
-
-
60%
RedstateLib11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not Catholic. The Pope's bigotry does not affect me. I am an American when the President elevates a bigot to a position of honer it does affect me. Damn it he should not use my tax dollars to bestow honor on a man who spews hate towards me. As far as gays are concerned it looks like 4 more years of the same crap. Go ahead Obama wink and nod to the religious right, your sheeple will look the other way as long as it's only the gays who get shafted. At least Bush was honest about his views on gays.
Reply-
100%
mesodude11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As far as gays are concerned it looks like 4 more years of the same crap. Go ahead Obama wink and nod to the religious right, your sheeple will look the other way as long as it's only the gays who get shafted. At least Bush was honest about his views on gays."
Reply
--LOL...Thanks for the laugh Redstate. I'm getting a real hoot out of the con media writing Obama's legacy while while the voting machines are still warm from Election Day.
Bush destroys the country beyond all recognition and these same people are blathering crap about how we won't know what his "true" legacy is for another 20, 30 years...blah blah... ;-x -
100%
sumptuousdigs11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sourgrapes...what poppy says, or any church leader espouses influences their flocks. Though the flocks are as varied as their leaders, they are numerous. They vote their religious convictions, they stubbornly adhere to their talking points, while ignoring the answers and enlightenment offered to them (ala Redneck).
Reply
This is a fact that affects and effects you more than any nod to them from Barack Obama.
Get over it.
-
-
-
100%
neel71111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can’t believe a pope can say that. It is hurtful and offensive statement given by pope.
Reply
Aren't Gays human being? It is scientifically proven 10% animal’s behaviour is gay and gays are born with this way. If someone is straight, that person can’t be gay. It’s very simple and clear to understand. Eastern religion (Hindu and Buddhist) mentions there are three gendered behaviour in human. Why pope deny others existence and does his God permit him to say something like this against human being.
We all understand that there should be creation and reproduction of human. Those straight people are there to produce.-
100%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Eastern religion (Hindu and Buddhist) mentions there are three gendered behaviour in human"
Reply
Yet Tibetan Buddhism and various other forms of Buddhism believe that homosexuality is, according to Buddhist teachings, immoral and against Buddhist teachings. Not across the board, but a fairly large minority. (I don't agree with those philosophical views, btw).
"Why pope deny others existence and does his God permit him to say something like this against human being."
It's called Free Choice. We're permitted to make the choices we need to, have to or want to and in the end we'll find out if we made positive ones or not-so-positive ones.
-
-
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mntnman444 wrote :
Reply
Why do you need an explanation?
Isn't it clear in the bible that ALL of gods children are important?
Listen m-man let's start by defining WHO ARE GOD'S CHILDREN.
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
-->yes, those who believed. But "believe" doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow His commandments and His will.
and also says:
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
-->this means, if you don't enter heaven you are not God's (adopted) child.
Again, He says "only who does the will of my father" will be saved and thus is children of God. Not all humans. All humans are God's creation but not Sons and Daughters. Same as all cats and dogs are God's creation. get it?
and also :
John 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do
-->Jesus told these people whey were NOT children of God because they refused to understand the truth and the will of God, even though they (the pharisees) had great knowledge of the Scripture.
And so, gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin, that's it. I'm not defending a personal view, but what The Holy Bible says.-
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yining_Yinou-Cats and dogs different species, all humans same species, get it?
Reply
Aren't all people sinners?
Name all the sins, isn't one just as bad as the other in the eyes of 'God'?
and when it is mentioned (not by Jesus by the way) that Homosexuality is a sin, what other oddities were mentioned? mixing cotton and wool, eating shellfish, isn't there like more then 600 sins mentioned? what are your sins ms. Shirley Phelps Roper, huh?
Why don't you think it's still ok to own slaves? huh??? bible tells you how to treat them etc.......where in the bible does it say owning slaves is wrong?
You want to follow the bible, don't cherry pick, then you're just a typical judging hypocrite. -
100%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin"
Reply
It says no such thing in the scripture. There is nothing in the Bible concerning Homosexuality in general.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
-->yes, those who believed. But "believe" doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow His commandments and His will."
God did not say that to 'believe' doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow God's commandments and God's "will." Why are you trying to usurp the role of God? Don't you think that might make God angry? We are all, each and every one of us, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, sock preference, et cetera God's children. You don't get to decide who is and who isn't based on your ideology. Thank God.
"this means, if you don't enter heaven you are not God's (adopted) child."
Nope. It doesn't mean that. See the danger of idiots like you trying to tell people what this or that means without even a basic education in English, much less Biblical languages, history, context and the theological underpinnings of scripture?
"And so, gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin, that's it. I'm not defending a personal view, but what The Holy Bible says"
The Holy Bible doesn't say anywhere that homosexuality is a sin. So you're defending a personal view, or more likely some angry, hateful preacher's personal view based on the self-hatred bred out of enjoying man-on-man relations behind his wife's back.
-
-
100%
Ciera-Marie11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck first I have to thank you for your comments. By your posting your comments you have caused me to agree with lovemylibs and that normally only happens on the humor and/or music threads.
Reply
You and others (I to a point count myself in this. However I'm learning more and more about the history of religion and theology and a lot of the views and beliefs I was brainwashed to believe growing up no longer hold water.) who believe that Gays and Lesbians do not have the right to marry, I have a couple of questions for you.
First though, what changed my thinking from being against Gay and Lesbians marrying were several things. First that many are denied their Christian faith by their churches and families (if one were to read the Old Testament and NOT the mistranslated Christian version.). Second, I have two cousins raised in Catholic Church, one in a very small conservative WI town, another in a small town in IL. Both have the love of their families unfortunately not their support in being who they are. They have always been two of my favorite cousins. I know they're Gay and it doesn't bother me one bit, hasn't changed my mind about them, or the fact that I look forward to seeing them at the next family gathering. I found out that they were, not from them but from some cousins at our Grandmothers funeral. It bothered me then and bothers me now that they have to hide who they are because of the bigotry of their families, friends, communities, etc. It still bothers me to this day that can not be fully the men that God made them. Third, I would love, support and be there for child/ren no matter if they're Gay, Lesbian, bi, etc. I wouldn't deny them my love and support (I know what that's like.). After learning about my cousins, and learning more about the struggles of Gays and Lesbians, I asked further questions of myself.
I want Gays and Lesbians to marry. I want them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I want them to be able to own property together and be able to keep it should one of them die. I want them to be able to have children no matter how it happens. I would want this for my son. I want this for my cousins.
Now answer my questions, have any of your children, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends come out? Are you 100% sure you don't know anyone in your family that is Gay or Lesbian? If they have come out do you force your beliefs on them? Still love them, spend time with them or has the relationship changed? What if it's your child? Would you disown them? Or God forbid force them / make them go to a therapist or "program" that claims to change them (BTW it's been proven not to work.)?-
0%
Redneck11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate your civil tone and remarks. However, I feel you are coming at the discussion on the wrong terms. I have not said anything derogatory about people in this discussion. The term bigot is thrown around to imply one is close minded and stupid and just unenlightened or worse still a Christian with convictions about issues. Heaven forbid!
Reply
I too have done some reading on this issue recently and discovered several who speak to the issues better than I have here. Let me quote a couple:
What do Homosexuals Want? by Eve Tushnet
"The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what marriage is. ... Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties) that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor – a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship."
With this I agree. You raised a legal issue which seems to means they are not equal. But they have the same recourse single people who cohabit with opposite sex partners who choose not to marry.
Quote: Marriage is Cultural "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
Cont.
-
-
100%
NoWayMan11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what really needs to be eradicated is poverty. and the bible says so, with over 2500 passages dedicated to poverty.
Reply
maenwhile, how many passages in the bible are dedicated to ending homosexuality? one?
(and while we're at it, how many passages in the bible CONDONE polygamy, slavery, etc?)
bottom line: if the pope wants to "save" gay people he doesn't need to look far since the catholic clergy is one of the gayest groups in existence.-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope says-saving humanity FROM homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
Reply
He doesn't want to save them........
I don't know how many gays are in the clergy, but many Pedophiles, now that's something the Pope should be busy trying to eradicate for sure.
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the Catholic is full of impious ministers (homosexuals, etc)but that doesn't make homosexuality any better. I'm not supporting the Pope or the Catholic dogmas, but he (Pope) is right in this one issue, even if, he should start cleaning house first. And yes, as someone said the pope has zero credibility.
Reply
And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle.
And it is not convenient to humans because there are Spiritual consequences to it and also earthly consequences.
Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is "death". And this is serious stuff when you talk about Spiritual Death, it means you are going to hell whether you believe it or not-
100%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle."
Reply
You mean based on the Bible created, solidified and canonically "okayed" by the Catholic Church which has zero credibility (and the Jews before that with the OT)?
So which Bible is the only legitimate book of God? The one in English? The one in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? The one that includes the Apocrypha or the one without? The Muratorian Canon or the one okayed at the Council of Carthage?
The one where "Blessed are the Poor" is truly understood (as in the Greek) to mean the wretchedly poor or the one where it's spiritualized to make Christians feel less guilty about the lack of blessings on the 'poor' in this nation of the rich?
"Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is "death". And this is serious stuff when you talk about Spiritual Death, it means you are going to hell whether you believe it or not"
You sure like to talk about hate, death, damnation, hellfire and such a lot. So much for being a 'little Christ,' huh.
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys "We are all, each and every one of us, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, sock preference, et cetera God's children. You don't get to decide who is and who isn't based on your ideology. Thank God."
Reply
ha ha ha Who told you that? your 'ideas' are really laughable.
Where in Scripture does it say we are all children of God?.
The Catholic Church probably preaches that.(maybe you heard it there?).
Jesus said you need to be "born again", He didn't say you were already saved. I see you are totally ignorant of The Holy Scripture, you want to argue something you don't know about and shoot insults on top -
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys "And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle."
Reply
You mean based on the Bible created, solidified and canonically "okayed" by the Catholic Church which has zero credibility (and the Jews before that with the OT)?
----------------------
Ans:
Did I say that? I think you need to learn the process of :
1-Read,
2-focus on what you read
3-Think, understand, meditate
4-Write an answer
You are skipping steps 2 and 3
there's a period after the first sentence. Then I say
"BUT based on the Bible. . ." which is another idea, another sentence that is not an extension of the former.
I'm saying : "I can care less about what the Pope says or whatever the Cath says, because it is not credible" BUT
"since the Bible teaches this, then it IS credible"
So which Bible is the only legitimate book of God? The one in English? The one in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? The one that includes the Apocrypha or the one without? The Muratorian Canon or the one okayed at the Council of Carthage?
-------------------
ANS:
in regards to the canon, I'm referring to the accepted
(by the faithful and inspired by God)
Christian Bible version (King James)including 66 books, (No apocrypha, No Catholic versions,etc).these were based on Septuagint and Greek new Testament very close to what Luther translated from originals (in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) to German.
An equivalent faithful version is Reina Valera 1602, mostly all others are adulterated. not to talk about NIV which is a joke, etc.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.