The Pope and Hitler Youth etc.

arctic lemur

kiffer wrote:

The Hitler Youth was like the scouts, ok Nazi scouts but scouts none the less.
Like the scouts it was a recruting ground for more advanced troops.
...
In 1936 membership was made obligatory.
Pretty much every Male in the right age group was in the Hitler Youth.

He joined in 1941, when he turned 14. 5 years after membership was made obligatory...

Why di it refer to this then in the Irish Daily Mail yesterday, apparently they got the facts wrong?

arctic lemur

mdebets wrote:

But the OP said

practically equating him with being a Nazi.

I dont equate the Pope with Being a Nazi. thats Ludricous indeed , but peoples perceptions of things no matter what their upbringing influence their thinking at some stage in life.

arctic lemur

ned78 wrote:

Wow. The dark ages live on. Sex is a wonderful gift full stop. It doesn't matter who it's with, married or not, gay or straight. We're all wonderful people, times have divirsified, and the Church needs to too.

By your argument that Homosexuality is sin like any other, I agree in theory. But put your theory into practise, a Gay man repents, and then has to abstain from even a loving relationship where sex is used to strengthen the bonds of his Gay relationship, whereas a straight couple are free to pursue a relationship, and have sex? That's not right, it's a form of persecution. The Church is supposed to be about tolerance, but apparently tolerance only as long as you agree that the Vatican is right.

Here are the changes I see the Church having to make before numbers fall even further as follows :

Recognise Homosexuality as a normal lifestyle.
Lift the ban on contraception.
Allow Priests to Marry.

Especially the last one, my Uncle is a Parish Priest, and he's had a tough life of living alone. He'd be so much happier if he were married with kids. And this would reflect in his advice towards couples getting married, etc.

We're in the 21st Century, with a 19th Century Doctrine.

Ned i agree with your position on this

ISAW

The Atheist wrote:

Nobody falls for that ridiculous distinction.

Really? Then care to please produce some from Roman Orthodox or Anglican doctrine which says that homosexulas are evil?

Your "nobody falls" thesis must have some support in doctrine if you claim it to be true.

Nothing is sin until it's actually done. Unless of course "impure thoughts" are a sin. In which case you are saying homosexual thoughts are not impure.

Nope .I didnt say that. coveting a neighbours wife can be considered sinful. In the criminal law there is actus re and mens rea. Theology considers mens rea in the absence of the actus re. But my point stands. If you look at anything the Pope or Arch Bishop of Canturbury stated you would be hard pressed to find a condemnation which did not actually refer to acts. But since you calim it then care to please produce it? Just saying "noone believes you" proves nothing. Produce the evidence wherw any christian authority condems homosexuals or your "nobody believes you" comment where you claim to speak for others is an empty claim.

ISAW

arctic lemur wrote:

Ned i agree with your position on this

In spite of your "me too" comment morality is not negotiable. If something is wrong it is wrong. Priest marrying is not in the same catagory. In fact the Catholic church has married priests which are totally acceptable by their rules.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

ISAW wrote:

the Roman Church do NOT view homosexuality as evil. They view homosexual ACTS as wrong

Nobody falls for that ridiculous distinction.

Nothing is sin until it's actually done. Unless of course "impure thoughts" are a sin. In which case you are saying homosexual thoughts are not impure.

The term is "objectively disordered", I think. The document quoted below certainly indicates pretty clearly that the Church's disapproval of homosexuality is not limited to the acts thereof - indeed, is not really even based on them, since they can be confessed and forgiven, whereas the inclination to homosexuality remains a bar to ministry with or without action.

Vatican "instruction" of 2005-NOV:

The Vatican is scheduled to issue a document on NOV-29 concerning the eligibility of homosexual candidates for seminary. However, a copy appears to have been leaked on NOV-22 and posted on the Adista news agency. It is called an "Instruction" and is five pages in length. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education and approved by Pope Benedict XVI on 2005-AUG-31. It has been many years in the making.

It says, in part:

"Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter."

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.''

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.''

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon.''

"If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination."

"It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry."

You can mention that to ISAW if you like. I'm on his "ignore" list, so that he doesn't have to look at my posts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Vas_Guy wrote:

Sexual sins were rampant in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the origin of the word sodomy.) Despite warnings, they refused to repent. God destroyed those cities and it was recorded as a warning to all future generations.

Balony, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in 2350 BC - the early Bronze Age-by an earthquake of magnitude six + . As a result of the quake, the fertile land (proven to be with the discovery of ruins of olive oil production facilities) was subjected to giant landslides and the strong shock waves liquefied the ground causing it to turn to quicksand. Being built on the shoreline, both cities slid as far as they could until they reached the bottom of the Dead Sea. (The official version, not the myth)

Pocari Sweat

Asiaprod wrote:

Balony, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by an earthquake of magnitude six + . As a result of the quake, the arid land was subjected to giant landslides and the strong shock waves liquefied the ground causing it to turn to quicksand. Being built on the shoreline, both cities slid as far as they could until they reached the bottom of the Dead Sea. (The official version, not the myth)

What about the pillar of salt, how come that got there?

If the dead sea is a bit salty maybe the local butchers were scooping out buckets of salty water and evaporating the water to get salt for curing meat, leaving a big pile of it?

If some bible bod was passing after the earthquake and saw the pile of salt, he may have thought, "ere that must be that Lots missus, poor cow - and wheres that sodom village gone and those bleedin poofs".

If he wondered that it could have been an earthquake and the salt was scooped out of the water, being bible times, its better to rustle up a tall tale instead.

arctic lemur

ISAW wrote:

In spite of your "me too" comment morality is not negotiable. If something is wrong it is wrong. Priest marrying is not in the same catagory. In fact the Catholic church has married priests which are totally acceptable by their rules.

Some priests in the Catholic Church are homosexual, i nkow of one and he's doing a great job, easy to relate to, joy towards life etc. Since when has the Catholic Church married priests which are totally acceptable of their rules? Are you thinking of the Tridentine Church perhaps/

Fallen Seraph

I think it should be noted that Leviticus appears to allow homosexuality among women. The quote is "no man shall sleep with another man, god hates this" but in the next verse (about sex with animals) god mentions both men and women as being banned from doing so. This would imply that he's got no objection to girl on girl action. Funny how no church people seem to pick up on this...

ISAW

Fallen Seraph wrote:

,,, Funny how no church people seem to pick up on this...

No one???

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/religion/bob3
http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/0-87574-226-2
http://www.trincoll.edu/~ckim/homosexuality_on_the_www.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/lgbcathbib.html

Fallen Seraph

I'm sorry, I must have mangled my words. I asserted that the bible appears to permit lesbian relationships by not explicitly banning them in one verse, while explicitly banning another sexual practice for women in the next.

The first and third links you have there don't appear to address this. I'm not reading the last one, as it's too long and you seem to have misunderstood me.

Also my "no church people" comment wasn't exactly intended to mean "all christians without exception" I was simply observing that you never see priests saying "oh by the way, we're cool with girl on girl".

Pocari Sweat

Google ..

christianlesbians.com

ISAW

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I'm sorry, I must have mangled my words. I asserted that the bible appears to permit lesbian relationships by not explicitly banning them in one verse, while explicitly banning another sexual practice for women in the next.

Appears?

Leviticus 18:22
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.

The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation.

The first and third links you have there don't appear to address this. I'm not reading the last one, as it's too long and you seem to have misunderstood me.

Maybe it is a list of literally thousands of people who have written on the subject.

Also my "no church people" comment wasn't exactly intended to mean "all christians without exception" I was simply observing that you never see priests saying "oh by the way, we're cool with girl on girl".

Yu don't hear them saying they accept married priests either but they do. Nor do you hear them saying they are cool with bestiality because they aren't.

Latest news- is Superman Gay?

Excelsior

But doesn't Paul write to the Romans that when people ignored (and ignore) their image-bearingness (of God) that they pursued "shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones". (Romans 1:26)

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

But doesn't Paul write to the Romans that when people ignored (and ignore) their image-bearingness (of God) that they pursued "shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones". (Romans 1:26)

Suppose it depends on how you define "unnatural." To a homosexual being homosexual is perfectly normal.

Lunoma

I'm a newbie here! So hello!

I was reading the same article in the newspaper... Oh firstly I'm not Christian but I'm Jewish (well Reform Jewish which is liberal and allows homosexuality ) I have an interest in Christianity and other religions.

Anyway, yes, I don't know much about the Pope as I don't know him personally but if he doesn't agree with homosexuality that is his business. He ought to lay off homosexuals a bit as they are people too with feelings, needs and can also suffer. I do know from my studies that the Pope is a representation of Christ on Earth but he doesn't appear to portray it too well. He really should show compassion and love for his friends and his enemies as that is what Jesus taught. As I'm not Christian, I have a bit of a naive view of Christianity as some things I just can't understand.

He wasn't the only person to enter Hitler Youth, many did at that time. He was a only kid then and probably didn't understand like most. He should really understand that many people died in concentration camps, including homosexuals. Half of my dad's family did because they were Jews. Compassion, peace and love is the only way forward in life - Jesus made that clear.

Although, now I'm rambling a bit! :rolleyes: Most Catholic people these days, in Ireland don't really take much notice of what the Vatican says though . . . . . .

robindch

> But doesn't Paul write to the Romans that when people ignored
> (and ignore) their image-bearingness (of God) that they pursued
> "shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
> for unnatural ones". (Romans 1:26)

Close, but no cigar. I see from the NIV version of the text, that there's a bit of text missing from the lead up to your quote, which says that god was the one that made them pursue their lusts, rather than the lesbians developed their lusts on their own. The full text of the passage is:

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Though, the "Contemporary English Version" spins the story in the opposite direction:

God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural.

Which one's the right one? Did god push them, or did they jump themselves?