Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions, calling homosexuality a 'sin' and a 'choice'

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
3,443
Points
113
The three people on the board most interested in people's sexual and gender preferences are tiny, Melvin and humbled beggar. They love talking about that stuff.

What are they compensating for?
😯😯😯
 

tikited

Me
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,324
Reaction score
1,999
Points
113
I actually was going to church. We were looking for churches for our wedding, webt to one in NE mpls, after mass we went downstairs for the food, talked to the priest and he said we should go to his church and check it out. He was retired just filling in. His church was St Francis Cabrini, on 25th just off east river road by the U. We started going there, its a great community there, the people there actually gave me some faith in humanity. We went there for a few years from before and after our marriage. If we ever go back to church it would be there.

I did hear the Cardinal? cracked down on them because they were to liberal, removed the priest. Hope he didn't kill that great community...
That's where I went as a kid. I remember it being the best of the few we tried. Very hippy dippy compared to the others. I liked that about it. Less fire and brimstone and more acoustic guitars.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
Our congregation is self-governed, within parameters set by the ELCA. Council members serve a limit of six consecutive years to maximize participation. A majority of our members don't believe being trans or gay is a sin. So yeah, we voted on recognizing gay marriage and uplift LGBT+ members, endorsed by the ELCA. So yeah, that's how we live into the priesthood of all believers. Definitely NOT elder-led.
Kudos to your organization for recognizing the mistakes and wrongfulness of the past, and having the courage to lead the way on progress. 👍
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
Nobody reads the real original bible. That’s preserved in the Vatican. As are any surviving editions (There have been multiple iterations).

However, consider the bible he reads is the only bible.... as could be said for any denomination. The rest would be close facimilies, but not the Bible as intended ( from the point of view of any user).

On another note:
As Howeda said earlier in the thread, no one used to agree with the Heliocentric theory, save Copernicus.... so no one agreeing is an argument beneath you.
Your assertion is false.
There are no extant originals. There are copies of copies. All toll somewhere above 25,000 copies of copies from before the printing press. Also quotes from other writers where they quote the Bible. Taking all these documents, scholars use textual criticism techniques to determine how accurate today's version is to the original. The consensus is 99.99% accurate.

All other documents of old pale in comparison when textual criticism is used.

If you were talking about the Quran you would be more accurate. About 400 years after Muhammad, a caliphate (I can't recall his name) called all person's who had either memorized their version or written down their version of the Quran to a meeting. There he and the leaders went through the various versions and settled on one version that would be the inspired version. All the others were ordered to be burned so no heresy could be introduced. Therefore, scholars cannot go back beyond that point. Whatever Muhammad actually said cannot be deduced. Those 400 years are silent of any documentation.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
I actually was going to church. We were looking for churches for our wedding, webt to one in NE mpls, after mass we went downstairs for the food, talked to the priest and he said we should go to his church and check it out. He was retired just filling in. His church was St Francis Cabrini, on 25th just off east river road by the U. We started going there, its a great community there, the people there actually gave me some faith in humanity. We went there for a few years from before and after our marriage. If we ever go back to church it would be there.

I did hear the Cardinal? cracked down on them because they were to liberal, removed the priest. Hope he didn't kill that great community...
You should never have faith in humanity. Communism shows you that in a gruesome display of the human spirit.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
This was a lie wrote in by humans, based on what they thought should be. God never said this.
Well it comes down to whether you believe the Bible or not.

Genesis 2:18,21-24

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


I don't expect you to accept the Bible. However, I expect that those who are Roman Catholic will accept the Bible.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
Genesis 2:18,21-24

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Thanks for proving my point that homosexuality is not a sin.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
Thanks for proving my point that homosexuality is not a sin.
???
Explain how I proved your point?
I quoted from the first time in the Bible where one man and one woman, brought together in marriage become one flesh. I honestly don't see how that proves homosexuality is not a sin so explain your thoughts here please.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
3,443
Points
113
Kille
You should never have faith in humanity. Communism shows you that in a gruesome display of the human spirit.
Kill em all and let god sort them out!!!

If you don't have faith in humanity it is impossible to follow gods commandments. So you are wrong.
 

atsgopher

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
698
Reaction score
149
Points
43
Your assertion is false.
There are no extant originals. There are copies of copies. All toll somewhere above 25,000 copies of copies from before the printing press. Also quotes from other writers where they quote the Bible. Taking all these documents, scholars use textual criticism techniques to determine how accurate today's version is to the original. The consensus is 99.99% accurate.

All other documents of old pale in comparison when textual criticism is used.

If you were talking about the Quran you would be more accurate. About 400 years after Muhammad, a caliphate (I can't recall his name) called all person's who had either memorized their version or written down their version of the Quran to a meeting. There he and the leaders went through the various versions and settled on one version that would be the inspired version. All the others were ordered to be burned so no heresy could be introduced. Therefore, scholars cannot go back beyond that point. Whatever Muhammad actually said cannot be deduced. Those 400 years are silent of any documentation.
I’d say are difference is semantics. There are earlier codex verions stored in the vatican that are attempts at canonical text. Although, the official bible as we see today wasn’t compiled until, I think the 5th century?

I do think this is really just a completeness issue. And thus such earlier versions are simply superseded or preconsenus canon.
 

atsgopher

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
698
Reaction score
149
Points
43
Thanks for proving my point that homosexuality is not a sin.
Read the Catholic Church’s statement and not CNN. It’ll strip CNN’s vitriol out and at least I think give a much better perspective.

The Sin is Not homosexuality, but sex outside of marriage. The Marriage being between a man and woman is what is considered by the Church to be sacred.

As any juvenile Catholic knows, there are loopholes to that whole sex outside of marriage business. Thus, I think it safe to conclude said loopholes apply.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
Kille

Kill em all and let god sort them out!!!

If you don't have faith in humanity it is impossible to follow gods commandments. So you are wrong.
I don't follow your assertion at all.
The command is twofold: Love the Lord God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no command to have faith in humanity.

Moreso, there is no command for Christians to kill anyone.

It's funny to read you make brash assertions from total ignorance.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
I’d say are difference is semantics. There are earlier codex verions stored in the vatican that are attempts at canonical text. Although, the official bible as we see today wasn’t compiled until, I think the 5th century?

I do think this is really just a completeness issue. And thus such earlier versions are simply superseded or preconsenus canon.
You are referring to the compilation of the Canon. Officially, the early church council agreed upon the 66 books as canon. Then the ruler of Rome pushed for the addition of the apocryphal books which land in between the Old and New Testament. Most churches viewed those texts as historical books, but not inspired. The ruler of Rome wanted them so they were added. Thus the Roman Catholic Church has a few added books that Protestants don't view as inspired. There are textual reasons for this.

Between 200 CE and 400CE there were many fictional gospels created, which were "best sellers" but had many errors. They were essentially like Monty Python's Life of Brian. Interestingly, it was from those fictional books that Muhammad drew his stories of Jesus.
The Canon is an entirely different study than textual criticism, although it is textual criticism that helps establish what books are canonical.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,095
Reaction score
3,121
Points
113
You are referring to the compilation of the Canon. Officially, the early church council agreed upon the 66 books as canon. Then the ruler of Rome pushed for the addition of the apocryphal books which land in between the Old and New Testament. Most churches viewed those texts as historical books, but not inspired. The ruler of Rome wanted them so they were added. Thus the Roman Catholic Church has a few added books that Protestants don't view as inspired. There are textual reasons for this.

Between 200 CE and 400CE there were many fictional gospels created, which were "best sellers" but had many errors. They were essentially like Monty Python's Life of Brian. Interestingly, it was from those fictional books that Muhammad drew his stories of Jesus.
The Canon is an entirely different study than textual criticism, although it is textual criticism that helps establish what books are canonical.
The canon was not handed from God to Man in King James English with the words of Christ in red.
 

bisonation

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
175
Reaction score
7
Points
18
as a practicing catholic I fully approve this.

go down the rabbit hole to see why some gay men were pushed into deacons, ushers, clergy in the 50 and 60's it was to bring down the church
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,095
Reaction score
3,121
Points
113
as a practicing catholic I fully approve this.

go down the rabbit hole to see why some gay men were pushed into deacons, ushers, clergy in the 50 and 60's it was to bring down the church
Strange choice of phrase.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,095
Reaction score
3,121
Points
113
as a practicing catholic I fully approve this.

go down the rabbit hole to see why some gay men were pushed into deacons, ushers, clergy in the 50 and 60's it was to bring down the church
But to play along, pushed by whom?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
I’m glad we agree. The Bible as currently published, consists of books chosen from a vast field by a political process and translated by a process that cannot possibly stand a test of inerrancy.
What you seem ignorant about is the fact that the 66 different books were being passed around churches as early as the mid 2nd century. Due to the fact that Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire during the first 400 years, there was no means of officially securing a canon. However, the fact that the early churches passed them along and copied them over and over again is a testament to there veracity.

As for inerrancy, the typical statement is that they were inerrant in their original text.
What is fascinating is that the various trees and branches of copies is so vast (especially in comparison with other ancient texts) that scholars can be reasonably sure that the current greek and hebrew texts are 99% accurate. That's unheard of with ancient documents.
 
Last edited:

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,095
Reaction score
3,121
Points
113
What you seem ignorant about is the fact that the 66 different books were being passed around churches as early as the mid 2nd century. Due to the fact that Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire during the first 400 years, there was no means of officially securing a canon. However, the fact that the early churches passed them along and copied them over and over again is a testament to there veracity.
So, when I say chosen from a vast field, I’m ignorant?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
1,253
Points
113
So, when I say chosen from a vast field, I’m ignorant?
Yes, in that many of the stories created in later years were never being passed down by churches, but instead were being read as works of fiction by Roman households. For example, none of the early churches used the gospel of Thomas in their churches. Though gnostic cults did use such apocryphal writings, no true church used them. Thus it was relatively easy to determine the canon.
 
Top Bottom