CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

I'm not sure you can separate these issues here. The fact that the vast majority of people molested by priests were boys indicates a linkage to me.

Oh my GFGT.

I absolutely reject that conclusion. The vast majority of rapes are by heterosexual men.

 

[foszoe]

The below is typed in haste so please forgive it unclear.

Many of these sins are not put away so much as the need for them ends by getting married.

We need to stop seeing sins as transgressions or acts of wrong doing. Sin is an illness of the human nature.

If the fall would never have occurred there would be no sickness or death. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality in that as a result of the fall it results from a corruption of the sexual urge.

The sexual urge is God created and blessed. Just as with all sins, they all arise from a misdirection of a God given faculty and gift that is no longer oriented towards God but rather towards self. That is all sin is.

To doubt this is not to be a careful student of scripture. God and Israel are often talked about as Bride and Bridegroom. Jesus begins his ministry at a wedding and uses wedding imagery throughout his ministry. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Sexuality is meant to be selfless, where each married partner offers to the other love for the sake of the other in seeking unity. It is a sacrificial act to pour oneself out to love another.

That is why in the Orthodox marriage, the spouses are crowned with martyrs crowns.

Lust is the complete opposite: a person becomes so selfish that they want to use or abuse people around them at whatever expense for the sake of pleasing themselves.

So outside of marriage, homosexuality is no different than hetersexuality.

The question then becomes...what is marriage?

If I identify myself as an adulterer, a shoplifter, a porn addict am I really in Christ? I might have been all of that at some point in my life but I put that away, I died to all of that when I accepted Christ. It's not to say I'm still not temped by old ways of course but I should do the best I can to leave that life behind me. How about if I identify myself as a homosexual? Isn't that the same thing? Am I idolizing that one trait of mine over doing the best I can to be like Jesus?

It sounds to me there's a demand for a particular class of sinner to be given dispensation that others are not.



I think many denominations are guilty of this hypocrisy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh my GFGT.

I absolutely reject that conclusion. The vast majority of rapes are by heterosexual men.

Are we playing apples and oranges here? I specifically said those people molested by priests were boys...men molesting boys. From what I've read that is. I think you might have misread what I wrote.

 

[foszoe]

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say?So heterosexual pedophilia is different that homosexual pedophilia? Adult homosexuals engaged in consensual acts are the same as pedophilia?

I'm not sure you can separate these issues here. The fact that the vast majority of people molested by priests were boys indicates a linkage to me.

 

[T.Lex]

Are we playing apples and oranges here? I specifically said those people molested by priests were boys...men molesting boys. From what I've read that is. I think you might have misread what I wrote.

Maybe we're being too abbreviated in our statements. (Except foszoe, of course.)

That there was homosexual pedophilia by priests does not, IMHO, link pedophilia and homosexuality. Is that not what you meant? That's the way it came across.

 

[Dead Duck]

What he is saying is-

Adult men who rape little boys are Homosexual Pedophiles.

That's all...

 

[T.Lex]

What he is saying is-

Adult men who rape little boys are Homosexual Pedophiles.

That's all...

Ok, but what he actually wrote suggested "link." A link between... homosexuals and pedophilia was what I got out of it, from foszoe's question.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The below is typed in haste so please forgive it unclear.

Many of these sins are not put away so much as the need for them ends by getting married.

But if I am not turning from them have I really repented?

We need to stop seeing sins as transgressions or acts of wrong doing. Sin is an illness of the human nature.

If the fall would never have occurred there would be no sickness or death. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality in that as a result of the fall it results from a corruption of the sexual urge.

The sexual urge is God created and blessed. Just as with all sins, they all arise from a misdirection of a God given faculty and gift that is no longer oriented towards God but rather towards self. That is all sin is.

I have no problem with this. Seems to me you said what I said but from a different angle.

To doubt this is not to be a careful student of scripture. God and Israel are often talked about as Bride and Bridegroom. Jesus begins his ministry at a wedding and uses wedding imagery throughout his ministry. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Sexuality is meant to be selfless, where each married partner offers to the other love for the sake of the other in seeking unity. It is a sacrificial act to pour oneself out to love another.

I understand the imagery or metaphor that God created complementary creations that when joined together would become one, analogous to when the church joins with Christ.

Lust is the complete opposite: a person becomes so selfish that they want to use or abuse people around them at whatever expense for the sake of pleasing themselves.

So outside of marriage, homosexuality is no different than hetersexuality.

Got it. I think we're more on the same page than not. Acting out a lifestyle, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside the marriage of a man and woman, is sin. Yeah, it's a transgression, it's a fall to a temptation. If I am in Christ, I have to try as well as a fallen man can, to resist any of those temptations to sin. But we're talking about whether the speaker in that article is calling for the church to be of a light to the homosexual community, to bring them to Christ, to repent and believe...or are we ok with them joining our church (he's talking about the catholic church of course) and letting them be themselves, continuing in their sinful lifestyle choice.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok, but what he actually wrote suggested "link." A link between... homosexuals and pedophilia was what I got out of it, from foszoe's question.

I guess what I'm saying is that to an outside observer, the catholic church has a homosexual problem in their priesthood. Yeah, the molestation is the big news. But if any of the number of articles I'm reading are anywhere close to being accurate (I think I posted links to a couple of them up thread), if there weren't as many homosexual priests, there's a strong possibility there wouldn't be as many harmed children and now grown up men. That's the linkage I'm talking about.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess what I'm saying is that to an outside observer, the catholic church has a homosexual problem in their priesthood. Yeah, the molestation is the big news. But if any of the number of articles I'm reading are anywhere close to being accurate (I think I posted links to a couple of them up thread), if there weren't as many homosexual priests, there's a strong possibility there wouldn't be as many harmed children and now grown up men. That's the linkage I'm talking about.

Ok, thank you for that clarification.

 

[Ziggidy]

If I identify myself as an adulterer, a shoplifter, a porn addict am I really in Christ? I might have been all of that at some point in my life but I put that away, I died to all of that when I accepted Christ. It's not to say I'm still not temped by old ways of course but I should do the best I can to leave that life behind me. How about if I identify myself as a homosexual? Isn't that the same thing? Am I idolizing that one trait of mine over doing the best I can to be like Jesus?

It sounds to me there's a demand for a particular class of sinner to be given dispensation that others are not.



I think many denominations are guilty of this hypocrisy.

Excellent post

 

[foszoe]

Did Paul claim

I was the chief of sinners
Or
I am the chief of sinners?

How would that apply here?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Are we playing apples and oranges here? I specifically said those people molested by priests were boys...men molesting boys. From what I've read that is. I think you might have misread what I wrote.

Do priests have equal access to children of both sexes in seclusion? Are "alter boys" all actually boys?

 

[Ziggidy]

Do priests have equal access to children of both sexes in seclusion? Are "alter boys" all actually boys?

At one time, now girls are allowed.

 

[Ziggidy]

Did Paul claim

I was the chief of sinners
Or
I am the chief of sinners?

How would that apply here?

I think it's perfectly clear that Paul was referencing his life prior to conversion; however, a new discussion can arise from your post.

Regardless, the bible is very clear about living in sin.

 

[CCCCCCC]

A secular morality doesn't have to be any more complicated than a set of standards (you might even call them rules) by which people have agreed to live. I believe rule of law is an example of secular morality.

Whenever I hear someone say "You can't legislate morality." I think to myself "Sure you can. What IS legislation, if not that morality which people have decided is fair and prudent to impose upon ourselves and each other?"

Those secular rules are derived from religion and cultural tradition. However, I do agree with your point on legislating morality. The question is not if we should, but how much.

 

[CCCCCCC]

Well, for me it starts with John 20:21-23:


And Matthew 18:18.


It seems like that imperative would have meaning. If it were as simple as, "Hey - tell everyone they don't need priests as long as they are contrite." then that's what He would have said.

So, I start with the presumption that Jesus was trying to be clear in those statements: priests have a role.

Now, I also believe that this is misunderstood and misconstrued. Confessing to a priest is not the ONLY path to absolution. The priest's role is as a personal conduit to God (the Trinity).

It is absolutely possible to, with a contrite heart, skip the middleman and confess to God and be forgiven.

Again, this is my personal opinion, the problem there is human nature. Let's say I confess straight to God. God accepts that and, in His own way, directs me to commit to a difficult penance. Not just 10 Hail Marys or something, but real penance. Apologizing to someone I've wronged. Making reparations. Suffering embarrassment. Human nature will tend to rationalize that away, down to something more like 10 Hail Marys.

When a priest asks something like that of a person, they tend to take it more seriously. The sinner is more likely to truly repent. So, the whole process is more successful.

There is also the historical role of priests/rabbis. But this has already become lengthy.

ETA:
Quick googling and I found this resource-
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/confess.pdf

Seems legit. I would question your skipping the middle man bit tho.

 

[Ziggidy]

Those secular rules are derived from religion and cultural tradition. However, I do agree with your point on legislating morality. The question is not if we should, but how much.

I feel the bible is the greatest (and only) moral compass there is. When you add in cultural tradition you begin to add the human ingredient; which is evil in nature.

This is when you begin to see gay priests being accepted in ministry, you see leaders deciding what is right or wrong based on the moral climate of the world, you hear church board members talk about the (paraphrased) the spiritual value of allowing an individual with a lifestyle contrary to the church teach children....and so much more. If there is no concrete foundation, if there is no firm ground on which the gospel of Jesus perceived, if there is an ever changing base - how do you expect society to view the church.

God's moral word never changes and is applicable to today as it was in the past - and will be in the future. The catholic church cannot say the same - it has changed allot. What is moral to the church 10 years ago, is not the same as it is today. It brings a watered down gospel to the people from a watered down church. IMHO.

(not specific to the catholic church)

 

[T.Lex]

Seems legit. I would question your skipping the middle man bit tho.

Wow - quite the thread archaeology.

I did not intend to advocate the "skip the middle man" part, but only offered that the middle man isn't a requirement. In fact, I think I described why the middle man is a really good idea.

 

[Ziggidy]

Wow - quite the thread archaeology.

I did not intend to advocate the "skip the middle man" part, but only offered that the middle man isn't a requirement. In fact, I think I described why the middle man is a really good idea.

I have a question.


If Christ dies for me, my sins are forgiven if I repent to Him, where does it speak of reciting hail mary's as a penance? What's the criteria for a punishment, per se', if Christ already died and has forgiven me? Isn't that minimizing the death of Christ and suggesting His death is not good enough? Secondly, where does it say I must go to another man (specifically a priest) to have my sins forgiven?

Sounds like to me, the catholic church likes to place its priests and such above the cross - at the very least equal to.

It does not matter if anyone thinks it is a good idea, what does the bible say about it?