Vatican proposes 'stunning' shift on gays, lesbians

[Patty Smyth]

However he is selling his book if you notice at the end of the video so yeah he is a salesman but isn't that what it's all about ? Trying to sell your ideology to people so they give the church money?

Getting off track here but anyhoo if gays choose to accept the church and this dialog makes them feel more welcome rather than thought of as deviants then I still say let them talk about it in the open and keep on talking.

[MortgageQueen]

What I found interesting if that this Matthew Vines took solely the only scriptures that directly referred to homosexuality and built his entire case on that. The bible needs to be studied in it's entirety to truly understand God's thought and directions.

He was correct that Jesus was the end of the law. . .But, what was the law there for originally?. . . It was to show how much imperfect mankind need the ransom. Besides that, there were many laws (that were centuries ahead of their time) on cleanliness, hygiene, and even quarantining, that none of the surrounding nations practiced. (i.e. pork/human wastes, etc.) I only mention these because Mr. Vines minimized these, but in actuality they prevented health issues and disease that no one even understood at that time.

The rebuttal article made a good point of how we need to be careful on how we "interpret" scripture. Having a specific goal ahead of time is not likely going to be the best approach to absorbing God's thoughts. . . but more on how we want to justify our own.
Expecting that "God" should change with the times and he should be more flexible to our "progress" seems a bit of an oxymoron to me. . . and I mean that in too many ways to count. . .
That said, it's just food for thought and I respect and am interested in everyone's opinion.

[Patty Smyth]

Hmmmmm, one step forward , two steps back

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29678751

Excerpts from draft and final synod report

Draft:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community... Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman.
Final:
The Church teaches: "No grounds whatsoever exist for assimilating or drawing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God's design for matrimony and the family." Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect and sensitivity. "Any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is to be avoided."

[SharonMe]

I hate to be cynical but when I read that they want to include homosexuals because of the "gifts" they can offer I get a bad vibe. It shouldn't be about what they can offer the church but more for what the church can offer them. Isn't saving the soul of those who are lost according to the bible the whole reason for religion? Getting rid of evil?
To really stop evil you have to get to the root.

Timothy 6:10King James Version (KJV)
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[MortgageQueen]

I hate to be cynical but when I read that they want to include homosexuals because of the "gifts" they can offer I get a bad vibe. It shouldn't be about what they can offer the church but more for what the church can offer them. Isn't saving the soul of those who are lost according to the bible the whole reason for religion? Getting rid of evil?
To really stop evil you have to get to the root.

Timothy 6:10King James Version (KJV)
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

You raise some good questions Sharon. What seems to be lost in all of this debate is "What does God want?" . . .not what does the Pope want, or the cardinals, or the parishioners, or anyone else. . .

Isn't that what religion is supposed to be about? But you are quite right that saving people is a primary concern of God, but the question is . . . should he conform to us? Or should we conform to him? (assuming we are religious of course)

[Patty Smyth]

You raise some good questions Sharon. What seems to be lost in all of this debate is "What does God want?" . . .not what does the Pope want, or the cardinals, or the parishioners, or anyone else. . .

Isn't that what religion is supposed to be about? But you are quite right that saving people is a primary concern of God, but the question is . . . should he conform to us? Or should we conform to him? (assuming we are religious of course)

The problem with the "what does god want" question is that the bible was written by man according to what they believed god was trying to tell them. Who says they got it right in the first place. Also the translations of the scriptures has always been a bone of contention. You know some of it was destroyed so they played the fill in the blanks game.

Religions always pick and choose what they want to believe. More and more parts of the bibles are rejected as society expands it's views. Otherwise we would still have slaves among other things.

[MortgageQueen]

The problem with the "what does god want" question is that the bible was written by man according to what they believed god was trying to tell them. Who says they got it right in the first place. Also the translations of the scriptures has always been a bone of contention. You know some of it was destroyed so they played the fill in the blanks game.

Religions always pick and choose what they want to believe. More and more parts of the bibles are rejected as society expands it's views. Otherwise we would still have slaves among other things.

Excellent points Patty. . .and you're not the first one to raise those questions. That's a difficult one to tackle in a few paragraphs, but let's look at who the author(s) of the bible really are.

We know the bible writers were many different men that lived at different times. In fact the writing of the bible was done over a 1600 year period. The writers themselves came from judges, kings, farmers, fishermen, a doctor and a lawyer, among them all. You'd probably agree that is quite a cross section of society. . . especially in those days. Then of course, we have the multiple centuries time span it was written within. But despite all of the above challenges, the Bible is harmonious throughout. It starts in Genesis with a prophecy of Jesus and Satan and ends in Revelation with the fulfillment of that same prophecy (along with hundreds in between)

If we picked a cross section of. . .like-minded individuals. . .spread over 1600 years and gathered their writings together in a book, would the subjects come together with every author and be harmonious in theme and content?
Could the authors in the first -8 centuries have been able to predict important events with dates, the way it would happen and even "names" of primary participants, in the latter 8th centuries? Even if we added an advantage, as it were, by having only scholars (not like the bible with such diverse writers from farmers to Kings) I think most would agree it would be impossible to have even a relative degree of united thought in such a book. But that's just one point.

Many people struggle with the idea that the Bible was "written" by man. . .not God.
So. . .is it really possible for a someone else to be able to write down the thoughts of God? Not to over-simplify it, but look at it from this perspective. Let's say a President of a company and gives instructions to his secretary to write a letter. That letter will contain his thoughts and instructions. So. . . it really and truly is HIS letter, not the secretary's.
So in the same sense, God could certainly inspire a human to write down "a letter" or book of a Bible. Some writers openly admitted they didn't even understand all that they themselves wrote (refer to Daniel 12:8 for one such case)

Science in the Bible was centuries ahead of it's time and another indication it was inspired. I think I touched on it in an earlier post but there were many laws in hygiene and health that no other nation practiced. Those were commands from God. . .not something they figured out on their own. Also very impressive is that in 2 different scriptures the earth is referred to as a "circle" (Isaiah 40:22) and as God "suspending the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7) We all know the story of Christopher Columbus. Maybe he read the bible first?? . . .

In regards to your comment on slavery, I found that a really interesting one as I don't hear it very often. That would appear as a Huge inconsistency if taken at face value, and in fact I'll even ADD one that bothers many people. . .polygamy. Both "existed" in Bible times however neither were approved of by God.

There is a much deeper issue involved, but that would be a whole other subject. . .so let's just stick with the fact that slavery and polygamy existed in the earlier centuries both prior and after the Mosaic law. The fact of the matter is that God did not condone slavery or polygamy. He permitted it because in part, he was allowing mankind in general to live independently of "His Rule". But when it came to His own people, whether it was the Israelites, or after Jesus death, the Christians, he imposed strict rules to at least protect them from harsh treatment. One such law even required a life for a life if a man killed his slave. Besides all those protective laws, the one sentence in Colossians 4:1 served as a stern reminder. It says, " You masters, keep dealing out what is righteous and what is fair to your slaves, knowing that You also have a Master in heaven."
(just as a side note: one of the reasons polygamy came into existence was to have large families. . basically to increase sizes of clans, groups, or a nation)

If you look at any century of the Israelites and/or Christians, you'll see they "broke" rules in a very big way. God completely expected they would. This just goes to show what happens when mankind follows their own path, which leads us back to why God "allowed" people to do some of the things they did (and do today even). This whole issue just leads back to the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve decided they wanted to decide what was right and wrong for themselves. . . Hmmmm. . .not working out so good in this girl's opinion.

Anyways, sorry for the length of answer.