Lash wrote:Well, Mesquite, let me be clear. I'm in no way happy about what the Bible says about homosexuality.
I am in no way happy that many sweet people, who feel attached to the Catholic Church are made to feel thay can't belong. Actually, the whole gay thing is probably my biggest 'problem' with the Bible. If one believes strongly that people are born with innate sexual drives, and some of them are born with drives that define them as homosexual, yet God condemns them for that very thing-- I'm sort of stuck there.
But, to equate what the Bible says about the "proper behavior of women" and homosexuality is too much of a stretch to take seriously.
They went on about it pretty extensively.
Lash, it was not my intent to draw a perfect parallel between the biblical treatment of homosexuality and denigration of women. My point was only that people tend to overlook the parts of the Bible that they are uncomfortable with. For instance, how often do you suppose this directive is followed.
Leviticus 15:19-23
Quote:19 ΒΆ And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
Lash wrote:And, to me, the harsh thing is: with homosexuals, it's more about who you are than what you do. Women can't do this--or this--or this--
Homosexuals are wrong out of the gate, it seems.
I don't know where you get that from. The way I read it the only thing important is what you do. I am certainly no expert on the Bible, but I can not recall any reference to a taboo of two women together.
mesquite wrote:I am certainly no expert on the Bible, but I can not recall any reference to a taboo of two women together.
1 Romans: 18-32, as
referrenced earlier in this thread, seems plenty explicit to me, particularly verses 26 and 27:
Quote:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Quote:Well, Mesquite, let me be clear. I'm in no way happy about what the Bible says about homosexuality.
I am in no way happy that many sweet people, who feel attached to the Catholic Church are made to feel thay can't belong. Actually, the whole gay thing is probably my biggest 'problem' with the Bible. If one believes strongly that people are born with innate sexual drives, and some of them are born with drives that define them as homosexual, yet God condemns them for that very thing-- I'm sort of stuck there
We are all sinners, being homosexual doesn't make someone special, we are all born a certain way. Giving in to our horrible ways, is to admit defeat, and to forfeit eternal paradise.
plainoldme wrote:
... Many of us saw the Church as the starting point for the social justice movement that triggered what people call '60s activism. Today, many think of the Church as hidebound and conservative.
It ain't The Church that changed.
-----------------------
Are you attempting to convey that you think the Church is still the source of social justice?
So long as they remain chaste - that is, not given to lewd or lascivious thought or behavior, and remain celibate other than as sanctioned within the sacrament of Matrimony, homosexuals are welcome within The Church. The Church, in effect, says its OK to BE homosexual, its just not OK to DO anything about it
-----------------
Unless, of course, you're ordained or a member of a monastic order. There's a great deal of hypocrisy within the Church.
A made-for-television movie on the Boston priests-as-pedophiles scandal will be aired on cable, either 20 or 21 May. I believe it is called, "Our Fathers," and is based on one of the books about the situation and stars Christopher Plummer as Cardinal Law and Ted Danson as Mitchell Garabedian, the attorney who defended some of the plaintiffs in the case.
I think the church, is being confused with some churches.
I think the church, is being confused with some churches
By whom? Cardinal Law was sheltered in Rome by the Pope.
thunder wrote : " I think the church, is being confused with some churches. "
now that's an interesting statement. i haven't heard THE CHURCH say that SOME CHURCHES are not part of the motherchurch.
personally i don't care what the catholic church does as long as it confines itself to some harmless preaching, but when children are being misused i think it is high time the law comes done hard on both the perpetrators and those trying to shield them. hbg
hamburger -- I really dislike that the Catholic Church bills itself as The Church.
When I was in Catholic High School, one of hte parish priests was a man who saw sex everywhere. During my freshman year (1961-62), he banned The Twist on the grounds that it looked like an "intercourse dance," the sort of dance done by African tribesmen who did it in order to become so excited that they wanted to have intercourse. Not only did some of us have to figure out from context what intercourse meant, but, we, the students were disgusted. As one girl put it, "It's just a dance. I never thought anything about it other than it was fun. I never saw sex in it." This priest refused to speak to women who had the gall to wear shorts if they were outside their own yards. What would he have done at the beach?
Anyway, the other priests laughed at him (it was a large parish, headed by a Monsignor, who was a friend of the then Michigan governor George Romney). The "hip" priest asked us why we couldn't handle him. We were young -- kids were younger than they are now -- and had little experience with curbing pig headed adults.
He taught a religion class I was in and I wrote what was meant as a satire. He called my mother in and told her that I had insulted him, "a man of the cloth." While I no longer remember what my 14 year old self had to say, I have thought about him through the years, but, especially during the sex abuse scandal here in Boston.
It was not the entire catholic church, it was the roman catholics. I go to an anglican catholic church, and if any of this stuff is totally unheard of at my church. We aren't under the pope.
The High Anglican Church in Canada is in danger of going bankrupt as a result of child molestation charges/convictions/lawsuits.
There was a major case in my hometown. I knew some of the boys who were impacted about 35 years ago. Kids knew. Parents didn't, or didn't seem to.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/126/07/prov05.html
Financial repercussions.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/127/03/canada01.html
I learned a long time not to trust religious sorts of any persuasion.
eh Beth -- Yeah, I bet kids knew and I bet they warned each other to avoid being alone with ...... or .........
This illustrates how awful it is when kids can't tell their parents what is going on. One of the Boston abuse victims told his mother and she refused to believe him.
Yup. I still wouldn't knowingly let anyone's child be alone with any religious priest/minister/rabbi ...
Quote:Yup. I still wouldn't knowingly let anyone's child be alone with any religious priest/minister/rabbi ...
I really don't blame you. How the crap can parents even let this happen? Wouldn't it be kind of wierd, if the pastor or whatever even just said that they wanted time alone with the children?
Parents think their kids will be safe at church choir practice, or church-sponsored sports events, etc. They just don't think sometimes.
It has been my observation that there is church dogma, and then there is the behavior of real people in the real world. No matter what the church decrees, people will obey their consciences and their personal relationship with their God. The Byzantine world of the Church in Rome can decree all it wants.
Mags -- You're right! That is the whole point!
Mesquite--
If you read Romans, the first chapters are really assailing homosexuality.
I see that you're trying to draw a parallel, and I hope others will weigh in--maybe I'm so used to seeing it the way I've grown accustomed to--that there is a better parallel than I think there is...
But, I've read the Bible. I am aware of the restrictions imposed on women. And, knowing them, I still think they pale in the face of comparison to the passages re homosexuality.
This isn't something I'm trying to win or persuade.... I'd appreciate the opinions of others, who have a working knowledge of what is written in the Bible about women and homosexuals. Just a comparison...
Lash, Yes, Timber pointed me to the passages. Again, my point was really more toward the tendency of people to pay attention to parts of the Bible that support what they are comfortable with and to gloss over that which they do not care for. After all we are talking about faith, not fact.
