• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope endorses civil unions

"an abomination.
תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 8441: Something disgusting, an abhorrence, idolatry, an idol"


So is this idolatry permissible outside of worship?

Is the beginning of deuteronomy 14 also just a list of foods that can or cannot be eaten during worship?

14:3 "Do not eat any detestable thing."

It is not idolatrous in and of itself. “Toevah” places the act of sexual intercourse the context of ritual. See post #89.
 
Of course it’s true. The word “toevah” does not mean “abomination” and certainly not in the absolute sense you are using it. It is a Hebrew word referring specially to ritual impurity or corruption of ritual act or religious order. You can’t change the definition of Hebrew words to suit your prejudices. As for Paul, of all the words meaning homosexuality in every language available to him at the time he chose to use exactly none of them. Instead he made up his own word that doesn’t even make sense by itself. It literally translates as “boy mats” and given the context probably refers to prostitutes.
Of course it's not true...you can't change the definition of Hebrew words to tickle your own ears...
 
Of course it's not true...you can't change the definition of Hebrew words to tickle your own ears...

Im not changing the definition of words. I’m telling you what they are.
 
I am no fan of Frank the Hippie Pope but what I think he is saying is that same sex marriage is legal in the US and around the world so we have to deal with it. In my lifetime I have known many homosexuals who are very devout Christians. What do you do with them? Kicking them out of the world (or the Church) is not a very Christian thing to do and it's not very helpful. So I have dealt with them the same way I deal with drug addicts, those who are sexually promiscuous, alcoholics, and other sinners, like myself. I don't turn them away from the door (although I can't give them the sacraments unless they confess). Making lepers out of them does not serve God.

Gay marriage is still not a sacrament and I won't perform one but if someone tells me they are in a gay marriage I'm not going to shun them.

That's the short version.
That is exactly what the Christian congregation is directed to do...

But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man... while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves. " 1 Corinthians 5:11,13
 
Im not changing the definition of words. I’m telling you what they are.
You are welcome to believe lies, if you so wish...I do not...
 
It is not idolatrous in and of itself. “Toevah” places the act of sexual intercourse the context of ritual. See post #89.
I think I understand, but what about, for instance, deuteronomy 14? Are the laws listed there regarding food, only laws for how to worship? Could Jews eat pork in "everyday life"? They don't today, if they're devout.
 
That is exactly what the Christian congregation is directed to do...

But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man... while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves. " 1 Corinthians 5:11,13

We are all aware of how the JWs show Christ's "love". He shunned the woman caught in adultery, too. Oh, wait.
 
I think I understand, but what about, for instance, deuteronomy 14? Are the laws listed there regarding food, only laws for how to worship? Could Jews eat pork in "everyday life"? They don't today, if they're devout.

Talmudic scholars have been speculating on that since the first century and the most plausible explanation hast to do with animal sacrifice. The first born offspring was supposed to be reserved for ritual sacrifice to Yahweh, but because pigs give birth to litters and such litters can have multiple fathers it’s impossible to know which one was born first unless someone is standing there watching the birth and it’s impossible to discern which piglet is the legitimate offspring of the first mating. So the animal is considered ritually unclean, unfit for sacrifice, and by extension unfit for human consumption.
 
Last edited:
Such as?

What about insects? Surely they didn't sacrifice insects?

I’m not sure what you’re asking in your first question. In terms of these dietary questions...think of it in a broad sense. If an animal is unfit for ritual sacrifice then you yourself are in a state of ritual impurity for having consumed it. So if you’re walking around with these things in your stomach then stay away from the Temple. Catholics have a similar belief in that a person living in a state of sin must refrain from the sacrament of the Eucharist.

There is one important point you made that I want to return to and that is there is a difference in how these things are interpreted depending on the sect of Judaism. And yes, that is entirely true. The destruction of the Temple and all of manner of resultant ritual and structural change in the religion led to tons of disagreement over the extent to which these ritual laws are applicable if at all in its absence.

For example, if there can be no High Priest because there is no Temple then does a ritual law about woven fabrics reserved for a High Priest still matter? Most modern Jews say no unless you happen to be ultra-orthodox. If there can be no animal sacrifice because there is no Temple then does it matter that an animal is ritually unclean? Same answer. The nature of these prohibitions as ritualistic is apparent not only in the plain language but by the fact that they are mostly considered defunct in the absence of the required setting to practice those rituals.
 
Last edited:
No, I reject what YOU say. Get that. For a change...
But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” Revelation 21:8
 
Millions of Christians follow the old testament...or at least the parts they like
[/QUOTE]

Many Christians eat bacon or wear garments made of different materials (which was but one of many illicit mixtures that defile). So how can they possibly claim to believe the Bible and follow God?

The answer is not as difficult as it may seem, and yet is overlooked by non-Christians, and even some Christians, who have not read or at least fail to understand some basic theology. Did rules ever change in the Bible? Of course they did. Let’s look at one example.

From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time. When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47). In the new covenant in Christ’s blood, this was further opened up (Romans 14:1–4).1 And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).2 https://answersingenesis.org/christ...christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
 
Millions of Christians follow the old testament...or at least the parts they like

Many Christians eat bacon or wear garments made of different materials (which was but one of many illicit mixtures that defile). So how can they possibly claim to believe the Bible and follow God?

The answer is not as difficult as it may seem, and yet is overlooked by non-Christians, and even some Christians, who have not read or at least fail to understand some basic theology. Did rules ever change in the Bible? Of course they did. Let’s look at one example.

From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time. When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47). In the new covenant in Christ’s blood, this was further opened up (Romans 14:1–4).1 And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).2 https://answersingenesis.org/christ...christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/
[/QUOTE]
That is all opinion based on interpretation. It can easily he interpreted that God now accepts homosexuality as perfectly fine.


It's all in the interpretation
 
The RCC does not have a problem with celibate Priests, you do.

I don't have a problem with celibate priests; I have a problem with the hypocrisy where people claim to be celibate and then actually are not.... especially when it turns into sexual abuse.
The Roman Catholic church is the one with the problem---CLEARLY. The many millions of dollars paid out to victims is the proof, so maybe time for them to have some different policies.

I am not attacking Catholics; I like Catholics. All I am saying is what everybody pretty much already assumes, and that is the fact that very few people are actually capable of being celibate.

For every child molester that slips through the cracks there are thousands of faithful Priests.

Problem is that it is more than just a few slipping through. And apperently the child molesters are just the tip of the iceberg; many more are NOT being celibate, and even while not molesting children they are living a sham existence and a lie; a problem which is a corrupting influence on what should be faithful service. So, the easiest answer would be to allow for priests to be married. Even the apostle Paul who asked men who would be leaders in the Church to devote all of themselves to service admitted that if a man could not do that, then better to marry than to "burn with lust" as he put it. And that is EXACTLY what happens when you believe you can demand celibacy, people end up burning with lust because celibacy isn't a natural thing generally.


You see it in Little League Baseball, Boy Scouts, or any other institution where adults are in charge.

I think you keep missing my point. Of course there are pedophiles who seek out certain jobs to be near children as a means to exploit them, but that is not what I and others are claiming about the Catholic priests. Sure, a few may do that, but that isn't most of them. Most enter in thinking they can be celibate and then they find out they can't. Many of them where probably homosexuals who had tried to repress their homosexuality due to ingrained cultural and moral conflicts. So they then thought maybe being a priest and living an asexual life would solve that confilct, but then find out as anyone would expect that it won't solve that conflict. Then you have a situation where you have men with terrible sexual conflictions in positions where they are in charge of young boys and men and then we wonder why things go wrong? And on the female side you have homosexual women who also went into a convent believing to do a life of service and be celebate who also were likely conflicted homosexuals, and then you have all of these women concentrated and living together. This is something you see all the time; nuns leaving the order and then openly coming out as lesbians.


Personally, I think celibacy it is an outdated practice that has outlived it's purpose but that's neither here nor there.

Well for one, it isn't something required by the scriptures; the Catholic church pretty much just made that requirement up. Most of Christianity does not require celibacy for a reason, it was not a mandate in the bible to do so. And as I said earlier, Paul himself said better to marry than burn with lust.


Being single does not cause pedophilia.

Where did I say that it did? However being unnaturally suppressed and conflicted sexually MAY lead to all kinds of problems, and sometimes people act on those problems in very damaging ways.
 
Perhaps. Though it sounds like sexless hierarchical drudgery can be found in many other places within Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church wants to “change with the times” that is certainly their prerogative. But if the word of God, Jesus Christ and his (her?) Church is just going to be an ever-changing reflection of the social preferences of a majority of society...what need is there for a Church? If the word of God is this mutable, what need is there for reference to a God?
No arguments from me. For me my Christian faith is based on the true Message that God and Jesus shared with us and I think that lives lived that way would create a solid and caring society. The stories in the Bible are meant to encourage that. Alot of them however have been misinterpreted...either after writing or by fallible men of the time when they wrote them. Both intentionally or by mistake, with good intentions, or malicious.

God's Word is compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness and peace. Anything that does not break that word is not a sin and not immoral. I cant think of any exceptions, no matter what the Catholic church or Protestant denominations say.
 
I don't have a problem with celibate priests; I have a problem with the hypocrisy where people claim to be celibate and then actually are not.... especially when it turns into sexual abuse.
The Roman Catholic church is the one with the problem---CLEARLY. The many millions of dollars paid out to victims is the proof, so maybe time for them to have some different policies.

I am not attacking Catholics; I like Catholics. All I am saying is what everybody pretty much already assumes, and that is the fact that very few people are actually capable of being celibate.



Problem is that it is more than just a few slipping through. And apperently the child molesters are just the tip of the iceberg; many more are NOT being celibate, and even while not molesting children they are living a sham existence and a lie; a problem which is a corrupting influence on what should be faithful service. So, the easiest answer would be to allow for priests to be married. Even the apostle Paul who asked men who would be leaders in the Church to devote all of themselves to service admitted that if a man could not do that, then better to marry than to "burn with lust" as he put it. And that is EXACTLY what happens when you believe you can demand celibacy, people end up burning with lust because celibacy isn't a natural thing generally.




I think you keep missing my point. Of course there are pedophiles who seek out certain jobs to be near children as a means to exploit them, but that is not what I and others are claiming about the Catholic priests. Sure, a few may do that, but that isn't most of them. Most enter in thinking they can be celibate and then they find out they can't. Many of them where probably homosexuals who had tried to repress their homosexuality due to ingrained cultural and moral conflicts. So they then thought maybe being a priest and living an asexual life would solve that confilct, but then find out as anyone would expect that it won't solve that conflict. Then you have a situation where you have men with terrible sexual conflictions in positions where they are in charge of young boys and men and then we wonder why things go wrong? And on the female side you have homosexual women who also went into a convent believing to do a life of service and be celebate who also were likely conflicted homosexuals, and then you have all of these women concentrated and living together. This is something you see all the time; nuns leaving the order and then openly coming out as lesbians.




Well for one, it isn't something required by the scriptures; the Catholic church pretty much just made that requirement up. Most of Christianity does not require celibacy for a reason, it was not a mandate in the bible to do so. And as I said earlier, Paul himself said better to marry than burn with lust.




Where did I say that it did? However being unnaturally suppressed and conflicted sexually MAY lead to all kinds of problems, and sometimes people act on those problems in very damaging ways.

I usually like your posts, these are not representative of your usual thoughtful posts. These seem more like anti-Catholic bigotry, which I have no time for. I am not sure you understand either sexuality or Catholiciity, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Well for one, it isn't something required by the scriptures; the Catholic church pretty much just made that requirement up. Most of Christianity does not require celibacy for a reason, it was not a mandate in the bible to do so. And as I said earlier, Paul himself said better to marry than burn with lust.

In fairness, it’s not something the Catholic Church just made up and for no reason. It is a policy that was crafted to address a significant problem with clerical positions becoming hereditary and Church property and treasure being effectively stolen and rendered inheritable by the heirs of clerics. And it developed theology in support of that policy based on the life of Christ. It has no modern usefulness, but convincing the Catholic Church to abandon centuries of tradition is nigh impossible.
 
Last edited:
Old Covenant vs New Covenant
Matthew 5:17 ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
I’m not sure what you’re asking in your first question.
Can you name some of those Talmudic scholars you mentioned.

I don't think you answered my question about insects. It says in Deuteronomy 14:19-20 "All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them. But any winged creature that is clean you may eat." How does that fit into your sacrafice theory?
 
What does the pope's endorsement really mean in terms of real life for anyone? (Yes I realize that much of the RCC leadership still disagree with him, it was in the same article)

And yes, I am using a mostly US perspective, but gays in many countries now can marry or have legal unions. Doesnt matter what their religion is.

Does what the pope said mean that gays can have civil unions and not be kicked out of the church? Not be excommunicated? (I dont know if those are exactly the same).
 
Can you name some of those Talmudic scholars you mentioned.

Sure. Moses Maimonides is probably the most famous of them all to have speculated on the rationale behind ritual impurity of animals and specifically pigs.

I don't think you answered my question about insects. It says in Deuteronomy 14:19-20 "All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them. But any winged creature that is clean you may eat." How does that fit into your sacrafice theory?


The sacrifice requirement pertains to land animals (see Deuteronomy 15:19-21). Insects are ritually impure for another reason that isn’t as clear, but what I previously said still applies: consuming a ritually impure creature renders you ritually impure. For all we know, maybe Yahweh just doesn’t like bugs.
 
Last edited:
No arguments from me. For me my Christian faith is based on the true Message that God and Jesus shared with us and I think that lives lived that way would create a solid and caring society. The stories in the Bible are meant to encourage that. Alot of them however have been misinterpreted...either after writing or by fallible men of the time when they wrote them. Both intentionally or by mistake, with good intentions, or malicious.

God's Word is compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness and peace. Anything that does not break that word is not a sin and not immoral. I cant think of any exceptions, no matter what the Catholic church or Protestant denominations say.
You continue to mis-represent Jesus Christ and everything Christianity is about...Jesus described it all in 2 commandments...if you love God with your whole heart and you neighbor as yourself, you will not break any of His commandments, including the taking of human life, as well as having relations with a person of the same sex...

‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’" Matthew 22:37-39
 
Back
Top Bottom