The Pope to exclude gay priests

[sinker 0]

Quote

>why did you bring blacks into the argument?

Because discriminating against blacks, gays, women, short people etc is equally silly to me. It's somewhat hypocritical, in my view, to claim one is OK but the other is certainly evil and vile. But again, the church can do whatever it wants. (Note that I am not saying the church is currently discriminating against blacks, if that was your concern.)

good lord bill, where you been??? j/k...

your assumption, it seems to me, seems to rest on the fact that you think that the church has no reason (or at least in your mind no VALID reason) for excluding women or open, active homosexuals from the priesthood. Gender -- and the escatological dimension contained therein -- is the criteria of discrimination, and it's a valid reason. Shortness, skin color, etc, do not have any escatological significance vis a vis the mission, function, purpose of the priest.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

> it was strong armed into changing the diagnosis from homosexuality
> being an illness to it being a diagnosis ONLY if you were
> uncomfortable with being gay, to NOT being a problem at all.

As it needed to be. Sometimes it takes some strong-arming. It took a lot of strong-arming to get women the vote. Heck, it took a civil war to finally end slavery. We often pay heavily for our rights; let's hope it doesn't take the same amount of strife/bloodshed to get to equality this time.

ugh. as it need to be indeed. gestopo tactics, bill, that's what they were. no appeals to conducting studies on homosexual relationships, psychopathology testing, nothing... we're talking about what was a diagnosable mental disorder, just wiped away overnight. i thought we were a society steeped in demonstrating truth and veracity by science, not terrorism.

interestingly, most major licensing bodies for counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. REQUIRE an oath of sorts stating that the licensee will NOT attempt to counsel a homosexually oriented person OUT of that orientation, even if the homosexual does NOT want to be homosexual.

however, studies have been done in this country and others, (israel for one), wherein case studies are presented to therapists... the presenting problem is NOT sexual orientation, but some other non-sexual related issue. However, the orientation of the case study is mentioned... in the majority of cases, even though the homosexual and heterosexual case study are presented as having the SAME PROBLEM, the homosexual person is consistenly sited as having more severe pathology. This from folks who have taken the "oaths" of these licensing organizations...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,078]

>good lord bill, where you been??

Jumping with JFTC believe it or not.

>your assumption, it seems to me, seems to rest on the fact that you
> think that the church has no reason (or at least in your mind no
>VALID reason) for excluding women or open, active homosexuals
>from the priesthood.

More to the point, it doesn't matter what I think. If I had my very own religion (scary thought) I wouldn't exclude blacks, gays, or women from positions of power, because in my value system none of those groups are any more or less capable or moral or whatever than any other.

But other religions can decide whatever they want, and accept whoever they want into their ranks. They can have only black priests, or any color other than black, or only gays, or only people who look like vampires and sleep all day. It's up to them.

[billvon 3,078]

>that's what they were. no appeals to conducting studies on
>homosexual relationships, psychopathology testing, nothing...

There were dozens of such studies. And they found no specific pathology in gays. This is one thing that led to all the clamor for revision of the guidelines

As a side note, the DSM-IV (and its predecessors) is one of the most abused books around. It's like the bible in that people often misuse it for the most bizarre things. It is a diagnostic guide, not any sort of a moral judgement concerning how people live, or their fitness for any job or place in society. Heck, if you go by literal interpretations, and ignore the fundamental principle of the thing (which is that it is used to treat disorders that are causing real, ongoing problems) I have a dozen pathologies. You probably do too, especially if you do deviant things like ogling women in high heels.

>we're talking about what was a diagnosable mental disorder, just
>wiped away overnight.

?? So? Freud basically created psychoanalysis, something that has been used to good effect throughout the world. He was clearly brilliant. Yet in his view of the world, women were essentially incomplete men, and should be treated as such. We 'wiped that away overnight' too, and that's a good thing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

>good lord bill, where you been??

Jumping with JFTC believe it or not.

>your assumption, it seems to me, seems to rest on the fact that you
> think that the church has no reason (or at least in your mind no
>VALID reason) for excluding women or open, active homosexuals
>from the priesthood.

More to the point, it doesn't matter what I think. If I had my very own religion (scary thought) I wouldn't exclude blacks, gays, or women from positions of power, because in my value system none of those groups are any more or less capable or moral or whatever than any other.

But other religions can decide whatever they want, and accept whoever they want into their ranks. They can have only black priests, or any color other than black, or only gays, or only people who look like vampires and sleep all day. It's up to them.

JFTC... good on ya!

I think the fundamental mistep in our communication is just this... what is the nature of the priesthood and what is the symbolism of the male only priesthood? I refer you to Paul Quay's book the Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality. It says, in ways more succint and erudite that I can, what we're trying to discuss. The priesthood isn't a "job" one can apply for.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[AlexCrowley 0]

No Sink, I dont mind if you hate gay people or not, only that there's no difference between disobeying the word of God on the little things or the big things. Women should be silent and gay sex is against god or it's not.

As far as slavery, Jesus talked about slavery a few times, used them in parables and spoke to them.

I understand why the church needs to explain that the Bible is not supporting slavery, but it certainly seems very weak when compared to the text itself. We know from old testament history that God let the Hebrews keep beaten foes as slaves (when they werent being commanded to wipe out entire bloodlines).

Why is this so hard for believers to admit? Jesus lived in a time where slavery was commonplace, there was no outcry because it was just an acceptable part of life. END OF STORY. Are we to assume that just because Jesus is the Messiah that he would take on 20th century social mores and condemn slavery?

Yes, slavery is incompatible with the two commandments. But so is killing a fig tree because it wont bear fruit out of season, so is killing someones herd of pigs after letting them be possessed by exorcised demons.

But lets not get off track here - the point is that the Church has changed its views over time, from its model of the universe, to its treatment of women, to its treatment of slavery and racism without it destroying the church or the basis of the Christian faith. How long until the church realizes that persecution based on sexual orientation is also unenlightened?

The Bible is often incorrect and outdated or it is not, picking and choosing has always been the problem with using scripture to defend a prejudice.

Again, why does this conflict occur over a book, a book with no more power than any other in and of itself. Can Christians stop treating it as an end unto itself, a mystic totem, and instead use it in ways that compliment their faith rather than allow it to choke and restrict it?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[sinker 0]

jeffrey satinover's book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Well referenced. You can also research the minutes and blow by blow account of the APA convention in dc, it's public record.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

>that's what they were. no appeals to conducting studies on
>homosexual relationships, psychopathology testing, nothing...

There were dozens of such studies. And they found no specific pathology in gays. This is one thing that led to all the clamor for revision of the guidelines

As a side note, the DSM-IV (and its predecessors) is one of the most abused books around. It's like the bible in that people often misuse it for the most bizarre things. It is a diagnostic guide, not any sort of a moral judgement concerning how people live, or their fitness for any job or place in society. Heck, if you go by literal interpretations, and ignore the fundamental principle of the thing (which is that it is used to treat disorders that are causing real, ongoing problems) I have a dozen pathologies. You probably do too, especially if you do deviant things like ogling women in high heels.

>we're talking about what was a diagnosable mental disorder, just
>wiped away overnight.

?? So? Freud basically created psychoanalysis, something that has been used to good effect throughout the world. He was clearly brilliant. Yet in his view of the world, women were essentially incomplete men, and should be treated as such. We 'wiped that away overnight' too, and that's a good thing.

sure the dsm is abused... but it's also the product of countless hours of research and work and guides practitioners in the treatment of bone fide illnesses... w/o it we'd be much worse off... i think the abuse comes more from ill-qualified people trying their hand at couch pyschology.

i'm unaware of studies before 73 on gay personalities and relationships... references?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

No Sink, I dont mind if you hate gay people or not***

unfair comment painting me as a gay hater, which I am not. please apologize.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[AlexCrowley 0]

Apparently Im digging myself into a hole i thought i was digging out of....

Sink: your opinion on the gay debate are not what I was refering to and do not matter. i was not making a judgement call.

My original point was that there's very little to be offended about when discussing a woman wearing a hat where as a guy with his dick in another guy is a more provocative subject.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[sinker 0]

Yes, slavery is incompatible with the two commandments. But so is killing a fig tree because it wont bear fruit out of season, so is killing someones herd of pigs after letting them be possessed by exorcised demons.
***

your thinking is too concrete here... killing a fig tree b/c it doesn't bear fruit? how is that incompatible w/ any commandment? and how does that compare w/ what appears to be tacit approval of slavery? and killing pigs b/c they were possessed? assuming possession is real, wouldn't killing them be a mercy?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If I had my very own religion

Now there's an idea.... I can only imagine what that would involve...

I once had this guy do a handwriting analysis for me, and one of the things he wrote down about me was that I was very likely to either join a cult or start one... Now I can't see myself ever joining a cult, but starting one??? Hmm...

[sinker 0]

Quote

Apparently Im digging myself into a hole i thought i was digging out of....

Sink: your opinion on the gay debate are not what I was refering to and do not matter. i was not making a judgement call.

My original point was that there's very little to be offended about when discussing a woman wearing a hat where as a guy with his dick in another guy is a more provocative subject.

you comment is similar to the following line....

so do you beat your wife often? the answer is condemning either way.

your comment painted me as a gay hater which I am not. if you didn't mean to offend, so be it. no prob.

my point in all this is that there is a HUGE diff b/t a woman covering or not covering her head or accepting homosexuality in the church b/c it's common practice (so the gay activists would have us believe) in today's culture.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

If I had my very own religion

Now there's an idea.... I can only imagine what that would involve...

I once had this guy do a handwriting analysis for me, and one of the things he wrote down about me was that I was very likely to either join a cult or start one... Now I can't see myself ever joining a cult, but starting one??? Hmm...

i'd come to yours or bills just out of sheer curiosity... just as long as I didn't become the sacrificial offering.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,078]

>I think the fundamental mistep in our communication is just this...
> what is the nature of the priesthood and what is the symbolism of
>the male only priesthood?

No misstep. It's not that I claim that the 'nature of the priesthood' is invalid or anything, it's that I recognize the right of the catholic church to come up with whatever rationale they want. It's like discussing someone else's religion. I may disagree with their beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them they're wrong just because they think the world is going to end in 4 years, or that it's sinful to wash a cheese plate in the same dishwasher as a plate that held chicken. As long as they don't try to make _me_ buy two dishwashers, I'm fine with their beliefs on the subject.

[AlexCrowley 0]

No there's not.

God said 'women should be silent in church' and it's considered outdated in the 20th century.

God may have said 'Being gay is bad' and it's still accepted as a religious rule.

While you may be able to perform these sorts of mental gymnastics I am still looking for the book of the Bible that says "Ok, some of that stuff about women was a little harsh so just forget about it, but that gay thing? oh wow, yeah I was serious....no really. Screw those episcopilians man, they dont know what they're talking about" Which he obviously said in the voice of Joe Pesci.

Now was the book after Revelation or was it a special insert available to the Chosen?

Look, i'm sorry you're sensitive but I figured you'd know that I'd call you out on hating gay people directly rather than slip it into a comment that i simply worded badly.

So, why do you hate gay people so much anyway?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I do not know many people who are gay that have not had sex do you? How do you know you are gay if you have not had sex?

By this logic, no one could know they were straight before having sex.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

More to the point, it doesn't matter what I think. If I had my very own religion (scary thought) I wouldn't exclude blacks, gays, or women from positions of power, because in my value system none of those groups are any more or less capable or moral or whatever than any other.

.

I see you left yourself open to excluding short people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

just as long as I didn't become the sacrificial offering.

Hmm, and there's another idea.

But then in my cult, being the sacrificial offering might be something that you would enjoy.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Apparently Im digging myself into a hole i thought i was digging out of....

Sink: your opinion on the gay debate are not what I was refering to and do not matter. i was not making a judgement call.

My original point was that there's very little to be offended about when discussing a woman wearing a hat where as a guy with his dick in another guy is a more provocative subject.

you comment is similar to the following line....

so do you beat your wife often? the answer is condemning either way.

your comment painted me as a gay hater which I am not. if you didn't mean to offend, so be it. no prob.

my point in all this is that there is a HUGE diff b/t a woman covering or not covering her head or accepting homosexuality in the church b/c it's common practice (so the gay activists would have us believe) in today's culture.

No really, there is not. If the Bible says that a gay lifestyle is wrong and it says that woman not wearing head coverings is wrong or that speaking up is wrong, then they are all wrong. You cannot pick and choose which ones still apply.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently Im digging myself into a hole i thought i was digging out of....

Sink: your opinion on the gay debate are not what I was refering to and do not matter. i was not making a judgement call.

My original point was that there's very little to be offended about when discussing a woman wearing a hat where as a guy with his dick in another guy is a more provocative subject.

you comment is similar to the following line....

so do you beat your wife often? the answer is condemning either way.

your comment painted me as a gay hater which I am not. if you didn't mean to offend, so be it. no prob.

my point in all this is that there is a HUGE diff b/t a woman covering or not covering her head or accepting homosexuality in the church b/c it's common practice (so the gay activists would have us believe) in today's culture.

No really, there is not. If the Bible says that a gay lifestyle is wrong and it says that woman not wearing head coverings is wrong or that speaking up is wrong, then they are all wrong. You cannot pick and choose which ones still apply.

Of course he can - that's exactly what he IS doing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

No really, there is not. If the Bible says that a gay lifestyle is wrong and it says that woman not wearing head coverings is wrong or that speaking up is wrong, then they are all wrong. You cannot pick and choose which ones still apply.

sometimes you can. as Jesus did when he deliberately flouted certain dietary laws in order to make a point. (incidentally, the whole incident with the fig tree was not done just as a spiteful act against the fig tree. (I can't believe I actually have to spell this out for people but,) Jesus wouldn't have done it if no one was around. He killed the tree in order to make a point to his disciples & others who were around. It was a metaphor!! ( i guess this is why there needs to be annotated Bibles. too many people just don't get what's going on)

and Chrisitians abandoned a lot of stuff that Jews were supposed to do: ie circumcision, labeling of certain foods as "unclean" etc etc.

Even within the Old Testament you see certain things at one time being emphasized over other things. For example, the animal sacrifices are seen as very important in the early years. In the later years the prophets say that what God really wants is obedience, not holocausts. (I guess the idea is that some people were just going thru the motions of the ceremonies, ie, acting like bastards who don't care about God in their lives, but showing up once a week to kill an animal & burn it, ostenisibly to please God.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

No really, there is not. If the Bible says that a gay lifestyle is wrong and it says that woman not wearing head coverings is wrong or that speaking up is wrong, then they are all wrong. You cannot pick and choose which ones still apply.

sometimes you can.

No, sometimes JESUS can. There is a BIG difference when the man who is the fulcrum of Christianity says something is not correct and when his followers do.

For myself, keeping the basic tenets while adapting to the current times is just fine.

But if you are going to say that the Bible is God's Word, then dropping a rule while keeping another because it falls into your personal beliefs smacks of being wrong. What makes one item more important than the other? After all, the Bible is God's Word, is it not? If it is, then the WHOLE book matters, not the just portions we like or the ones that make sense to our time.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Ok SR, when do you think homosexuality will be accepted by the church as being ok?

If I kill you to prove a point I still have broken a commandment, yes? Jesus himself gets to do whatever he wants - that's not really the argument here from what I can see.

The argument is about man's decision to follow some of God's rules and not others as written in their scripture, by people who say they use scripture as their guidebook for Gods laws.

God's history in the Old Testament and his evolution are more to do with the various authors of the books, the influence of several jewish factions, and how they were revised over the centuries rather than God himself deciding he was going to be a little nicer this century than last. Which is why you have a monotheistic higher power vs a stereotypical tribal god of anger, vanity and demands of subservience. - ( I guess this is why there's many books on biblical scholarship available - too many people remain unaware of the way the bible was compiled over time to reflect the beliefs and needs of the day).

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[sinker 0]

Look, i'm sorry you're sensitive but I figured you'd know that I'd call you out on hating gay people directly rather than slip it into a comment that i simply worded badly.

So, why do you hate gay people so much anyway? ***

I'm not sensitive about this issue. What I am is offended when I'm accused of something I'm not. I do not hate gays and you are showing a serious lapse in judgement for assuming I do. Saying I think homosexuality is wrong/sinful/disordered does not ipso facto mean I hate homosexuals. That is an unwarranted assumption. You've turned this personal against me and that is unacceptable.

-the artist formerly known as sinker