Catholic Church Shifts on Gay People They Have 'Gifts and Qualities to Offer'

originally posted by: BlackManINC
What is marriage supposed to mean in Gods eyes in a nutshell? This verse is for those who claim the concept of marriage doesn't exist in the Bible.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. - Genesis 2:24

From the very beginning, marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman united in matrimony, between a husband and his wife, not between two women, or two men, not between two wives and two husbands. I'm not surprised that Satan's Catholic church is speaking for gay marriage, since they never followed basic Biblical doctrine on anything in the first place.

i think they mean that christianity doesnt own marriage. holy union between two humans has existed long before jesus was a thing. christianity was NOT the first sense of spirituality we have encountered and does not own all spiritual properties and concepts now that its here.

Funnily enough, I just reread the Constitution. It has quite a few words, none of which are Jesus, Bible, marriage, or Christian. Just thought I'd point that out. Checkmate, anyone?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: BlackManINC
What is marriage supposed to mean in Gods eyes in a nutshell? This verse is for those who claim the concept of marriage doesn't exist in the Bible.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. - Genesis 2:24

From the very beginning, marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman united in matrimony, between a husband and his wife, not between two women, or two men, not between two wives and two husbands. I'm not surprised that Satan's Catholic church is speaking for gay marriage, since they never followed basic Biblical doctrine on anything in the first place.

i think they mean that christianity doesnt own marriage. holy union between two humans has existed long before jesus was a thing.

And God existed long before marriage between a man and a woman. I didn't say anything about Christianity owning marriage as if the religion is the oldest to ever exist. No need to put words in my mouth. Yahweh created humans, so Yahweh owns the concept of marriage, not you or anyone else.

How can anyone still believe this institution is "of God"? God does not change so why would his vehicle here on Earth change and back track so much? If God was truly their "leader", their doctrines, traditions, dogmas etc. would be the same today as they were nearly 2,000 years ago, but they aren't.

Why would God choose such a fallible institution to be his mouthpiece? Seems as though the Christian God is incompetent and/or a big ol jokester.

originally posted by: Kesallen
Funnily enough, I just reread the Constitution. It has quite a few words, none of which are Jesus, Bible, marriage, or Christian. Just thought I'd point that out. Checkmate, anyone?

Well that's great, since government shouldn't have anything at all to do with religion or marriage in the first place, which is a religious concept to begin with.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
How can anyone still believe this institution is "of God"? God does not change so why would his vehicle here on Earth change and back track so much? If God was truly their "leader", their doctrines, traditions, dogmas etc. would be the same today as they were nearly 2,000 years ago, but they aren't.

Why would God choose such a fallible institution to be his mouthpiece? Seems as though the Christian God is incompetent and/or a big ol jokester.

Perhaps its because God has nothing to do with the Catholic Church? Easy answer right?

a reply to: BlackManINC

Well I think that's quite obvious, but it's not limited to just the Catholic church but to every church or denomination.

God doesn't approve of money laundering, meaning he doesn't approve of any church, no matter what the denomination is.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
And God existed long before marriage between a man and a woman. I didn't say anything about Christianity owning marriage as if the religion is the oldest to ever exist. No need to put words in my mouth. Yahweh created humans, so Yahweh owns the concept of marriage, not you or anyone else.

Assuming for now that there even is such a God like you describe, Yahweh as you call him is the name of the Hebrew God of the Old Law. Like Christianity and it's God Jesus, the same goes for Yahweh. Marriage existed long before the Jews or their Yahweh. So your "who came first" claim still fails.

You can continue to claim more ancient Gods if you wish as some sort of attempt to prove your point but you can provide no evidence to support your argument aside from circular logic and self referencing material. Nor can you show any evidence for those God's Existence either, let alone what they may have commanded as universal rules. We both know this already since it's been tried here repeatedly with zero success. So I don't see the point in saying what you're saying other than to make yourself feel important or to delude yourself into believing you alone possess such knowledge. I suggest you try a different approach or admit the fact that all such claims are false.

If such a God actually existed and did in fact command such a Definition of Marriage as Law then it wouldn't have changed continuously throughout history as well as by culture. It's a concept created by Man. Can be altered, followed or ignored by man as well.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BlackManINC

Well I think that's quite obvious, but it's not limited to just the Catholic church but to every church or denomination.

God doesn't approve of money laundering, meaning he doesn't approve of any church, no matter what the denomination is.

God won't be too pleased with the pedophiles running the Catholic church. And as far as your claim that Jesus never approved of a church. Lets first define what a church is. It is a place where a group of individuals gather together in their Gods name. And this is exactly what Jesus commanded his followers to do.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Matthew 18:20

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: BlackManINC
And God existed long before marriage between a man and a woman. I didn't say anything about Christianity owning marriage as if the religion is the oldest to ever exist. No need to put words in my mouth. Yahweh created humans, so Yahweh owns the concept of marriage, not you or anyone else.

Assuming for now that there even is such a God like you describe, Yahweh as you call him is the name of the Hebrew God of the Old Law. Like Christianity and it's God Jesus, the same goes for Yahweh. Marriage existed long before the Jews or their Yahweh. So your "who came first" claim still fails.

You can continue to claim more ancient Gods if you wish as some sort of attempt to prove your point but you can provide no evidence to support your argument aside from circular logic and self referencing material. Nor can you show any evidence for those God's Existence either, let alone what they may have commanded as universal rules. We both know this already since it's been tried here repeatedly with zero success. So I don't see the point in saying what you're saying other than to make yourself feel important or to delude yourself into believing you alone possess such knowledge. I suggest you try a different approach or admit the fact that all such claims are false.

If such a God actually existed and did in fact command such a Definition of Marriage as Law then it wouldn't have changed continuously throughout history as well as by culture. It's a concept created by Man. Can be altered, followed or ignored by man as well.

The concept of man and woman coming together as one flesh to procreate is not a concept of man, its a concept of the one true God who created the man and woman to begin with, that is unless you are proposing that we were made to procreate with the same gender, an argument with which you will lose every time. Mans definition of marriage changes, but Gods definition of marriage has never changed as it was established from the beginning. I can expect Gods laws to be altered in the eyes of man if man was given the free will and ability to think and reason for themselves to begin with, simple logic. I don't need to show evidence that any other "gods" existed, because they don't exist, there is only one God and his name is Yahweh. None existed before Yahweh and neither will there be after him. I'm not doing this for any other reason than to defend the word of God against all enemies foreign (heathen) and domestic ("christian").

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Kesallen
Funnily enough, I just reread the Constitution. It has quite a few words, none of which are Jesus, Bible, marriage, or Christian. Just thought I'd point that out. Checkmate, anyone?

Well that's great, since government shouldn't have anything at all to do with religion or marriage in the first place, which is a religious concept to begin with.

So you mean that all non-Christians can't marry, then? Or just gay folk and atheist, since, you know, religious concept. I'll be sure to tell all my atheist pals that they either aren't married or can't get married. Wow, if only we had, oh, I dunno, some Amendment to the Constitution that not only protects the freedom to worship as we choose but also prevent one religion from taking over. Curse the Founding Fathers for forgetting that..oh wait. I forgot. They did.

originally posted by: Kesallen

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Kesallen
Funnily enough, I just reread the Constitution. It has quite a few words, none of which are Jesus, Bible, marriage, or Christian. Just thought I'd point that out. Checkmate, anyone?

Well that's great, since government shouldn't have anything at all to do with religion or marriage in the first place, which is a religious concept to begin with.

So you mean that all non-Christians can't marry, then? Or just gay folk and atheist, since, you know, religious concept. I'll be sure to tell all my atheist pals that they either aren't married or can't get married. Wow, if only we had, oh, I dunno, some Amendment to the Constitution that not only protects the freedom to worship as we choose but also prevent one religion from taking over. Curse the Founding Fathers for forgetting that..oh wait. I forgot. They did.

Well, there was no Christianity in the days of Adam and Eve, so where did I say that non-Christians can't marry? While we're at it, where does it say that any non-believer minus gays cannot marry in the Bible? Trying to put words in my mouth again? Is this your sorry attempt to make an argument where there is none? The bottom line is that God is for marriage as long as it is between a man and a woman as God established marriage from the start, end of story.

a reply to: BlackManINC

He also said this:

Matthew 6
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Churches are the modern day synagogues where pastors and preachers babble to be heard and where congregants pray in public to be seen by others. Seems to cover the entire list of what Jesus told us NOT to do. How many churches have you heard of that only have 2 or 3 congregants? Point them out and then maybe you'd have a point, MAYBE.

Jesus would be disgusted by what Christianity (as a whole) has turned he and his teachings into.

a reply to: BlackManINC

The concept of man and woman coming together as one flesh to procreate is not a concept of man, its a concept of the one true God who created the man and woman to begin with, that is unless you are proposing that we were made to procreate with the same gender, an argument with which you will lose every time.

I fail to see where marriage has anything to do with procreation. People get married and never have children, people have children but never get married, and some are barren and unable to procreate marriage or not.

How is two men or women having sex without the ability to procreate any different from a man and woman having sex without the ability to procreate? Should we also outlaw barren men and women from having sex or getting married? Because your argument seems to center around procreation as an antithesis to gay marriage.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I love when people cherry pick the bible. So since the bible is the word of God and you must include Genesis since that's where you got your definition of marriage then you must also believe in :

1) Human Sacrifice

"Then God said: 'Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you'."(Genesis 22:2)

2) Inferiority of Women and their Submission to Men

To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)

3) Slavery and Child Abuse are Awesome

And he said “Hagar, Sarai’s slave girl, where have you come from and where are you going?” She answered, “I’m running away from Sarai, my mistress.” The angel of the Lord said to her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to ill treatment at her hands.” (Genesis 16:8)

4) Offering Virgin Girls for Sex as a Security Measure to Protect your Men

“Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Genesis 19:8)

5) Incest : God built it in the System

The sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

6). If your Brother dies (because God killed him) it's Your Job to Impregnate his Wife

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." (Genesis 38:8)

7) If you'd rather Masturbate then Impregnate your Sister in Law, You are Evil and God will Kill you for It

But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.
What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. (Genesis 38:9,38:10)

8) God likes to Wrestle with Young Men

Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. (32:24)

[God tried to cheat later on by dislocating Jacob's hip bone thus.....]

Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the thigh muscle that is on the hip socket, because he struck Jacob on the hip socket at the thigh muscle.(Genesis 32:32)

9). A Human can Live for Hundreds of Years if God feels like it

After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:7)

OK I have to stop. There's some more choice ones but they would require too long of quotes.

So since you believe in the bible literally with all of that? Odd for an African American to support slavery but hey we gotta listen to the word of God right? So marriage is between a man and a woman . Women are innately inferior. You want to be a slave again because God's big on slavery. You believe you should die every time you masturbate.

Uhhhhhh did I miss any of your other beliefs. That was only a single book from the bible out of dozens. Any other odd beliefs we should know about? Did you sacrifice any family members? The police might like to know about that.......

originally posted by: BlackManINC

The concept of man and woman coming together as one flesh to procreate is not a concept of man, its a concept of the one true God who created the man and woman to begin with, that is unless you are proposing that we were made to procreate with the same gender, an argument with which you will lose every time.

I never said Procreation was a concept of Man. I said Marriage was a concept of Man. Marriage isn't a function of nature, it's a ceremonial tradition and a cultural invention that people made up for various reasons. Procreation and Marriage serve totally different purposes and neither of them requires the other to serve their individual purposes either.

Mans definition of marriage changes, but Gods definition of marriage has never changed as it was established from the beginning.

By "God's definition of marriage" you mean that stuff that MEN wrote down in a book. Not just one book either, but multiple books from different cultures throughout time. All the many different types of marriage that have been written about since man could write and you've singled out one and claim that it's from God and all the rest are false. Where I come from that would be considered "Your Opinion". Nothing more. Unless you can back it up somehow which you're welcome to try.

I can expect Gods laws to be altered in the eyes of man if man was given the free will and ability to think and reason for themselves to begin with, simple logic.

Well great. So what's the problem then?? That is exactly what we're doing. Using our Reason and Logic and Free Will to figure out our own rules and laws.

I don't need to show evidence that any other "gods" existed, because they don't exist, there is only one God and his name is Yahweh. None existed before Yahweh and neither will there be after him. I'm not doing this for any other reason than to defend the word of God against all enemies foreign (heathen) and domestic ("christian").

Do you realize just how close you and I are in being in agreement with each other??? You dismiss all God's except just one that you've chosen for whatever reason. I too have done the same, only I didn't need to keep one since the same process by which I removed the others worked the same for all of them. Just something you might want to think about.

On a side note. Do you honestly think Yahweh needs you to defend Him or His word??? If He or His word needs you or anyone else to defend it, doesn't that make His word about as reliable as tissue paper in a hail storm???

I really don't know if any kind of rational conversation can continue at this point. You just keep making claims about absolutes and insist they are true without anything to back up your statements.

If I did the same, would you have reason to believe me?? No, of course not, why would you??

Do you see how that works both ways??

I have to wonder with the dogma thrust down people's throats by the catholic church when is anyone going to ask - If God created man why did he make homosexuals if he then decided they were against his laws? Surely he would have simply snuffed out that particular strain of his creation? But he didn't - did he.

I die laughing at the catholic church which has so many homosexual priests within its walls its a hoot - clearly not a sin as one man can tell if another is straight or gay yet they still get made into priests regardless!

Were you to take out the homosexuals from the church I doubt there would be more than 40% straight priests left within it, if that. Making men give up being married was one of the worst and most selfish things the church ever did, except it meant that it kept the man's property which could not then divulge down through to his wife and children, the church got it.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Kesallen

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Kesallen
Funnily enough, I just reread the Constitution. It has quite a few words, none of which are Jesus, Bible, marriage, or Christian. Just thought I'd point that out. Checkmate, anyone?

Well that's great, since government shouldn't have anything at all to do with religion or marriage in the first place, which is a religious concept to begin with.

So you mean that all non-Christians can't marry, then? Or just gay folk and atheist, since, you know, religious concept. I'll be sure to tell all my atheist pals that they either aren't married or can't get married. Wow, if only we had, oh, I dunno, some Amendment to the Constitution that not only protects the freedom to worship as we choose but also prevent one religion from taking over. Curse the Founding Fathers for forgetting that..oh wait. I forgot. They did.

Well, there was no Christianity in the days of Adam and Eve, so where did I say that non-Christians can't marry? While we're at it, where does it say that any non-believer minus gays cannot marry in the Bible? Trying to put words in my mouth again? Is this your sorry attempt to make an argument where there is none? The bottom line is that God is for marriage as long as it is between a man and a woman as God established marriage from the start, end of story.

1.) You said it was a creation of the Christian God. By exercise of this thing we call 'logic', you must mean, therefore, that any religious idea of marriage not Christian is therefore false. So, where are the Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, Shinto, Buddhists, etc.? By your words, not married. Can't have it both ways, Chumley.

2.) The Bible says 'one man plus one woman', eh? I'll be sure to send that memo to Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon. Good to know it means only one man plus one woman. Anything else would be wrong.

3.) I am going to also assume you are against : tattoos, pork, shrimp, blended fabric, touching dead things, women in any kind of authority, outspoken kids, shellfish, and that you regularly stone folks. If not, you obviously aren't doing it right.

4.) I am also a Christian. I have also studied. Funny thing...I don't ever recall Christ telling his disciples to legislate their beliefs into Roman society. Guess He didn't know how to Christian, either.

originally posted by: adjensen
This Synod is really ticking me off, because of the misrepresentations of what is going on, from both the media and from Church Traditionalists.

The Catholic Church has not "shifted" anything. This Synod isn't even intended to do anything other than raise the issues that the NEXT Synod needs to address. That will happen in October 2015.

Here is the relevant bit from today's missive:

50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? (Source)

Now, does that represent any sort of policy change? Absolutely not! It's asking a question, one which will be answered at next year's Synod. And note that it doesn't say "should the church change its teaching to reflect secular values", it says "can we be more loving and welcoming of those who experience same-sex attraction within existing Church teaching." That's the challenge.

I am so disappointed in some of my Traditionalist friends (those who believe that Vatican II should be rolled back,) who are fearmongering and intentionally misrepresenting (read: lying about) what this statement from the Vatican says. But it's no more dishonest than the mainstream media, who seem to think that a rhetorical question, which they obviously didn't bother to read, constitutes some sort of "doctrinal shift."

Bah
So the Catholic Church is as bigoted as it ever was?

a reply to: Prezbo369

So the Catholic Church is as bigoted as it ever was?

Church teaching has not changed, which is that homosexuals are welcome in the church, homosexual activity is not, any more than heterosexual activity outside of marriage is.

That is bigotry only to those who are ignorant of what "bigotry" means.

I'm sorry everyone.
I usually don't start threads then leave, but yesterday was a unfortunately difficult day for me and I found myself unable to get back involved into this thread. I know some of you take this subject very seriously and rather then insult you with half-fast answers, I just stayed behind the curtain.

Personally, I always felt marriage was more of a merger in the eye's of the state, not the church. When there is a divorce we go to court, not church to settle it. With that said the Catholic community is free and open to do whatever they feel is right, not that I agree. Love is profound to many and in this day and age I cannot be the source of enlightenment for it, I've had my own issues too. If the state sees the union between two independent people as a marriage then so be it, it's up to the church to either agree or disagree with that, but it changes nothing to those that are not Catholic.

So what does this all really mean to me?
Nothing, unless you are Catholic, gay and want to get married to another gay person. It's just very interesting to see socially how much the church has changed over the years. First Galileo was right, then aliens could exist, now gays are not as bad as they were I can't help but wonder what's next!