Pope says Church should ask forgiveness from gays for past treatment - Polidicks

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602621]How is looking at sex slavery's place in society at the time compared to the text not looking at historical context?[/QUOTE] Let me put it very simply: the people who doubt that those verses are talking about homosexuality are doing so out of preconceived notions about homosexuality and not actual scholarship. Even early church leaders who lived in Roman society recognized that homosexual acts are not approved of within Christianity. Aristades, author of the earliest known apology of Christianity in the 2nd century, wrote: "Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base practises in intercourse with males." ([url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html[/url])

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602655]Let me put it very simply: the people who doubt that those verses are talking about homosexuality are doing so out of preconceived notions about homosexuality and not actual scholarship.[/QUOTE] Got any evidence proving so?

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602661]Got any evidence proving so?[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm not going to put the effort into proving that every single person who argues for that odd interpretation is wrong. Some general points would be: 1) The early church that existed IN ROME recognized it as meaning homosexuality. 2) The vast majority of top scholars recognize it as meaning homosexuality. 3) The people who argue for it not meaning homosexuality are, without fail, either non-Christian or in a denomination that already approves of homosexuality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602678]Sorry, I'm not going to put the effort into proving that every single person who argues for that odd interpretation is wrong. Some general points would be: 1) The early church that existed IN ROME recognized it as meaning homosexuality.[/quote] You do realize the Old Testament heavily predated the Church and was written outside the Rome. [quote] 2) The vast majority of top scholars recognize it as meaning homosexuality. 3) The people who argue for it not meaning homosexuality are, without fail, either non-Christian or in a denomination that already approves of homosexuality.[/QUOTE] You're talking about people having agendas, but this only proves the point. Society has been in recent times very anti-homosexual until recently and those studying the Old Testament as conservative Christians will likely go in with preconceived notions opposed to those looking at the Bible from a secular outside viewpoint.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602732]You do realize the Old Testament heavily predated the Church and was written outside the Rome.[/QUOTE] Do you realize that the New Testament talks about it as well? EVEN IF the OT never mentioned homosexuality (it does), you would still have Christianity being against homosexuality. Do you also realize that the "scholars" who question the homosexuality in the OT also question it in the NT because they are interested in taking homosexaulity out of the Bible, not in actually doing critical scholarship? [QUOTE]You're talking about people having agendas, but this only proves the point. Society has been in recent times very anti-homosexual until recently and those studying the Old Testament as conservative Christians will likely go in with preconceived notions opposed to those looking at the Bible from a secular outside viewpoint.[/QUOTE] Christians from the 2nd century knew it was talking about homosexaulity. How does the modern stance about homosexuality apply?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602751]Do you realize that the New Testament talks about it as well? EVEN IF the OT never mentioned homosexuality (it does), you would still have Christianity being against homosexuality.[/quote] Yes, but we're talking about Leviticus, the Old Testament. [quote]Do you also realize that the "scholars" who question the homosexuality in the OT also question it in the NT because they are interested in taking homosexaulity out of the Bible, not in actually doing critical scholarship?[/quote] Baseless claim. [quote] Christians from the 2nd century knew it was talking about homosexaulity. How does the modern stance about homosexuality apply?[/QUOTE] Source? Here's a read for you on the quotes in the New Testament (NOTE: none of them are from the Gospels) about what is perceived as homosexuality: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament[/url]

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602801]Here's a read for you on the quotes in the New Testament (NOTE: none of them are from the Gospels) about what is perceived as homosexuality: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament[/URL][/QUOTE] The apology of Aristides from the 2nd century explicitly mentions the Greek's having intercourse with men as a perversion. The quote: "Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base practises in intercourse with males, and a mother and a sister and a daughter, impute their monstrous impurity in turn to the Christians. But the Christians are just and good, and the truth is set before their eyes, and their spirit is long-suffering; and, therefore, though they know the error of these (the Greeks)" ([url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html[/url]) [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;50602801]Yes, but we're talking about Leviticus, the Old Testament.[/QUOTE] What's the point of only focusing on the Leviticus text when it's irrelevant to the Christian belief on homosexaulity? The MOST relevant verses are in the NT, not the OT. With that said, how about you provide an actual argument since you're the one making the claim that goes against general scholarship?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602804]The apology of Aristides from the 2nd century explicitly mentions the Greek's having intercourse with men as a perversion. The quote: "Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base practises in intercourse with males, and a mother and a sister and a daughter, impute their monstrous impurity in turn to the Christians. But the Christians are just and good, and the truth is set before their eyes, and their spirit is long-suffering; and, therefore, though they know the error of these (the Greeks)" ([url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html[/url])[/QUOTE] Could be more likely referring to the fact that Greek men practiced pederasty and sex slavery with men. Also this isn't even official Church doctrine or anything, just a letter to Hadrian who had a publicly known gay lover (Hadrian literally built monuments to the guy after he died) which completely changes the context. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50602804] What's the point of only focusing on the Leviticus text when it's irrelevant to the Christian belief on homosexaulity? The MOST relevant verses are in the NT, not the OT. With that said, how about you provide an actual argument since you're the one making the claim that goes against general scholarship?[/QUOTE] Because the argument is about interpretations of the Old Testament, not the Church. You're original comment was about a specific passage in Leviticus, not Church view on homosexuality.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602854]Could be more likely referring to the fact that Greek men practiced pederasty and sex slavery with men. Also this isn't even official Church doctrine or anything, just a letter to Hadrian who had a publicly known gay lover (Hadrian literally built monuments to the guy after he died) which completely changes the context.[/QUOTE] Listen, if you want to try and prove homosexuality out of the Bible, then there's nothing that can stop you, but if you want to do honest textual criticism, then there's no question that the Old and New Testaments forbid it. You asked for a source of a 2nd century Christian leader who recognized that homosexuality wasn't allowed under Christianity and I provided one for you. You want more, well here you go: Eusebius: "[B]Having forbidden[/B] all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and [B]the union of women with women and men with men[/B], he adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10)." Augustine: "[B]Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom[/B], ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15)." Those names big enough for you?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602881]Listen, if you want to try and prove homosexuality out of the Bible, then there's nothing that can stop you, but if you want to do honest textual criticism, then there's no question that the Old and New Testaments forbid it. You asked for a source of a 2nd century Christian leader who recognized that homosexuality wasn't allowed under Christianity and I provided one for you. You want more, well here you go: Eusebius: "[B]Having forbidden[/B] all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and [B]the union of women with women and men with men[/B], he adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10)." Augustine: "[B]Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom[/B], ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15)." Those names big enough for you?[/QUOTE] You're literally ignoring the point of the argument. I'm saying that Leviticus 20:13 is not necessarily about homosexuality itself and debating the fact that you deny that to even be a possibility. p.s. "Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom" does not refer to homosexuality. Sodom was overall a den of debauchery where there is dispute about which major crime was actually the focus. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Religious_views[/url] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] you're ignoring every single point i make and covering it up by bringing up new unrelated points

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602921]You're literally ignoring the point of the argument. I'm saying that Leviticus 20:13 is not necessarily about homosexuality itself and debating the fact that you deny that to even be a possibility. p.s. "Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom" does not refer to homosexuality. Sodom was overall a den of debauchery where there is dispute about which major crime was actually the focus. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Religious_views[/url][/QUOTE] You've literally provided nothing beyond a baseless assertion that some scholars don't think it's about homosexuality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602928]You've literally provided nothing beyond a baseless assertion that some scholars don't think it's about homosexuality.[/QUOTE] My point is that we in a modern historical context cannot immediately assume that a section of a text written thousands of years ago in a vastly different culture was necessarily written about an issue that is very common in present times. How is that a baseless assertion? It is merely how studies of historical texts are analyzed by [b]scholars[/b] which you seem to claim have some mysterious agenda.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602944][B]My point is that we in a modern historical context cannot immediately assume that a section of a text written thousands of years ago in a vastly different culture was necessarily written about an issue that is very common in present times.[/B] How is that a baseless assertion? It is merely how studies of historical texts are analyzed by [B]scholars[/B] which you seem to claim have some mysterious agenda.[/QUOTE] But no one is doing this? You present it as if the church just arbitrarily interpreted it that way because of their preconceived bias against homosexuality which is just laughably false. The real situation is that we have a giant amount of scholarship from the Christian, Jewish, and secular traditions that have concluded that it's referring to homosexuality on one side and a few very recent scholars with an incentive to interpret it differently on the other side.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602962]But no one is doing this? You present it as if the church just arbitrarily interpreted it that way because of their preconceived bias against homosexuality which is just laughably false. The real situation is that we have a giant amount of scholarship from the Christian, Jewish, and secular traditions that have concluded that it's referring to homosexuality on one side and a few very recent scholars with an incentive to interpret it differently on the other side.[/QUOTE] Never stated the interpretation was arbitrary. If anything it was likely intentional. But that doesn't change the fact that they are interpretations that were not contemporary with the actual creation of the text. Traditions don't equal to definite facts. I'm not denying that the text is possibly about it, but what I am stating is that is also possibly not about it.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50602984]Never stated the interpretation was arbitrary. If anything it was likely intentional. But that doesn't change the fact that they are interpretations that were not contemporary with the actual creation of the text. Traditions don't equal to definite facts. I'm not denying that the text is possibly about it, but what I am stating is that is also possibly not about it.[/QUOTE] To say that it's "possibly not about it" is meaningless. Is it likely? Is there good evidence for it? Etc. are the only questions that matter. Take a look at groups like Reformed Judaism who now accept homosexuality. Their change in belief is not based on critical scholarship or anything of the like. It's based on attempted eisegesis of the text in an attempt to conform their beliefs to modern day society.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602997]To say that it's "possibly not about it" is meaningless. Is it likely? Is there good evidence for it? Etc. are the only questions that matter. Take a look at groups like Reformed Judaism who now accept homosexuality. Their change in belief is not based on critical scholarship or anything of the like. It's based on attempted eisegesis of the text in an attempt to conform their beliefs to modern day society.[/QUOTE] Can be looked at in a sort of reverse way too. Did the passage change to reflect homosexuality when it became more important in society than pederasty? You're acting as if we can determine many facts about societies thousands of years ago and their intentions: which we cannot often pinpoint to single facts and possibilities, but rather small details and possibilities.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50603013]Can be looked at in a sort of reverse way too. Did the passage change to reflect homosexuality when it became more important in society than pederasty? You're acting as if we can determine many facts about societies thousands of years ago and their intentions: which we cannot often pinpoint to single facts and possibilities, but rather small details and possibilities.[/QUOTE] You're just appealing to ignorance. As far as I've read, the entire rabbinic tradition before the modern era was clear in its prohibition of homosexual acts.

[QUOTE=Rudevinny;50603108]Correct if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus's sacrifice free people from the laws of Old Testament? In other words, if you condemn homosexuality based on Leviticus or some other nonsense from the OT, aren't you implying Jesus died for nothing?[/QUOTE] There were some verses in the NT that said "sexual immorality" was still not to be done, which included adultery, homosexuality, etc. Jesus' sacrifice was to free people from the law as a binding contract where you had to make sacrifices to atone for your sins. At least I think, I'm not entirely sure how it relates to certain laws (such as what food you can eat) being repealed and others not.

[QUOTE=Rudevinny;50603108]Correct if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus's sacrifice free people from the laws of Old Testament? In other words, if you condemn homosexuality based on Leviticus or some other nonsense from the OT, aren't you implying Jesus died for nothing?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AbbaDee;50603180]There were some verses in the NT that said "sexual immorality" was still not to be done, which included adultery, homosexuality, etc. Jesus' sacrifice was to free people from the law as a binding contract where you had to make sacrifices to atone for your sins. At least I think, I'm not entirely sure how it relates to certain laws (such as what food you can eat) being repealed and others not.[/QUOTE] AFAIK you are both right, and both wrong. Think of it like this: You speed and get a ticket, and it's a $500 fine. Someone has to pay that. Now imagine someone came along and said "from now on, I will pay everyone's fines for them". You still get the ticket, the fine still has to be paid, you're still cleared once the fine is paid, the cost is still real, it's just that someone else paid it for you. For every sin, there is a penalty. When Jesus died, he did it to pay everyone's penalty for their sins. That's why people say that he sacrificed himself. The sins are still sins, they still have their penalties, it's just that Jesus has already paid your penalty for you. This is why we no longer go by punishments of the old testament, because Jesus died to pay all of them. Being gay isn't the sin. Gay sex is a sin, just like pre-marital sex, safe sex, and any other type of sex (including masturbation beastiality, etc.) where the intent is not reproduction. But guess what, it's no different than other minor sins that people commit every single day. The bible tells us to not judge others, but that's exactly what the congregation of the church loves to do, and they are actually committing the deadly sin of Pride by judging gays for being gay. The pope is right, full stop.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50601598]...Doesn't the Bible say that homosexuality isn't allowed and should be punished? Would saying this technically be betraying God's word?[/QUOTE] It also says you can't wear blended clothing if you want to follow every little rule there, which is the problem. Most of the anti-gay stuff of the Bible is straight cherry picking and then the rest is dogma, which can only be stopped from the top

Fucking heretic.

The title implies that he's demanding forgiveness, but the article says he's asking the church to seek forgiveness. There's a difference between asking for forgiveness, and demanding it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602678]Sorry, I'm not going to put the effort into proving that every single person who argues for that odd interpretation is wrong. Some general points would be: 1) The early church that existed IN ROME recognized it as meaning homosexuality. 2) The vast majority of top scholars recognize it as meaning homosexuality. 3) The people who argue for it not meaning homosexuality are, without fail, either non-Christian or in a denomination that already approves of homosexuality.[/QUOTE] Not gonna post evidence but we should take you seriously. Okay, yeah, trust a person on the internet with no sources.

Well, Paulus, who many consider the founder of christianity only mentioned homosexuality as a sidenote in his original letters, where he shortly writes that he agrees with his jewish brethren and find homosexuality disgusting. What mattered more for Paulus was that Christianity could be a way to solve disputes without fights or bitterness, but through time the stand on homosexuality became more important than a sidenote. Francis might be looking back to Paulus' way of viewing christianity?

[QUOTE=Swilly;50605394]Not gonna post evidence but we should take you seriously. Okay, yeah, trust a person on the internet with no sources.[/QUOTE] Funny that you say this about the guy who has provided sources and not the guy on the other side who hasn't provided anything but vague doubts.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50602579]Honestly, this just shows that you're totally ignorant about what you're talking about. There are two words used for killing in the Hebrew used in the OT, one for illegal killing like manslaughter and murder, and one for legal killing like in war or as punishment. The 10 commandments uses the former. It's really too bad that we have this misunderstanding simply because the KJV translators used the work "kill" instead of "murder" like it should have been and is in modern versions.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, killing a human being is murder, no matter what "justifications" you tack on to it.