• 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 Tells Gay Man: ‘God Made You Like This and Loves You Like This’

Clearly you can not as you do not understand what was said by me.
Nor does it appear you understand what is actually written in the Bible.

The abomination is not in being gay, it is the acting on being gay that would be the abomination.


Leviticus 18 and 20 | Wikipedia


Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]





Wrong as usual (see Leviticus above), and just more false assertions. Figures. This bs you are spewing about hatred, lack of facts and arrogance, is nothing but your projection.


Fact: According to the Bible acting on that gayness is an abomination. That has nothing to do with the imagined hate and arrogance you falsely assert.

Ah, so in your arrogance you completely disregard the New Testament. Figures. I get that you think your hatred makes you more important than God, but here’s the thing—- he explicitly despises people who think and act like you. Or did you forget the numerous denunciations of the Sadducees and Pharisees?

No, actually your entire argument is based on a minor part of the Old Testament which advocates violating the Ten Commandments(what part of “thou shalt not kill” is so hard for you lot to grasp?) Literally the entire New Testament is a rejection of your message.
 
Yes, all definitions and concepts have various levels of standards and norms.
And let me guess... You believe your standard or the standard to which you adhere is the standard you measure everything against.

The problem is your standard is arbitrary.

How is this difficult for you to understand?
Why do you depend on me not understanding?

We accept this as true, day in and day out, for so many things but somehow here it's just baffling you.
Is it really baffling me or do you simply wish that to be the case? Just because intellectually lazy people accept the way answer doesn't mean it isn't so. And just because I question everything doesn't mean I'm baffled or that I don't understand.

To come back to your "no true Scotsman" fallacy...I would counter with, if you weren't born in Scotland, have no Scottish lineage, and don't have Scottish citizenship, then you're not a Scotsman.
It seems you don't understand this fallacy. As it goes. A scotsman says "no scotsman puts sugar on his porrage." And another Scottish person says "I am a Scotsman and I put sugar on my porrage." And the first one says "no True scotsman puts sugar on his porrage."

What the original Scotsman is doing is defining Scotsman by his own opinion and if Scotsmen don't share it he simply redefines it by his opinion.

That's exactly what you are doing with Christianity yippy are mixing some strawman fallacies into it as well.

Even that fallacy is based on the premise that there is a standard, and that is that you are actually Scottish.
No it isn't the standard is based on whether or not you do what the person making the fallacy says is the measure of a true Scotsman.

Again, the DPRK is not a republic nor a democracy, despite them naming themselves that.
So if I split that logic somethings could say that you aren't a Christian.
 
No, but eating shellfish is/was before Jesus Christ came...he fulfilled/ended that law...

Nah. Paul/Saul made up a new religion and said that the converts to his religion don't have to follow it. A very clear indication he was not brought up Jewish.
 
It is a fact however that homosexuals have more sex then heterosexuals

Ooh, someone's jealous.

But really, we have as much sex as straight people do. And people like me, who have sex quite a bit, are perfectly fine, well-adjusted individuals.
 
Sinning is fun.

The Pope still loves you. :)

Listen between you and me I think this Pope is trying to up church enrollment on Sundays. IF he really loved the sinner he would say that he believes gay sex, gay marriage are also loving acts.
I am RC but I part with them totally when it comes to their position on Gay marriage, and Gay sex and so do many other Roman Catholics.
 
Too late to use the edit function, so I will correct the word above to reflect.... Change the word sinner to sin.

No, it isn't his business to hate the sin. Hating the sin is for God to do. Your purpose is to live the sinner and since the pope is just another man it's his purpose too. Let God hate what he hates. And one should focus on one's self. Your and everybody else's salvation is not based on how right someone is.
 
And let me guess... You believe your standard or the standard to which you adhere is the standard you measure everything against.

The problem is your standard is arbitrary.

Many things are arbitrary. I don't see you mounting a crusade against the dictionary because it has specific meaning for so many words and concepts.

Why do you depend on me not understanding?

Is it really baffling me or do you simply wish that to be the case? Just because intellectually lazy people accept the way answer doesn't mean it isn't so. And just because I question everything doesn't mean I'm baffled or that I don't understand.

Yes, it's baffling to you. I can tell by your responses and that you do not struggle so mightily to have no meaning to the multitude of words you type in response to me yet you struggle to find any coherent meaning or central concepts in the word "Christianity".

It seems you don't understand this fallacy. As it goes. A scotsman says "no scotsman puts sugar on his porrage." And another Scottish person says "I am a Scotsman and I put sugar on my porrage." And the first one says "no True scotsman puts sugar on his porrage."

What the original Scotsman is doing is defining Scotsman by his own opinion and if Scotsmen don't share it he simply redefines it by his opinion.

And I'm pointing out that your position goes well beyond the no true Scotsman fallacy because your position is that there is no such thing as a Scotsman.

So if I split that logic somethings could say that you aren't a Christian.

People can say what they like, but they are free to be wrong as well.
 
Ooh, someone's jealous.

But really, we have as much sex as straight people do. And people like me, who have sex quite a bit, are perfectly fine, well-adjusted individuals.

They can't handle the dilemma, their god is perfect, but he creates imperfect gay people, and needs his followers to condemn the mistake he made while still praying to him. Sounds like their god is pretty confused and messed up and has some sort of messiah complex. It is pretty sad to see all the hate spewed by the people that don't get the part about loving one another though...
 
No, it isn't his business to hate the sin. Hating the sin is for God to do. Your purpose is to live the sinner and since the pope is just another man it's his purpose too. Let God hate what he hates. And one should focus on one's self. Your and everybody else's salvation is not based on how right someone is.

You misunderstand the role of the Pope....
Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the church unerringly.

https://www.gotquestions.org/pope-papacy.html
 
Many things are arbitrary. I don't see you mounting a crusade against the dictionary because it has specific meaning for so many words and concepts.
No, the dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive. The dictionary isn't the arbiter of what words mean. It simply is an explanation of how words are used in common parlance. And it is constantly being updated.



Yes, it's baffling to you. I can tell by your responses and that you do not struggle so mightily to have no meaning to the multitude of words you type in response to me yet you struggle to find any coherent meaning or central concepts in the word "Christianity".
Alas, I am no match for your crystal ball. It isn't that you feel threatened by others with different views that you can't explain away. They are all just confused, you can tell. Sure.



And I'm pointing out that your position goes well beyond the no true Scotsman fallacy because your position is that there is no such thing as a Scotsman.
Because I disagree with your definition of a "true" Scotsman.



People can say what they like, but they are free to be wrong as well.
Yes everybody that disagrees with you is wrong.

Standard narcissistic nihilistic attempts to dominate others in the conversation.

The problem is you have no authority and every attempt you make to exert it is laughable.
 
There are a number of web sites that when people go to for theological answers, it immediately discredits them, because of the reliability of that source.

So then, it's up to you to put your money where your mouth is and prove that my quote is wrong.
Good luck with that.
 
So then, it's up to you to put your money where your mouth is and prove that my quote is wrong.
Good luck with that.

I don't have to. I will point out it's conclusion is just confirmation bias and pure opinion, rather than fact.
 
The pope is just a figure head. I dding but the bologna the catholic church made up about the pope. The pope has no authority to speak for God. I reject ex cathedra.

Peter had no successors. The Catholic church made that up in the second century.

Sorry but you are wrong.
According to the RC church's teachings, the Pope is infallible.
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
 
I don't have to. I will point out it's conclusion is just confirmation bias and pure opinion, rather than fact.

Nonsense. It's RC doctrine. You are not obligated to believe in it either.
 
WTF? What does alcoholism have to do with being gay? Do you think all gays are alcoholics or something?

They have to equate it to some sort of addiction. I have sen it before. It can't be what we suspect it is because then their beliefs are wrong and they know that.

Their ignorance and pigheadedness is protected by denial.

If they are forced to reevaluate their beliefs their world might be shattered.

I was there once. Completely owned by a sect of religion terrified that if the slightest chip in the weak enamel holding together "my beliefs" (meaning the ones I held through indoctrination.) Some religions tell you not to talk about it with others because their indoctrination is often easily disproven. This is how cults form.

This isn't argument to convey a message or understand anything, it isn't even to help you as they sometimes claim (how selfless lol.) It is insecurity, often used to dominate others in conversation so as to reaffirm their beliefs.
 
I don't know what that Pope was drinking, but he's as far out in left field as someone in his position could possibly be. He's also apparently Biblically ignorant.

Let's review what God and the Bible actually say about homosexual sin:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

And for those who would argue that Jesus never spoke out about gay sex, there's the following:

Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Leviticus law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.

There's no approval of gay sex or gay marriage in either the Old or New Testaments.

Finally, the Pope should be warning actively gay men and women to repent and turn from their sin, or perish (Luke 13:3).

What you have there is proscriptions from Levitcus, most of which are ignored by christians as being for Jews only or no longer valid, and a few letters written by that old sinner Paul explaining his opinions.
Nothing about Jesus.
 
Are you concerned that God will strike you down should you spell out the word god?

So basically, let's get this straight. God creates someone, and since they are gay, he obviously created them gay. However, he considers homosexuality an abomination, and thus while he created someone that was only attracted emotionally and physically to their own sex, he wants them spend a lifetime repressing that attraction, and thus forgoing the happiness of finding someone that love and are attracted to, so they will not be an abomination before him. Thus their cross to bear as it were.

This sort of god you have created for yourself is pretty sadistic. I guess that is what happens when one gets their morality from 2500 year old, largely illiterate, very tribal, bronze age desert tribes.

One point of contention: B.C.E. Jews were not illiterate, at least not the male ones. Literacy has been a mandatory aspect of the Jewish religion for as long as it has existed.

This is largely the reason why they're so overrepresented among the wealthy and among Nobel Prize recipients; the entire ethnic group has been encouraging their kids toward academic success and higher education for going on three millennia.
 
That's exactly what I said. God supposedly gives someone a same sex attraction and they are only sexually and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex, but he says "I gave you this, but I don't want you to act on it ever. I want you to either live a celibate life or live in a sham marriage with a women you will never be sexually attracted to. I did this simply because I like to **** with people, and I enjoy some of my creation getting to live miserable self loathing lives. Even though I did this to you, if you act or don't love me, I will cast you into hell where you will endure an eternity of the worst torment imaginable."

Little known fact: Hell is a mistranslation of four words: sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The first two are terms for the grave/afterlife in general, the third was used exactly once to describe where God held the rebellious angels until he sentenced them, and the fourth is a valley in Israel that was used to burn garbage during Jesus's time. Only sheol appears in the Torah.

Every description of Hell as a place of fire, coincidentally enough, is correlated with a Gehenna mistranslation.
 
Back
Top Bottom