The Pope is coming to UK to campaign against equality: Does this make him a respectable leader of faith or a bigot?

[Strix]

What do you think?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

BadgersPaws - I beg to differ - the Bible does indeed 'clearly state' that homosexuality is wrong.

Also I'm afraid your argument is also missing the point - The Pope is not actually speaking out against homosexuality per se, he simply does not wish it to be flaunted in Catholic schools, much as he also wouldn't want adultery, murder etc flaunted in them.

Can I ask the catholics here if they think it is ok to pick and choose which of the catechism you adhere to abd if the catholic church 'allows' this selection or if they are suggesting you live by them all?Thanks x

I can't find it either. Can you give us chapter and verse, sasa?

Genesis 18-19 describe the destruction of Sodom.

Yes it does - I'm assuming you're using the KJV? Where does it accuse them of laying with men or women of the same sex. It says know them, which can be interprated in a number of ways. The classical jewish texts stress the lack of hospitality for the destruction. Seems a bit much for being rude imo, they apparently also commited economic crimes/blasphemy etc.

However, if you're going to go with Flavius Josephus version I think you're doing the Jewish faith a diservice, it was their book first. I think Whiston has a lot to answer for here.

VeryTiredSpellVPoorTiggaxx

I asked a question and were extremly patronising, do you understand? it was you that used the political arena for example and then told me when I continued was told it that it was not a good idea.

Then you come back and say oh I sense hostility

If you join religion and dont like the leader or what they represent that is up to you.

People will question that choice - that is not hostile it was a genuine question.

I am I suppose questioning what is dear to you and that can not be easy - I have no bone to pick with you.

fingers on lips everybody, I think BadgersPaws has it!

"If you quit then what would you do? Join another party those ideals you may not adhere to? Who are just as corrupt? Or would you just not vote? If the Labour Party still reflected your ideals at heart, but you could see that the leader and his cohorts were adding new rules and regulations that you didn't agree with, would it not be better to protest and shout? Gather others and stage mass protests? Tell the world that not all Labour supporters are bigots?"

I'd be quite curious to see if there were mass protests against the Pope when he visits....

Protesting and shouting would be the first point of call.

However in the end if it continued I would have to go.

I might well call myself "labour" but I would no longer fund the main party and through doing so actually help it achieve it's goals.

Maybe this will drive the Catholic Church to a schism, as the issue of gay clergy might bring to the Anglican Church.

Topher40:
Certainly.

Two Angels are visiting Sodom and are in the house of Lot with him. The sodomites all gather outside.

"They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people without exception. Calling out to Lot they said 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.
Lot came out to them at the door, and having shut the door behind him said 'Please, brothers, do not be wicked. Look, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to these men since they are under the protection of my roof'"

After rescuing Lot from the townspeople, the Angewls tell Lot to get himself and his family out of the town as God is about to punish them. The city is then destroyed, along with everyone in it.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps the Romans or Corinthian verses are a little more explicit.

Where the hell did you get that from??

"Also I'm afraid your argument is also missing the point - The Pope is not actually speaking out against homosexuality per se, he simply does not wish it to be flaunted in Catholic schools, much as he also wouldn't want adultery, murder etc flaunted in them."

But that's just it, the Pope is happy to follow the law with adulterers and murderers. For some reason he only wants to ignore the law when it comes to homosexuals.

I'll leave to one side the question of whether a gay cleaner would "flaunt" their sexuality.....

Sorry - the Bible I'm using is 'The New Jerusalem Bible'

Sasa - please don't think I mean this in a patronising manner, but you do know that the original text has been reinterpreted several times since inception and as understanding of the original language grows?

Hullygully, I do know this of course but it's my understanding that current Bibles are probably far more accurate than a lot of the older ones such as Tyndale's bible or even the King James which was written as deliberately archaic in order to add grandeur.

This particular Bible is seen to be pretty accurate and includes all 13 books of the apocrypha which are absent in many Bibles since they were removed at the reformation for some unfathomable reason. I think I'll look up the New International one as well...

"Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them."

I think it's the New Jerusalem Bible of the bible that uses the word "intercourse" in that verse.

This is a Catholic Bible first published in 1985 and was translated from a French text and not directly from any "original" Hebrew or Greek text.

The more "usual" phrase is "know them" and not "have intercourse with them".

I don't know if it was the French translator or the NJB's editor who decided, in all their wisdom, that "know" means "intercourse".

OK the New International Version (used by a lot of modern Christians) uses the phrase:
"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them"

Badgerspaw - which Bibles quote 'know' then?
Yes the Jerusalem is a Catholic Bible but there are several which are translated like this.
Which Bible do you deem accurate?

not actually speaking out against homosexuality per se, he simply does not wish it to be flaunted in Catholic schools, much as he also wouldn't want adultery,

Haven't we knocked this 'flaunting' nonsense on the head yet? No teacher should flaunt their sexuality in front of the pupils, be it homosexual or heterosexual. So there's no need to have special discrimination. Normal rules pertaining to professional conduct are all that's required.

Shall I warn you that I have studied linguistics?

Also, the sodomites sin was not one of homosexuality but one of lack of hospitality. The better translation (though not a good one at that) is "Bring them out so we may 'know' them"

Interesting that Lot, who offered his daughters to be raped, is not the baddy in the story In desert communities, hospitality was one of the basics of society. Desert wanders needed to know that there would be water and shelter when they came to a community. By wanting to eject them from the town, the sodomites were guilty of violating the most basic of their society's structures, hence the punishment sent down form God (or an earthquake if you are not of the spiritual bent )

Slug - Lot was not offering his daughters to be raped as he knew that they would not desire his daughters.
Why do you think that 'know' is a better translation?

So a small proportion of the people from Sodom asked Lot if they could get it on with a couple of angels. But no actual angelic bumsex happened (are angels even physically capable of taking it up the wrong'un?) And in response God nuked the site from orbit and killed damn near everyone.

Wow. Bit of a disproportionate response, no?

It also raises the thought that maybe what got God's knickers in a bunch and caused Him to throw a major hissy fit was less the alleged homosexuality than premeditated rape...

Who funds the church? We are obliged to give them 10% of our salary you know...

IvyKaty, sorry I misinterpreted the rather brisk manner of your questions as hostility, I do apologise.

Yes it will be interesting to see what protests there are when the Pope visits. I do believe there is an active group of catholic homosexuals, they were interviewed once, wish I could remember them. But these are the people we need in the church - and more of them.

I did give a link further down the thread on Bible and homosexuality which does not say that the Bible is homophobic AT ALL.

"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

The actual Hebrew word used in that sentence is the word "know", quite literally.

However that is sometimes used as a euphemism for sex.

To put that in context though the word appears nearly 1000 times in the Hebrew scriptures.

It's used as a euphemism perhaps a dozen times, let's call that 1%.

So when translating that verse do you use the proper Hebrew translation?

Or do you replace it with a euphemism of that Hebrew word that appears to only have been intended in about 1 in a 100 of that words appearances.

Is it coincidence that a recently edited Catholic Bible, that is not a direct translation anyway, chooses to decide that it knows that in that one sentence the euphemism is meant.

Why not directly translate and let the readers make their own mind up as to what is meant?

The original Hebrew writers obviously trusted their readers enough to use the word "know".

Does the editor of that 1985 Bible claim to know better?

So what we seem to be saying is it is open to interpretation as to what is exactly meant. I for one find it hard to believe that the original text of the Bible used the words intercourse or sex.

Just in case...... I was kidding about the 10% bit, you never know with you lot!