Really moved by reaction of faithful to the Pope.

[bamboostalks]

Realise that there is a huge amount of negativity and vitriol on here atm with regards to the Pope's visit. However mumsnet is for all and there are plenty of Catholics who are pleased to see him here. This is a thread to celebrate this. I was really moved at the reaction of people in Glasgow yesterday. It was so emotional to see the babies hepd up for his blessing, he really did radiate a serene presence. Love his message as well, it is time to be proud to be a Christian. Hope all those going to see him have a fantastic time.

FBM; I'm just giving you my view on things, everyone feels differntly. I know when I walk into my church I feel at home, safe if you like. I couldn't sit there every sunday knowing I didn't agree with it all - I have enough to deal with (turmoil wise) without putting myself through more. I accept no religion is going to please everyone, that's too much to ask. And yes, with regards to our own personal grief..(if someone we love dies young for example ) it's very hard to make sense of it. but we have to.

FreddoBaggyMac, god could have made it clear from the start that he didn't mean it when he said gay people were to be put to death.

Think of all the gay people beaten to death in alleyways because he didn't bother.

Anyone who has beaten someone to death in an alleyway in the name of God is just a lunatic using God as an excuse for their actions imo.

Any form of suffering and persecution is by its very nature not a good thing. We all have to suffer in our lives at one time or another and it's the way we face it as individuals that can be a good or bad thing I think. As a Christian, I could never look at a dying child and say 'That's good' obviously. But I could look at their courage and dignity and be amazed and humbled by it and hope that I could behave in that way myself when the time comes. The death of the former Pope was a good example of that I think.

The bible instructs us to kill homosexuals. All good, decent, moral, god fearing people must kill any gay person they meet and down the centuries thousands have.

On the other matter, DP just explained that god allows suffering because it helps christians with their faith. She is not the first christian to say that. Perhaps you could explain to her and them where they have gone wrong.

i am very shocked to read that explanation, onagar, i have never heard that before in my life. apols if any of my posts read like a hate campaign btw, that's not really how i feel tbh, it just goes very deep when someone whose views i really find despicable uses 'my' faith to shore them up, iykwim? it feels like a tremendous insult to family, friends, everything really...

It's 'my' faith aswell....you don't own the catholic church.

Aitch I wasn't referring to this thread at all when I said hate campaign - I've only read the last few posts anyway. Nor was I thinking of any particular poster. Just that DP seemed to get a lot of stick these last few months when she is no worse that a lot of others. I still think her opinions are a load of fetid dingo's kidneys and I'm not letting her marry my daughter :o

I don't believe that you, Daftpunk or Freddy would let anyone suffer for their sake IRL. Most religious people (and most non religious) are just ordinary people doing their best to get by.

I just don't like to see ideas like that passed on as though they were reasonable.

onagar.....there's no question of me marrying your daughter...I'm 100% heterosxual!

that is rubbish onager. It does not ask us to kill homosexuals at all. It is very difficult arguing these kind of points with someone who has as much grasp on theology as a...well, not much grasp at all.

and the paradox of suffering central to human life is considered and debated endlessly amongst theologians and philososphers alike. It can hardly be explained away by someone whose views more often mirror those of the Daily Mail.

Onagar, the old testament tells us to do all kinds of strange things which I think anyone with any sense knows should not be followed to the letter. Current teaching by the catholic church regarding homosexuality is "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (Catechism 2358). So I would say anyone physically attacking someone because they are homosexual wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they used the catholic Church as an excuse for their behaviour.

I am a Christian and base my beliefs on the message of Jesus Christ, and I don't think anyone could reasonably have beaten anyone to death in accordance with what Jesus taught! I completely agree that acting in accordance with everything the old testament says could easily lead to some very evil doings...but Jesus came (2000 years ago) to put an end to that imo.

And (surprise, surprise) I do not agree that God allows suffering to help christians with their faith. God created a world without suffering, suffering was caused by original sin, ie. humans giving in to temptation. And before anyone says it I am NOT saying that individual people who suffer have brought it on themselves or deserve it. Just that a long time ago humans decided that they would go their own way rather than follow God's will for us (which is to make us truly happy and bring us to eternal life with Him)... and suffering is the consequence of that... phew, have covered a lot in that paragraph!

DAFTPUNK. Please look over at the politics section, I'm wondering when you are going to return to the forum, rhyming with pistol of course! I also thought the Pope was great and was very glad to see him here.

POFAKKEDDthechair I think Onagar is referring to: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 ). THIS IS NOT THE VIEW OF CATHOLICS!!!!! I am just quoting it to show what Onagar was referring to in the old testament... a lot of which (including this) Jesus said was completely WRONG!!

complimentary;

you've got mail.

Have just been looking it up and found interestingly enough that Leviticus is written specifically for the children of Israel, containing laws and rules for Israel to obey as they prepare to occupy the land of Canaan.
?The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, [the Jewish nation] who are all of us here alive this day.? Deu 5:3.
?This day? was around 1450 BC, when Moses originally wrote the Law that God gave him on Mt. Sinai for the nation of Israel.

Therefore the quote above from Leviticus is not at all relevant to Christians (or even Jews in the present day for that matter). You could very easily argue that it was unfair to people in 1450BC but to be honest I'm not here to enter that debate!

Also, Onagar, please be aware that I'm not actually saying that scientific discoveries would change church teaching in any way. I am merely saying that if we knew the facts for sure it MIGHT be easier for the Church to justify its position.

Yep Freddo, I know which bit Onager was referring to, and you've sort of answered it with you second post
Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God, spefically, rituals the priests should enact within the temples. There were apparently ritual same-sex stuff and prostitution going on in pagan temples, so the Hebrews were instructed to behave differently to set themselves apart from the pagans. Also, many theologians believe the translation and lack of understanding of the cultural environment of the time is responsible for misunderstanding this passage, and translate it this way 'men should not lie down together in the beds of women...' Many of the laws in Leviticus are about keeping certain things separated, not mixing certain things, so you couldn't make a cloth out of two different materials, you couldn't mix two crops in the same field. so it can be argued that Leviticus say you should not be promiscuous, and you should not bring a male lover back to your wife's bed. This may seem odd to us now, but in terms of the cultural environment, it makes sense.

Christ came to amend quite a lot of stuff from the Old Testament for this very reason.

Thanks Pofa, that's interesting and you certainly know your stuff. I suppose Onagar was technically right in saying that the Bible tells people to kill homosexuals though, it's just NOT a bit of the bible that is relevant to us and we are not the people it's referring to. It's good that it has been pointed out I think as I very much doubt that many people would read it knowing the background behind it that you've just described.

No it doesn't tell people to kill homosexuals. The King James translation tells people to do that which is very telling. It can be translated in a variety of ways according to one's own agenda, but it requires a knowledge of the cultural environment in which it was created and linguistic understanding of the nuances of the original language, [for example 'abomination' is not a direct translation of the Hebrew, which does not use the word 'zimah' meaning sin, but rather a word that means 'ritually unclean'.] none of which many translations have.

OK, so the King James translation tells us that - Onagar's point was still a valid one I think, just so this could be made clear. I know very little about the OT and find what you say very interesting. I do remember reading a long time ago about a confusion in the translation of 'pain' and 'toil' in respect of woman's experience of childbirth which I found pretty interesting... it seems we're not really sure whether God said it's supposed to hurt or just be really hard work (I suppose it's actually both for most people anyway ) - anyway that's completely irrelevant and off topic (but it has always stuck in my mind!!)

hence the '', dp. i was trying to express something rather personal.

Daftpunk, I know you wouldn't really want to marry my daughter. :)

POFAKKEDDthechair, calm down. You may not want it to be there, but it is and it's not news. It is pretty much common knowledge that it says it. For that matter it's the basis surely for the whole homophobia aspect of religion.

You can argue that the translation is wrong if you like, but then you have to ask why the church is against it in the first place.

You can also argue that it was meant for the jews only, but it would still be your god telling people that it was right to kill gay people. That's the same creater. Jesus's dad or jesus himself depending on how you interpret the whole trinity thing.

It would still be the passage used as justification for homophobia in the real world. The source if you like of the poison.

As for translations here are a few to be going on with. I'm sure there are lots more.

ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."

ESV: (English Standard Version): "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."

HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "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 shall be upon them."

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves."

NIV: (New International Version) "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."

NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

onagar, to be honest I think if you looked hard enough in the OT you could find something that everyone of us 'should' be put to death for. That Bible quote simply is not relevant to modern catholics where as the catechism quote: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" IS relevant.

Freddo, I don't for one minute think most christians want to kill all gay people. It's not even all christians that want them treated as animals or criminals. Even most of those who speak strongly against them would probably not be nasty in everyday life.

The whole "we don't do that now since jesus changed the rules" has a huge hole in it when you remember that god is eternal and so it's the same god up there who thought killing gay people was a nice idea. (and 100s of other atrocities)

Oh and I'm aware that there are lots of other rules in Leviticus that are not observed. It's usually me pointing that out and asking why they are forgotten when this one is still remembered. I guess people like this one better.

Can you suggest another part of the bible that explains the distaste for gay people if it didn't originate there. As far as I can see it's this passage that became the institutional hatred. The course of events is not often discussed as usually someone says "of course homosexuality is wrong. Anyone can see that"

Someone has explained to you that it's not an instruction manual, right?