When the Pope wears rainbow crosses and arm bands at international Catholic events, should we not all follow suit during Holy Mass as a sign of solidarity with LGBT?

I think the Pope and all Christians should love LGBT people in the way that Jesus loved people.

Jesus loved people who committed sins, even sexual sins, but always said go and sin no more, not define yourself by this sin

But no 'buts', Jesus loved these people and instructed that we should love too. Jesus is in a position to say go and sin no more, we are not in that holy position, Jesus taught that we should take the plank out of our own eye instead of pointing out the splinter in another person's eye.

I think the Pope and all Christians should love LGBT people in the way that Jesus loved people.

But no 'buts', Jesus loved these people and instructed that we should love too. Jesus is in a position to say go and sin no more, we are not in that holy position,

Jesus taught that we should take the plank out of our own eye instead of pointing out the splinter in another person's eye.

You mean with millstones (Mt 18 6) and lashing (Jn 2 15)?

No, he said that we should take the plank out of our own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person's eye.

No, with loving kindness. Matthew 18:6 and John 2:15 have absolutely nothing to do with LGBT people. It surprises me that you would want to misrepresent and pervert the loving message of Jesus in this way.

Have you ever done that, taken the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person's eye? Do you know of anyone who has ever done that?

It's clear to me that the point Jesus was making was that we should not arrogantly condemn others as if we are better than them. I know I'm not better than LGBT people. If we wish to correct others we should do so with kindness, understanding and humility. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Have you ever done that, taken the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the splinter in another person's eye? Do you know of anyone who has ever done that?

It's clear to me that the point Jesus was making was that we should not arrogantly condemn others as if we are better than them. I know I'm not better than LGBT people. If we wish to correct others we should do so with kindness, understanding and humility. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

No, with loving kindness. Matthew 18:6 and John 2:15 have absolutely nothing to do with LGBT people. It surprises me that you would want to misrepresent and pervert the loving message of Jesus in this way.

Unbelievable that you're making accusations like this and not getting called on them.

Admins is this acceptable? Is Jack3's post truly a misrepresentation and a perversion of 'the loving message of Jesus'?
I really think these kind of posts need to be addressed; because for Catholicism 101 that's a pretty bold claim to make a member of this board.

Unbelievable that you're making accusations like this and not getting called on them.

Admins is this acceptable? Is Jack3's post truly a misrepresentation and a perversion of 'the loving message of Jesus'?
I really think these kind of posts need to be addressed; because for Catholicism 101 that's a pretty bold claim to make a member of this board.

So, what are examples of being kind or unkind to LGBT people?

I really just don't know what the problem is.

The bible says that if homosexuals have a sexual relationship they are an abomination and should be put to death.

So maybe that's the problem.

I had a sexual relationship outside of marriage and if anyone said I am an abomination and should be put to death, I would certainly regard that as unkind, to put it mildly. Wouldn't you?

The act is an abomination not the persons.

The laws of ancient Israel which proscribed legal penalties for certain actions were the laws of a particular nation at a particular time; they did not carry into the New Convenant.

It would be very unkind of us to not call your sin abominable because if we did not truthfully warn you about it we would be a disservice to you.

As Jesus said "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"

Why is what I did worse than the sins you commit? Would you think it unkind of people not to tell you that the things you do, which they think are sins, are an abomination?

Why is what I did worse than rich people having more than enough wealth and keeping more than they need and not giving it to the poor? Do you tell rich people that holding onto their wealth is an abomination? Maybe you do, but most Catholics don't.

If it's the homosexual act that's an abomination and not the person, why was the person put to death? You say the laws changed but did attitudes change? It's a long way from putting homosexuals to death to treating them with love and kindness, compassion and mercy. Yet some Catholics have said God's laws can never change, such as in regard to divorced people and adultery and communion. So I don't understand.

Maybe for a variety of reasons, they are not worse than the sins I commit. For one, I know more by virtue of having learned about the Catholic faith, so I certainly am not ignorant when I sin.

But the nature of sodomy cries out to heaven for vengeance, because like the other sins of that nature it tends to threaten either the human race directly, or threaten the means by which the human race can be preserved (reproduction)


If you're comparing yourself to other sinners you're not going to get very far along the road to heaven.



God's law (morals) can not change, the judicial precepts of the law (the punishments and legal processes of Israel) were never put forth as eternal.

The person was put to death because they broke the law, at the time it was a crime, and under the legal code they were punished accordingly.

The point of 'an eye for an eye' was to place strict limits on retaliation.

Before the Mosaic law was imposed, the rule was the rule of revenge, I kill one member of your family, so you retaliate by killing every member of my family, or even every member of my tribe. So, in retaliation for one death, the penalty be the death of dozens of people.

Under the Mosaic law, this was forbidden. If I kill one member of your family, you don't have the right to slaughter 150 people in response, rather you can only kill ONE person, and even then, you could only kill the one person who was responsible, you can't just kill any random person.

One life in exchange for one life, not 150 or 1500 lives in exchange for one life, which is the way that it was before the Mosaic law.

The principle of 'an eye for an eye' places limits on retaliation, you are only owed exactly as much as what was taken from you, not more.

That's the point of the rule.

when you do the study of it, you come to see that, by the standards of their time, the laws of Moses were extremely progressive and defied the moral standards of their time.

An excellent example of this are the laws describing the treatment of female prisoners taken during war. According to the moral standards of Israel's neighbors, there was nothing wrong with murdering a woman's entire family and gang-raping her over and over until she was dead. But this is not allowed under the law of Moses. Instead, you are supposed to give her 30 days to mourn the loss of her family, shave her head completely a sign of mourning, and then marry her, and once you marry her, you are not allowed to divorce her ever and if you abuse or mistreat her, you have to set her free to return her hometown if she wishes to.

I've seen many internet atheists (who aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer) complain about how this practice is 'barbaric', and maybe by the standards of our time, it is, but it was a dramatic moral improvement over the standards of the time and was incredibly sensitive and compassionate. And I don't think modern people understand the significance of shaving her head, which would not only be a sign of her mourning but would also make her significantly less attractive, and perhaps make one have second thoughts about whether he really wanted to marry her. And forbidding divorce means that once a man marries a female captive, he becomes responsible for her forever, he can't just use her for sex for a couple months and then toss her aside, leaving her with no means of support leaving her homeless and possibly starving, and may have to turn to prostitution to survive.

And you don't realize just how progressive these ideas were unless you read Leviticus in depth and several commentaries on it.