Anti-gay pastor is gay shocker...(ethics of the violating support group confidence)

gulf wrote: »

They're both sexual perversions. All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond the intention to procreate is sinful.

So no, the church does not specifically target homosexuals like certain homosexual groups like to think (or at least that's what they tell their members). The teachings are very clear: get married and be fruitful. If you wish to live as a bachelor, you should remain chaste and spend what would otherwise be family time, doing charitable works. If you've a calling from God, you should become a priest or join a religious order.

According to scriptures one of Christ's closest friends was a prostitute. He did not condemn her. Yet strangely many years later, the church deems that unmarried Christians must be chaste, and it condemns extra-marital sex.

Gandhi once said (I don't have the exact quote, so I'm paraphrasing) - I admire your Christ, but not your Christians, because they are so unlike your Christ. I think he made an excellent point.


Be at peace,

Z

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Whether the Pastor is trying not to be gay or not is neither here nor there. He IS gay, and this is against the rules of his religion. So intentionally or not, he is being hypocritical. He can not train himself not to be gay, but he can still train himself to be celibate should he wish.

You cannot 'treat' homosexuality like an addiction, so these 'groups' are completely nonsensical anyway IMO.

He is not being hypocritical, the thing he criticises is homosexual behaviour. Unless you can prove that he was referring to just be gay, which there is considerable evidence against, ye need to stop using the word hypocritical.

The word means an inconsistency with what you say and what you do. The only instance of this in the article is where he says he was on holidays or something and was weak. Even then, it wouldn't be that hypocritical, because of what people said about alcoholics who say alcohol is bad and relapse.

However you feel about how bad he is or whatever, it's not hypocritical, unless he was saying it about just being gay, which is ridiculous and probably not true. But the word does not apply otherwise, so if you want him to be hypocritical you need to argue that point. Not any others.

Religious people can "treat" homosexual urges with prayers just like priests can "treat" their heterosexual urges when they take a vow of celibacy. But Lutherans do not necessarily take a vow of celibacy, which suggests that his criticisisms are based around action

gulf wrote: »

What scripture would that be? Methinks you've been spending far too much time perusing the top-10 section of your local bookstore. The Bible is free, you have to pay for a Dan Brown best-seller.

Mark 16:9

Luke 8:2 & 8:3

The reference to "seven devils" is commonly understood to refer to the seven deadly sins, including lust/fornication. My description of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute is in keeping with the RC Church's views of her.

Never read Dan Brown, not a fan of fiction.


Be at peace,


Z

Well if you bothered to go beyond the single story posted here you'd find out a little more about this issue...

MINNEAPOLIS — A Lutheran pastor ardently critical of allowing gays into the clergy is on leave from his Minneapolis church after a gay magazine reported his attendance at a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction.

Church officials, however, said Wednesday that the Rev. Tom Brock likely will return to the pulpit at Hope Lutheran Church because he acted in accordance with his faith by attending the group.

A fixture on local cable access shows, Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy. Lavender Magazine published a story last week about Brock's quiet attendance of the Faith in Action meetings, written by a reporter who falsely posed as a member of the group.

"The fact that he said one thing publicly, and privately he's a homosexual — that's somewhat inconsistent," said Lavender president Stephen Rocheford.

"This company has a policy not to out people. The one exception is a public figure who says one thing and does another."

The Lavender article never explicitly said Brock confessed to homosexual activity.
It quotes him at one point talking about a recent mission trip to Eastern Europe, of which he says, "I fell into temptation. I was weak."

Hope Lutheran's executive pastor, the Rev. Tom Parrish, said when confronted with the article, Brock "simply said he indeed has been attending this Christian group, both going there and being honest about temptations he has, and is being held accountable so he never would do anything with that temptation."
Here

I hope that explains things a bit better seeing as you didn't bother to check the earlier link.

This is a democracy, and all views should be open to reasoned debate. Instead he attacked the messenger, which is the lowest and cheapest form of journalism. So what if the pastor is being hypocritical?? Indeed the article doesn't even confirm that he is a hypocrite, merely that he himself has gay tendencies.

No, something a lot lower than exposing a hypocrite is hating who you are, telling others not to be like you, criticizing an institution that allows people like you to join and then going to secret meetings to try to purge yourself of that which you hate, yourself, while maintaining the facade of being normal...

No matter how many times you guys repeat yourselves saying "it's not hypocrisy" it wont change the fact that it is.

This isn't religion, logic is unfortunately involved, and if you need to reread my arguments to see why it makes sense and why all of these rebuttals mean nothing go beat yourself up, but raah I already took great care to explain to you how this was hypocrisy, even addressing the action question in advance so I'm surprised you are just repeating this - it's like you didn't even read what I wrote... and Zen, a doctor giving advice to stop smoking has nothing to do with this - but I'm glad you'd use such a weak argument so I'll address it properly

A doctor telling a patient not to smoke while (s)he smokes is fine because there is a humongous body of knowledge independent of the doctor that shows emirically how bad smoking is for you. The doctor has made a choice to smoke, in full knowledge of it's consequences.
A priest telling other gay men from his pulpit while being gay is not only completely hypocritical seeing as he is telling other men to purge that which he himself can't even get rid of, it only invalidates your argument further because all of the scientific/psychological knowledge on this subject shows how rejecting ones gayness, or trying to convert, is extremely contrary to human wellbeing and most just revert back or continue to hold these feelings while repressing them. I even posted a study earlier in the thread, if you bothered to even read the post - let alone the links - to avoid having to spell this point out but, again, nobody cares to read up on anything before they let their anger overtake their views...

I'm fine with the guy being a total hypocrite as long as he keeps it to himself but if he's going to start vocally condemning a part of the population then it's time to challenge that. It's just been so easy seeing as the fool has let his own words completely trip him up, we need only let him continue to speak as he digs his own grave.:p

gulf wrote: »

They're both sexual perversions. All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond the intention to procreate is sinful.

So no, the church does not specifically target homosexuals like certain homosexual groups like to think (or at least that's what they tell their members). The teachings are very clear: get married and be fruitful. If you wish to live as a bachelor, you should remain chaste and spend what would otherwise be family time, doing charitable works. If you've a calling from God, you should become a priest or join a religious order.

**** that!! No sex simply because I don't get married? And no **** either? That's unhealthy and one of the prime reasons why people do not take the church seriously any more.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is chocolate in moderation ok?

Yes, but not shrimp. Shrimp in an abomination. Says so in Levitcus.

gulf wrote: »

Sigh. Chocolate is not created in the image and likeness of God. Unlike chocolate monsters. I'm almost sure the Church doesn't have a position on bumming chocolate monsters. No doubt there's some porn site dedicated to the fetish somewhere...

You know, it's not always about sex

I thought you guys weren't supposed to be constantly thinking of, and referring to sex...?

sensibleken wrote: »

what about chocolate. is that also sinful?

seriously why are so many christians so concerned with homosexuality these days. very little is said on the subject in the bible, more time being spent of what to do when you take a whiz. Also, other early christians such as st columba didnt seem to have much of a problem with it.

Probably because such a vast amount of priests have been found to be gay, have had gay exploits, have had gay relations with children etc

Also, because homosexuality is broadly accepted in most western nations these days, yet not by the church. This goes against their Cults rules / regulations and therefore lessens the influence of their 'power' among the masses if there is such a disagreement on such an important subject.

The Church has been losing following and credibility by the bucket load the past 20 years. Give it another 20 and the only ones left going to church will be devout bible bashers.

As I said before, society has moved with the times, the Church remains most definitely dark ages.

I do however think they preach one thing while doing another, and has been proven over the years.

The church is a money making racket, and has conned millions of people over the years. How they got away with it for so long is beyond me.

Its amazing people here slating fiction, while at the same time believing everything stated in the bible and scripture.

Maybe that is the biggest hypocrisy of all?