[nky]

Pope Francis on gays: `Who am I to judge?'

By John L. Allen Jr and Hada Messia
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRPLANE (CNN) –Pope Francis said Monday that he will not "judge" gays and lesbians - including gay priests - signaling a shift from his predecessor and offering another sign that the new pope is committed to changing the church's approach to historically marginalized groups.
“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis said in a wide-ranging news conference aboard the papal plane.
Though he was answering a question about the so-called "gay lobby" at the Vatican, the pope indicated a change in tone, if not in teaching, in the church's stance towards gays and lesbians more generally.
The pope was flying back to Rome from Brazil, where he spent the past week celebrating World Youth Day, an international Catholic event that drew millions.
Taking questions from reporters aboard the plane, the pope addressed nearly every hot-button issue facing the Roman Catholic Church: its alleged "gay lobby," Vatican bank corruption, the role of women, abortion, homosexuality and his own personal security.
But it was the pope's remarks on homosexuality - the fact that the head of a 1 billion-member church said that it's not his place to judge gays - that caused the widest stir.
"Pope Francis's brief comment on gays reveals great mercy," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at America, a Catholic magazine based in New York.
"Today Pope Francis has, once again, lived out the Gospel message of compassion for everyone," Martin said.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29...-to-judge/

thoughts?

[nky]

I thought it was a well said statement by the pope.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I think a lot of people, especially the liberals are taking this the wrong way though.
I know what he meant, but i believe some people honestly think he was saying its okay to be gay, when thats not what he meant.

[nky]

It's not what he meant but he (as in the church) will not be the judge. Everyone will one day answer to a higher authority

[Panther Thunder]

I like it.

[TheRealThing]

It's not what he meant but he (as in the church) will not be the judge. Everyone will one day answer to a higher authority

Right, the Pope nor any other man has the right to judge another on an individual basis. However, he would be well within his Pontiff Charter to boldly decry homosexual activity as being clearly outside the bounds of morally acceptable behavior.

There is not one glimmer of doubt, that God has made it clear in the scriptures homosexuality is sin and therefore unacceptable in His eyes. An abomination, in fact. The Pope nor any other man, need worry about political correctness when judging sin, an action we are all commanded to do, much less the head of the Catholic Church.
2 Timothy 4:2 (KJV)
"2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

[nky]

Slippery slope with the Bible on issues
Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord." So are people with Tattoo's sinners?

[nky]

Leviticus 11:8
the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you

Guess football players are sinning every day. Slippery Slope

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The Pope said nothing new. To refrain from judging has always been the policy of the Church. Of course, the liberals and homosexuals will try to spin something out of it.

Anyone believing he is "opening the door" is a fool.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Leviticus 11:8
the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you

Guess football players are sinning every day. Slippery Slope

That was part of the old covenent. Just Saying.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Old Testement talk makes us amish.

Atleast weve updated a small bit.

[TheRealThing]

Slippery slope with the Bible on issues
Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord." So are people with Tattoo's sinners?

LOL, that's why I like you so much nky. You always make very good points, even if they are subtle.

Personally, I love the Old Testament as much as the New. We should use the OT scriptures to give context to NT scripture. As much as I hate to give a concise answer, yeah, that means it's wrong to mark up one's body with tats. I don't see tattoos as being a deal breaker before the Almighty but, we should keep in mind that it was He who designed us and therefore, we should leave His handiwork alone. Sort of like coming in and making changes to one of Rembrandt's works, not a good idea.
Psalm 139:13-16 (KJV)
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

He saw us all in His mind before we were even conceived. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

Old Testament saints lived their lives looking forward to the coming of Christ who, through His shed blood on the cross imparted salvation to all "by grace through faith". The souls of Old Testament saints therefore were sort of in queue, until the coming of Christ who paid their sin debt with His unspeakable gift on the cross. Old Testament saints demonstrated their faith by the way they lived and observance of God's law. This had the affect of 'setting them apart, a peculiar people'.

We look backward to the crucifixion which, freed us from the penalty of the law (OT), but which law none the less, defines those of us who are saved. That statement may seem duplicitous however, look at it like this. The Holy Spirit changes the NT believer's life at conversion giving him a 'new nature' and therefore his desire to live a sinful lifestyle is forever removed. New Testament saints are therefore set apart by their new nature which, causes them to want to honor God with their lives. Spent in service and giving, part of that giving is to point folks in the right direction, calling out sin for what it truly is. This is possible by the indwelling of God's own Holy Spirit which, empowers the NT saint.

It's a matter of choice in both times. Old Testament saints chose to honor God with holy lives spent honoring the law, which was set forth in clear terms by the Priests of Levy and the Prophets. New Testament saints choose to repent of their sin before the Son of God, believing He died on the cross for their sin. We are then sealed by the Holy Spirit, new creatures in Christ. Either way, God made a propitiation for sin, before the death of Christ on the cross, and after.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

LOL, that's why I like you so much nky. You always make very good points, even if they are subtle.

Personally, I love the Old Testament as much as the New. We should use the OT scriptures to give context to NT scripture. As much as I hate to give a concise answer, yeah, that means it's wrong to mark up one's body with tats. I don't see tattoos as being a deal breaker before the Almighty but, we should keep in mind that it was He who designed us and therefore, we should leave His handiwork alone. Sort of like coming in and making changes to one of Rembrandt's works, not a good idea.
Psalm 139:13-16 (KJV)
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

He saw us all in His mind before we were even conceived. :biggrin:

Yes. And that passage, in and of itself, is sufficient for any honest person to realize that killing a baby after conception and prior to birth is absolutely murder. The doctors and nurses assisting are murderers and the woman killing her baby is a murderer.

[TheRealThing]

Yes. And that passage, in and of itself, is sufficient for any honest person to realize that killing a baby after conception and prior to birth is absolutely murder. The doctors and nurses assisting are murderers and the woman killing her baby is a murderer.

All true. I don't believe for a second, that anybody who actually affords himself those rarified moments of personal honesty known as thinking for one's self, has any doubt that killing the unborn is murder. I believe the complex and ever telescoping rationale built up, in and around the Roe v Wade decision, is just an elaborate attempt to justify the monstrous abortion on demand industry. It sickened me to see all the mock indignation from the democrats and the left generally speaking, with regard to the things that happened as common place in Gosnell's house of horror in Philadelphia. They know full well the butchery that goes on every hour of every day at the hands of these so-called doctors, who practice the dismemberment of the innocents in the name of women's health across the land.

They all realize abortion is wrong, but there seems to be safety and comfort in numbers. So, would be mothers who are looking to be talked into doing something their consciences are telling them is very wrong, get their fears and inhibitions slaked when they go into these clinics. The shame is, the whole nightmare which has come to characterize the new America, could be set back on the right track with one election. God help us to do what's right in 2014 and sweep the liberals out of office in the mid-terms.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Those who knowingly murder the babies they are carrying should never be referred to as "mothers". For posting, I refer to them as "women" although verbally I have other names for these abominations.

The only choice that they should have is to keep their pants zipped and not get pregnant. Otherwise, they are dealing with the natural rights of another human being.

Isn't it interesting that the abortionists now refrain from referring to "medical science" in their support of abortion? Now, since medical science (DNA, etc.) proves beyond a doubt that the conceived child is a separate being from the woman carrying it, the abortionists had to shift to "war on women"? How about the war on our most innocent- the preborn child?

[TheRealThing]

Those who knowingly murder the babies they are carrying should never be referred to as "mothers". For posting, I refer to them as "women" although verbally I have other names for these abominations.

The only choice that they should have is to keep their pants zipped and not get pregnant. Otherwise, they are dealing with the natural rights of another human being.

Isn't it interesting that the abortionists now refrain from referring to "medical science" in their support of abortion? Now, since medical science (DNA, etc.) proves beyond a doubt that the conceived child is a separate being from the woman carrying it, the abortionists had to shift to "war on women"? How about the war on our most innocent- the preborn child?

I have always said that these women who get pregnant during a dusty, 15 minute encounter in the back seat of somebody's car or elsewhere, exercised their "right to choose" when they engaged in that immoral behavior in the first place. After the fact, where all the arguing and attention falls, they're just ducking the responsibility for their behavior. Of course, the best examples of responsibility ducking in recent history were demonstrated by our last two democratic presidents. First was Bill Clinton who taught those of all nations what world class lying really is, is. Then came Barack Obama who never owned up to a single mistake he ever made as president, even though he IMO managed to set the standard in that department. Hill is no slouch either, as memos with her signature on them clearly contradict her under oath pronouncements that she didn't know about security short falls in Benghazi.

When somebody wants to do something they know is wrong, they are going to rationalize their behavior to the best of their ability. Liberals and democrats have assumed the role of providing official DNC generated rationalizations from the national level. These arguments, meant to justify unacceptable social actions by the citizenry of this country, therefore have the polish and spin of the federal government to lend credibility to acts of incredible recklessness and disregard for anybody, making their own selfish interests life's number one priority. I mean, if the most noteworthy of our politicians advocate for socially unacceptable behavior, it's hard to not see that those who are living life on the wild side would feel encouraged to continue.

In short, democrats have become the federal enablers and cheerleaders for those who want to kill unwanted babies they see as an unfortunate side effect of the promiscuous life styles they want to live. Along with those who 'choose' not to work for their living, and those who 'choose' to enflame the hearts and minds of the common man with these endless charges of bias and racism, and those who 'choose' to live the homosexual, transgender, or lesbian life style, and those who 'choose' to attack the idea of traditional America through the courts demanding the elimination of any reference to God from our society. They don't want to ever be reminded that what they do is wrong.

Since democrats are the proud and boastful enablers of these traitors to God and traditional America, they are all enemies of state in my book.