Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Strange....
Despite the official position of the Catholic hierarchy on LGBT rights, in some locations, such as North America, Northern and Western Europe, support for LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, or protection against discrimination) is stronger among Catholics than among the general population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...an_Catholicism
I expect that eventually the Catholic Church will fully accept LGBT rights....I know that they do here in Victoria.
Well fully accepting LGBT rights is in contrast with the Vatican. Even the Pope is opposed to gay marriages.
Just because something is accepted by a majority of the population does not make it right in the Lords eyes.
Well fully accepting LGBT rights is in contrast with the Vatican. Even the Pope is opposed to gay marriages.
Just because something is accepted by a majority of the population does not make it right in the Lords eyes.
I understand that, but although I am now an atheist I was raised in a Catholic home and educated in Catholic schools, and there have been many changes....Most Catholics today do not follow all of the Vatican's rules...Eg, they use birth control, they get divorced etc.
Jesus didn't do that. Jesus didn't say, "Say NO to the LGBT." Jesus did not say the LGBT would die in their sins. Jesus did not come up with some convoluted thinking that let people say no to the LGBT then give themselves a self-congratulatory slap on the back. Jesus didn't talk about people who support the LGBT community.. Jesus never even mentioned LGBT. Not one word, not one little peep.
I think your pastor needs Jesus. He's off in the weeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
He didn't need too. Most people understood that when He said a man will cleave to his wife, that kinda excludes homosexuality.
One of the most misquoted scriptures ever. What Jesus said to the Pharisees who asked Him about divorce is that a husband will remain with (cleave to) his wife and not divorce her.
Would that 'the Church' actually paid attention to that text!
Well fully accepting LGBT rights is in contrast with the Vatican. Even the Pope is opposed to gay marriages.
Just because something is accepted by a majority of the population does not make it right in the Lords eyes.
Just because others interpret something as "wrong" in the bible, does not mean it is unacceptable. Some cults reject dancing, caffeine, and even women in slacks--doesn't mean it is hat way for ALL people--using the bible to legislate behavior is known as christian sharia law...
Just because others interpret something as "wrong" in the bible, does not mean it is unacceptable. Some cults reject dancing, caffeine, and even women in slacks--doesn't mean it is hat way for ALL people--using the bible to legislate behavior is known as christian sharia law...
What ever choices on makes in this life, they will have to answer to the Lord someday. Everyone even if they believe or not is accountable to the Lord. The Bible is clear on what marriage supposed to be even from Jesus own words.
Anyone else see the irony? Catholic schools have been known to harbor gay clergy, and men of the cloth pedophiles, yet they enact an anti-gay policy for their students.
It's kind of like convincing slaves to believe and worship the same god as the slave owner.
I understand that, but although I am now an atheist I was raised in a Catholic home and educated in Catholic schools, and there have been many changes....Most Catholics today do not follow all of the Vatican's rules...Eg, they use birth control, they get divorced etc.
Well going to a Catholic school, or going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.
Accepting Jesus Christ, saviour and Lord over ones life does make one a christian. With that there is true transformation in ones life.
He cited U.S. Department of Education guidance that allows for students to read their Bibles during non-instructional time. It reads in part, "...students students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities."
It clearly outlines what is not instructional time; meals, recess and before or after class time. The question is, is free reading time instructional time or not? My suspicion is that the teacher, and it appears the principal, view it as instructional time as it does not fall under the other guidelines.
I'm mixed as to how I feel about this. Where do you draw the line? At the Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? What about Penthouse Letters? Or a fundy, radical Islamic book?
I suppose the question hangs on what "instruction" is given in "free reading time." What is the purpose of "free reading time" and why would reading ANY religious materiel not conform to that purpose? Perhaps it should be called "constrained reading time."
Really? You think you are in a position to decide what Jesus did and did not need to do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
