Jason Collins: first openly gay athlete in US Sports history

[KingOtis]

Well I don't want to speak for Shandezzy but the article discussed the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church as stating that homosexual acts are inherently sinful but that orientation is not. (Same position I have) It went on to discuss how All Saints parish, lead by a celibate gay man, (something I mentioned early in this thread) reaches out to the gay community. (Same thing I want to do) My point is that I am trying to find out how I can reach out in my church to the gay community while maintaining our theological position that gay sex is sin. I am very interested on how others who share my theology do this, which All Saints appears to do and why I am going to meet with Father Daley.
I understand your position is that I cannot be inclusive and because of my theology I am bigot or at a minimum my interpretation is. That's fine, I see where you can think that and not understand where I am coming from. I just wanted to know why you don't call Father Daley and Shandeezy's parish bigots for doing the very thing I am trying to do, let alone using them to make a crack about me being in the dark ages.

If they're on the same page as you, then my criticism would apply to them as well.

The solution should be simple and obvious. Stop teaching that homosexual acts are a sin. It wouldn't be the first time that a religious sect changed its ways.

 

[sabach]

If they're on the same page as you, then my criticism would apply to them as well.

The solution should be simple and obvious. Stop teaching that homosexual acts are a sin. It wouldn't be the first time that a religious sect changed its ways.

Fair enough KingOtis. Let's put this thread to bed.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The solution should be simple and obvious. Stop teaching that homosexual acts are a sin. It wouldn't be the first time that a religious sect changed its ways.

This exactly. The church came out in the first century and said other parts of the old testament were not worth bothering with anymore, why not this antiquated view on sexuality? The day will come.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Going back to an earlier discussion with sabach, the thing that bothers me the most about the anti-gay groups is that they claim to want to protect marriage in their fights against same sex marriage, but to me this is all about their dislike, and in some cases, hate for gay people. When groups like the National Organization for Marriage spend more money fighting against divorce than gay marriage, I'll know they truly are interested in 'saving' the institution of marriage. How much does Chick-fil-A spend on anti-divorce counseling and groups that fight the scourge of divorce?

Okay, I'm going to let it go now.

 

[shandeezy7]

Well I don't want to speak for Shandezzy but the article discussed the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church as stating that homosexual acts are inherently sinful but that orientation is not. (Same position I have) It went on to discuss how All Saints parish, lead by a celibate gay man, (something I mentioned early in this thread) reaches out to the gay community. (Same thing I want to do) My point is that I am trying to find out how I can reach out in my church to the gay community while maintaining our theological position that gay sex is sin. I am very interested on how others who share my theology do this, which All Saints appears to do and why I am going to meet with Father Daley.
I understand your position is that I cannot be inclusive and because of my theology I am bigot or at a minimum my interpretation is. That's fine, I see where you can think that and not understand where I am coming from. I just wanted to know why you don't call Father Daley and Shandeezy's parish bigots for doing the very thing I am trying to do, let alone using them to make a crack about me being in the dark ages.

This is kind of where things enter into a gray area with individual parishes within the Catholic Church. It would be very hard for a parish, or a pastor for that matter, to come out and openly support homosexuality (at least homosexual acts) and gay marriage without receive rebuke from the Catholic Church. I think All Saints and St. Vincent's certainly toe that line, but I wouldn't want to speak for others on what their official stance is.

I certainly know that I don't consider homosexual acts a sin, much like I don't consider sex before marriage a sin. I know there are a countless number of Catholic at All Saints, St. Vincent's and beyond that feel this exact same way, even though the bible "teaches us the opposite."

 

[sabach]

This is kind of where things enter into a gray area with individual parishes within the Catholic Church. It would be very hard for a parish, or a pastor for that matter, to come out and openly support homosexuality (at least homosexual acts) and gay marriage without receive rebuke from the Catholic Church. I think All Saints and St. Vincent's certainly toe that line, but I wouldn't want to speak for others on what their official stance is.

I certainly know that I don't consider homosexual acts a sin, much like I don't consider sex before marriage a sin. I know there are a countless number of Catholic at All Saints, St. Vincent's and beyond that feel this exact same way, even though the bible "teaches us the opposite."

Good points. When I meet with him, I am certainly going to ask Father Daley what his personal position is regarding these issues and I am very interested to hear his response. He may not be willing to answer me though for the very reasons you state above for fear that if his answer is not in line with the magisterium, it will find its way to the Diocese office or Rome.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Good points. When I meet with him, I am certainly going to ask Father Daley what his personal position is regarding these issues and I am very interested to hear his response. He may not be willing to answer me though for the very reasons you state above for fear that if his answer is not in line with the magisterium, it will find its way to the Diocese office or Rome.

I'd love to hear about the meeting afterwards as well. I've found a lot of priests to not really give a flying flip what the bureaucracy thinks of them, as long as their parish members support them. And isn't that what it's really all about and what Jesus really wanted? In my mind it is indeed.

 

[SWC75]

Excellent point. They could have tossed it in, made it 11, but as George Carlin said, "Why not 9? Or 11? Because 10 is a psychologically satisfying number!" Or made it the 8th deadly sin. Maybe it got left on the cutting room floor during the final edit.

 

[TinyManInside]

Did your Pre-Cana try and sell you on "natural family planning"? Where you reject all forms of contraception and basically just plan around the natural cycle of your wife. And thus, you end up with more kids than Shawn Kemp.

I went to pre-cana at my wife's behest. The natural family planning retreat was pretty much exactly as you described. The whole pre-cana affair was a nightmare. I actually had to go through 2 cycles, but that's another story for another day.

 

[Millhouse]

I went to pre-cana at my wife's behest. The natural family planning retreat was pretty much exactly as you described. The whole pre-cana affair was a nightmare. I actually had to go through 2 cycles, but that's another story for another day.

i spent the entire pre-cana daydreaming about a dogtown chili dog across the street from the church. it was the only thing that got me through it. the imaginary hot dog i was going to eat was my Wilson. some local news guy and his wife were 2 of the speakers. a wife who i unsuccessfully hit on many years before when blind drunk. pre-cana ended and i discovered that dogtown wasn't open that early on weekends. i don't think i'll ever get over it

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This exactly. The church came out in the first century and said other parts of the old testament were not worth bothering with anymore, why not this antiquated view on sexuality? The day will come.

Well... this is a bit of an oversimplification, because the guy that "said other parts of the old testament were not worth bothering with anymore," to use your paraphrase, supposedly was the Son of God and had the authority to reveal doctrine and issue commandments from God that would supersede previous revelation and instruction. That's a big concept to wrap a head around, but the big question here is - who has the authority to make these statements now.

If you think the religions are led by man, sure, it's reasonable to ask why they don't just change as views change.

If you believe in a religion that claims authority from God, the antiquated view on sexuality would change based on God's command, not the current political and social climate of man.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yes, I think that anyone who labels someone a sinner based on their race, religion or sexual orientation (to name a few) is bigoted.

That's great that you have accepted gays somewhat. I'm challenging you to go all the way. Accept them fully for who they are and ditch the rhetoric. Other Christians have done it.

"Bigoted" might not be the best word, because it relates to race, does it not? But yes, those who judge others for their sins are not doing what Jesus told them to do: "Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[IthacaMatt]

Having sex before marriage is hurting someone? What about looking at Pron? Just because it's not "hurting" someone does not make it okay biblically speaking, my point was that from a Biblical framework, "how you were born" is not a valid reason to not do what the Bible says.

It's you judging others that's wrong. It's not them, it's you. God forgives everyone. You apparently don't.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Well... this is a bit of an oversimplification, because the guy that "said other parts of the old testament were not worth bothering with anymore," to use your paraphrase, supposedly was the Son of God and had the authority to reveal doctrine and issue commandments from God that would supersede previous revelation and instruction. That's a big concept to wrap a head around, but the big question here is - who has the authority to make these statements now.

If you think the religions are led by man, sure, it's reasonable to ask why they don't just change as views change.

If you believe in a religion that claims authority from God, the antiquated view on sexuality would change based on God's command, not the current political and social climate of man.

Except that throwing off a lot of the competing scriptures and other Old Testament rules were not done by Jesus, per se, but by those writing about him, a generation or two later. Their editorial decisions were all political by that point.

And actually a lot of people didn't understand what portions of the Old Testament meant anymore, as meanings of words had changed in the 650 years since it had been written down during the Babylonian Captivity. Kind of like how we don't understand parts of Shakespeare today, at least without crib notes.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Except that throwing off a lot of the competing scriptures and other Old Testament rules were not done by Jesus, per se, but by those writing about him, a generation or two later. Their editorial decisions were all political by that point.

The part I bolded above is the key I think to reconciling how religions should be viewed according to how they stand on these things. Were those editorial decisions performed by revelation given under proper authority from God, or were they done by man? If we believe they were revealed changes to doctrine that's one thing and has its consequences. If we believe they are changes produced by man's choices, that's a completely different thing with different consequences.

I can understand the perspective of those that believe religion is a man-made construct, and as a man-made construct it is subject to whims and will of man. I get the argument. Personally, I believe that religion, and more specifically the faith I follow, is given of God and subject to His will. I believe that matters of commandment are received by revelation through the proper lines of authority of God in my church. Some day, my church may endorse marriage of men to men and women to women, and if it does so I will follow it because I believe it will have come from God, and not because people decided culturally that it should be so. It's God's right to reveal his commandments as He sees fit, and I trust the judgment there. If I have other ideas, well, I'm not the one that is an all-powerful, all-knowing being in that disagreement.

 

[sabach]

"Bigoted" might not be the best word, because it relates to race, does it not? But yes, those who judge others for their sins are not doing what Jesus told them to do: "Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

IthacaMatt - is there a difference in your mind between calling an act a sin and judging someone for doing that act? Jesus himself, after He told the adulteress who was not stoned because no one was left to cast any at her, said "I do not judge you, go and sin no more."

 

[Eric15]

IthacaMatt - is there a difference in your mind between calling an act a sin and judging someone for doing that act? Jesus himself, after He told the adulteress who was not stoned because no one was left to cast any at her, said "I do not judge you, go and sin no more."

If I may answer this, as well, I think calling an act a sin and judging a person for doing that act are essentially one in the same. Logically, I don't think it's possible to separate the two.

And I think Jesus is off the mark in your example above. If Jesus WASN'T judging the adulteress, then he wouldn't be instructing her to stop her behavior. The mere fact that he refers to her as an "adulteress" and not "a person who made a mistake" means that he has labeled that person as such.

 

[sabach]

If I may answer this, as well, I think calling an act a sin and judging a person for doing that act are essentially one in the same. Logically, I don't think it's possible to separate the two.

And I think Jesus is off the mark in your example above. If Jesus WASN'T judging the adulteress, then he wouldn't be instructing her to stop her behavior. The mere fact that he refers to her as an "adulteress" and not "a person who made a mistake" means that he has labeled that person as such.

Jesus didn't call her an adulteress in the text but by your reasoning, even saying a "person who made a mistake" is still judging them by the mere fact that you are pointing out their mistake.
But EAO, you are right, by calling out the sin, Jesus was in some way judging that woman. Accordingly, referring to someone's act as sin is not the type of judging that Jesus was prohibiting when He said, "judge not, lest ye be judged" which is the point I was trying to make in my question to IthacaMatt.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The part I bolded above is the key I think to reconciling how religions should be viewed according to how they stand on these things. Were those editorial decisions performed by revelation given under proper authority from God, or were they done by man? If we believe they were revealed changes to doctrine that's one thing and has its consequences. If we believe they are changes produced by man's choices, that's a completely different thing with different consequences.

I can understand the perspective of those that believe religion is a man-made construct, and as a man-made construct it is subject to whims and will of man. I get the argument. Personally, I believe that religion, and more specifically the faith I follow, is given of God and subject to His will. I believe that matters of commandment are received by revelation through the proper lines of authority of God in my church. Some day, my church may endorse marriage of men to men and women to women, and if it does so I will follow it because I believe it will have come from God, and not because people decided culturally that it should be so. It's God's right to reveal his commandments as He sees fit, and I trust the judgment there. If I have other ideas, well, I'm not the one that is an all-powerful, all-knowing being in that disagreement.

Nobody claims Paul or Peter as prophets, so far as I recall.

It's only prophets who literally speak the word of God or rather I should say whose speech is attributed to God.

 

[KingOtis]

"Bigoted" might not be the best word, because it relates to race, does it not? But yes, those who judge others for their sins are not doing what Jesus told them to do: "Judge not lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Racist" relates to race. "Bigot" is all-encompassing.

 

[KingOtis]

Well... this is a bit of an oversimplification, because the guy that "said other parts of the old testament were not worth bothering with anymore," to use your paraphrase, supposedly was the Son of God and had the authority to reveal doctrine and issue commandments from God that would supersede previous revelation and instruction. That's a big concept to wrap a head around, but the big question here is - who has the authority to make these statements now.

If you think the religions are led by man, sure, it's reasonable to ask why they don't just change as views change.

If you believe in a religion that claims authority from God, the antiquated view on sexuality would change based on God's command, not the current political and social climate of man.

That's just not true. Religions make changes all the time, quite often having to do with the current political and social climate.

 

[IthacaMatt]

IthacaMatt - is there a difference in your mind between calling an act a sin and judging someone for doing that act? Jesus himself, after He told the adulteress who was not stoned because no one was left to cast any at her, said "I do not judge you, go and sin no more."

Well, aren't you answering your own question? Yes, it's a sin, and yes, Jesus distinguished between the sin and the sinner. I'm not that big into the notion of "sin" - I'm a free will type of person, live and let live.

But I think the worst thing that has happened to religion is this relentless persecution of people who do not interpret holy texts, or follow religious dogma, exactly the same way you do. When the Pilgrims and then the Puritans came to this country "in search of religious freedom", what was the first thing they did? Kick out anyone who disagreed with the priest! They represent the height of religious intolerance, and their irony should not be lost on today's religious political activists.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's just not true. Religions make changes all the time, quite often having to do with the current political and social climate.

If you take that view, this is an argument that dead ends. I don't know what to tell you - not everyone has that view. Speaking at least for the church I belong to, changes to doctrine and the commandments occur due to revelations from God and not for political and social reasons.

 

[Eric15]

changes to doctrine and the commandments occur due to revelations from God and not for political and social reasons.

I personally find that to be completely implausible and unrealistic beyond words, but this is America and I respect you and your right to believe that if you choose.

 

[sabach]

Well, aren't you answering your own question? Yes, it's a sin, and yes, Jesus distinguished between the sin and the sinner. I'm not that big into the notion of "sin" - I'm a free will type of person, live and let live.

But I think the worst thing that has happened to religion is this relentless persecution of people who do not interpret holy texts, or follow religious dogma, exactly the same way you do. When the Pilgrims and then the Puritans came to this country "in search of religious freedom", what was the first thing they did? Kick out anyone who disagreed with the priest! They represent the height of religious intolerance, and their irony should not be lost on today's religious political activists.

Excellent post. That is exactly what Jesus did.
And your point about religious persecution regarding dogma is also well taken.