Gays ‘will never go to heaven’: cardinal

There Are 8 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Gypsy on 8 December 2009:

   Anyone else see the oxymoron? “they will not enter heaven. We on earth cannot condemn…” It is sad that so many, even church leaders, like the cardinal, choose to judge other humans. Dont let your heart be troubled by such lies.
   John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son. That WHOSOEVER shall believe in Him should not perish but have ever lasting life.” Many people want to lead others to believe they must conform to a certain standard to have a relationship with God or enter Heaven. When actually the bible states the opposite; We can not be perfect, there is only one perfect God and He has chosen to forgive ANYONE, ANYTHING if they simply trust Him. The real truth of the Bible is hope, trust, love, patience and goodness that God wants us to share in, forever with Him. Dont listen to the one who accuses and condemns but read for the hope, and love that really is in the Christ of the Bible. No person can stand between you and God unless you let them, by believing there lies. If what this man says worries you, I offer you hope, you take a stand for yourself before the living God and in private just you and God alone ask God to show Himself to you, ask him for understanding of the hope that is in Christ. Then when another person tempts you to doubt Gods love for you, you will see the oxymoron of the god they worship and trust the God you have available in Christ. God loves you not because of what you say, do or are. He loves you because He chose to love you.
2. 

   Comment by Gypsy on 8 December 2009:

   1 Corithians 6:9 has loosly been translated as of modern translations as homosexual when in fact the original word used in the pen of the time was, “malakia,” and the best interpritation of that original word used is disease and that only from the original word, malakos soft as in effemminate in refering to fine clothing. Since we can assume Paul is not talking about cloths not going to heaven.
   In the context of that verse, Paul is addressing a group of people that are are judging each other. He explains to them how bad that is and sets the example of what true danger of damnation is. The verse reads, 1st Corithians 6:9, “have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,” A little research into the Sodomites and you find they were condemned for there total selfish hearts without any regard for others or God. Not homosexuality like so many say today.They were distroyed before the Levitacal law was given. Ezekiel 16:49 God states exactly why Sodom was distroyed, “Lo, this hath been the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, Arrogancy, fulness of bread, and quiet ease, Have been to her and to her daughters, And the hand of the afflicted and needy She hath not strengthened.” The idea of homosexuality having anything to do with attempted rape of the two angels is just as silly as saying, the sexual act of two consenting adults is the same as rape. Deceptive and coercive use of the bible to chain people to a personal ideal when the text of Paul actually is speaking against such shameful accusative behaviour. Just thought the truth should be out here next to this cardinals lie.
3. 

   Comment by Foxxe on 23 December 2009:

   more often than not, Malakia refers to male masturbation and has nothing to do with homosexuality. But misinterpretation of the main publication of the ‘Church’ should not be surprising. They’ve been doing it since the Catholic church wrote the bible in the 1st place
4. 

   Comment by gypsy on 30 December 2009:

   Foxxe;
   You state, “Malakia refers to male masturbation.” What is your reference for this statement? This is a new concept to me.
   The statement I made of the, “commonly accepted, most literal translation,” of Malakia, is from the Strongs concordance.There is an online version available to check me on this.
   The reasoning for the effeminate reference of clothing and disease is the historical* pagan* rituals of having well dressed, male and female prostitutes in worship temples for sexual acts as hommage to the many deities of the, “people of the valley.” There is also referrance to the effeminate term being used as in, “lack of character as in not living as expected by society. I argue this is not acceptable in the context that Paul was expressly speaking against such behaviour. In context of Pauls discorse I think it logical to reason his point was as Sodomites that taking from society without regard for contribution is a lack of common needed character for any society, ie the church.
   I would re-research the name of the valley of Sodom and the discovery of the earlier writings if this is something anyone would find useful. I would like to consider your idea with it’s reference and reasoning. Thank you for posting your ideas.
   HISTORICAL: Not only found in the Christian/Judaic writings but also evidenced in secular research. The Strongs concordance used multiple historical writings to determine the most common historical use of a word and then matched it with the common English words most expressive of its common historical use.
   PAGAN: Referring to any worship of other than Christian/Judaic God.
   WELL DRESSED: Referring to the predisposition of most societies to adorn the persons serving gods with the, then considerd, finer clothing and the predisposition to adorn the object of our sexual desires with the same desirable attire. This is evident in modern societies from Shamans, Wicas, Priests ect. and also in our presentation of persons as sexual objects. My personal belief is that because both our vision of said people(sexual or spiritual) and our desire for a god, inherently have an strong effect on our emotions. Therefore we allow, even expect, there association. ie; If you are an agent of the god/s then they should favour you, as we and you should have the finest of things.
   A weak assumption on my part is that, the sexual objectified person in societies are considered the receptors of physical affection and are, therefore, allotted a receptor part, as a whole, in society. We adorn the object of our desire with the finer things in an effort to show there value and be accepted by society as worthy of being the alpha couple in procreating the species. I think this is the reason for the effeminate use of temple prostitutes clothing and not a statement of male or female. They simply where objects of desire and favoured by the gods so, they where receptors of adornment as any sexually receptive person. Historically there where male prostitutes as well as female. The use of effeminate is just the common accepted idea of sexual reception and procreation. Paul was not saying it is wrong to recieve or accept from society but to do so with out regard for a reciprocal part in that society is a break down of that society. Our churches must be inclusive all members must refrain from the temptation to only receive grace and not give grace. I think that is the whole point of Paul’s discourse. And a darn good rule for any society to grow and remain healthy.
   I would love to read your thoughts on this. Thank you.
5. 

   Comment by Foxxe on 4 January 2010:

   I used to work in a Greek restaurant years back and they used the term Malakia constantly (also Malacca – you don’t want to know the meaning behind that one either as you are obviously fundamentalist christian). Naturally I inquired to the meaning a few times with different people (NEVER take the word of one person – often the translation is misinterpreted!)

   Trust me. that is EXACTLY what it means.
6. 

   Comment by Gypsy on 5 January 2010:

   Thank you. I, now, understand your reason for your understanding of the word.
   I was referring to the use of the word as in the time of the writings. I would caution if we dont consider how language usage changes we may misunderstand the original thought trying to be communicated at the time of the writing.
   For instance; The word, cool, only two hundred years from today, would not be used as a reference to ones social stance. IE; “That dude is really cool.” I couldnt dream of thinking of all the many changes the Greek and Hebrew languages have transformed over time. The reasoning and definition of contemporary language is not my discussion but thank you for explaining your understanding.
7. 

   Comment by Gypsy on 5 January 2010:

   I wanted to know what Malacca’s current Greek meaning was. It seems, from my search on the ‘net to be,
   as reported by Wiki, Malacca: a small Malaysian state.
   Or as the award winning translating software, Babylon translates it from Greek to English as, Malacca: rattan
   English dictionary, Rattan; A plant similar to palms but with a solid core. Often it is used in making furniture.

   Like I said, I am in no position to know how your work friends intended the word, malakia or malacca to be understood.
   The point I was making in using the historical and commonly excepted meaning, was that the priest in the article was condemning people by using a portion of scripture that is actually, in context, communicating the very opposite of Paul’s ( the person the priest was quoting ) statement. We should not judge others and understand we are a part of a society that needs us to give and receive.
   I may understand, that since this article and my discussion focused on the bible and the belief in a heaven , you state “I must be, fundamentalist Christian.” Hopefully you dont see that as a bad thing. Being fundamentalist doesn’t mean a person dosn’t want to know or understand a conflicting view. It means they retain there view in the face of criticism or unpopularity. Your argument for the meaning of the words used has not convinced me to negate such publications as, Strongs Concordance, Babylon Translator, and Wikipedia. In the context of, unpopularity, your definitions are fundamentalist. I hope you dont consider this a bad thing and it certainly does not mean we dont want or, cant, learn from each other. And hopefully at the very least many people read our ideas on this article and it helps them to form a opinion, however, unpopular that may be. At best may they understand the oxymoron presented by the priest and the true hope presented by Paul.
8. 

   Comment by Foxxe on 9 January 2010:

   Meh.. Wiki rarely identifies very many terms properly in my opinion. I can recall numerous times looking up terms in the past only to see some crappy definition like “the name of a band in New York”. After over a dozen badly defined terms I gave up on publicly edited ‘dictionaries’ and trust the more trusted editions and sites.

   Malacca is a term in greek that denotes a person that enacts felatio. (there is a crude english term but I will not use it here)

Post a Response

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website