German priests rebel against Anti-LGBT rhethoric by pope

[littlepotter 76,610]

2 hours ago, moonsago said:

There is nothing wrong with the religion itself and even the bible, we just don’t know how to read it and apply it to today’s times. It’s taken too literally and outside the context. But the overall the message is of love, compassion and acceptance. Which we need. Sadly we get stuck in the cultural ways people lived 2000s years ago and cannot put it aside to see how the world is different today and how the Bible’s application cannot be the same. I am a spiritual person and I have been researching this for a while and the word homosexual doesn’t even exist in the original copies of the bible. The word translated as homosexual refers to something closer to pdfilia as during that time grown man would taken younger boys, castrate them and use them for pleasure, sometimes even in weird, spiritual rituals. The apostles were talking about that. Not to mention that during that time the concept of marriage which all christians scream as being fundamental and necessary before having sexual relationships didn’t even exist as we know it today. It was literally a transaction deal. I give you my daughter and you give me this. Or they would marry just to procreate, there was no love involved. So why don’t they marry the same today if they preach the Bible as being 100% correct. It’s the hypocrisy, misinformation, poor translations & lack of knowledge on how to read it. The Bible is very complex, its a history book, a philosophical book & a fictional book. And that is how you read it because it has all and not all is fictional, not all is historical and not all philosophical so you must read more than just the Bible to understand it. 

I fundamentally disagree that there is nothing wrong with the religion itself (or religion itself). There is something wrong with living your life and forcing others to live their life according to your belief in something unprovable and highly improbable. The whole point of religion is to spread it to other people, so i don't buy the "it's a personal relationship with god, it shouldn't be pushed down other people's throats" because that's not how it's being applied. I can appreciate the historical and philosophical value of the bible, the socialist and loving teachings of jesus, but it simply is being put to use by evil so i'm not going to tiptoe around that.

[moonsago 7,285]

5 hours ago, littlepotter said:

I fundamentally disagree that there is nothing wrong with the religion itself (or religion itself). There is something wrong with living your life and forcing others to live their life according to your belief in something unprovable and highly improbable. The whole point of religion is to spread it to other people, so i don't buy the "it's a personal relationship with god, it shouldn't be pushed down other people's throats" because that's not how it's being applied. I can appreciate the historical and philosophical value of the bible, the socialist and loving teachings of jesus, but it simply is being put to use by evil so i'm not going to tiptoe around that.

Well if you read my message again you will see that I basically said the same thing, that we DON’T KNOW how to use it so we use it for evil. But religion itself is not a bad thing. We turned it into something evil and use it for wrong but it was never meant to be that and the Bible if properly read and used is meant to bring you to a higher level of existence and living, rooted in love, compassion, forgiveness, mercy, inner peace, etc. To create unity and love for oneself and the other next to you. What is wrong in that? Isn’t that what we all want? I hope this can help you make the distinction between what you think I said and what I actually said. And it is a personal relationship between the person and God, we just twisted the message so bad it became none of what I said above. But FUNDAMENTALLY it is NOT a bad thing. We just turned it into something bad. 

[littlepotter 76,610]

16 hours ago, moonsago said:

Well if you read my message again you will see that I basically said the same thing, that we DON’T KNOW how to use it so we use it for evil. But religion itself is not a bad thing. We turned it into something evil and use it for wrong but it was never meant to be that and the Bible if properly read and used is meant to bring you to a higher level of existence and living, rooted in love, compassion, forgiveness, mercy, inner peace, etc. To create unity and love for oneself and the other next to you. What is wrong in that? Isn’t that what we all want? I hope this can help you make the distinction between what you think I said and what I actually said. And it is a personal relationship between the person and God, we just twisted the message so bad it became none of what I said above. But FUNDAMENTALLY it is NOT a bad thing. We just turned it into something bad. 

I see what you're saying but what's the point of having an ideological opinion of something when its effective application is totally different? If religion has consistently been used for evil throughout history that means there lies within it something inherently bad that facilitates corruption. 

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

On 3/22/2021 at 1:50 PM, RAMROD said:

Good for him. Zaddy P.

P for Pastor

 knowing the amount of abuse coming from the church, this name is so.... well... a choice  

[RAMROD 117,011]

3 minutes ago, Chromatislaps said:

 knowing the amount of abuse coming from the church, this name is so.... well... a choice  

 

[moonsago 7,285]

11 hours ago, littlepotter said:

I see what you're saying but what's the point of having an ideological opinion of something when its effective application is totally different? If religion has consistently been used for evil throughout history that means there lies within it something inherently bad that facilitates corruption. 

I understand what you mean but that is the problem, the effective application is different because we use it in tribal applications, where only the interest of that certain tribe are being explored and followed not the content in it. The content in the Bible was written in the context of the jewish culture 3500s-2000s years ago. Some of the teachings made sense back then because thats how people viewed the world back then. That is how they UNDERSTOOD it with the lack of knowledge, resources and possibilities that they had. You cannot blame them for not knowing better when they COULDN’T know better. It’s ridiculous. However, the church is obsessed with keeping their tradition alive, which is not wrong, the only problem is that they consider tradition the culture back then, not the TRUE meaning and message of their own book. They look at the world in a black and white manner, where what was true then is true now also. Which is not! One example is how in the Bible it says that if a man took advantage of a woman he is to marry her. In today’s times it would be HORRIBLE to tell a woman that she needs to marry her abuser and live with him for the rest of her life. However, the apostle who said that back then was actually viewing the problem from the woman’s perspective and was trying to help her because back in those times, a woman’s virginity was all that she had in that society. Procreation was her only role and her virginity was her only virtue. There were man who would abuse women sadly which in turn would make that woman be worthless in world, uncapable to marry and have a future. Of course in today’s time with all the knowledge of psychology and medicine we understand the effects of trauma and how that would be horrible to do to a woman, but back then he was actually making a feminist, protective statement. In the way he saw and understood the world back then he was actually looking out for the woman and proceeding for her best interest. Of course we don’t do that today anymore because we know better but that also doesn’t make the Bible wrong because that’s the best people could do back then. The apostel’s ‘knowing better’ was moving from leaving women on the street without a future to making sure they get taken care of. The church also doesn’t teach that in the same way today as they see how its a problem but they play around it telling women to dress modestly because if they are abuse it’s their fault or tell women to offer their men s*x whenever he wants or that they can’t be abused by their husbands. Its terrible but they also show their hypocrisy because they recognize something is wrong but they play around it just to avoid admitting that the truth in the Bible isn’t the supreme truth. What they should do is open their eyes and view the book as an ANCIENT text and acknowledge that not the stories in it matter but the lesson, that what we are to do is to ALWAYS look around the world and try to do as best as we can right now, with what we have. And contemplate over the writings because they cannot be taken literally. So it’s not the Bible that does harm, it’s us because we refuse to evolve and view it as it is. They are afraid that it will make the Bible fallible which is but also isn’t, it’s just that the truth was understood in a different way back then, less evolved way, constrained by our own lack of knowledge and resources. I was also disappointed in the Pope because I know he came forward a year or so ago and actually say gay people deserve to be acknowledged by the church and that they should do something about it, you can look it up, he was also very supportive many times and met with lgbt+ activists but I guess he was pushed in the corner by the Vatican. Because that is the truth, he is just the face of the system. Just like the president. A poster ontto whom the flowers or the eggs are thrown but they don’t make all the decisions. Now I say that BUT not to excuse the fact that he is a wuss and unholy for going against the truth even under pressure. Because thats another thing the Bible tells us, to stay true to the truth and carry the ‘cross’ too, like Jesus, die standing by what we believe in, but I see even the pope is incapable of doing that. So why is he there? shame on them all. I hope this clarified better what I was trying to say. 

[littlepotter 76,610]

5 hours ago, moonsago said:

I understand what you mean but that is the problem, the effective application is different because we use it in tribal applications, where only the interest of that certain tribe are being explored and followed not the content in it. The content in the Bible was written in the context of the jewish culture 3500s-2000s years ago. Some of the teachings made sense back then because thats how people viewed the world back then. That is how they UNDERSTOOD it with the lack of knowledge, resources and possibilities that they had. You cannot blame them for not knowing better when they COULDN’T know better. It’s ridiculous. However, the church is obsessed with keeping their tradition alive, which is not wrong, the only problem is that they consider tradition the culture back then, not the TRUE meaning and message of their own book. They look at the world in a black and white manner, where what was true then is true now also. Which is not! One example is how in the Bible it says that if a man took advantage of a woman he is to marry her. In today’s times it would be HORRIBLE to tell a woman that she needs to marry her abuser and live with him for the rest of her life. However, the apostle who said that back then was actually viewing the problem from the woman’s perspective and was trying to help her because back in those times, a woman’s virginity was all that she had in that society. Procreation was her only role and her virginity was her only virtue. There were man who would abuse women sadly which in turn would make that woman be worthless in world, uncapable to marry and have a future. Of course in today’s time with all the knowledge of psychology and medicine we understand the effects of trauma and how that would be horrible to do to a woman, but back then he was actually making a feminist, protective statement. In the way he saw and understood the world back then he was actually looking out for the woman and proceeding for her best interest. Of course we don’t do that today anymore because we know better but that also doesn’t make the Bible wrong because that’s the best people could do back then. The apostel’s ‘knowing better’ was moving from leaving women on the street without a future to making sure they get taken care of. The church also doesn’t teach that in the same way today as they see how its a problem but they play around it telling women to dress modestly because if they are abuse it’s their fault or tell women to offer their men s*x whenever he wants or that they can’t be abused by their husbands. Its terrible but they also show their hypocrisy because they recognize something is wrong but they play around it just to avoid admitting that the truth in the Bible isn’t the supreme truth. What they should do is open their eyes and view the book as an ANCIENT text and acknowledge that not the stories in it matter but the lesson, that what we are to do is to ALWAYS look around the world and try to do as best as we can right now, with what we have. And contemplate over the writings because they cannot be taken literally. So it’s not the Bible that does harm, it’s us because we refuse to evolve and view it as it is. They are afraid that it will make the Bible fallible which is but also isn’t, it’s just that the truth was understood in a different way back then, less evolved way, constrained by our own lack of knowledge and resources. I was also disappointed in the Pope because I know he came forward a year or so ago and actually say gay people deserve to be acknowledged by the church and that they should do something about it, you can look it up, he was also very supportive many times and met with lgbt+ activists but I guess he was pushed in the corner by the Vatican. Because that is the truth, he is just the face of the system. Just like the president. A poster ontto whom the flowers or the eggs are thrown but they don’t make all the decisions. Now I say that BUT not to excuse the fact that he is a wuss and unholy for going against the truth even under pressure. Because thats another thing the Bible tells us, to stay true to the truth and carry the ‘cross’ too, like Jesus, die standing by what we believe in, but I see even the pope is incapable of doing that. So why is he there? shame on them all. I hope this clarified better what I was trying to say. 

I understand better what you're trying to explain.