Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Sickening! Pope says church should apologize to gays


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 2279 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

this just further shows they have no regard for what the bible teaches.  quote from article.    

Church teachings that homosexuals "should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-says-church-ask-forgiveness-gays-past-treatment-203628573.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know exactly what he meant but ...

If one of us happened to insult a person in the past because of his/her sexual orientation, it would be a christian act to apologise for that.

On the other hand, we do not apologize for hating homosexuality in itself. 

...

I see he is talking about too many arms being blessed by the church in the past. Maybe he was thinking about the inquisition, when homosexuals were treated just like heretics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Should homosexuals be discriminated against? 

 

This is a good question, and of course the answer is no.

 

I did not read the article yet, but you don't apologize for something you're not guilty of. Obviously, he owes gays an apology because the Church mistreated them. This is still pandering on his part in my opinion because he has a history of making statements that appeal to people, and the Church has consistently lost support, hence, the "Mass Mob" nonsense meant to raise money to keep Churches open.

 

But the point remains, he's apologizing for something they're obviously guilty of.


Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I don't see what's so offending in those Pope's statements. Actually I think that what he says is quite reasonable. He's not condoning homosexuality nor apologizing for rejecting it. Rather he's apologizing for the way the Catholic church has tortured, murdered and mistreated homosexuals for centuries. An apology seems quite in order. 

 

On the other hand, the Church's official position on homosexuality is quite similar to ours:

Quote

The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste.

 

That's what we believe too, don't we? We reject homosexual acts, but we don't reject people with homosexual feelings. Rather, we "accompany them pastorally" by teaching them about Jehovah. There are brothers in our congregations who struggle with homosexual feelings, and we love them and give them all the encouragement  we can to help them keep chaste. That's the same the Pope says. 

 

Of course, in practice the Church is absolutely indulgent with all kinds of sexual immorality, while we are not. 

 

Jehovah's Witnesses don't hate nor despise homosexuals. We don't discriminate them, insult them and much less mistreat them in any way. Jehovah has taught us to show kindness and respect to all kinds of people. Who knows how many of them will get to love the Truth and cleanse their lives.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, carlos said:

 

Jehovah's Witnesses don't hate nor despise homosexuals. We don't discriminate them, insult them and much less mistreat them in any way. Jehovah has taught us to show kindness and respect to all kinds of people. Who knows how many of them will get to love the Truth and cleanse their lives.  

Unfortunately, the world's definition of discrimination and ours are two different things. According to their definition, if we don't accept their lifestyle and all that goes with it, by denying them their equal rights under the law, then we're discriminating against them. Our definition is one of tolerance and love, but without participating in or condoning their lifestyle and practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think by making such a profound and public statement they are creating the illusion that they are supporting their acts as well (although in reality as Carlos pointed out they do anyway). It is falling only minutely short of blessing them.

 

After Sundays WT I think we have to be verrrry careful how we verbalise support for lifestyles that do not have Jehovah's backing. I think everyone is going to be pushed, by peer pressure via media or social groups, to take sides on this issue ... our stand will always be against the sin not the sinner, but it's going to be skill on the part of individuals on how we convey that, especially if we are challenged at the doors or in a group setting.

 

Use the tools Jehovah is giving us - ie: Latest magazine, that gently explains our stand without being what's the word Brother Losch said ? Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, not using intense words - as these can be easily misconstrued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, minister159 said:

Unfortunately, the world's definition of discrimination and ours are two different things. According to their definition, if we don't accept their lifestyle and all that goes with it, by denying them their equal rights under the law, then we're discriminating against them. Our definition is one of tolerance and love, but without participating in or condoning their lifestyle and practices.

I meant "discriminate" from a legal viewpoint. We don't ban them from our meetings, we offer them Bible studies as to anyone else. At work we don't deny them service and don't treat them differently than we treat any other person. We do not deny them equal rights nor take any stand in favor or against any laws affecting gay rights. In few words, in daily life we don't care what their sexual preferences are. Or at least we shouldn't, although from time to time we unfortunately meet some brothers who have hostile attitudes inherited from Christendom rather than from Jesus' teachings.

 

We don't approve their lifestyle, that's evident, but we don't approve people living together without being married, and we don't approve people smoking or practising abortions either, and yet we don't treat those people differently in our daily life.

 

A different issue is when they want to become members of the congregation. In that context they need to be taught that their lifestyle is not acceptable to Jehovah. But having to meet some requirements to become a member of a religious group cannot be called "discrimination".


Edited by carlos

We don't care people leaving together without being married
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, carlos said:

I meant "discriminate" from a legal viewpoint. We don't ban them from our meetings, we offer them Bible studies as to anyone else. At work we don't deny them service and don't treat them differently than we treat any other person. We do not deny them equal rights nor take any stand in favor or against any laws affecting gay rights. In few words, in daily life we don't care what their sexual preferences are. Or at least we shouldn't, although from time to time we unfortunately meet some brothers who have hostile attitudes inherited from Christendom rather than from Jesus' teachings.

 

We don't approve their lifestyle, that's evident, but we don't approve people living together without being married, and we don't approve people smoking or practising abortions either, and yet we don't treat those people differently in our daily life.

 

A different issue is when they want to become members of the congregation. In that context they need to be taught that their lifestyle is not acceptable to Jehovah. But having to meet some requirements to become a member of a religious group cannot be called "discrimination".

 

I think there was a previous thread that dealt with this subject, about the same time a city clerk in one of the states in the U.S., refused to issue a marriage license to two homosexual men, and she went to jail instead of violate her conscience. There may be similar issues, for example, with brothers and sisters who are self-employed and asked to provide a service for a same-sex wedding, such as catering, limo, dresses/tuxes, entertainment, florist, invitations, etc. I think performing wedding ceremonies only for members of our religion is our prerogative and right under the law as part of freedom of religion, at least here in the U.S., without the threat of being sued for discrimination by two homosexuals wanting to get married.

 

This is what I was referring to as the difference between the world's definition of discrimination and ours. Unfortunately, it becomes a legal issue and not just a moral issue. We have to follow the Bible's counsel to hate what is bad, not be sharers with them in their sins and follow our Bible-trained conscience, but somehow not be viewed as prejudiced and discriminatory. We want to, "Let your reasonableness become know to all men," and at the same time, run the risk of being viewed as religious fanatics because we refuse to compromise Bible principles. I think that's the line in the sand that will be the sticking point for us, and test our mettle, if confronted with it. --- Ps. 97:10, 1Tim. 5:22, 1Tim. 1:19, Phil. 4:5


Edited by carlos

meddling with it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, minister159 said:

Sorry. It should read, "test our mettle," not "meddle."

I saw that, went 'wait..?', then saw this post correcting it.

 

Those are the things I like to refer as 'tragic typos'...

Think about it,  you'll see what I mean...lol

 

I  do agree with your last paragraph,  we do need to be reasonable,  we don't want to compromise.  

Reasonable as in treating all folks with kindness and love, offering them life saving knowledge.  Non compromising in that we will not water down Gods standards so that we have to accept the lifestyle they would choose for themselves.  

It is the other way round--they must accept Gods standard,  thats the only way to have a lifestyle worth having.

Like Mandi said, it is as simple as 'hate the sin, not the sinners'. They need to be educated properly so they can correct the wrong ways..if they choose otherwise,  their loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stormswift said:

I think by making such a profound and public statement they are creating the illusion that they are supporting their acts as well (although in reality as Carlos pointed out they do anyway). It is falling only minutely short of blessing them.

 

I agree the Pope is a master at currying public favor while changing nothing in official church teaching.  Of course if the Catholic church has mistreated or supported the discrimination or mistreatment of homosexuals then its understandable that he apologise but really he is maximising on this controvertial issue to give the appearance that there is a change in the Catholic teaching all the while not angering those that hold to the tradition beliefs about homosexualiity.  If nothing else he's clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, sunshine said:

 

I agree the Pope is a master at currying public favor while changing nothing in official church teaching.  Of course if the Catholic church has mistreated or supported the discrimination or mistreatment of homosexuals then its understandable that he apologise but really he is maximising on this controvertial issue to give the appearance that there is a change in the Catholic teaching all the while not angering those that hold to the tradition beliefs about homosexualiity.  If nothing else he's clever.

His "papacy" has been one of pandering so far. I mean, any religious leader saying that atheists can go to Heaven is clearly currying favor, or "straddling the fence" as I like to put it.

 

I've seen more logical, but lapsed Catholics say exactly what you said: "where are the changes in official teaching?". That's my biggest criticism of him, personally. Its all about your words versus your practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad when condoning = nondiscrimination and rejecting a lifestyle automatically means discrimination.  

 

The whole marriage issue really wasn't discrimination.  That was a good example of how to manipulate and twist words to fit an agenda.  Yes, same-gendered people could not get married.  This was not a discrimination against homosexuals.  A heterosexual man could not marry another man, even though he was heterosexual.  A homosexual man could marry a woman, even though he was homosexual.  The fact that a person was homosexual did not bar them from getting married.  Everyone was barred from marrying someone of their same gender.  Everyone was treated fairly and equally under law.  

 

Separate bathrooms based upon gender (or based upon anything) IS discrimination.  We as a society are OK with that discrimination.  Technically speaking separate restrooms based upon gender is discrimination.  People are being barred from using a certain restroom based solely upon their gender.  

 

To allow someone transgendered to  use the restroom they "idenitfy" with yet require a male or female to use a specific restroom is actually a form of discrimination.  Transgendered do not identify themselves as male or female.  They really aren't identifying with one or the other gender.  This opens them up or gives them the option of using either restroom.  Men and women do not have that option.  To be truly fair and equal, all restrooms should become gender neutral.  That is the only solution that is truly non-discriminatory.

 

Kinda off topic here.

 

The Catholic Church especially has a lot to apologize for.  It's one of the most blood stained reprehensible organizations on the planet.  The fact that this apology is only really being made to appease the unruly masses instead fo out of sincerity is sad.  Their day of judgement is coming and no amount of apologizing will save them from their fate.  

 

No, Christians do not discriminate against homosexuals or transgenders.  At least, we shouldn't.  We should treat everyone fairly and with the dignity someone created in God's image deserves.  Of course a Christian would not perform a same-sex wedding.  We only perform weddings for our members.  As for making a cake for a gay couple or whatever, that's really a conscience matter.  Maybe that is a form of discrimination, but it's not discriminating against homosexuals in general.  It's specifically aimed at the wedding aspect.  If a gay man wants a cake because it's someone's last day of work, a Christian wouldn't bat an eye and the whole issue of sexual orientation wouldn't even come up.  We're not talking about refusing to make a cake because the man is gay, we're talking about refusing to make a cake because we don't wish to be seen supporting a decision we think is immoral.

 

This goes back to homosexuality being about the action or choice and not about any identity issues.  Sadly this has become clouded.  The world has fought to accept this behavior or conduct.  I believe this is the only area of society where conduct = the person.  

 

It's all a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shawnster said:

It's sad when condoning = nondiscrimination and rejecting a lifestyle automatically means discrimination.  

 

The whole marriage issue really wasn't discrimination.  That was a good example of how to manipulate and twist words to fit an agenda.  Yes, same-gendered people could not get married.  This was not a discrimination against homosexuals.  A heterosexual man could not marry another man, even though he was heterosexual.  A homosexual man could marry a woman, even though he was homosexual.  The fact that a person was homosexual did not bar them from getting married.  Everyone was barred from marrying someone of their same gender.  Everyone was treated fairly and equally under law.  

 

Separate bathrooms based upon gender (or based upon anything) IS discrimination.  We as a society are OK with that discrimination.  Technically speaking separate restrooms based upon gender is discrimination.  People are being barred from using a certain restroom based solely upon their gender.  

 

To allow someone transgendered to  use the restroom they "idenitfy" with yet require a male or female to use a specific restroom is actually a form of discrimination.  Transgendered do not identify themselves as male or female.  They really aren't identifying with one or the other gender.  This opens them up or gives them the option of using either restroom.  Men and women do not have that option.  To be truly fair and equal, all restrooms should become gender neutral.  That is the only solution that is truly non-discriminatory.

 

Kinda off topic here.

 

The Catholic Church especially has a lot to apologize for.  It's one of the most blood stained reprehensible organizations on the planet.  The fact that this apology is only really being made to appease the unruly masses instead fo out of sincerity is sad.  Their day of judgement is coming and no amount of apologizing will save them from their fate.  

 

No, Christians do not discriminate against homosexuals or transgenders.  At least, we shouldn't.  We should treat everyone fairly and with the dignity someone created in God's image deserves.  Of course a Christian would not perform a same-sex wedding.  We only perform weddings for our members.  As for making a cake for a gay couple or whatever, that's really a conscience matter.  Maybe that is a form of discrimination, but it's not discriminating against homosexuals in general.  It's specifically aimed at the wedding aspect.  If a gay man wants a cake because it's someone's last day of work, a Christian wouldn't bat an eye and the whole issue of sexual orientation wouldn't even come up.  We're not talking about refusing to make a cake because the man is gay, we're talking about refusing to make a cake because we don't wish to be seen supporting a decision we think is immoral.

 

This goes back to homosexuality being about the action or choice and not about any identity issues.  Sadly this has become clouded.  The world has fought to accept this behavior or conduct.  I believe this is the only area of society where conduct = the person.  

 

It's all a mess.

Homosexuals could not prove discrimination based on the definition you shared, that's why the gay lobby said "we cannot marry the person we love" so to make it an emotional issue, which was the only route they had, hence the "Love wins" tripe.

 

I think the organization summed it up quite well when they said the problems lies in the idea that we MUST act on our urges and telling someone to do otherwise is somehow "wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.7.20 (changelog)