Are homosexuals born with this disorder?

[Elizabeth502]

Are you claiming that Jesus, God, never considered the issue of homosexuality? Are you claiming that Jesus, the man, never encountered a conversation about it or thought about it? Or are you claiming that you know how Jesus felt and thought about homosexuality? I am just curious, what, precisely, you are claiming about Jesus in his time.

I’m “claiming” (affirming) what other scripture scholars claim and affirm: that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that He ever affirmed homosexual behavior as congruent with Jewish morality. And if he had introduced such a radical notion into his message of an intensification of Jewish morality, it would have been such huge news that all 4 gospels, not to mention the epistles, would have revealed it, and discussed it.

 

[larkin31]

I’m “claiming” (affirming) what other scripture scholars claim and affirm: that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that He ever affirmed homosexual behavior as congruent with Jewish morality. And if he had introduced such a radical notion into his message of an intensification of Jewish morality, it would have been such huge news that all 4 gospels, not to mention the epistles, would have revealed it, and discussed it.

Ok, but no one claimed that Jesus DID say this. The claim was that Jesus never commented on it. Which, as far as anyone knows, he did not. In fact, according to scripture Jesus rarely comments on sexual morality of any kind.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Ok, but no one claimed that Jesus DID say this. The claim was that Jesus never commented on it. Which, as far as anyone knows, he did not. In fact, according to scripture Jesus rarely comments on sexual morality of any kind.

But he did tell the woman that was about to be stoned to “go and sin no more”.

 

[larkin31]

But he did tell the woman that was about to be stoned to “go and sin no more”.

Yes, Jesus did. This is one of the few times.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’m “claiming” (affirming) what other scripture scholars claim and affirm: that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that He ever affirmed homosexual behavior as congruent with Jewish morality. And if he had introduced such a radical notion into his message of an intensification of Jewish morality, it would have been such huge news that all 4 gospels, not to mention the epistles, would have revealed it, and discussed it.

Further, although the four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus against homosexual behavior, nor any examples of His meeting and dealing with a homosexual person, there is more than enough evidence from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alone to conclude that the only form of sexual behavior Jesus endorsed was limited to the married state.

The Letter to the Hebrews gives this summary of both OT and NT norms regarding marriage and various possible types of human sexual behavior:

Hewbrews 13:4: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers."

You appropriately cited in your previous post

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. …"

Jesus was a revolutionary in His time; yet, He did NOT make it a point to delete, change or add to

**Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.” **
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Then therefore it should not be considered a priori a disorder. And those who “sympathize” while maintaining that it is a disorder are carrying out the activity of patronizing and are therefore abetting the persecution of our gay brothers ans sisters. Jesus had to have had encountered this question and there is not a single word from Him on the subject. Did He outsource dealing with it to Paul and/or not include this point in His new covenant that moved beyond the OT?

Incorrect conclusion. A falsehood.

Episcopalians have advanced the argument that Jesus did not mention homosexual sin, one which gay advocates of other Christian and agnostic persuasions also use.

Here is a good article for you to read: Jesus and the Homosexual

It is written by Lambert Dolphin, a retired physicist from Stanford U. He then pursued a small-scale independent geophysical consulting services, and devoted time to Bible teaching, writing and Christian counseling. Mr. Lambert became a Christian after a long search and study of the religions and philosophies of the world.

*A brochure on the door of the Episcopal Chaplain’s office at Stanford University reads, “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” When the brochure is opened the inside is completely blank. Episcopal Chaplain Penelope Duckworth explains, “For we, as Christians, pay particular attention to the words of our savior. Jesus said nothing regarding homosexuality, and in his ministry spoke more about the sins of the spirit than the sins of the body…Our reading of the Bible in its entirety is one of a loving, forgiving and nurturing God who wants us to help create a world that accepts and empowers us all.” (Letter to the Editor, by Rev. Penelope Duckworth, Elizabeth Cook and Cynthia Stotts Howard, the Stanford Daily March 1990).

It is true that nothing specific is recorded about homosexuality in the four gospels. However to assume that Jesus was neutral on this issue might be to ignore a great deal of indirect evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Ms. Duckworth and friends seek to assure gay men and women at Stanford that they are the objects of God’s love and grace—which is certainly Biblically sound. The gospels contain many examples of the forgiveness and mercy Jesus extended to men and women from all backgrounds and circumstances in life. One clear example of the forgiveness and mercy of Jesus is given in John Chapter 8:

“Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?’ This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.’” (John 8:1-11)
…
Jewish Culture in The Times of Jesus

Perhaps the reason Jesus said nothing specifically about homosexuality was that “gay lifestyles” were virtually unknown in the Israel of his day. Everyone knew and understood the culturally acceptable standards. Sexual immorality in any form was shameful and not for open public discussion. In fact, even the suggestion of heterosexual activity before marriage was scandalous:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25)*Full article here.

Elizabeth is right in her counter-argument to you.
,

 

[Tonitz]

Chapters 17–26 of Leviticus contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to “love one’s neighbor as oneself” (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with “abominations”, largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions applied equally to “the strangers that sojourn in Israel.” And I would surmise that even those might be for the comfort and peace of the Isrealites than for the fulfillment of any absolute Divine law.

According to Jewish and Christian tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses (a name designating Egyptian royalty, eg Thutmoses) as He did the other books of the Bible.[1] Modern scholarship sees it as a product of the Priestly source and the 5th century BCE. And this once again brings in the contention between Peter, a Pope, and Paul, a convert, as to whom the Christian message as then understood was given and what it actually included.

I’m sorry IsoG, et al, there is a great weight of evidence yet that we are dealing far more with a cultural orientation than an actual divine edict. And you have to admit, I’m afraid, that our Church, for all its good intentions, is glacially slow in assimilating of even including much that science has given us. And while I agree that science as a discipline doesn’t admit of the Original Cause that we do, it has a lot going in its favor in terms of research and description of dynamics, including the field of Bible scholarship. And I continue to submit that despite it wholly Holy intention, whatever conclusions are exegized from the Holy Bible by the Church and its Bronze and Iron Age levels of comprehension of things scientific, the Church yet admits in its own Catechism that it does not understand the source of homosexuality.

Until such time as it fully comprehends that, and clearly states its comprehension in terms compatible with science, as there cannot be two explanations for the same Universe, I will stand by my thesis that the view of the Church and of all who regard homosexuality as aberrant are materially contributing to the clouding of issues that result in far greater spiritual damage to our brothers and sisters than any possible good, even in terms of salvation. As far as I am concerned, your postings simply fortify my stance.

Thank you!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Jesus weeps for a Brokeback Nation.

Sorry about your stance, Tonitz. May you see the light.
,

 

[larkin31]

Chapters 17–26 of Leviticus contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to “love one’s neighbor as oneself” (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with “abominations”, largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions applied equally to “the strangers that sojourn in Israel.” And I would surmise that even those might be for the comfort and peace of the Isrealites than for the fulfillment of any absolute Divine law.

According to Jewish and Christian tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses (a name designating Egyptian royalty, eg Thutmoses) as He did the other books of the Bible.[1] Modern scholarship sees it as a product of the Priestly source and the 5th century BCE. And this once again brings in the contention between Peter, a Pope, and Paul, a convert, as to whom the Christian message as then understood was given and what it actually included.

I’m sorry IsoG, et al, there is a great weight of evidence yet that we are dealing far more with a cultural orientation than an actual divine edict. And you have to admit, I’m afraid, that our Church, for all its good intentions, is glacially slow in assimilating of even including much that science has given us. And while I agree that science as a discipline doesn’t admit of the Original Cause that we do, it has a lot going in its favor in terms of research and description of dynamics, including the field of Bible scholarship. And I continue to submit that despite it wholly Holy intention, whatever conclusions are exegized from the Holy Bible by the Church and its Bronze and Iron Age levels of comprehension of things scientific, the Church yet admits in its own Catechism that it does not understand the source of homosexuality.

Until such time as it fully comprehends that, and clearly states its comprehension in terms compatible with science, as there cannot be two explanations for the same Universe, I will stand by my thesis that the view of the Church and of all who regard homosexuality as aberrant are materially contributing to the clouding of issues that result in far greater spiritual damage to our brothers and sisters than any possible good, even in terms of salvation. As far as I am concerned, your postings simply fortify my stance.

Thank you!

I appreciate this post from a Catholic. I share your concern over the harm done from ancient (and contemporary) cultural prejudices.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m afraid, that our Church, for all its good intentions, is glacially slow in assimilating of even including much that science has given us. And while I agree that science as a discipline doesn’t admit of the Original Cause that we do, it has a lot going in its favor in terms of research and description of dynamics, including the field of Bible scholarship.

(1) Science, and scientific discoveries, do not dictate the moral code of the Roman Catholic Church, handed down from Jesus Himself. The ancient Jewish people had an unscientific view of cosmology as well. They thought there was a layer called “the firmanent,” but the unscientific nature of such thought/belief does not invalidate a single moral or philosophical Truth of Genesis: That God created all, that he encompasses all (life), that we would not exist without Him, that the universe reflects, and is a product of, the very divine order itself, that he breathed and breathes Life into all of creation, and that when mankind disturbs that order, it imperils its relationship with God, the author of order. A trillion “new” astronomical “discoveries” will never succeed in denying Invisible but real Truth. That includes all theories of the origin of the universe, btw. And it includes all populist, rationalizing “new” theories of sexuality.

(2) If anything, Biblical scholarship regarding the cultural and moral milieu of Jesus increasingly hones in on the Jewishness of Jesus, and reaffirms his fidelity to Jewish law.

And I continue to submit that despite it wholly Holy intention, whatever conclusions are exegized from the Holy Bible by the Church and its Bronze and Iron Age levels of comprehension of things scientific, the Church yet admits in its own Catechism that it does not understand the source of homosexuality.

Doesn’t matter what the “source” is. Any more than it matters what the source of succumbing to any other disordered attraction is. (Adultery, lying, stealing, murder, perjury, or anything else.) Science cannot change the fundamental order of the universe, let alone divine law. They can play with words and ideas all they want, “explaining” this or that, but the order remains.

 

[edwest2]

Bronze Age? Iron Age? What does that have to do with Church teaching? There is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church assimilates new knowledge.

bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

There were homosexuals in Biblical times. It was not unknown then. And I am a sinner as well, at risk with other sinners. Only God can give all of us the Word of Mercy and His priests, forgiveness on earth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kolbe300]

Doesn’t matter what the “source” is.

It may not matter to you. But to others?

Any more than it matters what the source of succumbing to any other disordered attraction is.

Do you believe sexual orientation is nothing more than an “attraction”?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you believe sexual orientation is nothing more than an “attraction”?

I believe that heterosexual orientation means oriented toward members of the opposite sex. Therefore I believe that homosexual orientation means oriented toward members of the same sex. And orientation in both cases refers to desire, attraction, love-interest. I don’t know why homosexuality must be dramatically elevated, complex and mysterious, whereas heterosexuality needs to be consigned to something of a more mundane category of human behavior.

 

[Tonitz]

It’s pretty simple, 502: what would it be like with the shoe on the other foot, with (I’m assuming) your heterosexual tendencies in the minority and you suffering at the things that is normal life for homosexuals now have to take as “normal” attitudes from society? Do you not think that you would have something to say about that? And if you were repressed, prevented from when you consider acceptance, and even physically abused for your orientation, wouldn’t you raise a stink? And would you consider your orientation a disorder because someone else said so, regardless of on what alleged authority? I would think less of you if you didn’t. But that is the position in which the homosexual finds himself/herself in.

 

[Mom_of_5]

I know of three young women who married, had children, somehow got into the drug scene, began having relationships with same sex as well as opposite sex. Now, none are into drugs at this time, all decided that they prefer the lesbian life style. Drugs, and especially Meth, cause the user to have a high sex drive and it seems it sometimes does not matter how that desire is fulfilled. This is obviously not the answer for all homosexual activity, but I believe it is the catalyst for some to go to the gay lifestyle. Homosexuals do not think of their sexual orientation as a disorder and want to be treated the same as heterosexuals, including the right to marry. One of the three women had sex with a man just to become pregnant after she decided to be lesbian. This child will never know his bio dad and refers to his mothers partner as his “other mother”. How confusing is this?? Born or acquired?? I know those that I believe were born homosexual and know some who have chosen it.

Praying for those who have found themselves in this difficult lifestyle.

Mom of 5

 

[larkin31]

Doesn’t matter what the “source” is. Any more than it matters what the source of succumbing to any other disordered attraction is. (Adultery, lying, stealing, murder, perjury, or anything else.) Science cannot change the fundamental order of the universe, let alone divine law. They can play with words and ideas all they want, “explaining” this or that, but the order remains.

Well, this is a thread asking the simple question, “Are homosexuals born with this disorder?” In THIS case, causality matters a lot, even though you say otherwise.

And the research into this question is not merely “playing with words and ideas.” That is really a quite anti-intellectual dismissal of research into patterns of homosexuality. The work in this area does not mean you have to like gays any more or less than you do now, or think they are any more or less of a sinner, but don’t call their work “just playing with words.” You are wrong with that dismissive summary.

 

[edwest2]

Well, this is a thread asking the simple question, “Are homosexuals born with this disorder?” In THIS case, causality matters a lot, even though you say otherwise.

And the research into this question is not merely “playing with words and ideas.” That is really a quite anti-intellectual dismissal of research into patterns of homosexuality. The work in this area does not mean you have to like gays any more or less than you do now, or think they are any more or less of a sinner, but don’t call their work “just playing with words.” You are wrong with that dismissive summary.

What is your answer then?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kolbe300]

And orientation in both cases refers to desire, attraction, love-interest.

So it is more than just attraction! How complex!

I don’t know why homosexuality must be dramatically elevated, complex and mysterious, whereas heterosexuality needs to be consigned to something of a more mundane category of human behavior.

Ironically, and in all seriousness, the ones that seem to elevate the origins of homosexuality to the galactically complex are often times those who aren’t homosexual. That being said, I do believe human sexuality is beautifully mysterious and far from mundane.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The Church is clear in that sin is associated with the homosexual act, not with the inclination or attraction to another of the same sex. If one is not acting on SSA, he or she is living according to Church teaching.

However, homosexuals, whether active or celibate, have something in common, i.e., the yearning for a mate or partner not from the opposite gender but their own. The only difference is of course that the latter does not act on the inclination and stays away from sin.

It is understandable that both categories do not like the reference of homosexuality as an objective disorder. I heard Peter Kreeft discuss the reason it is particularly hard for homosexuals: they identify themselves with their orientation, with their sexuality. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves with their sexuality. Individuals who are sexually oriented towards children or towards alcohol do not identify themselves with their corresponding disorders.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a diagnosis in its list of disorders in 1973. Do homosexuals now want the Church to remove the term “objective disorder” and abandon the teaching that homosexual acts are sinful? It would seem that that is the direction that pro-gay posters in this thread want the Church to move, in reading their posts. It is amazing that some even or still identify as Catholic. IMO, they have already left the faith by rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, they just don’t know or admit it. Truly sad.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Do you believe sexual orientation is nothing more than an “attraction”?

I believe that heterosexual orientation means oriented toward members of the opposite sex. Therefore I believe that homosexual orientation means oriented toward members of the same sex. And orientation in both cases refers to desire, attraction, love-interest. I don’t know why homosexuality must be dramatically elevated, complex and mysterious, whereas heterosexuality needs to be consigned to something of a more mundane category of human behavior.

So it is more than just attraction! How complex!

Ironically, and in all seriousness, the ones that seem to elevate the origins of homosexuality to the galactically complex are often times those who aren’t homosexual.

That being said, I do believe human sexuality is beautifully mysterious and far from mundane.

Kolbe,

You and Elizabeth were talking about heterosexual orientation along side homosexual orientation. She has plainly answered your question on orientation. Then you shifted to the origin of homosexuality, saying it is elevated to a complex level by heterosexuals.

You have the sides reversed, as to which is elevating the discussion to a complex level. Homosexuals or the pro-gay side (not heterosexuals or Christian conservatives) is eager to find a genetic, hormonal, or neurological explanation for sexual orientation, which is believed will remove doubt that individuals have no choice about their sexuality; hence, society will have no choice but to accept their sexual behavior as natural and normal.

People hold this view, as you can read in this article.
,