Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Soulewolf]

Neither. Authorty is execised by persons. Experiences and texts cannot exercise authority as they are not persons. How does this relate to the OP?

well nothing in the past like 5 pages have anything to do with natural law so i stopped caring about the OP’s original question.

Also the term “authority” is used rather liberally. though i thought its meaning would be obvious in the context.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

well nothing in the past like 5 pages have anything to do with natural law so i stopped caring about the OP’s original question.

One page ago we were discussing Plato, homosexuality, and the natural law, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

It sounds to me like you have not avoided the moral and doctrinal relativism of which you accuse others though I am not completely sure that I understand what you mean by the phenomenon. Perhaps you can clarify. According to the above you chose to jump ship and join a religion that is consistent with your personal beliefs rather than alter your beliefs to submit to the authority of the church you previously identified with. Is that not an example of the exact same phenomenon you condemn?

Best,
Leela

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings and please forgive my lengthy delay in replying to your post, but I have only recently returned from being on holiday.

First, by moral and doctrinal relativism I mean the repudiation of moral absolutes and non-negotiable truths. Thus an heir to the monotheisitic Judeo-Christian tradition would declare, for example, that homosexual aberrant acts are abhorrent and sinful because the prohibitions against them were issued by the omnipotent, one true God. Whereas a moral relativist would be prepared to tolerate them as alternative and perfectly allowable variants of human sexuality. Again, a moral relativist might declare that whilst he personally believes that sexual desire directed towards children is wrong, someone from a different culture might reasonably believe otherwise.

However, most moral relativists are not consistent and practices like sex slavery, female circumcision and ethnic cleansing have been known to test the forbearance of even the most committed of relativists, who are neither as numerous nor as influential as they would like us to believe.

In April 2005, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) delivered a homily before the College of Cardinals in which he contrasted a steadfast faith in Christ and the Church with the pernicious pluralism of the day:

“The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to sycretism, and so forth…Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires”

I do not think that I can improve upon that. The truth of Pope Benedict’s words have been exemplified and verified continually throughout the present thread.

Second, my decision to say farewell to Anglicanism was determined chiefly on the basis of a conviction that the Church of Rome was the one true “Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Once that realisation had dawned upon me I had no alternative but to convert to Catholicism and depart from the Church of England. Thus it was not so much a question of joining a religion that was consistent with my personal beliefs, but rather of joining the only Church that taught authoritatively on all matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Catholic Church was orthodox in its beliefs on account, and only on account, that it was the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter (see St. Matt. 16: 18) and thus has been preserved from teaching docrtrinal and moral error.

Unfortunately, because the Anglican communion lacks the Magisterium (unlike the Catholic Church) it simply cannot teach with any authority and is therefore continually being “swept along by every wind of teaching”; doctrinal and moral bedlam is sadly the order of the day. Thus there is no “authority” as such to which a man can submit, since there are no uniform and universal beliefs; beliefs will vary according to which bishop, clergyman or layman one happens to be conversing with and the particular ‘shade’ of his theological opinions, is he an Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic or a progressive radical? Alas, not everyone within Anglicanism is singing from the same hymn book, sometimes literally I hasten to add!, for certain hymnbooks reflect the standpoint of certain church ‘parties’.

A laissez-faire church with no doctrinal and moral boundaries will not command the respect of any earnest Christian. Someone has to take ultimate responsibility for the leadership of the Christian Church and that someone is St. Peter’s successor, the Pope.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[colmcille1]

Hi Portrait,
As usual, your posts are excellent! Well said, sir!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Portrait]

the reason i introduced the chemical idea is because there is an obvious rise in homosexuality in the modern day compared to older civilizations. If you look at the bible as historically accurate, regular homosexual activity is constrained to certain groups of people such as in sodom and gomorrah. The idea that a chemical introduced to them through their water systems from the ground, which spread through livestock is far from far fetched (lol). Especially if there was volcanic activity nearby.

Dear Soulewolf,

Cordial greetings.

If some chemical had entered the water supply and had been the occasion of their homosexual deviant acts, then surely they could not be held accountable for their sins since then it would have hardly been their fault for engaging in such detestable conduct. At any rate it could not warrant their total obliteration from the face of the earth and the harsh words with which Sacred Scripture subsequently speaks concerning these cities of the plain.

We note from 2 Peter 2: 6 that “…by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorah to ashes he (God) condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly”. The total destruction was allowed by God in order to bring home to succeeding generations, including our own, that unrighteousness will always result in ruin. False teaching and false behaviour ultimately always produce suffering and disaster, be it in Lot’s day, in St. Peter’s, or in our own. There are actually curious parallels between our contemporary scene and Sodom, for that city was as famed for its affluence and softness as for its wicked immorality and perversion. Now, of course, like any men come of age, they thought that they had outgrown the idea of God. They found out their mistake too late!

St. Jude also informs us that “…Sodom and Gomorah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (S. Jude 7 emphasis mine) - a rather Draconian punishment if their depravity had been caused, through no fault of their own, by some chemical in their water supply! No,these men were responsible for their sins and the unnaturalness of their conduct is stressed; what they did was against the course of nature which is why it evoked the wrath of God. Moreover, it also represented a perpetual warning to prosperity, as in the 2 Peter reference. It was a standing reminder that the triumph of evil is not final. God’s judgment, though it delay, will at length surely come. This is why when it comes to homosexual acts of grave depravity the Church must call a spade a spade and admonish those who engage in them in the strongest terms. This she does out of love for men’s immortal souls which are imperilled by wilful continuance in such wicked conduct.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,
As usual, your posts are excellent! Well said, sir!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

Dear colmcille1,

Cordial greetings dear friend.

Thankyou for your kind comments and a very warm welcome to CAF.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Soulewolf

*What is a higher authority? Personal experiance with Divinity, or scripture? *

Can you explain further the point of this question? Thanks.

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulewolf

*What is a higher authority? Personal experience with Divinity, or scripture? *

Can you explain further the point of this question? Thanks.

well i’ve had personal experience with what i can only call divinity. An infinite essence of love that links everything… that is everything. Through this experience i came to understand that arguments such as the morality of homosexuality are somewhat missing the point of Spirituality. i find it hard to understand how being for or against homosexuality has anything to do with spiritual fulfillment or a relationship with your higher power.

That is, that divinity supersedes mortal squabbles. So even when the bible (which in my opinion is a tool or pathway towards a relationship with divinity, but not an end in itself) states that homosexuality is somehow wrong, what is the relationship between that and personal experience that states that it is a very minor problem if a problem at all?

I guess what i’m asking, in the grand scheme of spirituality, how much does the morality of homosexuality really matter?

 

[antroji]

In itself, the “morality” of homosexuality means nothing, Soulewolf. It is those holding personal opinions about such things and attributing them to God which is more specifically the tragedy we face.

 

[Soulewolf]

In itself, the “morality” of homosexuality means nothing, Soulewolf. It is those holding personal opinions about such things and attributing them to God which is more specifically the tragedy we face.

i see.

 

[colmcille1]

i see.

Hi Soulewolf,
As this thread must suerely by now be about 97 miles long (and I do not wish to begin the 98th mile!) may I respectfully direct you specifically to posts numbers 1081/1083/1085/1086 and 1091.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Soulewolf]

Hi Soulewolf,
As this thread must suerely by now be about 97 miles long (and I do not wish to begin the 98th mile!) may I respectfully direct you specifically to posts numbers 1081/1083/1085/1086 and 1091.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

is there a way to quickly navigate to those posts?

 

[Abu]

antroji
In itself, the “morality” of homosexuality means nothing, Soulewolf. It is those holding personal opinions about such things and attributing them to God which is more specifically the tragedy we face.

Illustrative of the tragedy of antroji’s prejudices against Christ and His Church, who affirm the natural moral law and reinforce it with doctrine. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23).

A dissenting, self-proclaimed Catholic, needs to reconcile himself with Christ, first.

The mantra for antroji is that God means nothing when He proclaims the immorality of homosexual activity – and he is blind to Christ: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

**Answer by Fr. John Echert on May-04-2009 (EWTN): **
“The sin of these two cities was clearly homosexual activity and attempts to cast it otherwise are untenable. Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven. Sympathy for someone afflicted with this inclination must not extend to acceptance of the activity or fall short of urging someone in such a lifestyle to be freed from it.”

 

[antroji]

QED. Thanks, Abu, good job and right on time. You are “abu simbel” in the low humor sense.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all,
May I be so bold as to proffer a short (it will be very short as we are now into the 98th mile!) precis of what I believe to be the “outcome” of this debate.
If you leave aside the personal squabbling (and I am as guilty as the next man) I think that there is a good amount of material here posted by far abler debaters than myself that would demonstrate that homosexuality can be proved wrong from natural law.
I know I hold with this opinion and that I am biased but I have truly searched high and low within the opposing arguments several times and I still come to the aforementioned conclusion.

Having said all that, my overriding thoughts and emotions are determinedly fixed upon that great Scriptural precept: hate the sin, love the sinner.

God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[larkin31]

Illustrative of the tragedy of antroji’s prejudices against Christ and His Church, who affirm the natural moral law and reinforce it with doctrine. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23).

A dissenting, self-proclaimed Catholic, needs to reconcile himself with Christ, first.

The mantra for antroji is that God means nothing when He proclaims the immorality of homosexual activity – and he is blind to Christ: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

**Answer by Fr. John Echert on May-04-2009 (EWTN): **
“The sin of these two cities was clearly homosexual activity and attempts to cast it otherwise are untenable. Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven. Sympathy for someone afflicted with this inclination must not extend to acceptance of the activity or fall short of urging someone in such a lifestyle to be freed from it.”

“But the first of these is love”-- St. Paul

 

[antroji]

Having said all that, my overriding thoughts and emotions are determinedly fixed upon that great Scriptural precept: hate the sin, love the sinner.

God Bless,
Colmcille1.

Thank you, Colmcille1. I completely agree with you. I’m compelled to ask, though, if an exception “proves” the rule, may I offer one? Assuming permission, it is this: Loving the sinner may very well be tainted in the heart of the one who perceives the “sinner” as such either by wrong accusation, or even by the labeling itself, if one examines the semantic logic. Such a label makes the act and actor inseparable. So, if one perceive the person as a “sinner” at all, rather than completely and solely/soul-ly as a child of God, there is already an assessment of guilt inherent in the label.

Historically, are not our “justice” systems examples of many legalized errors and worse? We all know or have heard of laws which allow atrocities or just plain silliness, even dare I say, within our Church, a minor instance of that being an old rules for boys at a local seminary I once read. There are litanies of these. And as closer to “hard dogma” as we perceive the injunctions of our Church to be in this matter, some things in the Church have changed, and to some degree this one might do so as well, if not in kind. So I can agree with you only if the specified “love” so obliterates the sin that error does not even enter the picture. Indeed, in one religion this very act is the criterion for healing. How many of us are so perfect?

 

[colmcille1]

Thank you, Colmcille1. I completely agree with you. I’m compelled to ask, though, if an exception “proves” the rule, may I offer one? Assuming permission, it is this: Loving the sinner may very well be tainted in the heart of the one who perceives the “sinner” as such either by wrong accusation, or even by the labeling itself, if one examines the semantic logic. Such a label makes the act and actor inseparable. So, if one perceive the person as a “sinner” at all, rather than completely and solely/soul-ly as a child of God, there is already an assessment of guilt inherent in the label.

Historically, are not our “justice” systems examples of many legalized errors and worse? We all know or have heard of laws which allow atrocities or just plain silliness, even dare I say, within our Church, a minor instance of that being an old rules for boys at a local seminary I once read. There are litanies of these. And as closer to “hard dogma” as we perceive the injunctions of our Church to be in this matter, some things in the Church have changed, and to some degree this one might do so as well, if not in kind. So I can agree with you only if the specified “love” so obliterates the sin that error does not even enter the picture. Indeed, in one religion this very act is the criterion for healing. How many of us are so perfect?

Hi antroji,
You make an interesting point viz the “semantic logic”. As I understand it, the saying “the exception proves the rule” is from, correct me please if I am wrong, Middle English and means to “test” the rule for it’s efficacy.
That aside, I have always held that the “hate the sin, love the sinner” is, first and foremost, a self-applied instruction. IOW, I must examine my heart in order to understand my brother’s.
The “labelling” is not the core issue as much as the recognisance of the existence of sin. And sin does not choose who among us it will “infect” (sorry for the clumsy term). Sin taints us all any and every time.
I agree with you that this “love the sinner” precept can be used wrongfully in the manner in which you describe and this in itself is also a sin.
I feel that the reason why there is such a fierce debate around homosexuality is because it goes right to the core of what it means to be made “in His image”.
We must always and everywhere strive to examine our conscience to see how this supreme creative act of a Loving God holds us to account.
It does not mean we constantly berate ourselves for every real or imagined lapse but we must understand the process of this conscience to humanly perfect our thoughts and deeds.
But I don’t believe that it is the purpose of the love which emanates from said conscience to
“obliterate(s)” this sin but rather to recognise it as real in the world and to demonstrate by words and deeds that said sin can be changed.
I hope that I have adequately addressed your post.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antroji

*So, if one perceive the person as a “sinner” at all, rather than completely and solely/soul-ly as a child of God, there is already an assessment of guilt inherent in the label. *

I’d say the reasoned assessment (note, I said assessment, not judgment) of another person’s sins is as allowable as the reasoned assessment of our own sins. We have as much an obligation to chastise each other as we have to chastise ourselves. It is only those we do not love, or those we fear to chastise, that never get the chastising they need and deserve. I cannot count all the many times in my life others have held their mirror up to me and I have seen in that mirror what I never see in my own. I call those who have done so more my friends than my adversaries

 

[Soulewolf]

Illustrative of the tragedy of antroji’s prejudices against Christ and His Church, who affirm the natural moral law and reinforce it with doctrine. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23).

A dissenting, self-proclaimed Catholic, needs to reconcile himself with Christ, first.

The mantra for antroji is that God means nothing when He proclaims the immorality of homosexual activity – and he is blind to Christ: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

**Answer by Fr. John Echert on May-04-2009 (EWTN): **
“The sin of these two cities was clearly homosexual activity and attempts to cast it otherwise are untenable. Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven. Sympathy for someone afflicted with this inclination must not extend to acceptance of the activity or fall short of urging someone in such a lifestyle to be freed from it.”

Well this is exactly what i’m talking about when i ask if personal experience of the Divine trumps the ideas presented through a very restricted language system. Which is the higher authority objectively and how much does homosexuality even matter in the big picture of Spirituality, personal fulfillment, and spiritual enlightenment?

I mean in my opinion, you can know the bible, every passage, every word and every reference, but it is really all just words until you understand it (to use a buddhist reference) with your heart.

Just like one can memorize the Tao Te Ching without realizing the Tao, and until the Tao is realized the Tao Te Ching is simply a compilation of words open to interpretation and context.

To further illustrate what i’m trying to get at, If one realizes the Tao (hypothetically), which would one want to look more to in order to understand how to go about life? The Tao, which you have direct experiance with, or the book that describes it with a flawed language system?