Changed my views on Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ellipses
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are still many anti-Church forces in Russia so who knows if these numbers aren’t bogus. Then there’s the photos of hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of the Church, the many attending Liturgy and the many other indicators. They also have a massive advantage over the West because the culture is not only trending in an overwhelmingly Christian direction but you don’t get the superficial causes we have here in the West, like third wave feminism, gay “marriage” and culturally suicidal multiculturalism, which is showing its destructive nature right before our very eyes, that is of course if one’s eyes are open. If they are not now then they will truly be the most powerful Christian nation on the face of the earth, that is no longer the United States as we haven’t been Christian here for some time.
 
Hello.

Two random thoughts: I like the idea that we’re all called to chastity. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Couldn’t the same be said for a predisposition to alcoholism?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s alcoholism, specifically. Some people are more prone to addiction than others. The “drug” they choose could be alcohol, cocaine, sex, food, etc. I don’t know if they are born with the predisposition or if it’s acquired through life experience. I’m neither psychologist or biologist.
 
Thorolfr said:
I still don’t know how God could allow an innocent child to be born with a predisposition to homosexuality if He considers the inclination that might arise from that to be disordered. If I thought that that were the case, I would indeed think God is rather cruel. How can He punish someone for something He made possible.
Click to expand...
The flaw in this is that God allows sin so that greater good can come from it. The Father allowed His own Son to be cruelly scourged and crucified for the greater good.

This is like saying "God would not allow an innocent child to be born HIV positive or with club feet, hydrocephaly (or any myriad of other diseases and problems) since they did no wrong and should not be punished.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Some people are more prone to addiction than others. The “drug” they choose could be alcohol, cocaine, sex, food, etc. I don’t know if they are born with the predisposition or if it’s acquired through life experience
Click to expand...
The current theories actually say it’s a bit of both. That there’s a genetic/biological bent toward addiction but life circumstance may dictate its appearance.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
If God is truly omnipotent, then that doesn’t mean He can’t do anything to prevent innocent children from dying of disease or prevent people from dying of hunger. Or, are you suggesting that ever since the Fall, God is just sitting back with a completely hands off approach to what’s happening on earth?
Click to expand...
No, but He does not miraculously intervene to remove all the consequences of the Fall, either. He does not prevent married people from falling in love with people who are not their spouse. He does not prevent adults from being sexually attracted to children etc.
 
ConstantLearner said:
That has nothing to do with homosexuality, but unworthiness in general:
Click to expand...
This seems an odd thing to say. Why would a person with same sex attraction be any less at risk for “unworthiness in general” than the next person?
ConstantLearner said:
And, you have to remember that the Bible was written for first century Jews. The Catholic Church does not follow the guidelines of first century Judaism.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what “Bible” you are using, but the New Testament was written by, for , and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. I agree, that the CC does not follow the “guidelines of first century Judaism” (whatever the heck that means!), but that is not what the contents of the NT are.
 
guanophore said:
I am not sure what “Bible” you are using, but the New Testament was written by, for , and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. I agree, that the CC does not follow the “guidelines of first century Judaism” (whatever the heck that means!), but that is not what the contents of the NT are.
Click to expand...
There were no “Catholics” in the first century, only Messianic Jews. The first Christians,I feel you know, were Jews, and later, Gentiles who believed Jesus to be the Messiah. There was friction between Peter and Paul, in part, because Peter believed these new followers of Christ must adopt Jewish customs, and Paul did not. Did these disparate churches evolve into what is now know as the Catholic Church? Yes. And, the Bible was written for everyone, not just “Catholics.” Jesus excluded no one.
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
This seems an odd thing to say. Why would a person with same sex attraction be any less at risk for “unworthiness in general” than the next person?

ConstantLearner:
Click to expand...
I don’t think they are. If I gave that impression, it was sloppy wording on my part. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Brendan_64 said:
Too often it seems to be said or implied that the Church should accomodate the prevailing societal views on such issues, that the Church should ‘modernise’, that to fail to do so will see the Church shrinking in numbers. Is that what we are to be, a club that changes our message in order to attract more members?

Are we here to change the world, or are we here to change to be more like the world?
Click to expand...
No one could possibly have said it any better, thank you
 
Brendan_64 said:
Too often it seems to be said or implied that the Church should accomodate the prevailing societal views on such issues, that the Church should ‘modernise’, that to fail to do so will see the Church shrinking in numbers. Is that what we are to be, a club that changes our message in order to attract more members?

Are we here to change the world, or are we here to change to be more like the world?
Click to expand...
Worth repeating.
 
ConstantLearner said:
There were no “Catholics” in the first century, only Messianic Jews. The first Christians,I feel you know, were Jews, and later, Gentiles who believed Jesus to be the Messiah. There was friction between Peter and Paul, in part, because Peter believed these new followers of Christ must adopt Jewish customs, and Paul did not. Did these disparate churches evolve into what is now know as the Catholic Church? Yes. And, the Bible was written for everyone, not just “Catholics.” Jesus excluded no one.
Click to expand...
Jesus talked about “my church”.

Some people were told they should have a millstone tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea.

Something about not corrupting children.

At least one person was told he would be better off not having been born.

www.catholic.com

What the Early Church Believed: The Meaning of "Catholic"

By the second century, we find the first example of the term "Catholic" being used to refer to a single, visible communion, seperate from the others.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
There were no “Catholics” in the first century, only Messianic Jews.
Click to expand...
“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Sounds like the start of a new Church to me. A Church built on Peter, chosen by Christ from amongst the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
And, the Bible was written for everyone, not just “Catholics.” Jesus excluded no one.
Click to expand...
The New Testament canon of the Bible was decided upon and compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century.

The early Christian Church was referred to as the Catholic Church as early as the 2nd century.

Yes, the Bible is indeed for all men, but it was compiled by the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
Jesus said a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh. That is marriage not two men or two women.
 
A lot of Catholics, including myself, have friends and/or family members who are good people living generally good lives and who are also LGBTQ.

I continue to love these people as our friends and/or family. I pray for them and trust in God to take care of them. I pray for the Church to find the appropriate way through this thorny issue and for all people on all sides of the issue to treat each other with charity and understanding (and this includes the LGBTQ people treating those who do not agree with their views with charity and understanding as well).

I’ll leave it at that. This forum is not a good place to discuss this issue, IMHO. Things get ugly real fast.
 
Liberals claim they are Catholics, but the truth is that most of them want to customize church doctrine. Many disciples departed from Jesus because of His teachings, and I don’t see why Catholics should bother about those who leave the Church because they dislike the truth. If you are truly a Catholic, follow Church teachings, if not feel free to leave.
 
Agree with most of what you wrote except the stuff about a schism. The Roman Catholic Church is pretty much schism-proof. People disaffected by Church teachings are much more likely to disassociate themselves from religion altogether, with a smaller fraction moving on to mainline Protestant churches.

I also agree that the Church will shift to Africa. In western countries, they will shrink to a marginal minority.

That’s not really a prediction, though, as it basically describes the process already taking place for many years.
 
AndrewAxland said:
Agree with most of what you wrote except the stuff about a schism. The Roman Catholic Church is pretty much schism-proof.
Click to expand...
I’m sure people in the year 1000 AD were saying the same thing. The only way we avoid schism is by continually striving for unity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top