Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[EasterJoy]

Paul did not make a distinction between moral and ritual law, and James went so far as to specifically use the phrase the whole law when referring to these rules (James 2:10). The phrase the whole law is used multiple times throughout the whole Bible. Please, show me where the Bible ever makes a distinction between between the moral and the ritual law.

I will show you that St. Paul never came within a million miles of endorsing sexual immorality!

*What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?..Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature.** For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.** For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. *. Rom. 6:1-2, 12-21

Oh, and let’s not forget what St. Paul wrote way back at the beginning of that same letter!

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Rom 1:26-28;32

If you think St. Paul is your ally in lobbying for gay marriage, you need to read what he wrote a bit more carefully!

 

[UnCatholicBride]

I will show you that St. Paul never came within a million miles of endorsing sexual immorality!

What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?..Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature.** For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.** For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. . Rom. 6:1-2, 12-21

Oh, and let’s not forget what St. Paul wrote way back at the beginning of that same letter!

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Rom 1:26-28;32

If you think St. Paul is your ally in lobbying for gay marriage, you need to read what he wrote a bit more carefully!

Nice smoke and mirrors response. Please, if you’re going to respond to my post, do so logically. I asked where Paul made a distinction between the so called “moral” and “ritual” laws of Leviticus.

 

[EasterJoy]

Please, show me where the Bible ever makes a distinction between between the moral and the ritual law.

I already cited the incident in Acts, where the Apostles said in their letter to the Gentile Christians that they did not need to be circumcised or keep kosher, but that they ought to refrain from eating treif meat and avoid unlawful marriage. You and I both know that a man “marrying” another man has never been a “lawful marriage” in the history of Christendom!!

 

[UnCatholicBride]

I already cited the incident in Acts, where the Apostles said in their letter to the Gentile Christians that they did not need to be circumcised or keep kosher, but that they ought to refrain from eating treif meat and avoid unlawful marriage. You and I both know that a man “marrying” another man has never been a “lawful marriage” in the history of Christendom!!

Eating treif meat would be an example of your so called “ritualistic” laws and not a moral law. So either the entire law stands, or none of the law stands.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nice smoke and mirrors response. Please, if you’re going to respond to my post, do so logically. I asked where Paul made a distinction between the so called “moral” and “ritual” laws of Leviticus.

Why are you being obstinate? I showed you where St. Paul directly spoke of homosexual acts as degrading and abominable. There isn’t a whit of doubt about whether or not he taught that homosexual acts were morally permissible! He talked directly about them as being especially repugnant behaviors. As I said, too, the passage in Acts shows that the Apostles responded from their teaching office which laws were still binding. The laws concerning marriage were upheld. No gay marriages allowed, no sex outside marriage allowed. This is how it was then, and this is what has been taught ever since.

Here, this is from the earliest text in the New Testament, Galatians. Your contention that St. Paul believed that Christians were released from having to follow moral law is just wrong.

I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh.For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal. 5:16-21

 

[PRmerger]

Eating treif meat would be an example of your so called “ritualistic” laws and not a moral law. So either the entire law stands, or none of the law stands.

Your first error is in asking that we use the Bible alone to tell us where Paul distinguishes between ritualistic laws and moral laws.

We as Catholics do not use the Bible alone. We use the lens of Tradition and the Church to interpret what Paul has said, and thus we know from both Tradition and the Church how to understand Paul’s epistles.

Could you please answer the question I originally posited to you, UCB?

 

[Lochias]

Eating treif meat would be an example of your so called “ritualistic” laws and not a moral law. So either the entire law stands, or none of the law stands.

As a self-proclaimed Cafeteria Catholic, what do you even care about trying (illogically) to prove yourself right? Aren’t you just going to do what you want to do anyway?

 

[Rau]

Nice smoke and mirrors response. Please, if you’re going to respond to my post, do so logically. I asked where Paul made a distinction between the so called “moral” and “ritual” laws of Leviticus.

Why do you reject the writings that are explicit and unambiguous, and prefer to search for a palatable interpretation of a less explicit writing?

As a Cafeteria Catholic, wouldn’t it be more straightforward to simply state that you reject the explicit writings that don’t suit you? Perhaps they are poorly translated or forgeries? Your position then becomes unassailable.

 

[Godric2]

I’m not sure about this. I do think we have to accept that doctrine develops, and what was once acceptable to the church no longer is - e.g. astrology.

I wonder if there are things, ethically, which have once been condemned by the Church but no longer are.

Patron Saint of Breast cancer patients

 

[EasterJoy]

Eating treif meat would be an example of your so called “ritualistic” laws and not a moral law. So either the entire law stands, or none of the law stands.

You can take your interpretation up with the Apostle James, how about that?

*After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

‘After this I shall return

and rebuild the fallen hut of David;

from its ruins I shall rebuild it

and raise it up again,

so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord,

even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked.

Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,

known from of old.’

It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter** to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.** For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.” Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. *
Acts 15:13-22

If you won’t believe the account from the Acts of the Apostles, I think there is little chance you will believe me.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is perfect.

I think it is presumptuous to believe we know the mind of God. As biblical scholarship becomes more and more reliable and advanced. it casts a lot of doubt on the meaning of some of the translations we have used to base Church doctrine on. In the New Testament, the word in Greek that is often translated as “homosexuality” was actually not a contemporary word used to describe that. If Paul was writing to a contemporary audience, it would make sense that he use well established words to refer to homosexual acts rather than use one of ambiguous meaning. A number of modern scholars believe the original word “arsenokoites” was probably a reference to shrine prostitution or the ritualistic use of sex for worship, something which was not uncommon in Corinth in those days.

The Church is a living things and we can only hope that she will grow in Her perfection and unity with God. As we become more enlightened, it is important to remember that we are imperfect humans with limited understanding. God made us Man and Woman because that is the natural order of life. That, however, does not mean that anything outside of that is a sin. We must always remember to be kind to others and leave the judgement up to God. Jesus never spoke directly on the subject so it’s probably best to avoid casting stones at others.

God made us Man and Woman because that is the natural order of life. That, however, does not mean that anything outside of that is a sin.

\

So basically--------there is no sin. And we must be “enilightened.”

Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do…

Throught the prayers of the Mother of God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

 

[josh987654321]

Leviticus is not even applicable to us. It was written to the Jews in the Old Testament. It was before Jesus laid down his life so that we could be free of the curse of the law. Paul said that these laws were the yoke of slavery in Galatians 5:1

Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5:17-20:

The Law of Moses

17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.

19 If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. 20 You must obey God’s commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don’t, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.

And I believe he fulfilled it here John 8:1-11, when they demanded that the adulteress be put to death in accordance with Mosaic law, Jesus said “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” than Jesus who was sinless said “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.” thus the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise, I believe he fullfilled the Mosaic law here and didn’t come to do away with it. And I believe Leviticus tells us that the sexual acts of homosexality are sinful, just like it does adultery.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think God accepts gay marriage. In the Bible Paul condemned the coercive homosexual stuff by the Romans, but it was not about it being gay but about the fact that they were coercive. He has not said that gayness ITSELF is wrong but was making a point about something else.

Is that what you believe, or is that what you want to believe?

I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I’m not sure about this. I do think we have to accept that doctrine develops, and what was once acceptable to the church no longer is - e.g. astrology.

I wonder if there are things, ethically, which have once been condemned by the Church but no longer are.

Patron Saint of Breast cancer patients

Would it be resonable to believe that the Church’s teachings on "love thy neighbour’ will change as more and more people hate their neighbors?

I believe you are being a little naive about this, the Bible say’s it’s wrong, the Church say’s it’s wrong and Biology say’s it’s wrong, as it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, I don’t see how the Church’s teachings will change on this.
Matthew 19:4-6:

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:5-9

5 Jesus replied, “Moses gave you this law because you are so heartless. 6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

If it were a cultural reason why Jesus didn’t speak of the sexual acts of homosexuality, or that if he did, he would not have had a problem with it, than may I ask why he directly and clearly exclude that possibility in these teachings I quoted?

I believe just because we desire something it doesn’t make it right, otherwise you could say “If God didn’t want me to cheat, murder, hate or steal than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”

I believe that not one of us doesn’t have an immoral desire and that our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

I believe we are all tempted at different degrees in all different areas, if my whole family were killed like in the move “The Punnisher” than I may desire vengence more than alot of others and more than you could understand, and we should be sympathetic to that, but it wouldn’t make taking vengence right. Jesus said 38 You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Life is Like a box of Chocolates ,You never know what your gunna get…

 A very simple Quote .. but it's an honest Quote...  Humans are a very complex Creature..

and we seek Complex answers to what appears a complex Question…

Is same gender Attraction Really THAT Important  ?

if anything, these matters are now treated with a little dignity …

and before people criticize the action of a few…

lets look into the lives of those that do the Criticism …

 

[Lochias]

Life is Like a box of Chocolates ,You never know what your gunna get…

 A very simple Quote .. but it's an honest Quote...  Humans are a very complex Creature..

and we seek Complex answers to what appears a complex Question…

Is same gender Attraction Really THAT Important  ?

if anything, these matters are now treated with a little dignity …

and before people criticize the action of a few…

lets look into the lives of those that do the Criticism …

So criticism and criticizers are bad only if you don’t agree with what’s being said? How very tolerant of you.

 

[EasterJoy]

Life is Like a box of Chocolates ,You never know what your gunna get…

 A very simple Quote .. but it's an honest Quote...  Humans are a very complex Creature..

and we seek Complex answers to what appears a complex Question…

Is same gender Attraction Really THAT Important  ?

if anything, these matters are now treated with a little dignity …

and before people criticize the action of a few…

lets look into the lives of those that do the Criticism …

Resisting the temptation to re-write moral law to accommodate our passions really is THAT important, yes. Encouraging others to do it because we don’t have enough respect for them to believe that* they can master their *passions is, too.

No one is suggesting that anyone ought not be treated with dignity, even a person who brazenly violates moral law. That is one of the red herrings in this debate: that is, that if a person is afflicted with a disordered desire, it is “judgmental” to say that the desire is disordered and ought not be treated as if it were a good one. “If you won’t agree that everything I decide to do is good, then you don’t respect me.” What a lie that is!! No! Why is it “respect” to say, “No, you can’t master your passions. You don’t have the capacity for self-control, so it is too much to expect that you are capable of following moral law. We wouldn’t expect that much from your kind.”

We all have disordered desires of one kind or another. Heaven forbid that we start telling ourselves that our most difficult struggles define us and that moral law ought to be re-written for us in order to accommodate our desires. Heaven forbid we think it is “respect” to believe not just that others deserve compassion in their struggles, but that others aren’t capable of self-mastery at all. That is a sad brand of respect.

 

[EasterJoy]

As concerned as I am about the number of people on this thread arguing in favor of elevating homosexual acts to the same dignity as true marital acts by elevating homosexual relationships attempting to imitate marriage to the same dignity as true marriage, I am even more concerned about the number who do not believe the Church is more competent at discerning moral law than they are or that the Church has the authority to teach moral principles that are truly binding upon the faithful.

That has even more far-reaching implications, IMHO, which is pretty scary.

 

[PRmerger]

if anything, these matters are now treated with a little dignity …

Well, on this we can agree.

I do know that growing up I cringed when I heard people being made fun of for their homosexual tendencies.

Now, it’s becoming less acceptable to do that. And I give that a

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Well, on this we can agree.

I do know that growing up I cringed when I heard people being made fun of for their homosexual tendencies.

Now, it’s becoming less acceptable to do that. And I give that a

I Have met many…and No I’m not one… I have had in depth discussions with several over the matter , as I Could never understand same gender attraction…
they inform me that the attraction I find in a lady,they have that same emotional attraction with there own gender…with the opposite gender they feel nothing at all apart from sister attraction…
they all seemed very decent people… but then there are many that are not what I would consider genuine homosexual… and they are those that loiter around public places…
they are a different bread all together… and yes I’v spoken to them as well…