Does Scripture really "condemn" homosexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm, whoever wrote this actually tried to tell the Bible what it meant to say, instead of putting the Bible into works. We all know that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their actions of homosexuality. Even Paul condemns it in the NT. IDK what is so hard about seeing it.
 
aidanbradypop said:
If interested in talking about it, I would like you to first read this and then comment. 🙂

religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm
Click to expand...
The author really tried his heart out, especially on the last one:

Verse 4,5: “Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate’.”

Instead of touching on the obvious fact that only men and women are permitted to Marry each other, he begins going on about Eunuch’s being feminine.

As for the letters, although they do out rightly condemn homosexuality, even if one believes they don’t one must still understand that any sex outside of marriage is condemned by Christ, and Homosexuals can’t be married.
 
Scripture calls out many disordered sexual acts as sin that, as people of God, we are to repent of, seek forgiveness, and resist.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Re: Does Scripture really “condemn” homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Divine revelation-- comprised of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition-- and the natural law both condemn same sex sexual activities as intrinsically disordered and a violation of God’s law.
aidanbradypop said:
If interested in talking about it, I would like you to first read this and then comment. 🙂
Click to expand...
Having neither the authority to teach nor interpret, this website is worthless. It is inaccurate and misguided.

The Church is our sure norm regarding Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the deposit of faith. The Church is very clear on its teaching. It is unambigous and as a part of the deposit of faith, also the Truth and unchanging.
 
Another example of people twisting the words of scripture to mean whatever they want it to mean. Radically poor exegetical skills.

The Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts, as tradition has unanimously taught. It is also condemned by natural law. It was also condemned by all heretical and schismatic groups until very recently.
 
aidanbradypop said:
If interested in talking about it, I would like you to first read this and then comment. 🙂

religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm
Click to expand...
This essay, though ingenious enough, is an example of eisegesis - that is, reading meanings into the sacred text that weren’t put there by the author, and which arise from the interpreter’s own mind.

It must be said in all justice, though, that the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is confined to acts. A same-sex attraction, though unnatural, is not condemned in itself.
 
We make a lot of fuss about “same -sex attraction” as distinct from homosexual acts, but we say little about persons who have taken on a homosexual identity. Homosexuality as idealogy is missing from the discussion, and is more interesting than the acts or attraction.
 
Well, to take just one aspect if this…how long does attraction last? Anyone who has seen an “Andro 400” commercial knows what I mean. At some point I’m guessing the number of “acts” declines (and in the case of many l- girls I have encountered, I doubt the number was ever high to begin with). So what remains is not sinful presumably, but still misses the mark in a lot of ways.

Or to take another aspect, there is certain brand of feminist lesbianism (I am simplifying for space here) that rejects any “need” for a man. This is not so much attraction as it is rejection. The idealogy comes first, the acts follow.

Or, what of the person who experiences the attraction, but abstains from the acts, they are not meaningfully homosexual in the same way as the Proposition H8 activist at the corner by the Morman temple? Idealogy separates them more than acts or attraction.
 
edwest2 said:
It’s all here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
*In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.

Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.*

So are you saying that homosexuals are somehow less children of God than a heterosexual is?
 
JHow said:
Well, to take just one aspect if this…how long does attraction last? Anyone who has seen an “Andro 400” commercial knows what I mean. At some point I’m guessing the number of “acts” declines (and in the case of many l- girls I have encountered, I doubt the number was ever high to begin with). So what remains is not sinful presumably, but still misses the mark in a lot of ways.

Or to take another aspect, there is certain brand of feminist lesbianism (I am simplifying for space here) that rejects any “need” for a man. This is not so much attraction as it is rejection. The idealogy comes first, the acts follow.

Or, what of the person who experiences the attraction, but abstains from the acts, they are not meaningfully homosexual in the same way as the Proposition H8 activist at the corner by the Morman temple? Idealogy separates them more than acts or attraction.
Click to expand...
Good points.

My parish priest is gay. He does not make a huge effort to throw it out there and many do not know unless they simply come up and ask him. He does not act out his desires. Some believe he is sinning by simply “being gay” while others state that one must do something in order to sin.

Someone even asked him how he knows he is gay without having done anything. I guess that same question can be asked of a heterosexual person. How do you know you are straight if you have never had sex?

You brought up some really valid points. Thank you.
 
aidanbradypop said:
*In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.

Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.*

So are you saying that homosexuals are somehow less children of God than a heterosexual is?
Click to expand...
No… Same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not sinful.

Marriage is defined by the Bible as strictly being between one man and one woman. And any sex outside of that is sinful. So because a same-sex couple cannot validly marry, any homosexual acts are sinful, just as any other sexual acts outside of (heterosexual) marriage.
 
Razanir said:
No… Same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not sinful.

Marriage is defined by the Bible as strictly being between one man and one woman. And any sex outside of that is sinful. So because a same-sex couple cannot validly marry, any homosexual acts are sinful, just as any other sexual acts outside of (heterosexual) marriage.
Click to expand...
I have stated many times that I do not believe in same sex marriage as defined in Scripture. I do not have a problem with same sex civil unions.

Thank you for stating what I have been stating over and over. same sex…sex is the same as opposite sex…sex. Many try to divide the two but at the end of the day they are still the same.
 
aidanbradypop said:
So are you saying that homosexuals are somehow less children of God than a heterosexual is?
Click to expand...
Red herring. No one, including the Church, says this.

Pretending someone’s sin is not a sin to make the feel better is not the answer.
 
aidanbradypop said:
If interested in talking about it, I would like you to first read this and then comment. 🙂
religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm
Click to expand...
No, sadly no. :nope:

The relationships of both Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan are often highly exaggerated, be-
cause some will forget that the Old Testament was written by ancient Israelites, and in that part
of the world at that time, there were many expressions for love, not all implying love of a roman-
tic nature.
Also, very important, the site appears to be using the King James Version, which is a very lou-
sy translation, lacking sensitivity to the subtleties of Hebrew and Greek.

Nothing else in the link seems to support homosexual conduct. Jesus came to liberate the op-
pressed, yes, but he didn’t come to make homosexual actions lawful. Certain Mosaic Laws &
Practices were done away with at the Cross, yes, but one of those 613 laws included a prohib-
ition against sexual acts towards an animal. Was that done away with? No. How then is it dif-
ferent with laws against homosexual acts (Species Aside)?

Change is necessary for growth, yes, but how far are we going to take that?
I think I need say no further on that.

Finally on the subject of Natural & Unnatural. God made us male and female, intending only
for heterosexual relationships, so where does this leave homosexuals? Did God make some
to be gay and alone? No, God doesn’t want people to be alone, but neither was homosexual-
ity ever part of God’s design. We are all unfortunately fallen creatures, thus having many dis-
tortions by nature, apart from what God intended to be Nature. It is the FALL, and hate it as
we may, God desires against homosexually romantic relationships.
 
1ke said:
Red herring. No one, including the Church, says this.

Pretending someone’s sin is not a sin to make the feel better is not the answer.
Click to expand...
ok good! lol glad we cleared that up 😛

I agree that pretending a sin is not a sin to make someone feel better is not the correct way to go about things.
 
Razanir said:
No… Same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not sinful.

Marriage is defined by the Bible as strictly being between one man and one woman. And any sex outside of that is sinful. So because a same-sex couple cannot validly marry, any homosexual acts are sinful, just as any other sexual acts outside of (heterosexual) marriage.
Click to expand...
👍

Jon
 
JHow said:
Well, to take just one aspect if this…how long does attraction last? Anyone who has seen an “Andro 400” commercial knows what I mean. At some point I’m guessing the number of “acts” declines (and in the case of many l- girls I have encountered, I doubt the number was ever high to begin with). So what remains is not sinful presumably, but still misses the mark in a lot of ways.

Or to take another aspect, there is certain brand of feminist lesbianism (I am simplifying for space here) that rejects any “need” for a man. This is not so much attraction as it is rejection. The idealogy comes first, the acts follow.

Or, what of the person who experiences the attraction, but abstains from the acts, they are not meaningfully homosexual in the same way as the Proposition H8 activist at the corner by the Morman temple? Idealogy separates them more than acts or attraction.
Click to expand...
“Gay” is a descriptor. It simply means being attracted to the same gender.

How do you expect someone to come to repentance of their lifestyle if you even rob them of this very basic reality, which is the attraction that, without a miracle, does not ever go away? One can use all sorts of other descriptions (e.g., “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, “same-sex attraction”), but it’s the same thing: gay.

What do you mean “misses the marks in a lot of ways”?

Not all gay people subscribe to all the ideologies you mention. That’s like saying there’s a small Hispanic sub-population that believes in reclaiming California, so every Hispanic person must believe in its ideology. We, the actual ones who are gay/have same-sex attraction/etc, are not the ones trying to instill an ideology into the word “gay” — it is the religious conservatives that pigeonhole us. And who are you to define what “meaningfully homosexual” is?

Do you even know how much pain even the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is coming from the Church and having to be obedient to it? The word “gay” is morally neutral, and yet you want to make it an anathema.

Yes, there are all sorts of lunatic ideas out there spouted by “activists”. And they get media attention.

I’m sorry if I sound sour and bitter…every time someone makes an argument like this on CAF, I have resisted saying something, but this time, I feel compelled to offer another viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top