Homosexuality ~ A Deep Confliction in my Heart

[AndyF]

Avenara:

Not everything is explained to us by God and that is the limitation of man’s quest in knowledge. There are things that God doesn’t explain because they are on such a high plain of Devine knowledge it takes being in heaven to understand them.

There is another reason as well. We do what God commands simply out of trust and love. If you are running to your mother and she is at the edge of a cliff and she’s telling you to walk, do you need to know why before you walk? No, being wise some things you know out of trust even though you don’t have a full explaination yet.

If a cool glass of Coke is sitting on a picnic table in Acapulco and your there with your family and your mother tells you not to drink it do you need an explaination that it may have hepatitis germs in it before you obey? Suppose your mother is the only person on the planet that knows about germs(as God knows many things that we don’t). Would she need to sit down and discuss a complete course in biology,etc to get you to listen?

So one needs to decide if what is delectable and enticing to him and only gains him pleasure on earth for a short time and an eternity of pain, is worth more than an eternity of infinite joy. Your friends at this time are opting for a temporary party.

We all need to decide between foolishness and wisdom.

AndyF

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Setter, I wasn’t aware that I was a resident homosexual apologist. …There’s a part of me that would miss it if I posted in one of these threads and you didn’t respond.

Yes, the drama of lively debate …not for the thin skinned.

Now, I’ll confess that I’m a Christian who happens to be gay and am not completely disinterested in the course of these discussions (which confession impugns my credibility, what little there is/was of it, to be sure), but my aim is not to cast aspersions on the compassionate teaching of the church, but as I do not completely share the Vatican’s understanding of human sexuality, I feel bound to question some of the assumptions on which her teaching is based.

How do you reconcile choosing a gravely immoral lifestyle that left unrepentant will land you in eternal separation from God …for all eternity …in eternal torment? How do reconcile offending and rejecting the Lord who sacrificed his life in order that you may have friendship and fellowship with the three Persons of the Trinity?

And, truth be told, when that teaching is articulated in these forums, it reads and/or feels less like an articulation than a quotation, complete with a certain jingoism which seems to belie an engagement with the teaching in favor of mere assent. So when the answer seems too pat, I feel obliged to say that I feel the answer is too pat. I don’t begrudge disagreement or being contradicted. But I do cringe at intellectual regurgitation.

Source quoting is articulation. “Mere assent” is a grace and a virtue. When one rejects the “pat answers” which form the foundation and basis of the other’s arguments, they are worth repeating. Debate hopefully does help one to examine and consider the basis for their beliefs.

Just as an aside, I did use the term “gay” above in contradistinction to SSA because I do not claim as my own the intellectual and emotional baggage which SSA suggests to me. Nor did I choose homosexual in this context given its neutral/clinical character. And though I did not mean “gay” as a political term (as it is often understood in these forums), I felt my linguistic options were limited as I did not wish to imply consent to the philosophy behind the term SSA, nor did I wish to imply that my sexuality is a thing I consider clinically.

The term “gay” is a politically charged term and connotes one supportive of or directly living a lifestyle based on giving sexual expression to SSA.

Regardless, I remain,

Just another fly in the honeypot who lives,

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

This life is time limited and simply a testing ground for the eternal destiny that we each choose.

 

[LovedForever]

Grace & Peace!

Now, I’ll confess that I’m a Christian who happens to be gay and am not completely disinterested in the course of these discussions (which confession impugns my credibility, what little there is/was of it, to be sure), but my aim is not to cast aspersions on the compassionate teaching of the church, **but as I do not completely share the Vatican’s understanding of human **sexuality, I feel bound to question some of the assumptions on which her teaching is based.
Regardless, I remain,

Just another fly in the honeypot who lives,

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

May I ask what your “foundation” for truth is? To what source of authority do you go to seek the answers to these profound questions of truth? To what do you submit?

If you, in the end, simply rely on yourself and your feelings and personal interpretations - then you are no different than “the world” and will become confused.

Ultimately, this debate (and any debate on morality and truth) will come down to one thing: Authority.

God has given one source on earth this distinct authority to promulgate His truth. His voice on earth - The Catholic Church.
Any other claim made regarding morals and truth that departs from what she teaches - is heresy and comes not from God but man.

No matter how lofty the speech.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Yes, the drama of lively debate …not for the thin skinned.

Not for the thin-skinned, no. But enjoyable.

How do you reconcile choosing a gravely immoral lifestyle that left unrepentant will land you in eternal separation from God …for all eternity …in eternal torment? How do reconcile offending and rejecting the Lord who sacrificed his life in order that you may have friendship and fellowship with the three Persons of the Trinity?

I appreciate your concern, but it’s based on a series of assumptions I don’t share with you–the most salient of which is that this is not something I chose, but something I accepted as coming to me from the Lover of Souls. I do not see my sexuality (or its expression with my partner of 9 years) as offensive or an act of rejection. I just don’t. I recognize that you see them as such, and I respect your conviction, but I disagree with many of the premises on which it’s based (though truth be told, I share with you a smiliar theology of the body from which I do not draw the same moral or theological conclusions).

Source quoting is articulation. “Mere assent” is a grace and a virtue. When one rejects the “pat answers” which form the foundation and basis of the other’s arguments, they are worth repeating. Debate hopefully does help one to examine and consider the basis for their beliefs.

My inference here is to the formation of conscience which I see as a form of suffering which is often unduly replaced or avoided (it seems to me) by “mere assent”–that is, an unwillingness to actively form or reform (through trial, through intellectual and spiritual pain, through struggle, and through grace) the mind or conscience in favor of quoting the thoughts of the mind or conscience to which one wants to conform (i.e. the Church). The result, it seems to me, is that morality, conscience, is always an external or forensic value and the transformation of conscience is never acheived, creating a culture of legalism rather than a culture of grace. This is how Roman Catholicism often appears to me from the outside, and it’s one of the things (coupled with a problem with papal supremacy) which has prevented me from crossing the Tiber.

The term “gay” is a politically charged term and connotes one supportive of or directly living a lifestyle based on giving sexual expression to SSA.

I am supportive of the idea of living the life to which we are called. And I do not believe that being homosexual is a de facto call to a celibate life. For some it is. And I have scrupulously avoided (and I think I’ve succeeded) commenting in threads where people who are hommosexual have asked for help living the life of celibacy to which they feel they have been called given their understanding of their sexuality. If that’s the life to which they feel they are called, it is not my job to try and convince them otherwise–I am not living their life.

This life is time limited and simply a testing ground for the eternal destiny that we each choose.

I reject the idea of this life as a testing ground as I don’t believe this life is a game, or that God is a cosmic referee, doling out penalties, taking people off the field… Nor do I subscribe to the military or scientific laboratory overtones of the “testing ground” metaphor. I feel that this life is preparation, through grace (and yes, through struggle), for eternity. My faith is not predicated on passing tests. My struggle does not gain God’s favor, but it does help me (by grace) to open myself to God’s ceaseless grace more and more.

Again, thank you for your concern.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Ultimately, this debate (and any debate on morality and truth) will come down to one thing: Authority.

God has given one source on earth this distinct authority to promulgate His truth. His voice on earth - The Catholic Church.
Any other claim made regarding morals and truth that departs from what she teaches - is heresy and comes not from God but man.

No matter how lofty the speech.

Exactly. The common theme and contention point amongst all dissident opinions is to put into question the authority of the Church magisterium to pronounce authoritative and binding teaching in matters of faith and morals.

I had a priest recently question the binding authority of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *and *Humanae Vitae *in order to defend his endorsement of Catholic couples that he knows of who have in good conscience “discerned” that using ABC is the “good, faithful and virtuous” thing to do. Amazing. This dissident priest also gave me the garbage book, “The Practical Prophet: Pastoral Writings” by the deceased bishop Kenneth Untener, that is littered throughout with vagueness and poking, probing, and putting into question the authority of the Pope and the teaching magisterium of the Church.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

May I ask what your “foundation” for truth is? To what source of authority do you go to seek the answers to these profound questions of truth? To what do you submit?

Believe it or not (and I doubt that this will be an anwer that will satisfy you), I subscribe to that old Anglican formula of the three-legged stool: Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. They inform each other. Note: by Reason I understand not merely intellection but conscience reformed by grace through struggle as a medium of Divine prompting and communication.

God has given one source on earth this distinct authority to promulgate His truth. His voice on earth - The Catholic Church.

Coming as I do from a Protestant background, the exclusive claims of the Roman church to universal authority do not ring particularly true to me, particularly as I see God doing such incredible work in other churches. I understand that as a Roman Catholic you are bound to believe Rome’s exclusive claims, but I do not. And while I identify Tradition in that three-legged stool with Catholic Tradition, I hold it in tension with Scripture and Reason.

Any other claim made regarding morals and truth that departs from what she teaches - is heresy and comes not from God but man.

No matter how lofty the speech.

I realize that you are bound to believe this and commend your conviction.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[blessedtoo]

I do not see my sexuality (or its expression with my partner of 9 years) as offensive or an act of rejection. I just don’t. I recognize that you see them as such, and I respect your conviction, **but I disagree with many of the premises on which it’s based **(though truth be told, I share with you a smiliar theology of the body from which I do not draw the same moral or theological conclusions).

So, as a non-Catholic, you reject the teaching of the Church. How do you get around scripture? What convoluted thought process is required to re-interpret the Word of God, on your own? Especially in light of this comment:

I subscribe to that old Anglican formula of the three-legged stool: Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.

I would suggest that you subscribe to a one-legged stool approach: private interpretation, since there is no indication by your conlusions that you accept either Scripture or Tradition, even Protestant tradition.

My inference here is to the formation of conscience which I see as a form of suffering which is often unduly replaced or avoided (it seems to me) by “mere assent”–that is, an unwillingness to actively form or reform (through trial, through intellectual and spiritual pain, through struggle, and through grace) the mind or conscience in favor of quoting the thoughts of the mind or conscience to which one wants to conform (i.e. the Church). The result, it seems to me, is that morality, conscience, is always an external or forensic value and the transformation of conscience is never acheived, creating a culture of legalism rather than a culture of grace.

This is incredibly condescending. So, you’re journey to form your concience requires a superior effort of intelligence and reason? As a fallen-away Catholic who returned after decades, I can assure you that the struggle that was required of me to understand Church teaching was arduous, painful and taxing. “Mere assent” can hardly describe what is required of sinners to conform their hearts and consciences to the mind of Christ. I would suggest that a struggle such as the one you have described enduring is the extreme effort that is required to “twist” Scripture and tradition into something that will allow you to remain in sin.

This is how Roman Catholicism often appears to me from the outside, and it’s one of the things (coupled with a problem with papal supremacy) which has prevented me from crossing the Tiber.

I would suggest that any “supremecy”, Papal or Mullah or Bishop or Minister that uphold’s God’s Word (pretty clearly spelled out in Scripture) on the issue of homosexuality would be a stumbling block for you.

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
I appreciate your concern, but it’s based on a series of assumptions I don’t share with you–the most salient of which is that this is not something I chose, but something I accepted as coming to me from the Lover of Souls. I do not see my sexuality (or its expression with my partner of 9 years) as offensive or an act of rejection. I just don’t. I recognize that you see them as such, and I respect your conviction, but I disagree with many of the premises on which it’s based (though truth be told, I share with you a smiliar theology of the body from which I do not draw the same moral or theological conclusions).

You are saying that your personal opinion, interpretation and preference trump natural moral law?

My inference here is to the formation of conscience which I see as a form of suffering which is often unduly replaced or avoided (it seems to me) by “mere assent”–that is, an unwillingness to actively form or reform (through trial, through intellectual and spiritual pain, through struggle, and through grace) the mind or conscience in favor of quoting the thoughts of the mind or conscience to which one wants to conform (i.e. the Church). The result, it seems to me, is that morality, conscience, is always an external or forensic value and the transformation of conscience is never acheived, creating a culture of legalism rather than a culture of grace. This is how Roman Catholicism often appears to me from the outside, and it’s one of the things (coupled with a problem with papal supremacy) which has prevented me from crossing the Tiber.

One significant omission in your above inference: You left out the personal faith relationship with the living and present person of Jesus Christ, who is the head and foundation of the Church.

I am supportive of the idea of living the life to which we are called. And I do not believe that being homosexual is a de facto call to a celibate life. For some it is.

Sort like wanting your cake (being an Anglo-Catholic Christian) and eating it too (“I did it my way …” …the song to accompany moral relativism)?

And I have scrupulously avoided (and I think I’ve succeeded) commenting in threads where people who are hommosexual have asked for help living the life of celibacy to which they feel they have been called given their understanding of their sexuality. If that’s the life to which they feel they are called, it is not my job to try and convince them otherwise–I am not living their life.

Is anything in your book on faith and morals a sin? Btw – whose voice is “calling” some SSA afflicted folks to celibacy and others to sexually acting out on SSA?

I reject the idea of this life as a testing ground as I don’t believe this life is a game, or that God is a cosmic referee, doling out penalties, taking people off the field… Nor do I subscribe to the military or scientific laboratory overtones of the “testing ground” metaphor. I feel that this life is preparation, through grace (and yes, through struggle), for eternity. My faith is not predicated on passing tests. My struggle does not gain God’s favor, but it does help me (by grace) to open myself to God’s ceaseless grace more and more.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.” ** 2 Corinthian 5: 10-11**

Again, thank you for your concern.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

You are welcome.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So, as a non-Catholic, you reject the teaching of the Church. How do you get around scripture? What convoluted thought process is required to re-interpret the Word of God, on your own?

Blessedtoo, as a non-Roman Catholic, I reject the Vatican as the ultimate authority on Christian teaching, but I respect it as having an authoritative voice.

I don’t get around Scripture. Scripture is interpretted by Tradition (and vice versa) in the light of Reason just as Reason is correctly interpretted by Scripture and Tradition. I do not believe that navigating these three signposts of Truth is to be delegated to an institutional authority–they must all three be fully engaged by the individual in communion with the rest of the church–that includes members of the church with which I do not agree and in communion with the traditions of interpretation and worship (such as Baptists or Pentecostals) which I do not share but which are nonetheless part of the church.

Blessedtoo, I don’t expect you to agree with me. I don’t expect you to believe anything different than what you believe. If this appears convoluted to you, I can assure you it isn’t, but I don’t expect you to agree with me. Your evident disdain for my position is not particularly troubling.

I would suggest that you subscribe to a one-legged stool approach: private interpretation, since there is no indication by your conlusions that you accept either Scripture or Tradition, even Protestant tradition.

You may make the suggestion. I would disagree. But keep in mind there is nothing I could offer you, short of becoming a literal-minded conservative protestant or a good son of Rome that would convince you of there being any virtue in my position. I tend to think (coming from the church of the via media) that the Church is catholic enough to include Baptist, Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, UCC, etc. I see all of them as equally Christian. You do not–some are more Christian than others, some are more in the Church than others. That’s fine. That’s what you must believe. I don’t begrudge you that.

This is incredibly condescending. So, you’re journey to form your concience requires a superior effort of intelligence and reason? As a fallen-away Catholic who returned after decades, I can assure you that the struggle that was required of me to understand Church teaching was arduous, painful and taxing. “Mere assent” can hardly describe what is required of sinners to conform their hearts and consciences to the mind of Christ. I would suggest that a struggle such as the one you have described enduring is the extreme effort that is required to “twist” Scripture and tradition into something that will allow you to remain in sin.

I’m sorry if it appears condescending. I did not mean it as such. I was explaining my position through a general personal observation. It was not meant as a specific personal indictment. I respect your struggle.

For the record, I don’t feel I’ve twisted anything. I won’t bore you with my personal struggle in my youth to come to terms with my sexuality which included serious depression for many years, thoughts of suicide, intense guilt, and more intensive prayer to change. Suffice to say that I had an encounter with the love of God through the writings of the Desert Fathers which forever changed my understanding of Christianity and humanity in relation to God’s love. I twisted nothing.

I would suggest that any “supremecy”, Papal or Mullah or Bishop or Minister that uphold’s God’s Word (pretty clearly spelled out in Scripture) on the issue of homosexuality would be a stumbling block for you.

You may certainly suggest it. I would deny it. (Yawn.)

My understanding of my religion is not predicated upon my understanding of my sexuality. It really isn’t. My libido is not the source of my theology. You may think it is (and apparently you do). That’s fine. It is not my wish to convert you to any other church, way of thinking, way of living, etc. You are perfectly entitled to think as you do. I will just say that your assumption here is incorrect.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

This is incredibly condescending. So, you’re journey to form your concience requires a superior effort of intelligence and reason? As a fallen-away Catholic who returned after decades, I can assure you that the struggle that was required of me to understand Church teaching was arduous, painful and taxing. “Mere assent” can hardly describe what is required of sinners to conform their hearts and consciences to the mind of Christ. I would suggest that a struggle such as the one you have described enduring is the extreme effort that is required to “twist” Scripture and tradition into something that will allow you to remain in sin.

I believe this goes directly to the OP’s question. It is a matter of properly understanding conscience. If one gets that fundamental issue wrong, then we are in trouble.

Subjective consciences do not justify us.

 

[Eireann]

Can anyone tell me, just tell me for certain, why is it wrong? Why did God tell us it is wrong? It doesn’t appear dangerous. It doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone. So why did God say not to do it? Is it just because they can’t produce children and be fruitful? God loves the priest who has the ability to produce children and be fruitful even though he chooses not to. God loves the virgin who has the ability to produce children and be fruitful, so why doesn’t he love the homosexual?

Love the sinner hate the sin, anyway it’s a sin of the flesh, gross, non productive, obscene and disgusting.

I mean they don’t even have the mechanics for sex, apart from …OK I won’t go there.

Leviticus 20 13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

This above is enough for me.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Love the sinner hate the sin, anyway it’s a sin of the flesh, gross, non productive, obscene and disgusting.

I mean they don’t even have the mechanics for sex, apart from …OK I won’t go there.

Leviticus 20 13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

This above is enough for me.

Just to clarify something here, the word translated as “abomination” is “to’evah” which references a ritual unclean-ness (like not keeping kosher) as opposed to an absolute moral evil, which would be “zimah”. The Septuagint kept this distinction, translating “to’evah” as “bdelygma” and “zimah” as “anomia”.

Translations are interesting things. Consider that famous verse “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The Hebrew word m’khashephah which is translated “witch” comprehends more accurately a “female sorcerer” or “sorceress” (as in the NRSV and Jerusalem translations) in which sorcery is understood to be maleficent magic. Word choice here has some repercussions. Missionaries translating this passage have often used the native word for a culture’s traditional folk healers as appropriate translations for this word. But it’s not quite an accurate translation, and has real consequences when folk healers or shaman are abused as a result.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[LovedForever]

Grace & Peace!
Coming as I do from a Protestant background, the exclusive claims of the Roman church to universal authority do not ring particularly true to me, particularly as I see God doing such incredible work in other churches.

I realize that you are bound to believe this and commend your conviction.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Because you do not believe or submit to Christ’s authority established by Him in His church does not make it untrue nor lack that authority.
It merely means that you reject it.
“Peter, you are rock, and upon this rock I build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
There is only one Church that has withstood all attempts at “hell prevailing against it” since Christ spoke those words. That church is the Catholic Church, and it alone. That is just a fact.
An important one.

And while other faith traditions have “some” truth (and some more than others) - the truth found in them will** always** be found in Christ’s church (Roman Catholic Church) as it, and it alone contains the “fullness of the truth.”
There is no such thing as a valid “opposing truth.”
Truth is truth.
And scripture says that the “pillar and foundation of truth - is the CHURCH.”

Jesus said to his apostles that “those who hear YOU - hear ME.”

Because God does “incredible work” in other churches and in his children who remain outside of His church - demonstrates only God’s immense love, power and mercy. Not the validity of that church nor it’s authority. Otherwise - you would be compelled to claim that ALL paths to God are “truth.”
This is what you in essence are claiming and adhering to: Relativism

The great scandal of our times.
Satan is laughing with delight. How very, very sad.

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
Just to clarify something here, the word translated as “abomination” is “to’evah” which references a ritual unclean-ness (like not keeping kosher) as opposed to an absolute moral evil, which would be “zimah”. The Septuagint kept this distinction, translating “to’evah” as “bdelygma” and “zimah” as “anomia”.

Translations are interesting things. Consider that famous verse “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The Hebrew word m’khashephah which is translated “witch” comprehends more accurately a “female sorcerer” or “sorceress” (as in the NRSV and Jerusalem translations) in which sorcery is understood to be maleficent magic. Word choice here has some repercussions. Missionaries translating this passage have often used the native word for a culture’s traditional folk healers as appropriate translations for this word. But it’s not quite an accurate translation, and has real consequences when folk healers or shaman are abused as a result.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Ahhhhh …the Church has referenced a bogus translation as well as misinterpreted what is plain – Not.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some **homosexual activists **have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

 

[Eireann]

Grace & Peace!

Just to clarify something here, the word translated as “abomination” is “to’evah” which references a ritual unclean-ness (like not keeping kosher) as opposed to an absolute moral evil, which would be “zimah”. The Septuagint kept this distinction, translating “to’evah” as “bdelygma” and “zimah” as “anomia”.

Translations are interesting things. Consider that famous verse “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The Hebrew word m’khashephah which is translated “witch” comprehends more accurately a “female sorcerer” or “sorceress” (as in the NRSV and Jerusalem translations) in which sorcery is understood to be maleficent magic. Word choice here has some repercussions. Missionaries translating this passage have often used the native word for a culture’s traditional folk healers as appropriate translations for this word. But it’s not quite an accurate translation, and has real consequences when folk healers or shaman are abused as a result.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Doesn’t matter how you butter it up or how it’s worded, the end result is what matters " let their blood be upon them "

.CCC 2357****grave depravitycontrary to the natural lawUnder no circumstances can they be approved

 

[fix]

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear alongside other sexual sins–adultery and incest, for example–which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God’s displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved.

Despite the UFMCC’s contention that the word for abomination (toevah) is usually associated with idolatry, it in fact appears in Proverbs 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony:There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable [an abomination or *toevah

] to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these scriptures; clearly, then,* toevah* is not limited to idolatrous practices…
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/theo.html#script2

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Because you do not believe or submit to Christ’s authority established by Him in His church does not make it untrue nor lack that authority.
It merely means that you reject it.

LovedForever, it looks like you’re putting words in my mouth. We have radically different definitions of this word “church”. By it, you understand Rome, I understand the entire Christian community. I do not therefore reject Christ’s authority–I reject the idea that it is limited to or solely revealed by Rome. And if you read what I wrote, you will discover that I never claimed the Christ’s church to be untrue or lacking in authority. I reject the exclusive claims of Rome.

As with blessedtoo, I don’t expect you to agree with me. There’s a level on which I don’t expect you to understand me, either, as our understanding of key terms are different. That’s fine.

And while other faith traditions have “some” truth (and some more than others) - the truth found in them will** always** be found in Christ’s church (Roman Catholic Church) as it, and it alone contains the “fullness of the truth.”

I expect nothing less from you.

There is no such thing as a valid “opposing truth.”
Truth is truth.
And scripture says that the “pillar and foundation of truth - is the CHURCH.”

I never posited the existence of an “opposing truth”.

Because God does “incredible work” in other churches and in his children who remain outside of His church - demonstrates only God’s immense love, power and mercy. Not the validity of that church nor it’s authority. Otherwise - you would be compelled to claim that ALL paths to God are “truth.”
This is what you in essence are claiming and adhering to: Relativism

I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If there is any Truth anywhere, I am bound to say that Jesus is there. And like Origen writing to St. Gregory the Wonderworker regarding the virtues of pagan philosophy (using the lovely image of the Israelites taking the Egyptian gold with them when leaving captivity as a metaphor for finding Truth in pagan philosophy), I am convinced that Truth can be found in unexpected places. That is not Relativism. That is a commitment to learning to discern Truth (the face of my Lord) in places in which I would be unaccustomed to find it.

Satan is laughing with delight. How very, very sad.

You give Satan too much credit. You believe him capable of delight–either recognizing it or experiencing it?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Setter, Jude’s reference to S&G is specific to “lusting after strange flesh,” that is, lusting after angels. Homosexuality doesn’t figure in Jude.

You will say it does. I will say it doesn’t. You will say it does. I will say it doesn’t. You will say it does. I will say it doesn’t. You will…

Fix, your quotation does not address issues of context

Eireann, how charming!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Sorry setter, it’s taken a bit to get back to this one:

You are saying that your personal opinion, interpretation and preference trump natural moral law?

I never said any such thing. Although for my opinion on “natural moral law,” see my initial post in this thread.

One significant omission in your above inference: You left out the personal faith relationship with the living and present person of Jesus Christ, who is the head and foundation of the Church.

I didn’t leave it out. I assumed it.

Is anything in your book on faith and morals a sin?

Plenty–rejection of love. The will to power. The desire to take, keep, and hold onto at the expense of others. Despising the small and the weak. Unwillingness to forgive. Refusing to care for the orphan and widow. Among others.

Btw – whose voice is “calling” some SSA afflicted folks to celibacy and others to sexually acting out on SSA?

God calls some of us to celibacy, and others he does not so call. That call has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Eireann]

Eireann, how charming!

Deo Gratias!

Whats the problem ? anyway you aren’t under the authority of the Pope …
So we’ll not tell it like it is, we’ll agree that the homosexual act is ok ?

Not me I’m afraid, you maybe, but like I said not me, such twisting of scriptures, if the scripture don’t fit, bend it until it does.

Anyway not your problem, I have to go with what the Bible and the Church teaches.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 **And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, **men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

I’ll stick with my first post on this thread, just like Romans I think it’s filthy.

And the CCC confirms it. "Under no circumstances can they be approved ".