T
toosan1967
Guest
I wouldn’t bet on that.
- Status
G
Gods_Peace
Guest
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
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).
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
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).
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
B
bri89
Guest
I don’t think the church is entirely wrong, but a binary understanding of sexuality is incomplete. This was not how sexuality was understood in the ancient world. In Plato’s Symposim, Aristophanes tells a non-literal story of how in the beginning, there were three sexes. It’s an amusing and illuminating piece of writing, explaining how different sexual identities came to be and acknowlegding these differences as an obvious reality. I don’t think a homosexual leaning person can restructure or re-align their sexuality. Of course this presents a problem as Christ only sanctified hetero-marriage. Also, sometimes people are quick to quote Leviticus or Romans, which can be interpreted in various ways, but what of David and Jonathan. “Thy love to me was wonderful surpassing that of woman”. That statement of love can be interpreted in various ways as wells. I don’ t think there is as much clarity on the matter as some Christians believe.
L
Leegal
Guest
The Title got to me. The Church is wrong? Not individuals, but the Church IS wrong?
To say the Church IS Wrong is declarative and not opinion, as you claim.
Read the Book of Job starting with Ch. 38, and continuing:
Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
**with words without knowledge? **3 Brace yourself like a man;
** I will question you,
and you shall answer me. **
4 “**Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? **
Tell me, if you understand.
Now, homosexuals are not evil and the Church does not teach that they are evil. These are your words, not the Church’s and not mine.
However, as all unmarried people are called to remain celibate, homosexuals too cannot act upon their orientation, just as heteros who remain without a sacramental marriage cannot act upon their orientation.
This is the teaching of the Church. Before you say the Church is “wrong”, be familiar with the teaching.
[LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS](LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)
To say the Church IS Wrong is declarative and not opinion, as you claim.
Read the Book of Job starting with Ch. 38, and continuing:
Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
**with words without knowledge? **3 Brace yourself like a man;
** I will question you,
and you shall answer me. **
4 “**Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? **
Tell me, if you understand.
Now, homosexuals are not evil and the Church does not teach that they are evil. These are your words, not the Church’s and not mine.
However, as all unmarried people are called to remain celibate, homosexuals too cannot act upon their orientation, just as heteros who remain without a sacramental marriage cannot act upon their orientation.
This is the teaching of the Church. Before you say the Church is “wrong”, be familiar with the teaching.
[LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS](LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)
A
Aeden
Guest
Nobody should going to call you “evil” just because you have a certain orientation. The orientation is the temptation, the action of giving in to that temptation is a sin. Believe me, I struggle with my heterosexual temptations just as much as you probably suffer from your homosexual one.
The church has, to my knowledge, never taught that any PERSON is evil, rather, that their SIN is evil. It may be small consolation to you, but I will be praying for you to overcome your temptations. Wana trade prayers?
Since your assertion that the Church should change her teachings was based on an incorrect assumption (that the Church says all homosexuals are evil by default) I am going to assume that you are reconsidering that particular statement.
God bless!
The church has, to my knowledge, never taught that any PERSON is evil, rather, that their SIN is evil. It may be small consolation to you, but I will be praying for you to overcome your temptations. Wana trade prayers?
Since your assertion that the Church should change her teachings was based on an incorrect assumption (that the Church says all homosexuals are evil by default) I am going to assume that you are reconsidering that particular statement.
God bless!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Bri89,
I think post #137 (right above yours) gives a very clear description of what is wrong… of course, there are some who simply do not believe the Bible and this is the route that they have chosen for themselves.
God bless
I think post #137 (right above yours) gives a very clear description of what is wrong… of course, there are some who simply do not believe the Bible and this is the route that they have chosen for themselves.
God bless
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Yeah, uh males tend to know what they are attracted to before they know what sex is. I don’t think you realize how many people have tried acting heterosexual* assuming that if they did it their feelings would go away and wasted years doing it. Studies show orientation in females is flexible, not so much in males.
*not suggesting that homosexuals should engage in sex with the same sex, merely suggesting that pretending to be heterosexual isn’t the best use of time, the time would probably be better spent in prayer.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I’m guessing because people are telling him that a core component of his soul is ‘broken’/‘wrong.’ That’s a very tough pill to swallow, and it tends to be delivered rather flippantly.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It’s not very forthright of you to neglect the second paragraph of the post to which you responded, which is the poster’s full message. You quoted only this part:
I will include the full context, in which she responds rhetorically to the question you “answered.”
The Catholic Church does not teach that homosexual attraction is “a core component of one’s soul/being.” That is an invented, contemporary notion designed to elevate a disordered inclination to something sacred and blessed by God. God, who infuses human beings with souls, does not create disorder as something intrinsic to that soul. Rather, we develop various disorders as compensations for our brokenness, which, as fallen creatures, we are all vulnerable to.
Having disordered attractions of any kind does not condemn a person or label a person as evil, particularly if those disorders are merely feelings and not actions.
J
jeffspot
Guest
Yeah, I really don’t understand the stance on this issue. I’ve looked into it enough to have heard a plethora of arguments from both sides, and what I’m forced to admit is that having the stance of “Homosexuality in ANY context is inherently disordered” is not a strong argument position. Ultimately, the only way I can figure it out is to have ‘faith’ that it’s having a disordered effect on society - which most definitely feels wrong.
How about the alternative: How well could a person argue that enforced celibacy is better for the function of society than the ability to join with another person you love? I believe that people function better when they are part of a larger social group, not separated from it. As far as homosexuality being ‘intrinsically disordered’ there have been a number of fairly compelling arguments regarding the other ‘unnatural’ events that are part of our lives.
Such as this thing I’m typing on.
Judging events and situations as being ‘not the way they were designed’ or ‘unnatural’ is philosophically arbitrary. I find it helpful to view situations in the context of “freedom of the individual ends where it infringes on the freedoms of another” - and I can’t see how the actions of two consenting adults could possibly limit the freedoms of anyone else.
Sure, man and woman are physically / psychologically compatible in most cases, so it’s easy to see how it would be a simple matter to extend that to say “that’s how it must be all of the time”. If homosexuals share their brokenness with each other and become a community because of it, I’d say that’s far superior to a forced loneliness.
How about the alternative: How well could a person argue that enforced celibacy is better for the function of society than the ability to join with another person you love? I believe that people function better when they are part of a larger social group, not separated from it. As far as homosexuality being ‘intrinsically disordered’ there have been a number of fairly compelling arguments regarding the other ‘unnatural’ events that are part of our lives.
Such as this thing I’m typing on.
Judging events and situations as being ‘not the way they were designed’ or ‘unnatural’ is philosophically arbitrary. I find it helpful to view situations in the context of “freedom of the individual ends where it infringes on the freedoms of another” - and I can’t see how the actions of two consenting adults could possibly limit the freedoms of anyone else.
Sure, man and woman are physically / psychologically compatible in most cases, so it’s easy to see how it would be a simple matter to extend that to say “that’s how it must be all of the time”. If homosexuals share their brokenness with each other and become a community because of it, I’d say that’s far superior to a forced loneliness.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yeah, imagine: Biology designing complementary parts to fit together. “Arbitrary”? LOL. (It is, rather, exquisitely logical.
)Only in contemporary America would it be assumed that sexualizing those relationships is essential to community; it isn’t, and never has been. It’s just that most people have now been propagandized to believe that relationships are incomplete without sexual expression. That’s a complete fiction.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Johnny, I promise you I have never thought or said anyone was evil because they were gay. It’s just a trait, like skin color. People have been hated for that, too.
What I want for you is to be careful you don’t confuse Church teaching - the actual teaching - with what a bunch of individual people who belong to the Church say.
You are a beautiful and beloved child of God made in His image just as the rest of us are.
S
sedonaman
Guest
You have a misconception of what the Church teaches about homosexuals, which is that they are entitled to the same human dignity that anyone else is.
A foster home with a husband and wife? Yes.
How do you know?
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi - November 2008 - Denver, CO
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=VjQT4QXBpEQ
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=VUhttwmWQoU&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Part 3 youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Tm43ow64YG4
You have to ask yourself if why they are committing suicide. The latest [as far as I know] is the student who was videoed in the act. Would a heterosexual man commit suicide if someone videoed him in the act? I doubt it. So what’s the difference?
P.S. Don’t take one data point and extrapolate a universe. If they were committing suicide as much as you claim, there wouldn’t be any left to advocate.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
*] Argument from Darwinism: It’s contrary to the laws of Darwinism. Survival and Procreation of the species.
*] Argument from God: It’s contrary to the Law of God, a must for any Catholic.
*] Argument from Ontological and Biological purpose: It’s contrary to the biological purpose of man. The sexual organs of both a man and woman are unique for their unique functions in the role of procreation.
*] Argument from Desire: The act, in the inability to procreate due to the distortian of the sexual purpose, is an act of Lust.
*] Argument from Population: Population shows that Homosexuality is small in comparison to the overtly major which are Heterosexual. An argument from numbers can be made.
Let’s let them ‘love’ each other at the risks they will bring to themselves? Correlations have been made, if I recall correctly to the AIDs epicdemic and homosexuality. If this correlation is true, can you really advocate such a position? One would then say that one with an sexual infection should be allowed to infect the other because you ‘love’ them. Would you really risk such infections on the basis of love?
No one is arguing segregation.
Invalid argument, computers are entirely based on natural concepts, (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs, currents, etc.
Why? Who are you to judge that they are the way they were designed? By what authority? Not the way they were designed stems from those I have mentioned above. Not my authority, but that above me and from the observations made from the nature of man.
I don’t have an argument against that for now, as it enters into the realms of the morally permissible and free will. However, the OP designated a challenge to the Church.
Is loneliness associated with sex alone? What about brotherhood and friendship?
One is not ‘Evil’ for being tempted in such a manner, just as any Heterosexual will be tempted in the same manner. It is however, contrary to the normality of man, and will be a heavy cross for any man or woman to bear. The Church is open to the Homosexual, it asks one to be celibate and take up the Cross.
As Sedonaman says, the reason why those commit suicide are unknown.
God Bless,
Christopher.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
[Bolding added]
Our homosexual brothers and sisters truly need our sympathy for this hard but not insurmountable cross. They do not need affirmation of a homosexual lifestyle.
Your post in part perpetuates inaccurate and unhelpful comments where bolded. Homosexuality (the attraction to have sex with members of the same gender and behaviour) is not a trait like skin color. Skin color is a biological and genetic trait, where choice of having it or not is clearly out. Even with mapping of the DNA, no gay gene has been discovered. The psychogenesis of homosexuality is unknown, which is the most that the Church says about its etiology.
Racism (discrimination against people of other skin color in the work place, with respect to voting rights, as partners in marriage, or associates in the social and economic areas of life) was wrong then and wrong now. Homosexuals are not discriminated in such ways in the society we live. Since marriage rights are included in the foregoing, it needs to be said that the opposition to the agenda of the homosexual movement towards legalization of gay ‘marriage’ and placement of children with adopting gay ‘married’ couples is not unjust discrimination.
I have not come across in this forum any poster calling gay people evil, as Johnny760 claims. Just by regarding what our physical body tells us, ordered sexual desire and intimacy with another person would be for one of the opposite sex. Sexual intimacy with the same gender would be disordered and immoral. It is the act itself and active lusting for such behaviour that is evil.
As for the other points that Johnny has griped in his OP, sedonaman made a compelling reply in his post in #148.
,
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Why can’t most Catholics simply admit that it’s quite possible for those kind of people to wind up in situations where they are in love with a person and that they have no hope of ever having a meangful positive relationship with them or permanently being wsith someone they love? Instead Catholics prance around like faeries saying that oh if they only go through reparative therapy everything will be all better and then they’ll be attracted to the opposite sex and this heavy cross wil magically go away.
L
Leegal
Guest
I thought I did earlier. And are there not many single men and women who wished it could have been different and they had met the opposite sex partner for their lifetime – had children and all that marriage has to offer?
It’s not only homosexuals who are called to the unmarried celibate life. Not every hetero get his or her dream marriage with children either.
Sometimes our desires do not coincide with God’s plan – gay or straight. And you play the hand you are dealt, in accordance with the Church’s teachings. We all have SOMETHING that we wished would have turned out differently.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Indeed, there are many single men and women who wished it could have been different and they had met the opposite sex partner for their lifetime, but they had the illusion of hope all along, L&G Catholics are deprived that sweet succor. To live out purgation on Earth would break many people .
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Dakota,
Actually, I thought Leegal gave a very thoughtful and accurate response.
From my understanding of what you wrote, you have totally missed what the Catholic Church teaches - no sex outside of marriage (and there is only marriage between a man and woman). Now, I do not know what you want to accomplish with this appeal to a lack of succor from ‘…men lying with other men like women…’ - but you are really moving in the wrong direction.
None of us know what ‘…thorn for the flesh…’ St. Paul had - but, we do know the answer when he appealed to God for relief - and you can find it in 2Cor 12:9-10. This is important because if we get caught up in the emotionalism of the moment - we all will miss the very nature of our humanity. Men can love other men - WITHOUT taking each other to bed. Men can also love women - WITHOUT taking them to bed, too. Sex is a gift of God that allows us alone to join Him in pro-Creation - something not given to the angels.
As you probably guessed, God did not consult anyone on how He would create. These are the cards we all have been dealt - and with His Grace, we will play the best hand. The really good news is that there is an excellent document which goes a long way to explaining why the Church is Correct in this and other matters. Here is the link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html Note, this is serious reading and not a substitute for an after dinner brandy.
God bless
Actually, I thought Leegal gave a very thoughtful and accurate response.
From my understanding of what you wrote, you have totally missed what the Catholic Church teaches - no sex outside of marriage (and there is only marriage between a man and woman). Now, I do not know what you want to accomplish with this appeal to a lack of succor from ‘…men lying with other men like women…’ - but you are really moving in the wrong direction.
None of us know what ‘…thorn for the flesh…’ St. Paul had - but, we do know the answer when he appealed to God for relief - and you can find it in 2Cor 12:9-10. This is important because if we get caught up in the emotionalism of the moment - we all will miss the very nature of our humanity. Men can love other men - WITHOUT taking each other to bed. Men can also love women - WITHOUT taking them to bed, too. Sex is a gift of God that allows us alone to join Him in pro-Creation - something not given to the angels.
As you probably guessed, God did not consult anyone on how He would create. These are the cards we all have been dealt - and with His Grace, we will play the best hand. The really good news is that there is an excellent document which goes a long way to explaining why the Church is Correct in this and other matters. Here is the link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html Note, this is serious reading and not a substitute for an after dinner brandy.
God bless
- Status