Homosexuality in geneology?

[peduzzi89]

Nate:

But Jesus never does actually mention homosexuals. As I said in my lengthy post earlier - there was no concept of homosexuality in that time as we have today - 2 people who are in a loving relationship and they can be just as capable of keeping that commitment as anyone else. I think he’s right - some people will never be able to embrace that idea, but there are many same sex couples who can - I mean the Bible is not the only place in the world that mentions marriage - so you can’t use that as the only defining factor.

 

[Kevin42]

Nate:

But Jesus never does actually mention homosexuals. As I said in my lengthy post earlier - there was no concept of homosexuality in that time as we have today - 2 people who are in a loving relationship and they can be just as capable of keeping that commitment as anyone else. I think he’s right - some people will never be able to embrace that idea, but there are many same sex couples who can - I mean the Bible is not the only place in the world that mentions marriage - so you can’t use that as the only defining factor.

To be accepting of same sex relationships though, you not only can presume that is ok because Jesus didn’t mention it, and because you think people did not understand the relationships as you do. You must go further and reject Church teaching on homosexuality, and Church teachings on sexuality in general. This is all assuming though that the relationship has a sexual aspect.

 

[peduzzi89]

Kevin, are you being facetious? I’m not sure what you mean by the Jesus remark. I did explain my thoughts on the Church’s teaching before and it was too long to repeat. If you are, could we please have a real discussion? I think that is the purpose of this blog, after all.

 

[susanj19]

For those of you who don’t believe that homosexual behavior happens in nature, look up bonobos monkeys. They engage in sex of every partner combination. I have seen nature documentaries on TV and there are also other animals that have gay sex. It’s a fact.
As to whether human beings can have a genetic disposition towards being gay, I turn to Matthew 19: 12-13 as someone already mentioned. Jesus says that "Some people are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others (environmental factors). I think this must include those who are born with same sex attraction. I believe that the important thing to remember is that we must show love towards other people, whether they choose to go against Bible teaching, or not. People can be against the behavior of others but be for their dignity. To the person who suggested that homosexual people are homosexual because of turning away from God, that’s nonsense. Jesus said that biological conditions of people are NOT because of their sins or their parents’ sins. Jesus said that not everyone is meant to get married, so it seems to me that homosexual people have another purpose in life, one that can be fulfilling and serve God at the same time. Regarding Romans 1:18-32, Paul said that, apparently, God in the past had punished some idolators “because they worshipped the creature rather than the creator” by “handing them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies…Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.” This is in the past tense and the only example I can think of is the story of Abraham’s nephew, Lot, who lived in Sodom where all the men were homosexual. These men came to Lot’s house and wanted to rape the 2 visiting men who were really angels appearing as men. (The angel Raphael also took on the appearance of a man in the book of Tobit.) Obviously, today there are people who do worship God and are have same-sex-attraction anyway. And there are people who don’t worship God and are heterosexual. Whether people act on their homosexuality is their business, since I’m sure they have all heard what the bible teaches. Unfortunately, there are plenty of “Christians” who have made them aware in very demeaning ways. We are not their judge and if we put them down, we are the ones sinning. God in the past also destroyed all the people except Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives; so possibly God at one time punished the people as St. Paul says in Romans 1. God promised not to drown everybody as punishment ever again; and from people we know today, God does not punish people by making them lust after the same sex either. This happens in nature and I think we should listen to what Jesus had to say about it. It is not a person’s fault if they are homosexual or have SSA; Jesus says that some are born that way. We should be as loving as possible to all people; that doesn’t mean we have to condone people’s behavior.

 

[peduzzi89]

To coincide with Susan’s comment, I can understand not letting gays get a religious marriage - but they deserve a legal one.

Susan - you might be interested to read my passage a page or 2 back that mentions some of the things you said. You may not agree with everything but I think since we both seem fairly open-minded both our views could coexist.

 

[Kevin42]

Kevin, are you being facetious? I’m not sure what you mean by the Jesus remark. I did explain my thoughts on the Church’s teaching before and it was too long to repeat. If you are, could we please have a real discussion? I think that is the purpose of this blog, after all.

I am not being facetious at all, and I think my post was serious. A repeating theme I keep picking up on in your posts is that Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality. I am not sure what you are getting at with this point, but I do not think that it contributes to either side of the argument. My post was merely pointing out that it seems to me you have a shaky argument at best, built on presumptions, and rejection or ignorance of various Church teachings. I do not mean to be mean or cruel by saying this, and I apologize if my last post seemed to come of the wrong way.

Might I also add that I thought I typed a long reply to your long post, but somehow or another (undoubtedly through my own error) it did not get posted. It’s quite unfortunate because I must say I thought it was a good post:blush: . I don’t think I could rewrite it as good, but perhaps I will try when it is not so late?

 

[SCALCO]

The Bible really doesn’t comment on this type of relationship. What it does comment on are male prostitutes, men who have sex with young boys, and those who lust after each other (of any gender).

Peduzzi, what about these?

Lev 18:22
`You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev 20:13
`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them

 

[SCALCO]

The Bible really doesn’t comment on this type of relationship. What it does comment on are male prostitutes, men who have sex with young boys, and those who lust after each other (of any gender).

Peduzzi,

What about these?

Lev 18:22
`You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev 20:13
`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

They are very straightforward. I am simply trying to understand the context you have for these.

 

[peary]

Your profile says you are Catholic. The Church teaches it is a disordered activity and a grave sin. You MUST accept that.

**Don’t you think you are confusing the two issues here? Being homosexual means one has a proclivity to same-sex attraction. Being so, it is not sinful in and of itself.

The Church teaches that it is a psychological disorder, but it doesn’t teach that same-sex attraction is sinful. What it DOES teach is that - like sex outside of marriage - homosexual sex is sinful (the acts themselves). **

 

[peary]

Sorry, but how many Catholics that use birth control are out dressing in drag and holding “Pill Pride” parades, et al.?

It’s the squeaky wheel, as they say, that gets the grease.

SK

**Artificial contraception is regarded by the Church as a grave sin. Those practicing it don’t have to go dress in drag and hold parades. They do that in their bedrooms. **

 

[pathia]

**Artificial contraception is regarded by the Church as a grave sin. Those practicing it don’t have to go dress in drag and hold parades. They do that in their bedrooms. **

The great majority of homosexuals do not go out in pride parades. We just live our quiet little lives and keep our sex out of public eyes just like most others. In fact, myself and every single one of my gay friends thinks they are repulsive and hinder progress rather than help. I have yet to meet a gay person that actually partakes in them.

 

[susanj19]

Pathia & Peduzzi89,
Are you saying that you believe the act of gay sex is OK with God? Or do you not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Or perhaps, do you think that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to moral rules today and that St. Paul, who wrote that gay sex is a grave sin several times in the New Testament, is just an opinionated man who should not be concerned with people’s sex lives? Just curious as to what you actually believe. And thanks, Peduzzi89, for saying that you think I am open-minded; I try, anyways. But I do believe what the New Testament says is a sin must be a sin because the writers are inspired by God and the Church was given the authority to teach (especially to interpret the Bible!) by Jesus himself when he told Peter that "what you loose will be loosed in heaven… " Here’s a good site to show you the authority Christ gave to Peter and the catholic church: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#top

 

[pathia]

Pathia & Peduzzi89,
Are you saying that you believe the act of gay sex is OK with God? Or do you not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Or perhaps, do you think that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to moral rules today and that St. Paul, who wrote that gay sex is a grave sin several times in the New Testament, is just an opinionated man who should not be concerned with people’s sex lives? Just curious as to what you actually believe. And thanks, Peduzzi89, for saying that you think I am open-minded; I try, anyways. But I do believe what the New Testament says is a sin must be a sin because the writers are inspired by God and the Church was given the authority to teach (especially to interpret the Bible!) by Jesus himself when he told Peter that "what you loose will be loosed in heaven… " Here’s a good site to show you the authority Christ gave to Peter and the catholic church: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#top

I gave up on the Catholic church years ago. However, I’ve yet to find a church that feels more like ‘home’ so yet I linger because I crave something, anything.

I’ve tried everything, devout prayer, starvation, self-mutilation, near-death, drugs legal and otherwise. Anything, anything at all to sense God, never once in my entire life have I ever felt anything at all. Not even when I was little did I ever feel anything, I don’t know what it means to feel anything, to feel God, or the Holy Spirit. It is utterly alien to me, and I’ve tried everything and nothing for over a decade, and still I am a blank, not even a void, I have no lack, other than a desire to feel something, anything at all.

So, now we come to the bible. Keep in mind what I said above. No, I do not believe the bible to be literal, or to be the word of God. I believe it may have been the word of God a long, long time ago. Now? I think it’s what God said to a tribe of humans thousands of years ago, filtered through those thousands of years by humans, abused by people when they thought it prudent. This continued to the point that God had to send his Son down to make things right, except right after he died the process of manipulation started right up again.

When I sit down and read the bible, it is no more inspiring to me, or moving than reading an old mythological story, or an epic greek or roman poem. It is a struggle because of the grammar and verbiage, but there is nothing ‘meaningful’ in it, nor does it cause any stirrings in my soul, or cause me to feel anything at all. They feel just like stories.

So when people tell me the bible is self-evidently God’s word because they can ‘feel’ it, I do not know what they mean, that is an alien statement. It is like explaining color to the blind, I just don’t understand it, I wish I could, but it just doesn’t work that way in my mind, for whatever reason.

 

[peduzzi89]

Scalco - are you prepared to be bound by the entire levitical code? Do you know what is in Leviticus? If we still went by Leviticus we would be Jewish. It contains passages about keeping your beard trimmed a certain way, not cutting your hair, human and animal sacrifice, and not eating shellfish among many others. It is a teaching of the journey of the Israelites but Christians are no longer bound by it.

Susan - the Bible started out as the word of God but has been passed down, edited, and translated over thousands of years. Only when we look at the original context and where the translation is coming from can we know what it truly means. Most Catholics simply ignore this fact and go on quoting the Bible for points they want to get across at a particular time yet ignoring other parts.

 

[peary]

Consider “trends” in heterosexual “preferences”. Does every culture in every time-period prefer the same physical type of woman? (No) Does that then mean that there are genetic differences not only between cultures, but within that same culture, in different time periods?(Also no) If there is no genetic reason for someone preferring a particular breast size, why should we say there is one between those who prefer a person with either a penis or a vagina?

**Maybe because, in the natural world order, they compliment each other? **

 

[speaker1777]

I didn’t actually read this entire thread, but I will add my two cents.

I suppose the idea is that the genes are to blame for unnatural lusts. Or that genes then determine the lusts of an individual. And because one cannot direct what one lusts after, it may be considered that “I am born this way.” From genes, the DNA tells what chemicals to produce; and there we have the idea that the way the brain is built with the balance of neurotransmitters is the reason for whatever lusts. But our lusts do not determine who we are. What we choice to do with our lives determines who we are.

But we are called not to live according to the flesh. The desires of the flesh will lead to the destruction of the flesh and even the soul. And we are temples of the Holy Spirit. God is Spirit. The Love of God is an action and these actions are revealed to us by the body of Christ, the church. Especially in the acts of mercy, spiritual & corporal. Feelings are always subjective according to the individual and should not be considered a method for determining what is true. The flesh is not a god, but The Word is God. (and he became flesh and dwelt among us.)

I stumbled upon a new word recently. It is concupiscence. From wikipedia: In Christian theology, concupiscence is a selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience. And to further quote: Protestants consider concupiscence to be sinful, whereas Catholics believe it to be highly likely to cause sin, though not sinful in itself. (Although it doesn’t have a citation.)

In my growing up years, I had read or heard that I should not do certain things. But, in so knowing, I pondered if I should do those things if I had any ‘desire’ to do those things. My mind would imagine doing all sorts of abominations according to the ‘desires’ within me. In the end, it isn’t about appearing to ‘fit the mold’ but letting the spirit of God lead you into becoming like Christ. Remember, in heaven no one is given in marriage. Yet some are called so in this life to the salvation of their souls and to continue the population. But that is another topic.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **Joe 5859 **

I’m not sure why this topic elicits such heated debate. From a moral standpoint, whether SSA is the result of genetics, or environment, or a combination of the two (it doesn’t have to be
either/or" after all), it really doesn’t matter. The acts are considered gravely disordered and ought not to be committed. However, we cannot really judge a particular individual’s culpability for such acts (as with any sin). It’s really no more complicated than that.

True. We are not to judge another’s future spiritual state; that is left to God. However, we can judge actions, and those actions committed by an individual define a person’s character.

 

[SCALCO]

Scalco - are you prepared to be bound by the entire levitical code? Do you know what is in Leviticus? If we still went by Leviticus we would be Jewish. It contains passages about keeping your beard trimmed a certain way, not cutting your hair, human and animal sacrifice, and not eating shellfish among many others. It is a teaching of the journey of the Israelites but Christians are no longer bound by it.

Please tell me, Peduzzi, do you believe Christian’s are still bound by these?

• Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him.

• Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

What about the moral laws on adultery and incest?

 

[SCALCO]

Peduzzi,

You asked if I am prepared to be bound by the entire Levitical code. No.

The laws you mentioned are Jewish ceremonial and juridical laws. Those laws were necessary for a time. In the NT, we have Jesus being the perfect Sacrifice.

There is a distinction between those customary laws and the moral/natural laws. Moral laws do not change. They are universal. Remember that Jesus said “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mt 5:17).

You might think of it the same way as how Church discipline can change, but never the teaching on faith and morals. The principles do not change although the application could.

 

[fix]

Scalco - are you prepared to be bound by the entire levitical code? Do you know what is in Leviticus? If we still went by Leviticus we would be Jewish. It contains passages about keeping your beard trimmed a certain way, not cutting your hair, human and animal sacrifice, and not eating shellfish among many others. It is a teaching of the journey of the Israelites but Christians are no longer bound by it.

Is there a difference between the old ceremonial law and the moral law? Do you think the Church has just now arrived at this information?