M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition that is condemned explicitly in several places in Holy Scripture. Acting on homosexual impulses is a mortal sin. There is NO proof that being gay is genetic.
- Status
S
SilentKnight
Guest
There’s no proof that it’s not either. I myself happen to believe that it’s typically if not always a combination of “nature” and “nurture” both.
This said, as has been repeated over and over again - doesn’t matter. At all. What matters is the choices we make subsequent to its presence.
SK
This said, as has been repeated over and over again - doesn’t matter. At all. What matters is the choices we make subsequent to its presence.
SK
P
peduzzi89
Guest
I think many use the whole church doctrine thing as a fall back when they can no longer provide any good argument against something even when an excellent one is presented for it. I mean we all know what the church has to say about this issue, so what then is the point of this anyway? The church is run by humans and it is possible for them to be wrong, they still have free will. And about the Bible, the words itself are not ambiguous, anyone can see that - I have read it dozens of times. They are ambiguous because of the context in which they were written and the questionable translation - we are not reading God’s original words. And even if you do believe that the church is never wrong, I really maintain that the Bible is not referring to committed, loving, monogamous, same sex couples because that particular idea of homosexuality did not exist when it was written. And say that is true - then the church would be wrong.
S
SilentKnight
Guest
Peduzzi, I asked you to flesh this out in an earlier post but you said you were too busy. Executing another “drive by” insta-post is not going to help the debate any, eh? You know someone else is now going to come by and post, for the 5 millionth time, “Huh uh”. To which someone will assuredly reply, “Uh huh” and on and on the cycle goes.
The bottom line, as we’ve gone endless rounds now on the matter, is that homosexuality can be and already is understood with the light of natural reason to be “unnatural”, “not normal”. Now, left-handedness is not really “normal” either. So, if you are Catholic, you know that the Church cannot err in teaching official doctrine (it can only err in non-doctrinal matters and when individual clerics are voicing their own thoughts) and therefore you look to it to confirm or deny: What’s the status of homosexual activity? Just another uncommon but benign preference like Chinese versus Italian food? Or something much more serious? Something that is exactly as it appears: Unnatural. Contrary to the natural law. Contrary to God’s will and design for human sexuality. A.k.a. Gravely sinful.
According to Jesus, the Church is protected from teaching error when teaching official doctrine by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said He would send to guide the Church into all truth. One is either a Catholic and believes this, or one chooses to believe that God’s Spirit leaves the Church to fend entirely for itself and somehow calls it good and look out. Chaos is the inevitable result. I don’t recall whether or not you are Catholic, but if you are, you are required to believe this. (Sorry to burst any bubbles or to leave any terds in any proverbial punch bowls.) If you choose not to, you voluntarily place yourself outside the “confines” of the faith you claim to adhere to (but do not).
You alleged a good argument for homosexual behavior. I don’t know what that argument is. I haven’t seen it. All I’ve seen so far are arguments *against *the contrary position. And they are theologically and logically specious arguments at that. Among other things, you suggest that the Bible we have now is not the Bible God inspired 2,000 years a ago, thus rendering Scripture effectively useless. But then having denied the integrity of our present Scriptures, you are content to turn around and use the “incorrect” version as proof that the Bible is not referring to the committed homosexual behavior that we see in some homosexual relationships today.
What’s that all about?
Throw a dog a bone, dude.
SK
The bottom line, as we’ve gone endless rounds now on the matter, is that homosexuality can be and already is understood with the light of natural reason to be “unnatural”, “not normal”. Now, left-handedness is not really “normal” either. So, if you are Catholic, you know that the Church cannot err in teaching official doctrine (it can only err in non-doctrinal matters and when individual clerics are voicing their own thoughts) and therefore you look to it to confirm or deny: What’s the status of homosexual activity? Just another uncommon but benign preference like Chinese versus Italian food? Or something much more serious? Something that is exactly as it appears: Unnatural. Contrary to the natural law. Contrary to God’s will and design for human sexuality. A.k.a. Gravely sinful.
According to Jesus, the Church is protected from teaching error when teaching official doctrine by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said He would send to guide the Church into all truth. One is either a Catholic and believes this, or one chooses to believe that God’s Spirit leaves the Church to fend entirely for itself and somehow calls it good and look out. Chaos is the inevitable result. I don’t recall whether or not you are Catholic, but if you are, you are required to believe this. (Sorry to burst any bubbles or to leave any terds in any proverbial punch bowls.) If you choose not to, you voluntarily place yourself outside the “confines” of the faith you claim to adhere to (but do not).
You alleged a good argument for homosexual behavior. I don’t know what that argument is. I haven’t seen it. All I’ve seen so far are arguments *against *the contrary position. And they are theologically and logically specious arguments at that. Among other things, you suggest that the Bible we have now is not the Bible God inspired 2,000 years a ago, thus rendering Scripture effectively useless. But then having denied the integrity of our present Scriptures, you are content to turn around and use the “incorrect” version as proof that the Bible is not referring to the committed homosexual behavior that we see in some homosexual relationships today.
What’s that all about?
Throw a dog a bone, dude.
SK
P
peduzzi89
Guest
Well I’m not saying the Bible is incorrect - just that it is inaccurate to read it at face value. And I didn’t say it was not inspired by God, but what we read today is not the unfiltered word of God letter by letter. And that is the argument I use in saying that it does not condemn all homosexuality. Jesus also said “Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself”. The church did not always allow annulments of marriages, but they do now. That IS an example of church doctrine changing. The Catholic church puts a fog between its people and God. All most Catholics know about Him is what the church tells them. I would love to know how many read the Bible daily or even weekly. I’ll bet not many. Most just do what they’re told, and don’t take the time to really think about things. And this is definitely not a drive-by post.
S
SilentKnight
Guest
“Bullet” point by bullet point…
(Little drive-by posting reference there…
)
I fully concur.
The presumed response, if I may, is that we don’t know. And the logical conclusion to this assertion is that this renders Scripture entirely useless. When the Bible says that it is useful for preaching and teaching and training one up in every good work it is lying. Unwittingly perhaps. But it is lying nonetheless. The Bible is now worthless because too many people have altered its passages too thoroughly for us to be able to allow the Bible to simply be what God originally intended it to be.
Are you going Protestant on me?
…Yeah. That, I think, is true.
But the implication here is that human reason is the highest arbiter of truth in the world. (Or at least a higher one than the divinely appointed magisterium.) It doesn’t take much time to look out into the world and to see that reason leads many different individuals to many - sometimes very, very different and even contradictory - conclusions. You use your ability to reason and thereby believe that homosexual activity is just fine. Another man uses his ability to reason and perceives with it (religion aside) that homosexuality is deviant behavior and thus deserves to be punished. You’re obviously not both right.
This, I’m guessing by the way, Peduzzi, is the bottom line for you. (The use of reason in determining the morality of your orientation.) It’s late and I really have to get to bed. I’ll do what I can to elaborate on this point tomorrow…
SK
P.S.
(Little drive-by posting reference there…
)…Ok. So, making use of Scripture is not quite as simple as, “Verse xyz says…” One has to keep in mind things like the context of the cited Scripture in order to ensure a fully accurate understanding of the divine message.
I fully concur.
…Which begs the question, “What then is the Bible?” What sections, words, paragraphs, chapters are the unfiltered word of God still and which ones aren’t?
The presumed response, if I may, is that we don’t know. And the logical conclusion to this assertion is that this renders Scripture entirely useless. When the Bible says that it is useful for preaching and teaching and training one up in every good work it is lying. Unwittingly perhaps. But it is lying nonetheless. The Bible is now worthless because too many people have altered its passages too thoroughly for us to be able to allow the Bible to simply be what God originally intended it to be.
An argument which is obviously meaningless in that we don’t know what the real word of God condemns and doesn’t condemn anyway.
You lost me here.
Reference please. Jesus himself said in Matt 19 that a man may not divorce and remarry unless he is currently in an unlawful marriage to begin with. (That’s an annulment.)
…Well…Yes(to the second sentence)…I could elaborate, but it’s late and I need to go to bed. Maybe tomorrow…
One eyebrow raised
Are you going Protestant on me?
…
…Yeah. That, I think, is true.But the implication here is that human reason is the highest arbiter of truth in the world. (Or at least a higher one than the divinely appointed magisterium.) It doesn’t take much time to look out into the world and to see that reason leads many different individuals to many - sometimes very, very different and even contradictory - conclusions. You use your ability to reason and thereby believe that homosexual activity is just fine. Another man uses his ability to reason and perceives with it (religion aside) that homosexuality is deviant behavior and thus deserves to be punished. You’re obviously not both right.
This, I’m guessing by the way, Peduzzi, is the bottom line for you. (The use of reason in determining the morality of your orientation.) It’s late and I really have to get to bed. I’ll do what I can to elaborate on this point tomorrow…
SK
P.S.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
At what value should we read the words of St. Paul in Romans 1 then:
[26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
Unnatural, shameless, error - what’s ambiguous about this?
If that’s your argument - that we can’t trust the Bible because we don’t know if it’s valid or not - it’s not much of one. Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church - the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith or morals. The RSV-CE is an authorized translation of the Holy Scripture. The NAB, in the same passage from Romans, uses the words “impurity” “degradation” “degrading” “unnatural” “shameful” to describe homosexuality. This sounds like it’s condemning homosexuality to me.
According to you, we can’t know if Jesus said this or not, because the Bible is not reliable. In fact, he did say in Mark 12, in response to the question of which is the greatest commandment:
[29]“The first is,
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [30] and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' [31] The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”The first commandment is the Shema Israel taken from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. The second is from Leviticus 19:18. It also says in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” When it says to love your neighbor, it doesn’t mean embracing his sinfulness.
The part about annulments is not true.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church. He said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” John 14:6 Jesus left us the Church to continue his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The Church is what leads people to God. You are obviously not Catholic to make this statement.
How would they come to know God except through the Church? And how does this invalidate the Church’s teaching on homosexuality?
Anybody who goes to Mass weekly hears at least 3 readings, a Psalm, and a Scripture based liturgy. And again, what impact does this have on the validity of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a gravely disordered condition? None.
T
Tracy10
Guest
There’s no need to take such a strong stance of dislike for someone just because of orientation. Chemicals and many other things produce estrogens in the body which may change the orientation of individuals before they are born. They have, in fact, been proven to change the orientation of animals.
At one time, years ago, I too was extremely harsh at judging people and you know what? God is a grand teacher. He often gives people a gift (which they may consider a curse) just to teach them a lesson for being so arrogant, condemning of others, and overly “righteous.”
If you take such a strong stance, one day you will be granted a challenge from God when you discover that a close friend or relative is homosexual – or maybe even one of your own children may turn out that way.
You will then be left with the option to (1) place your high and mighty self above that child and neglect and ignore him or her, or (2) to accept the child as he was created and leave the judging to God alone, as has been suggested in the bible. Which option do you think Jesus would’ve chosen?
A good dose of humility is far better for the soul than condemnation of others who have never personally harmed you. The bible states often that you will be judged as harshly as you have judged others (especially those who have done no personal harm to you).
At one time, years ago, I too was extremely harsh at judging people and you know what? God is a grand teacher. He often gives people a gift (which they may consider a curse) just to teach them a lesson for being so arrogant, condemning of others, and overly “righteous.”
If you take such a strong stance, one day you will be granted a challenge from God when you discover that a close friend or relative is homosexual – or maybe even one of your own children may turn out that way.
You will then be left with the option to (1) place your high and mighty self above that child and neglect and ignore him or her, or (2) to accept the child as he was created and leave the judging to God alone, as has been suggested in the bible. Which option do you think Jesus would’ve chosen?
A good dose of humility is far better for the soul than condemnation of others who have never personally harmed you. The bible states often that you will be judged as harshly as you have judged others (especially those who have done no personal harm to you).
F
fix
Guest
How peculiar. Does it follow people should not take moral positions on other bad behavior because their children may one day commit such acts?
Will God judge us as faithful by claiming wrong is right?
K
Kevin42
Guest
No one that I have seen so far is taking a strong stance of dislike toward any individual. If they are, then they may be at risk of violating the teaching of the Catechism to respect homosexual persons.
Furthermore, no one is condemning any individual. The only thing that I have seen lately is people repeating the teaching of the Church and of the Bible over certain acts. This might even be considered spiritual acts of mercy (Warn the sinner, instruct the ignorant).
Also, peduzzi, you again ignore not only what others have said about biblical and church teaching regarding homosexuality, but you also ignore Church teaching on the nature of sexuality in general (It must occur in the context of marriage and be both unitive and procreative. Homosexual acts fulfill none of these requirements.)
B
Bennie_P
Guest
???
As we know it?
What is different from 1st century Rome as compared to 21st Century America that makes self-centered gratification more right today then back then?
Homosexual behavior was accepted by the ruling elite then, but was exposed by the Christian faithful as being what it is, disordered sexual attraction which makes others objects of ones uncontrollable sexual lust. Christians where persecuted for telling the truth then and now are the subject of ridicule (and persecution) today for telling that same truth. More and more the ruling elites (or those that are trying to brownshirt their way into becoming the ruling elite) are pushing for laws which will mute the arguments against this sinful act.
Genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality, unless selfishness is something one inherits through their DNA. Of course in reality that is what original sin is all about - man thinking he is smarter then God and His natural order of purpose. God gave us a free will, to choose Him and His love or choose our disordered sinful nature and self-love. One leads to life, the other to death…
C
comfort1st
Guest
NOthe CHRISTIAN church was founded on the teachings of Jesus, who died as a JEW. No church was founded by Him. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be built on Peter, the rock, a married man who denied Christ three times.
If you consider “the Church” to be the body of Christ, the people who are Christians (of any denomination) then I would suggest only a small few would find God except through the Church, and, of that few, some would find God DESPITE the Church.
If the Church’s teaching on ANY subject is founded on ancient science which has been shown to be inaccurate because the people of the time didn’t have the where withall to make the necessary discoveries then not taking on board recent discoveries would invalidate the teaching in that subject. Some people still believe that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago. I don’t know anyone who takes that claim seriously these days - the scientific evidence is far too strong. One day we might realise the truth about homosexuality and have to admit we were wrong on that issue too.
Sorry, I wanted to leave this subject alone now, but I couldn’t let the claim about Jesus founding the Catholic Church go uncorrected.
Steven
F
fix
Guest
So many errors here but I was wondering how can science ever prove what is moral or immoral?
P
pathia
Guest
???
As we know it?
Homosexual behavior was accepted by the ruling elite then, but was exposed by the Christian faithful as being what it is, disordered sexual attraction which makes others objects of ones uncontrollable sexual lust. Christians where persecuted for telling the truth then and now are the subject of ridicule (and persecution) today for telling that same truth. More and more the ruling elites (or those that are trying to brownshirt their way into becoming the ruling elite) are pushing for laws which will mute the arguments against this sinful act.
I never understood this, you do realize that Rome started to COLLAPSE right at the time as Christianity became a major part within it? How is that supposed to prove anything?
P
pathia
Guest
It can’t. It can however prove that something is natural or unnatural, genetic or choice etc.
I was thrown into ‘masculine improvement’ programs as early as 4-5, I don’t even really remember those obviously, but apparently my parents caught me playing kissing games with other boys at that age.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t choose to do those things, or had someone make me do it, or my upbringing cause it. My parents were very solid traditional family, my dad worked 9-5, mom took care of the house and the kids. I was raised Catholic, some of my earliest memories are of being in Church on sunday. I was raised exactly the same as my brothers, and both of them are married with kids now.
K
Kevin42
Guest
I think that peduzzi is speaking of sexual relationships between two people of the same sex that is committed, monogamous, and loving. Some people believe that the Bible was only referencing the kind of homosexual acts that occur in the settings of orgies and/or that are promiscuous in nature. There is the belief by some that these are the types of homosexual acts the Bible speak of, and not ones that are a part of a monogamous and committed relationship. However, the Bible does not differentiate these two different types of relationships, and it really does not need to given what we know about the nature and purpose of human sexuality.???
As we know it?
Homosexual behavior was accepted by the ruling elite then, but was exposed by the Christian faithful as being what it is, disordered sexual attraction which makes others objects of ones uncontrollable sexual lust. Christians where persecuted for telling the truth then and now are the subject of ridicule (and persecution) today for telling that same truth. More and more the ruling elites (or those that are trying to brownshirt their way into becoming the ruling elite) are pushing for laws which will mute the arguments against this sinful act.
Genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality, unless selfishness is something one inherits through their DNA. Of course in reality that is what original sin is all about - man thinking he is smarter then God and His natural order of purpose. God gave us a free will, to choose Him and His love or choose our disordered sinful nature and self-love. One leads to life, the other to death…
Just a side note, I do not believe you are fair to call homosexuals selfish. While I am sure some (or perhaps many) are, there are also many who are honestly trying to be good people…whether or not they are. Also, you do not know that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality, and their is not enough proof for you, or anyone, to pontificate on whether or not it is somewhat or wholly caused by genetics. We know that acts are a choice, but the orientation itself and what causes it is still very unclear.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
My point - what is the difference of sinful behavior then as today? How is our understanding of what is right and wrong any different?
You are looking for too much when the answer is simple.
For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness: but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.
F
fix
Guest
My point is science cannot claim that something is *natural *as in the sense it is consistent with man’s moral nature.
IOW, that something is found in nature does not mean such a thing is ordered as it should be.
O
onaquest
Guest
Yes. A sin on par with masturbation and pornography.
P
pathia
Guest
The difference is, Rome, and what was going on and described in the bible was wanton lust, orgies, indiscriminately choosing sexual partners.
That is DANGEROUS even if straight people do it, period. It’s gross, dangerous and life threatening.
The bible doesn’t ever mention anything remotely close to what my partner and I have. We have lived together for half a decade, we are celibate, but we are deeply in love regardless. Sex is not necessary for love.
- Status