If man is born a sinner, than man can be born gay

[johnnyc176]

The Church will not change it’s position on homosexual relations because it’s position comes straight from the Word of God, and in both the Old and New Testaments, and there is no way to interpret the passages for anything other than what they say. They are very clear, but people would like to pretend they don’t exist. Sexuality is not just a cultural development, like slavery and witch burning, which people can correct as they mature as a society and realize it’s evil, it is the very foundation upon which our species exists and survives, and homosexual marriages are not capable of perpetuating the human species. Sex has two purposes, human intimacy( the unitive), which allows for bonding and strong family structures to develop to protect the offspring and the family, and perpetuation of the species; so “marriages” between members of the same sex are not biologically possible. All marriages need to be consummated sexually, and that is not possible with members of the same sex. And it has been so since the beginning of the human species. Anything else is a disordered use of the sexual function of the human body.

However, it is the act, not the person, that is being judged as being sinful. People are persistent in trying to misunderstand this. They hear only what they want to hear. They purposefully misunderstand this in order to promote their agenda. The Pope cannot judge these people–only God is their judge. That is what the Pope means, because it is consistent with Church teaching. We do not judge people, whether Pope or not. We cannot read minds or hearts to ascertain any mitigating circumstances or understanding of the person, so our judgment cannot be truly just. We are called to judge someTHINGS as right or wrong according to what God has decreed, but God judges people. So the Pope is correct in saying “Who am I to judge?” He is not wavering on the issue, he is stating the position of the Church. And that is why you perceive this as him being oppositional to his statement. You have presumed something, and your presumption was in error.

You will never see a change in the position of the Pope or the teaching Magisterium on same sex marriage, despite anyone’s trying to read into what the Pope is saying. The Church, however, has compassion on people struggling with this, they are not to be condemned or discriminated against, but are afforded human dignity, because they are created by God. We are to love them as God loves them, and this applies to all sinners, of which we all can claim to be.
Any sex outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is sinful. The homosexual acts are not considered any worse than adultery (which breaks the marriage covenant, which symbolizes the covenant between God and His people), fornication (sex between two unmarried people) and bestiality. However, right now people are trying to naturalize and normalize homosexual relations, and that is causing it to be the object of more attention.

I hope you can appreciate more the actual position of the Church on the issue.

Well said. I would just add that we need to emphasize that more than being an actual position of the Church it is an actual teaching of Jesus. That is especially why the teaching will never change.

 

[Herbert_West]

CB - Your certitude is enticing, but history doesn’t hide shifts in doctrine and social constructs. Marriage itself has changed in practice throughout the history of the church. The modern conception of one man and one woman was not set in stone during the first part of the 1st century.

But let’s consider some of what you are asserting are the foundations of your position.

Sexuality is not just a cultural development, like slavery and witch burning, which people can correct as they mature as a society and realize it’s evil, it is the very foundation upon which our species exists and survives, and homosexual marriages are not capable of perpetuating the human species.

If there were advancements in science where two people of the same sex could have children, would you change your position? Or would you call it “unnatural” and counter to God’s original plan? If so, are all reproductive technologies “unnatural” and counter to God’s original plan? Don’t answer that yet.

If same sex couples could reproduce, using your argument about heterosexual couples, this would make sexual intercourse between same sex couples unitive and bond them to support the strong family “structures” needed “to protect the offspring and the family, and perpetuation of the species.”

So here is the question, if the playing field changes and same sex couples could have children, would you change your position?

And, do you think it is wrong for sterile couples to have sex since they know that they can never have children?

 

[truetofaith]

CB - Your certitude is enticing, but history doesn’t hide shifts in doctrine and social constructs. Marriage itself has changed in practice throughout the history of the church. The modern conception of one man and one woman was not set in stone during the first part of the 1st century.

But let’s consider some of what you are asserting are the foundations of your position.

If there were advancements in science where two people of the same sex could have children, would you change your position? Or would you call it “unnatural” and counter to God’s original plan? If so, are all reproductive technologies “unnatural” and counter to God’s original plan? Don’t answer that yet.

If same sex couples could reproduce, using your argument about heterosexual couples, this would make sexual intercourse between same sex couples unitive and bond them to support the strong family “structures” needed “to protect the offspring and the family, and perpetuation of the species.”

So here is the question, if the playing field changes and same sex couples could have children, would you change your position?

And, do you think it is wrong for sterile couples to have sex since they know that they can never have children?

LOL …maybe when pigs sprout wings & fly!

 

[Herbert_West]

LOL …maybe when pigs sprout wings & fly!

As ridiculous as it sounds, in time it may be possible. But the question remains, is the potential for reproduction really the determining factor or not?

 

[ericc]

Just some questions distilled from reading the other posts:

1. If an act of of some sort, whether it is homosexuality, addiction or habitual lying, stealing, sadistic or destructive behaviors, divorce, fornication etc which a church has in the past taught as sinful behavior, does that church have divine authority to relabel it as non-sin and teach it as non-sin? If it does, isn’t it indicative that church has taught error in the past or error at the present? A sin remain a sin despite what the clock say what time it is or how many votes you have or whether it is under a democratic, socialistic, dictatorship or communist political system. It does not change the nature of it, which is, a violation of God’s commandment. Agree?
2. A person born with certain disorders does not have a moral right to determine a religious definition of sin to be a non-sin just because he suffers from such a disorder. He may be excused for the act or receive proportionate mercy but it doesn’t make the act moral or non-sinful. A person who is color blind does not change what is to something else by virtue of his disorder. Blue remains blue and red remains red. He accepts that the disorder may cause him to perceive colors differently from others but does not permit him to label white as black.
3. Having the noble objective of inclusiveness does not excuse one from committing another sin, namely false teaching, in order to incorporate that “noble” objective.

Comments.

 

[truetofaith]

As ridiculous as it sounds, in time it may be possible. But the question remains, is the potential for reproduction really the determining factor or not?

The determining factor is the Word of God…“for a man to lie with another man is an abomination.”- Leviticus 18 : 22

 

[Thorolfr]

The determining factor is the Word of God…“for a man to lie with another man is an abomination.”- Leviticus 18 : 22

You can’t take Leviticus all that seriously. After all, what about these:

Leviticus 11: 4-8: But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for you. No eating of rabbits or pork].

Leviticus 18:18: And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. But Jacob married his first wife Leah’s sister Rachel while Leah was still alive].

Leviticus 19-19: You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind no mules allowed]; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed corn and soybeans cannot both be planted in the same field]; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials I hope you don’t have any garments made with two different kinds of material].

Leviticus 19:27: You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 21:16-24: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 17 Speak to Aaron and say: No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, 20 or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy. 23 But he shall not come near the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the Lord; I sanctify them. 24 Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the people of Israel. No person with a “blemish” or disability could be a priest because for them to enter the tabernacle would, God says, “profane my sanctuaries.”]

I hope you’ve never worked on Sunday because according to Numbers 15:32-36: 32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

 

[JerryZ]

You can’t take Leviticus all that seriously. After all, what about these:

So if you can laugh off Leviticus, can you also laugh of St. Paul epistles?

Leviticus 11: 4-8: But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for you. No eating of rabbits or pork].

Leviticus 18:18: And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. But Jacob married his first wife Leah’s sister Rachel while Leah was still alive].

Who came first Leviticus (Moses) or Jacob?

Leviticus 19-19: You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind no mules allowed]; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed corn and soybeans cannot both be planted in the same field]; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials I hope you don’t have any garments made with two different kinds of material].

Leviticus 19:27: You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 21:16-24: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 17 Speak to Aaron and say: No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, 20 or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy. 23 But he shall not come near the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the Lord; I sanctify them. 24 Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the people of Israel. No person with a “blemish” or disability could be a priest because for them to enter the tabernacle would, God says, “profane my sanctuaries.”]

I hope you’ve never worked on Sunday because according to Numbers 15:32-36: 32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Jesus did show us how to properly interpret this passages especially the dietary laws and the Sabbath.

The question remain, will you dismiss the words of St. Paul? He is much closer to us than Leviticus, but I would bet that he had that passage in mind when he wrote the letter to the Romans.

Romans Chapter 1:27 And similarly, the males also, abandoning the natural use of females, have burned in their desires for one another: males doing with males what is disgraceful, and receiving within themselves the recompense that necessarily results from their error.

He did not mince words here, like JESUS used to say “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Instead this is the prevalent attitude now days:

25 And they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And they worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed for all eternity. Amen.

Sounds familiar?

…

 

[Thorolfr]

Who came first Leviticus (Moses) or Jacob?

Jacob came before Moses and both came long before Leviticus which most scholars believe did not reach its current form until the 6th century BC or possibly as late as the 4th century BC.

 

[ericc]

Jacob came before Moses and both came long before Leviticus which most scholars believe did not reach its current form until the 6th century BC or possibly as late as the 4th century BC.

And you were quoting Jacob’s behavior as illegal prior to the Leviticus laws being given? So which Leviticus sexual laws no longer apply today in your view and abrogated by someone with authority?

 

[Thorolfr]

And you were quoting Jacob’s behavior as illegal prior to the Leviticus laws being given? So which Leviticus sexual laws no longer apply today in your view and abrogated by someone with authority?

So is it only the Leviticus sexual laws that have not been abrogated and are still in force?

 

[benjohnson]

So is it only the Leviticus sexual laws that have not been abrogated and are still in force?

No - only the ceremonial laws that set the Jewish people apart as God’s people have been fullfilled in Christ Jesus.

We’re still prohibited from murdering, stealing, and fornicating.

 

[truetofaith]

So if you can laugh off Leviticus, can you also laugh of St. Paul epistles?

Who came first Leviticus (Moses) or Jacob?

Jesus did show us how to properly interpret this passages especially the dietary laws and the Sabbath.

The question remain, will you dismiss the words of St. Paul? He is much closer to us than Leviticus, but I would bet that he had that passage in mind when he wrote the letter to the Romans.

He did not mince words here, like JESUS used to say “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Instead this is the prevalent attitude now days:

Sounds familiar?

…

Yes…Leviticus is Old Testament and most of the laws were for the Jewish people. Jesus taught what laws were important. In the book of Acts 11:4-10, Peter tells how the Lord said not to call anything impure which God has made clean. As you stated, St. Paul in Romans 1 :26-28 condemns lust for the same sex.

 

[ericc]

No - only the ceremonial laws that set the Jewish people apart as God’s people have been fullfilled in Christ Jesus.

We’re still prohibited from murdering, stealing, and fornicating.

And same sexing, incest, and bestial sex. What I have tried to portray is that homosexuality occupies no special grade of sin than other sins. Others have tried to special plead for it using genetics and other reasons. The same case could be made for other sins as well, each sin having its own unique reasons for its “naturalness”. We need to be alert that there will be attempts to justify sin. Using a supposedly holy institution to justify sin is the pits. It is not as bad if limited to secular institutions. But churches are jumping on the bandwagon for the filmiest of reason. I am just shocked that they call upon the name of God to sanction same sex marriage. An act described as an abomination to the Lord. Some even tried to call it “sacramental”. They just murdered the meaning of the word.There is no holy sin or sin with grace.

 

[johnnyc176]

Just some questions distilled from reading the other posts:

1. If an act of of some sort, whether it is homosexuality, addiction or habitual lying, stealing, sadistic or destructive behaviors, divorce, fornication etc which a church has in the past taught as sinful behavior, does that church have divine authority to relabel it as non-sin and teach it as non-sin? If it does, isn’t it indicative that church has taught error in the past or error at the present? A sin remain a sin despite what the clock say what time it is or how many votes you have or whether it is under a democratic, socialistic, dictatorship or communist political system. It does not change the nature of it, which is, a violation of God’s commandment. Agree?
2. A person born with certain disorders does not have a moral right to determine a religious definition of sin to be a non-sin just because he suffers from such a disorder. He may be excused for the act or receive proportionate mercy but it doesn’t make the act moral or non-sinful. A person who is color blind does not change what is to something else by virtue of his disorder. Blue remains blue and red remains red. He accepts that the disorder may cause him to perceive colors differently from others but does not permit him to label white as black.
3. Having the noble objective of inclusiveness does not excuse one from committing another sin, namely false teaching, in order to incorporate that “noble” objective.

Comments.

A timely article from Archbishop Chaput…

catholicphilly.com/2015/07/think-tank/archbishop-chaput-column/peace-on-earth-2015/

No political power can change the nature of marriage or rework the meaning of family. No lobbying campaign, no president, no lawmakers and no judges can redraw the blueprint laid down by God for the well-being of the children he loves. If men and women want peace, there’s only one way to have it — by seeking and living the truth. And the truth, as Pope John told us more than five decades ago, is this:

“The family, founded upon marriage freely contracted, one and indissoluble, must be regarded as the natural, primary cell of human society. The interests of the family, therefore, must be taken very specially into consideration in social and economic affairs, as well as in the spheres of faith and morals. For all of these have to do with strengthening the family and assisting it in the fulfillment of its mission” (PT, 16).

We cannot care for the family by trying to redefine its meaning. We cannot provide for the family by undercutting the privileged place in our culture of a woman and a man made one flesh in marriage. Nations that ignore these truths — no matter what their intentions — are laying the cornerstone of war and suffering. And this is not what God seeks for anyone.

 

[spedteacherita]

The argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapters 1-3 appears to have much bearing on this debate.

In chapter 1, Paul brings up how sinful humankind alienated from God can fall into sins like unnatural sexual unions, stating:

God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.—Romans 1.24-28, 32.

That phrase in the last verse, “that all who practice such things deserve death” is interesting. It applies not only to those engaged in homosexual activity but notice the full context:

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them—Romans 1.29-32.

Notice the list. Have we ever envied another? Been rivals of another? Have we ever participated in the flow of gossip, starting it or listening to it or repeating it? Have we ever boasted about ourselves? Ever been rebellious or disobedient to our parents? Have we ever lacked faith?

If we have, then we are no different than those who engage in homosexual acts, for “the just decree of God [is] that all who practice such things deserve death.”

So tell me? What does it matter if a person is born with a homosexual inclination or not? Are you who are born without one any better off? Have you never read the Scripture that says: “By the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” And what things are those? Merely the “shameful things” of Romans 1.24-28? No, but all things mentioned from verse 24 to verse 32!

“Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2.1-4) If in God’s forbearance, patience, and mercy he has not judged the homosexual by bringing them all to their death, who are you guilty of the sins from the same list to be engaging in debate over this? Do you not believe that the mercy of God in Christ will save the envious, the gossips, the haughty, boastful, and faithless rebellious children that you are? If God will save you, deserving of death, what does it matter if God saves someone else equally deserving of death? Or do you believe that he will not or cannot?

Who cares if a person is born as a homosexual or not? Have you so little faith in the mercy of God in Christ? If God chooses to give to you, someone who has labored much and never turned away from him, and also chooses to save another who has not labored as you and has turned away, is that not a reason for rejoicing and boasting about God?—Read Luke 15.11-32 and compare it with Matthew 20.1-16.

You’re not saying that since they have SSA that they can act on it, are you? I’m sorry if I misunderstood your statement.

Yes, there are a multitude of sins with which we fight and we cannot ignore them at all. If you look at our country you will see that gluttony has become a sin that people struggle with. No matter what sins we battle we must strive to live as God’s Word tells us. In my earlier years I struggled with choosing the right males to be around and how to handle myself when I was with them. In the end, I saw what it was doing to my spiritual life (such that it was at that time) and made a commitment to chastity until or if God decided I needed a partner. So many more sins I am confronted with daily that I am in a constant state of repentance with my Lord - some I’ve won the battle and others, with the Lord, I am working on.

God bless

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Yes, but isn’t God giving a bigger burden to the person born as a homosexual than to a person born straight. A straight person can lead a pure life, then marry & enjoy sex without sin. A homosexual must be pure and then sin by marrying & after marrying a same sex partner. It doesn’t seem fair to the people born that way…that’s why I don’t believe they are born that way, except people born with both organs which is an abnormality!

A person with SSA can lead a normal life as well as anyone else. I want to share a blog that I found a couple of years ago:

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

As a Christian, he felt it was important to follow Christ’s commandments and, as a result, he has a wife and children.

Just a thought,

God bless!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Thorolfr - In time, I predict the moral teaching and position of the church will shift in this regard. Many places are changing their views on same sex marriage, and it is likely that the catholic church will follow suit as it did with slavery.

Just consider how it is finally legal for same-sex couples to celebrate the sacrament of marriage in the United States. Imagine a country banning any of the other sacraments for Catholics. The idea is absurd.

In fact, I think homosexuality will be accepted before divorce.

There will be no acceptance of same-sex couples being allowed to celebrate the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church no matter where it is allowed. There will be no acceptance in either the LCMS, LCMC, or WELS. We believe in the inerrancy of the inspired Word of God and that will never change.

Peace!

Rita

 

[Thorolfr]

As you stated, St. Paul in Romans 1 :26-28 condemns lust for the same sex.

So is it only “lust for the same sex” that is condemned? Is “lust for the opposite sex” OK and acceptable? The definition of “lust” in Merriam-Webster is, “usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness.” Maybe it’s the “lust” and “lasciviousness” part that Paul condemns, not the same-sex part.

 

[Thorolfr]

No - only the ceremonial laws that set the Jewish people apart as God’s people have been fullfilled in Christ Jesus.

We’re still prohibited from murdering, stealing, and fornicating.

Is the prohibition against working on the Sabbath a ceremonial law even though the ten commandments mention it (Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy)? Should people still be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? And what about what God says in Leviticus 21:16-24 about people with blemishes or disabilities being prohibited from being priests and entering the tabernacle because they might “profane my sanctuaries”? Is that just a “ceremonial law” intended to set the Jewish people apart? Did non-Jews regularly allow hunchbacks, dwarfs, blind and lame people and other kinds of “'blemished” people to be their priests? Does God still believe that there is something profane and unholy about such people? Has God changed His mind about such people?