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

[Doormouse]

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.

Corinthians 6:9
romans 1:26-27
how can you say what you have in your post?

btw way im a member just lost my password, have to have this one until I get my old account sorted out.

 

[Thorolfr]

Corinthians 6:9
romans 1:26-27
how can you say what you have in your post?

I was respondong to Truetofaith who said, “St. Paul in Romans 1 :26-28 condemns lust for the same sex.” So if a same-sex relationship was not “lustful” and did not involve “intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness,” would it not be condemned by Paul or are all same-sex sexual relationships lustful and lascivious by definition? Some people seem to imply the latter and that there is nothing good or redeeming possible in a same-sex relationship.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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?

The Church is not right 100% of the time. Even in morals. Remember slavery?

1. 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.

True - but if homosexuality is innate, it would cause us to look at things differently and is good reason to question Catholic anthropology.

 

[Doormouse]

would you be talking about that elusive needle in a hay stack?

 

[steido01]

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)?

Yes, it was ceremonial in the sense that we needn’t keep to the strict regulations for the seventh day of the Hebrew week. We know this because Jesus Himself performed miracles on the Sabbath (if we can’t follow His example, then who are we to follow?). It still applies in that we are to set time apart for God.

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?

It appears you need to re-read your Catechism. If you haven’t the patience, then check out this video: Horus Reads the Internet.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The only part of the Old Law that continues is the moral law. But it is an assumption to say that the parts of the Old Law dealing with homosexual activity is a natural moral law concern.

 

[steido01]

To most people who are against homosexuality, being gay is only about sex. They can hardly bring themselves to admit that there are any redeeming qualities at all to same-sex relationships. That’s why the statement in the midterm report of the Synod on the Family placed there by Cardinal Erdo which said that same-sex unions can also exemplify “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice (that) constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners” was squelched by conservatives and removed from the final report.

Find me a sin that doesn’t have at least one “redeeming quality” for someone.

This reminds me of a story I read. Someone was looking for a positive outcome to the perversion of what was already good. Went something like this:

God: Eat of any fruit in the garden. Except *that *one, or you will surely die.
Adam & Eve: Ok!
Snake: Eat *that *one. You will not surely die.
Adam & Eve: Ok!

The fruit must’ve tasted something good for Eve to have shared it with Adam. But it wasn’t the fruit that they were meant to eat. And because they ate what they were not meant to eat, they surely died.

 

[Herbert_West]

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.

The foundations of humanity, if you actually believe the bible (I understand most Catholics may not) is predicated on incest. Adam and Eve’s children were expected by God to engage in incest as were the children of Noah’s children. Now that may be a controversial and provocative thing to say, but I use it only as an example that perhaps insistence on the language and literal interpretations rather than the message may be warping judgement.

Perhaps it is time to dispense with the recitation of biblical verses (which let’s face it - is filled with a bunch of bronze-aged ignorance) and get to the genuine appreciation of Jesus’ teachings. Love your neighbor and treat him as if he/she were the living embodiment of God. As an atheist, that is something profoundly wise and beneficent on which even I can get on board.

 

[Doormouse]

The foundations of humanity, if you actually believe the bible (I understand most Catholics may not) is predicated on incest. Adam and Eve’s children were expected by God to engage in incest as were the children of Noah’s children. Now that may be a controversial and provocative thing to say, but I use it only as an example that perhaps insistence on the language and literal interpretations rather than the message may be warping judgement.

Perhaps it is time to dispense with the recitation of biblical verses (which let’s face it - is filled with a bunch of bronze-aged ignorance) and get to the genuine appreciation of Jesus’ teachings. Love your neighbor and treat him as if he/she were the living embodiment of God. As an atheist, that is something profoundly wise and beneficent on which even I can get on board.

may I ask if you believe in evolution?

 

[Thomas1981]

. Love your neighbor and treat him as if he/she were the living embodiment of God. .

Yes, but part of loving one’s neighbors is not encouraging them to engage in sinful activities that push them away from God. This is the key difference between how an atheist would understand love versus Christians. To love someone is to will their good. In our view the greatest good is getting to heaven (bringing them closer and closer to God). In the atheist view, in which heaven does not exist and there is no afterlife, this component is absent. Christian love has a “tough love” element in which we want people to avoid sin, not because it makes us feel good or superior, but because we want what is best for people on a must broader time scale then a single lifetime (aka eternity). I would actually suffer less in this lifetime if I just accepted homosexual behavior because then I wouldn’t have to deal with being told I’m hateful, bigoted, and medieval. The behavior itself has little direct impact on me, so why not just let it go? Because I believe in the Word of God as interpreted and passed down through the generations, and it would be unloving and selfish (on that broad timescale sense) of me to deceive people into believe sin is ok just so I have less hassle on this Earth.

Now, you may believe my premises are full of bunk and fairy tales, but that is separate matter.

 

[Thomas1981]

The Church is not right 100% of the time. Even in morals. Remember slavery?

This is something that deserves its own thread (of which I’m sure there are many).

 

[Herbert_West]

@ Doormouse: Evolution is not a religion. One does not believe in evolution. It is an interesting way to phrase the question though. But to answer the spirit of what you may be asking, I hold that through mutations species arise - there is ample evidence to defend this view.

@ Thomas:

Yes, but part of loving one’s neighbors is not encouraging them to engage in sinful activities that push them away from God. This is the key difference between how an atheist would understand love versus Christians. To love someone is to will their good. In our view the greatest good is getting to heaven (bringing them closer and closer to God).

Then perhaps I should encourage you not to engage in judging others. Maybe declaring that gay people will not get into heaven pushes YOU further away from God. As far as I know Jesus was explicit about the types of people that will go to hell. I did not recall him saying anything about homosexuals. If the idea is that all are redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus, and all are sinners, who are you to say who gets in and who does not? The hardest part about these discussions for me is that many believers have turned their backs to the message in their holy book. I am an atheist and those words still provide me some guidance to loftier moral reasoning. But I get it… you hate fags but don’t want to be called a bigot.

Matthew 25:31

The Judgment

  31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

  34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

  41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Just think about that before you stand to pass judgement. How many homeless people do you pass on a daily basis and fail to invite them into our home to eat with you and sleep under your roof? If you actually saw Jesus (and you knew it was him) would you just walk past him on your way to work? Would you just step over him if he was sleeping on a corner? I doubt you would… but ultimately you do it to most homeless people you see… every day.

 

[Thomas1981]

I thought about prefacing my last post by saying that I wasn’t trying to say gay people are going to hell, because I thought maybe you would read that into what I posted. I don’t know who is and who is not going to heaven or hell and I cannot judge hearts. But if sin is meaningless, then what’s the point? As Christians we are called to turn away from sin because it turns us away from God, thus putting our souls in jeopardy. I have no animus towards any gay person, and I do not “hate fags” as you so eloquently put it. But, I don’t believe that condoning sinful behavior is loving. You may not consider that behavior sinful, but that is because you don’t believe that the Word of God is true (I’m extrapolating from the fact that you are an atheist). You jumped to the conclusion that calling out sin means I’m condemning everyone to hell, I am not, but suit yourself.

I’m basing my connection on turning from sin and towards God based on Matthew 4:17"Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near." There is a connection between repenting from sin and embracing God. But, if sin is not acknowledged, there can be no repentance. So, this is where I stand when I say denying sin is not a loving act. I guess that means I’m judgmental and “hate fags”, well, I’ll deal.

 

[Herbert_West]

Yeah, perhaps you should strive to be clearer about what you mean to suggest in your posts and what you actually post.

And you are correct. I don’t think gay sex is a sin.

What I am confused about is the nature of sin. Is it a sin to ignore a homeless person (i.e. to fail to feed and clothe him)?

So why do Catholics focus their energy on prohibiting same sex marriage but not on prohibitions against ignoring homeless people?

As an outsider, the motivation seems clear…

 

[Thomas1981]

Yeah, perhaps you should strive to be clearer about what you mean to suggest in your posts and what you actually post.

And you are correct. I don’t think gay sex is a sin.

What I am confused about is the nature of sin. Is it a sin to ignore a homeless person (i.e. to fail to feed and clothe him)?

Sorry my post was unclear. Thanks for your forbearance in hearing me out. You are correct. It is a sin to ignore a homeless person. This would indicate a lack of charity. Sin is so pervasive and we are all so guilty of it. I’m hardly innocent of it. In fact, I’m a terrible sinner. I used to watch pornography almost every day (along with the acts the go along with that), I also kept it from my wife until recently. Thankfully I’ve turned from that, though I have given in to temptation on other sexual sin from time to time. I try hard and I fail all a lot. I’ve found confession very cleansing because I acknowledge my sins and try harder. I’ve found this leads me to a deeper spiritual relationship with God. I convinced myself for years that pornography is not sinful and basically harmless, but I didn’t grow in my relationship with God until I revised my view on that, accepted it as sinful and confessed.

There are many people in gay relationships who do very well in avoiding sins in others areas, and I think God takes the whole picture into account at judgment. For me, I have lots of areas to work on. I may have made strides on sexual issues lately, but I’m far from the fullness of charity. And I will be judged on that.

 

[Herbert_West]

That’s honest Thomas. I can appreciate how difficult that was to admit. But that leaves the question about focus.

Why do Catholics focus their energy on prohibiting same sex marriage but not on prohibitions against ignoring homeless people?

 

[St_Redemption]

Yeah, perhaps you should strive to be clearer about what you mean to suggest in your posts and what you actually post.

And you are correct. I don’t think gay sex is a sin.

What I am confused about is the nature of sin. Is it a sin to ignore a homeless person (i.e. to fail to feed and clothe him)?

So why do Catholics focus their energy on prohibiting same sex marriage but not on prohibitions against ignoring homeless people?

As an outsider, the motivation seems clear…

It is a sin to ignore the homeless man, absolutely. It is a Catholics (a Christian’s duty) to feed and clothe the homeless.

Christians are sinners too. The founder of Christianity itself (Christ) is clear on this point, and He is clear on the point that the less fortunate are supposed to be helped.

Why the focus on sins of the flesh? I have no answer. I actually just started a thread on that very point because I do not know either.

 

[Herbert_West]

Where did post that thread?

 

[Thorolfr]

It appears you need to re-read your Catechism. If you haven’t the patience, then check out this video: Horus Reads the Internet.

This little cartoon video does not explain how it is possible to distinguish the moral laws from the customary laws. The Jews themselves do not make such a distinction as far as I know and the text of Leviticus itself does not make such a distinction. For example “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18) is followed in the very next verse by the law “do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (19:19). In many cases, the distinction that some people make seems completely arbitrary. For many of the laws in Leviticus that are arbitrarily classified as “customary” by some Christians, God says that these laws should be carried out because “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” So these laws have to do with being holy (and are therefore also “moral law”), not because they are “customary laws” intended to separate the Jews from their neighbors.

 

[CB_Catholic]

That’s honest Thomas. I can appreciate how difficult that was to admit. But that leaves the question about focus.

Why do Catholics focus their energy on prohibiting same sex marriage but not on prohibitions against ignoring homeless people?

I guess you don’t keep up with the news. The Pope has made it a point to teach that we are not to ignore the homeless or the poor. He talks about it every day, and focuses more of his energy on this than same sex marriage, as do most Catholics. They spend more time taking care of the poor and homeless than they do focusing on gay sex. If you want to bury your head in the sand about things and then try to argue about something you don’t much about, go ahead. I will not engage in pointless arguments with someone who does not know what they are talking about.

It seems to me that you focus on the subject of gay marriage and sex more than any Catholic I know, trying to defend it.

I am done. I said my piece earlier, and you ignored almost all of it, and instead asked rather unintelligent questions and gave straw man arguments. I refuse to argue with someone who can’t listen and does not know what he is talking about, like the insulting question you just
asked, trying to paint all Catholics with some kind of a brush of your own making.

Have a nice life.