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

[George_Stegmeir]

With that train of thought, then a person could always be born an alcoholic or a drug addict too. We could all be born with tendencies, but I believe so far science hasn’t found a gay gene. But yes, we are all sinners in one way or another, and in some cases having gay tendencies could be better than the above. We’re all weak and fall into sin of some kind.

Science has known for over a century, that babies of alcoholic or drug addicted mothers are born with these afflictions.
These babies require special treatment from birth to free them of these addictions in order for them to live.
As for the gay thing, we still have much to learn. Unfortunately, in today’s permissive Western Society this is made difficult by a massive resistance to admit that anyone is at fault for anything…it is all too easy to think that “people are born that way” than to admit to personal moral weakness.

 

[Herbert_West]

Carolyn,

Truetofaith answered honestly. He used old testament text to defend his position. He believes that homosexuality is simply an abomination.

My questions were intended to determine if the position you professed was one that you held sincerely. Since you refused to answer what you think were unintelligent questions, I will reserve the right to assume that your position really doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction and the perpetuation of the human species. It is an easy enough comment to make, but I don’t suspect that you hold the position that sterile people should be banned from marriage and sexual union.

The only thing I can hope, is that you are at least honest with yourself.

But I appreciate your sentiment. You don’t need to engage me in any conversation. This was my sincere effort to understand how Catholics reconcile morally challenging positions. I will simply assume that I struck a sensitive nerve and hope you are able to rectify whatever deficiencies you perceive with regards to your charity.

Good luck CB Catholic… I really hope you can find contentment in this life and the courage of your convictions as truetofaith has. I did not mean to wound you.

 

[truetofaith]

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.

Nah, you can’t fool me with that…Paul was specifically addressing homosexuality.

My fellow Catholics don’t seem to read the Bible too often.

 

[ericc]

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…

Is there a prohibition against ignoring homeless people by the Catholic Church? Please disclose your source.

The Catholic Church operates charities all over the world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caritas_%28charity%29 helping millions of people.

They have not stopped these charities to focus on same sex marriage and they continue to operate these charities with or without same sex marriage headlining the news. Your post suggest that we have defocus our charitable efforts in order to focus on same sex marriage. I think you are very much mistaken, ignorant or careless about making such remarks and insulting those who have put in a lot of effort in these charitable work. Do your homework and just look at charities operated by Mother Teresa in India for example. They take in societal rejects, take them in, feed and clothe them till their death. Regardless of religion or sinful tendencies. Of course each charitable organization has their own focus. You just need to look for the correct organization if you are just focusing on the homeless. The hungry? There are food kitchens and in some countries they distribute packets of food or food provisions to poor families.

The Church speaks out against same sex marriage because it is wrong. It has been wrong for the past centuries. Are you suggesting Catholics should quietly acquiesce to it? Do not speak out when they see an untruth being promoted as a truth? What is your stand? If you take a stand against something, do you keep silent and just oppose it in your heart/mind and think you have done your duty?

You do not regard gay sex is sin. That is your opinion and for someone who don’t believe in God, what is sin? We say it is wrong because God prohibited it. Again and again. We didn’t make it up. Honest. You say it is not sin because someone say it is not or YOU say it is not? Based upon what moral standard do you declare it? If you don’t accept there is a God, no human declaration can make anything a sin, it is just fair game to everyone.

Our motivation is of course clear. It is a sin prohibited by God and we want those who have forgotten about it to be reminded. Lest people say Catholics by remaining silent acknowledge and accept it to be not anti-God.

 

[Herbert_West]

ericc - I am actually very familiar with the charitable works organized by the Catholic Church. I used to work for Catholic Charities. I occasionally donate to Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

But you are correct I do not hold the designation of a thing being a sin as a factor in my assessment of good or bad behavior. But I do use judeo-christian moral teaching to help me define my own morality.

I think you are very much mistaken, ignorant or careless about making such remarks and insulting those who have put in a lot of effort in these charitable work.

That is not my intention at all. I used to run a homeless shelter in Los Angeles CA and I would partner with the Catholic Church all the time. I understand the sacrifices and effort. I am not denigrating anything positive that the Church did or does.

That said, I stated this in another thread…

Now if an individual is personally moved to acts of charity I think that is a great and noble thing. Just as I think it is a great and noble thing for a person live in accordance to whatever moral values he or she possesses. But in the Catholic Church and other Christian communities many have tried to impose their values with regard to marriage on others while I have never seen them try to impose values of charity on others. In other words if your conviction is strong enough to organize around preventing same sex couples from getting married, why isn’t it strong enough to organize around preventing greedy people from ignoring the homeless.

Instead we see good Catholics quietly doing good works of charity, why don’t they likewise quietly live a married life in accordance with their religious doctrine and leave other people alone?

cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/st-pope-john-paul-ii-pope-benedict-gay-marriage-clear-and-emphatic

It doesn’t make sense. It just seems that it is easier to hate than to love.

 

[Marie5890]

Wait wait wait wait.

The Church does not teach, to the best of my knowledge, that we are born sinners

What is does teach that we are born with the effect of original sin

There is a significant difference. Truly

 

[ericc]

ericc - I am actually very familiar with the charitable works organized by the Catholic Church. I used to work for Catholic Charities. I occasionally donate to Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

But you are correct I do not hold the designation of a thing being a sin as a factor in my assessment of good or bad behavior. But I do use judeo-christian moral teaching to help me define my own morality.

That is not my intention at all. I used to run a homeless shelter in Los Angeles CA and I would partner with the Catholic Church all the time. I understand the sacrifices and effort. I am not denigrating anything positive that the Church did or does.

That said, I stated this in another thread…

Now if an individual is personally moved to acts of charity I think that is a great and noble thing. Just as I think it is a great and noble thing for a person live in accordance to whatever moral values he or she possesses. But in the Catholic Church and other Christian communities many have tried to impose their values with regard to marriage on others while I have never seen them try to impose values of charity on others. In other words if your conviction is strong enough to organize around preventing same sex couples from getting married, why isn’t it strong enough to organize around preventing greedy people from ignoring the homeless.

Instead we see good Catholics quietly doing good works of charity, why don’t they likewise quietly live a married life in accordance with their religious doctrine and leave other people alone?

cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/st-pope-john-paul-ii-pope-benedict-gay-marriage-clear-and-emphatic

It doesn’t make sense. It just seems that it is easier to hate than to love.

I think we both accept that charitable works are an important work of the Church. Therefore I suggest let us not muddy the waters by mixing charity works with same sex works.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not anti gays or any sinners. Any of them can be helped by avoiding sinful acts. That is a first step. But it must be recognized such an act is intrinsically wrong by the perpetrator. If he does not, it is extremely difficult to convince that person to stop. If a thief sees nothing wrong with stealing to feed his family or drug habit, he will not stop stealing. Even if his family is no longer hungry, he continues to steal. Or to kill or to lie. Recognition that an act is disordered must be the first step. Without that, there is no chance of stopping or repentance. The proferred excuse would be “I have done nothing wrong. It is natural to me.” That statement can be used to justify any disordered act. Christians are obliged to speak out against disordered acts in order to make known that such acts are immoral and against God. We object out of love, not hate. Even atheists if they see a wrong act been committed should responsibly react. Obviously if you don’t see it as a problem, you wouldn’t. Atrocities happens because no one objects or took action. If no one protest, such acts may become acceptable. End result other than the rejection of God, is that society does break down. Disharmony result because there is no consistency of morals, every immoral act can be justified and protected by secular authorities. You may not be able to live in an environment of your own choosing because exclusivity may become illegal or tax breaks/financial assistance withheld. Where else can New Age Puritans go?

Bad acts are legislated but good acts are almost never ( If it does, it comes with tax breaks.) Bad acts are legislated to prevent harm to others. But good acts should not be legislated to enable a freewill outpouring of goodness. You can not force a person to do good (then it wouldn’t be good) , but you try to force a person not to do bad through penalties. You don’t agree with the freedom to do bad concept, right?

And where do you stop. In another post I asked what if “gay blood-brothers marry each other” . What is wrong with that? How about incestuous gay sex between father/son, grandpa/grandson, uncle/nephew? If both of them are happy and want to be left alone. That would be fine by you? There would be no production of mentally retarded children for sure which some scientists claim as the reason not to allow incestuous sex. They cause no harm to society. They have rights. What are your thoughts?

For Catholics, we defer to God, the giver of Moral Law. Who do you defer to?

 

[Thomas1981]

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?

A couple reasons why I think Catholics are focusing on ssm right now. Of course, it’s in the news and there is a fear that Christians will be coerced or forced out of business if they don’t accept the new order here. Also, for Catholics (and I think most Christians), the natural family is the very core of society, marriage is a sacrament (it is “of heaven” and set apart from secular institutions), so to change it is very problematic for us. Of course, the government is a secular institution, but it is reflective of a broader change in social mores away from Christian morality. So people lament that.

I would say that ssm and transgenderism are at the level of ontology (what is man and woman?) and these are very basic existential questions that we believe we have the correct answer to. That’s my answer as to why the focus.

On the issue of the homeless, the Church does do a lot for the poor generally. People contribute through Catholic charities through the Annual Bishop’s Appeal. Most Catholics could do a lot better here, but it can be difficult to discern how much to give. We do have an obligation to provide for our families as well (if we have them). But wealthy Catholics that are stingy with their money have a lot to answer for.

By the way, I appreciate your engagement with us here.

 

[Memaw]

You say that you don’t think that people are born gay because if they were, it wouldn’t seem very fair. But according to Gilbert Herdt, PhD, Executive Director of the National Centers on Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and Martha K. McClintock, PhD, David Lee Shillinglaw Distinguished Service Professor in Psychology at the University of Chicago, stated in their study “The Magical Age of 10,” published in the Dec. 2000 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior:

So do you think that it’s fair to a 10 year old to turn out gay (however that happened) and then be told that he/she must be celibate for the rest of their life? Can a 10 year old be responsible for turning out gay?

Many very young people have things they are not responsible for, and have to learn to deal with as they grow up. No excuse for sinning. Mankind has to deal with resisting the temptation to sin, all through life. With God’s help, (Grace), it can be done and has been done by sooo many. Instead of making excuses to sin, we need to help them learn to turn away from temptation, ( as we all have to do in one way or another), with God’s help and life a holy life. That’s the path to Heaven. And we should want that for all sinners. God Bless, Memaw

 

[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.

this is why I asked about evolution…
God created man.no matter how you look at it, creation/evolution.
lets go on what you believe, evolution. have you ever heard of conversion?
I’m sure there were more than just Adams direct family walking the planet. Wouldn’t you say? if so were is there incest?

 

[steido01]

This little cartoon video does not explain how it is possible to distinguish the moral laws from the customary laws.

It does touch on it (view the bit near the Venn Diagram again), but Horus, like so many others, is not patient enough to learn the difference. Don’t confuse him with facts; he’s already decided on his truth.

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.

The Hebrews did not make a distinction; you are correct that far. But most of today’s Jews do understand the clear distinctions (obviously, our Civil Governments punish today’s criminals, not Jewish stoning brigades). Christians have always understood the distinction. In fact, that was the whole point of many of Paul’s battle with the Judaizers: Christians are free from the Ceremonial Law and its prescribed punishments. That does not mean we are free from the Moral Law which has been written in our consciences since creation. You, yourself, must acknowledge a distinction (unless you believe we are free to murder like Cain?).

In many cases, the distinction that some people make seems completely arbitrary.

To you. They seem arbitrary to you. I would hypothesize this is because you haven’t invested much though in why Christians make these distinctions, have you?

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.”

Ah! There we have it! Look to the texts, and what do you find? God has set Israel apart. This is to show the world that they are different – they are the people from whom the Messiah will come! That is the very purpose of the Ceremonial Law.

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.

This is silly. Take a read of this; it may help: wlsessays.net/files/MuellerLaws.pdf

 

[Herbert_West]

this is why I asked about evolution…
God created man.no matter how you look at it, creation/evolution.
lets go on what you believe, evolution. have you ever heard of conversion?
I’m sure there were more than just Adams direct family walking the planet. Wouldn’t you say? if so were is there incest?

Doormouse do you believe the word of god is true or do you believe it is a collection of fables?

Was there a flood?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If man is born a sinner, than it is possible for a man to be born gay…

Your thoughts???

I have not read all the post so this may have been stated already. Man is not born a sinner. Man is born into original sin and there for suffers from the stain there of which is Concupiscence or an inclination toward sin.

 

[ericc]

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.

I missed this post. Sorry for the delay.

Obviously collateral incest was necessary in early days of mankind in order for them to multiply. God has factored that in for that stage of human population growth.

Noah’s sons brought their wives with them.

It is wonderful that you appreciate Jesus’s teachings. To love your neighbor is indeed great and part of his teachings. But loving God comes first for Jesus. Loving neighbor was second. Loving God requires heeding his commandments. SSA is an abomination to him. This is mentioned repeatedly. Since you genuinely appreciate Jesus’s teachings, then love God and do what he commands. Not love your neighbor and do what he didn’t command, in fact reject.

 

[Herbert_West]

ericc - it is a process of moral reasoning that I use to develop my moral framework. There are things in the bible that I found are reasonable as well as profound, and there are things that I find repulsive - e.g. kill you child if he changes religion, kill witches, marry your sister-in-law if she is a widower with no kids, beat your slaves (but not to death).

Of course the quantum leap in moral development was the transition between the old testament and the new testament. Any student of epistemology can recognize the contribution of Greek philosophy to mitigate some of the older and barbaric Jewish moral thinking of the Old Testament. But of course the New Testament was in many cases an vast improvement to Greek morality.

But getting back to incest. What you seem to be arguing is that God’s stance on sexuality shifts over time as circumstances change.

Obviously collateral incest was necessary in early days of mankind in order for them to multiply.

Am I reading you correctly?

 

[St_Pancake]

If man is born a sinner, than it is possible for a man to be born gay…

Your thoughts???

I only read a page worth of posts and someone has probably pointed out what I’m about to point out.

Some believe it is possible to be born with a proclivity for same sex attraction. Same sex attraction is not a sin and regardless, it is unlikely that a one day old is attracted to anything other than a teat.

You might want to deepen your understanding on original sin prior to throwing this type of bomb.

 

[jlhargus]

If man is born a sinner, than it is possible for a man to be born gay… Your thoughts???

Every sinner must turn and repent of their sin to be saved. A baptized infant receives the Holy Spirit and saved. When they grow up and sin they need to repent and confess their sin to be saved.

There are also those who say there is no such thing as gender. Wouldn’t that sort of contradict one being born homosexual.

 

[ericc]

ericc - it is a process of moral reasoning that I use to develop my moral framework. There are things in the bible that I found are reasonable as well as profound, and there are things that I find repulsive - e.g. kill you child if he changes religion, kill witches, marry your sister-in-law if she is a widower with no kids, beat your slaves (but not to death).

All you are saying that you have decided to be your own moral law giver.

Of course the quantum leap in moral development was the transition between the old testament and the new testament. Any student of epistemology can recognize the contribution of Greek philosophy to mitigate some of the older and barbaric Jewish moral thinking of the Old Testament. But of course the New Testament was in many cases an vast improvement to Greek morality.

I can not comment much because I am not familiar with Greek nor Jewish philosophies. I can not say which one is superior or how to measure the appropriateness of each philosophy suiting for each stage of development of mankind or for that tribe or race. Stone age, bronze age, iron age, modern age all reflects changes in human development in mindset as well as skills and knowledge. Is one “superior” to the other? Depends on your measuring stick. More people kill each other in the modern age than any other ages. Abortion in the millions yearly. Millions killed in the world wars. Millions killed under communism. Go figure.

But getting back to incest. What you seem to be arguing is that God’s stance on sexuality shifts over time as circumstances change.

Am I reading you correctly?

No, that is not what I am arguing. No law was broken by the children of A&E because no law was given to them. They were told to multiply vs extinction of the human race. You can’t have a contradiction, can you?

 

[SilverLight]

If man is born a sinner, than it is possible for a man to be born gay…

Your thoughts???

I believe there are those who are born gay.

 

[Herbert_West]

No, that is not what I am arguing. No law was broken by the children of A&E because no law was given to them. They were told to multiply vs extinction of the human race.

Is that really your position?

Do you hold that all behaviors were acceptable to god until the revealed word was written down?

I need a little honesty here so that I know how to engage you.