Is being anti homosexual anti christian?

[mercygate]

i brought it up because romans 1:26-27 brought it up…truly you do have a witness…but im not clear on how it correlates to the shame based lust ridden relationships of romans1. but that is merely my interpretation. what is your understanding of romans 1:26-27.

Romans 1:18 & ff is about the natural law, which is so obvious that even the barbarians have no excuse for their indulgence in “unnatural acts.” As in the OT, Paul makes the age-old connection between idolatry and sexual license.

I am not sure what you are really asking here. Just because I know and socialize with homosexuals who are “nice” doesn’t really have much to do with the issue. I know people who are cohabiting with people they are not married to. They’re “nice” people also. That’s really not the point.

What always puzzles me is that people want to change the content of the faith. In my sinful past, I realized how futile, how childish it would be to rewrite the contract, to create a god modeled after my own childish imagination. I never thought God should be a Democrat, or a Royalist, or a homosexual, or a liberated woman, or an Englishman or a revolutionary . . . Nor did I think God should rewrite the commandments to make life easier for me. A faith that would be made to my measure would not be much of a faith.

Although when we come to Christ with the assent of faith, it is remarkable how much better the garment begins to fit.

 

[feetxxxl]

Romans 1:18 & ff is about the natural law, which is so obvious that even the barbarians have no excuse for their indulgence in “unnatural acts.” As in the OT, Paul makes the age-old connection between idolatry and sexual license.

I am not sure what you are really asking here. Just because I know and socialize with homosexuals who are “nice” doesn’t really have much to do with the issue. I know people who are cohabiting with people they are not married to. They’re “nice” people also. That’s really not the point.

What always puzzles me is that people want to change the content of the faith. In my sinful past, I realized how futile, how childish it would be to rewrite the contract, to create a god modeled after my own childish imagination. I never thought God should be a Democrat, or a Royalist, or a homosexual, or a liberated woman, or an Englishman or a revolutionary . . . Nor did I think God should rewrite the commandments to make life easier for me. A faith that would be made to my measure would not be much of a faith.

i have absolutely no understanding of what you are saying. i’ve gotten as far as “ive ministered to a number of gay people” which im assuming was in fellowship. but ive only gotten to “i can’t say the essence of homosexuality is an expression of shame based lust of romans 1…its more complicated than that”…im disappointed that limit of your explanation and witness comes down to loaded orthodox phrase like “natural law” which is filled with bias and is no where in scripture.

still waitng.

 

[hosemonkey]

You are beating a dead horse here. In no way are you going to convince anyone of the rightness or even rationality of your position. The Scripture is clear, the natural law is clear, overwhelming public opinion is clear…homosexuality is abnormal, deviant, unnatural and mostly disgusting. “Love” has got nothing to do with it. Lust is what it’s all about. Full stop. All these posters have tried to point this out to you and you keep on with the same 'ol circular argument. Two men or two women do not constitute “man and wife”. Sorry.You are becoming tedious. Have done.

 

[PauloFreire2]

“disgusting”

That’s an unfair, personal judgment. And didn’t you say you were once some sort of religious authority figure? Hmm.

 

[hosemonkey]

“disgusting”

That’s an unfair, personal judgment. And didn’t you say you were once some sort of religious authority figure? Hmm.

To whom are you responding?

 

[feetxxxl]

You are beating a dead horse here. In no way are you going to convince anyone of the rightness or even rationality of your position. The Scripture is clear, the natural law is clear, overwhelming public opinion is clear…homosexuality is abnormal, deviant, unnatural and mostly disgusting. “Love” has got nothing to do with it. Lust is what it’s all about. Full stop. All these posters have tried to point this out to you and you keep on with the same 'ol circular argument. Two men or two women do not constitute “man and wife”. Sorry.You are becoming tedious. Have done.

that is what im asking mercy gate if that what’s he saying?im not trying to manipulate or influence him or her… a person’s witness is what it is, his or her witness.

still waiting

 

[hosemonkey]

that is what im asking mercy gate if that what’s he saying?im not trying to manipulate or influence him or her… a person’s witness is what it is, his or her witness.

still waiting

Well, you just got my witness. As I said, you are naive and tedious.

 

[JamesG]

Homosexuals have rejected Gods plan and the word of God.

For every truth from God there is a counter truth from satan.
Homosexuality is a counter truth invented by satan to mock the gift of life between men and women.

Every time a homosexual act is performed it insults God and hurts him. He gave us the gift of procreation and for someone to abuse these gifts for their own selfish sexual satisfaction is a grave sin. When these people see the face of God they will cry and they will burn up inside because they will realize how much they have injured Christ. They will be ashamed of what they have done with Gods gifts and when they realize that they can’t continue to be that way they will show their teeth in anger.

I doubt very much that people who have failed to show any respect for life and the creation of life will be given those gifts again when christ returns.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Hateful biggotry. You violate Christian morality every time you choose to persecute and hate. Shame on you.

 

[TheGoodLife]

Just a thought…If God is so against the practice of homosexuality, then why doesn’t he take a stance against it right here and right now? It shouldn’t be very hard for God to clear this matter up for us, so why doesn’t He do it? What if God’s not doing it because He’s lost His power somehow?

 

[LRThunder]

Just a thought…If God is so against the practice of homosexuality, then why doesn’t he take a stance against it right here and right now? It shouldn’t be very hard for God to clear this matter up for us, so why doesn’t He do it? What if God’s not doing it because He’s lost His power somehow?

Why would he need to make it more obvious than it already is? In Genesis, he created man and woman. Clearly, he intended for man and woman to marry, not man and man or woman and woman.

That being said, hating individuals is definitely not Christian, but hating or rather, disapproving actions is not anti-Christian.

 

[TheGoodLife]

LRThunder, I know several homosexuals who are so kind and live good lives. It’s just hard for me to see them as going against God’s wishes. What if God’s Adam and Eve is just one of His images and He is testing us as to whether or not we’ll not judge and accept homosexuals?

ETA: Also, another thing that bothers me is why would God allow such deviance from His original image of Adam and Eve if it isn’t in the grand scheme of things?

 

[LRThunder]

LRThunder, I know several homosexuals who are so kind and live good lives. It’s just hard for me to see them as going against God’s wishes. What if God’s Adam and Eve is just one of His images and He is testing us as to whether or not we’ll not judge and accept homosexuals?

I mentioned that we’re not to hate individuals, but that we can be against certain actions. We should separate the individual from the actions; sometimes it’s not easy.

We should be opposed to homosexuality (or any sin), but we shouldn’t hate homosexuals. But we’re not supposed to harbor hatred of any kind anyway.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;2276777:

Romans 1:18 & ff is about the natural law, which is so obvious that even the barbarians have no excuse for their indulgence in “unnatural acts.” As in the OT, Paul makes the age-old connection between idolatry and sexual license.

I am not sure what you are really asking here. Just because I know and socialize with homosexuals who are “nice” doesn’t really have much to do with the issue. I know people who are cohabiting with people they are not married to. They’re “nice” people also. That’s really not the point.

What always puzzles me is that people want to change the content of the faith. In my sinful past, I realized how futile, how childish it would be to rewrite the contract, to create a god modeled after my own childish imagination. I never thought God should be a Democrat, or a Royalist, or a homosexual, or a liberated woman, or an Englishman or a revolutionary . . . Nor did I think God should rewrite the commandments to make life easier for me. A faith that would be made to my measure would not be much of a faith.

i have absolutely no understanding of what you are saying. i’ve gotten as far as “ive ministered to a number of gay people” which im assuming was in fellowship. but ive only gotten to “i can’t say the essence of homosexuality is an expression of shame based lust of romans 1…its more complicated than that”…im disappointed that limit of your explanation and witness comes down to loaded orthodox phrase like “natural law” which is filled with bias and is no where in scripture.

still waitng.

If you think “natural law” is nowhere in Scripture, then you REALLY have only skimmed the surface of the Epistle to the Romans (see I:19-25, emphasis added):

For what can be known about God is plain to them [the barbarians], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because** they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature **rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

This is a classical passage in which Paul equates sexual sin with idolatry – likely because ritual sex was part of many pagan cult ceremonies, but the application is broader, the idolatry deeper.

You say you are waiting for my witness. You are not waiting. You are baiting.

As this quotation from Romans indicates, sin darkens the mind.

Maybe I misunderstand your request for “witness.” If you are asking whether I think all homosexual couples are victims of shame based lust, then my answer would be that those I know who are in relatively stable relationships are not more ‘shame based’ in their lust than anybody else. The problem comes in partly because what homosexual acts require is an act that is intrinsically disordered both to the procreative and unitive aspects of human sexuality. But as above, nobody here endorses “shame based lust” of *any *kind. And the list of opportunities precluded by affirmation of Christ as Lord of our souls and bodies is fairly comprehensive.

 

[feetxxxl]

feetxxxl;2276980:

If you think “natural law” is nowhere in Scripture, then you REALLY have only skimmed the surface of the Epistle to the Romans (see I:19-25, emphasis added):

For what can be known about God is plain

to them [the barbarians], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because** they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature **rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

This is a classical passage in which Paul equates sexual sin with idolatry – likely because ritual sex was part of many pagan cult ceremonies, but the application is broader, the idolatry deeper.

You say you are waiting for my witness. You are not waiting. You are baiting.

As this quotation from Romans indicates, sin darkens the mind.

Maybe I misunderstand your request for “witness.” If you are asking whether I think all homosexual couples are victims of shame based lust, then my answer would be that those I know who are in relatively stable relationships are not more ‘shame based’ in their lust than anybody else. The problem comes in partly because what homosexual acts require is an act that is intrinsically disordered both to the procreative and unitive aspects of human sexuality. But as above, nobody here endorses “shame based lust” of *any *kind. And the list of opportunities precluded by affirmation of Christ as Lord of our souls and bodies is fairly comprehensive.

they have a “relatively stable relationships and are no more ‘shame based’ in their lust than anybody else”. what does that mean. that of all lusting relationships, they have no more or less shame than anybody else. lust by its very nature is shamed based. also a lust based relationships by their very nature cannot be stable.

what does “anybody else” refer to.

is your testimony that their relationship is full of lust as opposed heterosexual relationships that are without lust? and it is the nature of the homosexual orientation that is the source of this lust.

sexual lust involes a devotion to sexual gratification.

 

[hosemonkey]

If you are looking for some sort of validation of your homosexuality, I think that you are barking up the wrong tree here. If, in fact, you are NOT homosexual, then your attempted justification of a disordered perversion is still futile.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hateful biggotry. You violate Christian morality every time you choose to persecute and hate. Shame on you.

I do not know to whom you are responding, nobody here is persecuting or hating. To point out or condemn mortal sin is not persecuting or hating. To ignore or disregard or condone mortal sin is truly not Christian. You claim to be Catholic, yet you seem to be trying to rationalize the commission of mortal sin.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate:

they have a “relatively stable relationships and are no more ‘shame based’ in their lust than anybody else”.

what does that mean. that of all lusting relationships, they have no more or less shame than anybody else.

People with SSA do not have a copyright on lust.

lust by its very nature is shamed based. also a lust based relationships by their very nature cannot be stable.

Agreed.

what does “anybody else” refer to.

People with and without SSA.

is your testimony that their relationship is full of lust as opposed heterosexual relationships that are without lust? and it is the nature of the homosexual orientation that is the source of this lust.

No. See above. Also, I remind you that I know men with SSA who are celibate.

sexual lust involes a devotion to sexual gratification.

You have just written an excellent definition of a relationship in which sexual expression is, either in its essence [e.g. same sex] or by willful action [contraception], not open to life. Sexual gratification is the governing principle of that relationship.

 

[Keikiolu]

how can you substaniate your belief without romans 1…if you didnt witness same based lust, then romans 1 is not about homosexuality.

It is senseless to converse with you Feet, as you refuse to converse, and simply self-verse. You are talking to yourself,and it’s gotten very very boring.

by not making that witness you are contradicting the source that the magisterium’s position… do you think the magisterium"s position is sans romans.

You also appear to have a problem using some rather important keys on the keyboard. I’m terribly sorry for your incapacity in this area, as it tends to have deleterious effects on one’s ability to communicate, which may well be your general problem.

there has to be a spirit in the essence of homosexuality that comes against the fruit of the spirit and the spirit of christ for it to be a sin.

Since you won’t clarify, in english, your terms such that they are “respondable to”, I’ll have to pass on whatever it was that that meant, as I can’t tease out what it did mean given the actual letters, spaces and punctuation provided.

you confusing witness with belief…the magisterium is your belief. it is not your witness…your witness is apart from belief in other words the mental process is something like this i believe that homosexuals are guilty of shame based lust as per romans but being with them in fellowship do sense…see…feel…hear… experience anything that resembles shame based lust, or denial of shame based lust?

OK. That’s a BIT cleearer. Thank you.

Sometimes, rather often actually, when I’ve been with “homosexuals” I do indeed experience in them a “shame based lust”, but that “feeling” of mine is entirely my subjective interpretation of the situation.

But this is neither confirmation nor negation of whether they really have a “shame based lust”. It is merely my interpretation, which is worthless in this regard because it’s utterly unreliable.

Therefore, to use your terms (as far as I understand them), my “witness” is meaningless because it is unreliable.

But my OTHER witness, to use your term again, is of a source of information that is reliable, which is the Magisterium, which informs me of the correct way to see the dynamics of this situation.

remember 1john1 that which we saw, that which we touched

and romans 1: 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse…you must witness some spirit that isnt of god. there is a spirit essence behind any choice. no one makes a choice in a vacuum.

It is “not of God” that same sex sexual acts exist. They exist through the “unGodly selfishness” of man.

it was peter’s witnessing of the gentiles being washed by the holy spirit and the gentiles being given to that spirit that gave meaning to the vision god was showing peter. without the witness how could have gone back to jerusalem and put flesh on the vision.

Peter didn’t REQUIRE that he SAW ANYTHING to do what God wanted. It was simply God’s GRACE that confirmed for (poor weak human) Peter, by the actual events that he saw, what God wanted.

When God says JUMP, you don’t wait around for some REASON to JUMP…!!

Now,… if you have anything new to say, please do so, otherwise we’re done here.

Have a fantastic day 'ol bud…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mercygate]

feetxxxl:

and romans 1: 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse…you must witness some spirit that isnt of god. there is a spirit essence behind any choice. no one makes a choice in a vacuum.

Trying to figure out what you meant here. Are you questioning as in: “mercygate, I guess you are saying that you witness some spirit that is not of God in same sex hookups.”

Or are you saying: “mercygate, in order for Romans 1:20 to apply here, there would have to be some spirit in homosexual hookups that is not of God.”

As for “spirit essence” – what’s that? Do you mean your experiential “witness” that the homosexuals you know are kindly, good natured gentlemen? Most of the ones I know are too. That is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the objective disorder of homosexual acts.