Refusing to Believe Homosexual Acts Are Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Delaine75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Delaine75

Guest
I have a situation going on with a non-Catholic Christian and I am really kind of at my wits’ end with this person. What started the entire thing was me voicing my thoughts about gay marriage (after reading everyone else state that Christians were evil for “hating” homosexuals and “condemning” them by not allowing them to marry their partners, etc.). This person pretty much attacked me and asked why I hated homosexuals if I was a Christian and that “nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin.” I pointed out to her that I never said being homosexual was a sin, either – but the homosexual ACTS are sinful. Again, she said the Bible doesn’t say that, and further added that, “Christ would never have condemned gay marriages.” I’ve shown her Scripture that says that homosexual acts are sinful. I have even shown her what the Catechism says. She continues to dismiss them and claim that they are my opinion only, that the book of Leviticus is not to be taken literally and again, that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual acts or homosexual marriage is wrong. She also claims that if there is something in the Bible that “hints that it’s okay to treat people with disregard such as Lev. 18:22, then you can ignore that because God would never want our righteousness to get in the way of loving other people.” O_o I don’t even know how to respond to that! What can I possibly say to this person to make her understand that what the Bible says is not my “opinion” and that I’m not just pulling things out of thin air? She just refuses to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. Help!
 
Sounds to me like you’re fighting a losing battle. There is no magical thing that will make her believe you. You’ve done your best, leave it in God’s hands now. Pray for her and if she still tries to start the conversation again, tell her that you won’t waste your breath talking to someone who won’t accept truth.
 
Thank you, you probably hit the nail on the head with that one. It’s just frustrating to keep giving evidence that she keeps brushing off as “personal opinion”.
 
Maybe try a natural law argument.

The other position they take is one of love. Go through the chain of what love is and what love is not. IE IS it ok to murder someone out of love? or I love my son, why shouldn’t I be able to marry him? Of course, the answer will be - that is ridiculous. But yo can show it is already happening with sources (in particular Canada).

You can show the mortality rate for active homosexuals. The health costs and burdens (the taxpayer argument) You can show the health risks.

Then you can move on to the effects on children and don’t forget their rights to a biological mom and dad.

Move on to the fact that these so called same sex marriages do not last and violence is rampant in the relationship because of multiple partners.

Just some ideas…
 
The only way people will believe in Jesus these days is to pray for them. Take up the Divine Mercy chaplet and let God handle this. You do your part by praying. It is amazing in these days that people believe that it doesn’t matter what you do. I don’t know why people believe in same sex unions when common sense will tell you otherwise. I mean cows don’t go for it so why do people believe it to be all right. I sense this struggle of a person’s sexuality is nothing new and we had this problem among people all through the ages. It might have been more hidden throughout the past centuries but it must have been there. It just happens people today seem to be more opened about it. That is something new. But I believe it must have been there as a struggle no matter what generation appeared. What the Church needs to do is to stick to her teachings and not waver as now the world does. Since the problem of people’s sexuality is now more in the opened the Church can actually see what it can do and present sexuality as it teaches to be more available. People who struggle with their sexuality must know that this is a personal struggle that often means a great cross is come upon them. While the world says it is ok the Church tries to show her compassion to be there for those who are struggling with their sexual identity. Which is better? What the world says or what the Church believes? It seems this struggle is to know the truth and the Church which has inherited the truth of God must exercise it if God is to be there. However the Church needs to imitate her Saviour and treat person with the respect due to each person to try to reveal the truth of Her Lord and God to each person. This means we need to be merciful and we need to pray. Jesus said to St. Maria Faustina that whenever we pray the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy we bring humanity closer to God. Whenever a person is not close to God we can bring God to them when we pray the Chaplet for them. In time God’s Holy Spirit will envelop such a person so that this person will have some Light to know the difference between what the world teaches and what truth is in God.
 
Delaine75 said:
.
Click to expand...
Hi Delaine, I strongly recommend you read this, and share it with her, it’s a very short booklet free to read online in pdf. that is very good for opposing same sex marriage - catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf

Also ask her, if she thinks we cannot force our beliefs of marriage between a man and a woman onto others, than what right does she have to force her beliefs of marriage between two people onto those in a polygamous relationship or other perverse kind?

Also I read a really good comment on another thread, that was -
If they claim that you are homophobic for being against SSM or saying the acts of homosexuality are immoral, just say than by their standards Jesus would probably be considered a homophobe and than thank them for the compliment. 😃

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Delaine75 said:
I have a situation going on with a non-Catholic Christian and I am really kind of at my wits’ end with this person. What started the entire thing was me voicing my thoughts about gay marriage (after reading everyone else state that Christians were evil for “hating” homosexuals and “condemning” them by not allowing them to marry their partners, etc.). This person pretty much attacked me and asked why I hated homosexuals if I was a Christian and that “nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin.” I pointed out to her that I never said being homosexual was a sin, either – but the homosexual ACTS are sinful. Again, she said the Bible doesn’t say that, and further added that, “Christ would never have condemned gay marriages.” I’ve shown her Scripture that says that homosexual acts are sinful. I have even shown her what the Catechism says. She continues to dismiss them and claim that they are my opinion only, that the book of Leviticus is not to be taken literally and again, that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual acts or homosexual marriage is wrong. She also claims that if there is something in the Bible that “hints that it’s okay to treat people with disregard such as Lev. 18:22, then you can ignore that because God would never want our righteousness to get in the way of loving other people.” O_o I don’t even know how to respond to that! What can I possibly say to this person to make her understand that what the Bible says is not my “opinion” and that I’m not just pulling things out of thin air? She just refuses to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. Help!
Click to expand...
What is needed is a reframe.

He who reframes controls the conversation.

Ask questions…never a why, always a What and How…

Repeat the argument so that the person hears and sees you understand them and ask…is this what you are saying…you get a YES…and that is the first inroad into their subconscious…

then

Ask, may I ask **what **Bible you use and what Bible you refer to…this is to see if it is the Protocanonical or not…if the Protocanonical then you can reframe the Conversation to an understanding of Protestant thought that arose as an independent thought process that denies any authority but the Bible

Ask, are you a Christian, if yes, ask **what **kind. If no then ask **how **is it you refer to a book you don’t believe in.

When you can dialogue about where the beliefs came from, ie Protestant thought and belief in the Protocanonicals or not then you can distinguish…

teaching from the Bible alone, you do not accept , and Bible and Church that you do accept…

Remmember if you have restated their thoughts and obtained agreement that this is thier point of view…any objection can be answered with…

Now I restated your opinion, you agreed that this was your opinion and I said I understood it and I then asked you some questions…

Are you not understanding my point of view, because if you want me to accept and understand your point of view then all I ask is for you to accept and understand my point of view and if you cannot do this then you are asking me to be open minded and you are being closed minded. How would you like to proceed…

This will allow you to listen and see if there is an agenda, which will be evident by frustration, anger and rapid speech…then if you see this…you can say…

look, I just want to discuss this…you appear not to be hearing me and if you just want to talk and have me listen then you may want to find someone else to talk to…for the record…

I believe that Homosexual acts are wrong and you choose not to listen…

This allows you to get that thought out, without any emotion, and it sinks in their head… and then as you say this…look and see, wait for the response and see if it is open or closed minded.

If it is closed minded you have the option of saying…

I believe you are more closed minded than you believe I am and I see no purpose in this dialogue

or

Thank you for your time I see no purpose in this dialoge
 
Jesus very specifically defines the parameters of marriage in the New Testament as being between a man and a woman and permanent. Any sexual act outside of marriage is condemned as fornication. It’s pretty clear.
 
Looking into the Church Fathers’ writings might be a good idea. Even if she argues that there is no scriptural evidence against homosexual sex, Christian tradition has always been unequivocably against it. Only recently have Christian communities broken with the historical position and permitted lesbian and gay unions to be blessed, even married, in their churches. Granted I’m suggesting a much more circuitous argument and she will probably reject tradition altogether but at least it shows that you are not pulling your scriptural interpretation from thin air.

Keep in mind you should not force your views on her, but challenge her thinking and yours as well. You should most certainly be civil in your debate, even if she is not, and if the discussion looks like it will turn into a bickering match, just walk away and avoid the stress.
 
Hi Delaine, I’d suggest avoid the defensive posture and go on the offensive.
  • Your friend says you “hate” homosexual people, remind her that she is judging and condemning you as a person, even though you have only condemned sinful actions and not people.
  • If she says Jesus would allow same-sex marriage, use Jesus own words:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Click to expand...
(Matt 19:4-6)

Ask her: “Did God join male and male together? Show me in the Bible, especially in Genesis, where God joined male and male together.”
  • Also, ask her why she thinks Christ would never have condemned same-sex marriage when he condemned divorce. Does she know better than the Church what Christ would approve of?
  • I suppose you showed her all the places where Paul condemns homosexual actions?
  • If she claims these Scriptural passages are your opinion (or the interpretation of them), ask her to show proof for her side. Tell her: “For two thousand years the Church has maintained that marriage is between one male and one female. So you’ve got to show me proof if you want to change this long-held belief.”
  • Jesus didn’t condemn polygamy either. Does she approve of that? In fact, the patriarchs and Solomon had many wives.
  • If she says this: “God would never want our righteousness to get in the way of loving other people”, you can ask her: “Why isn’t this loving other people?”
  • If all else fails, get her to come on this forum. We’ll be nice, promise… 😉
 
Delaine75 said:
I have a situation going on with a non-Catholic Christian and I am really kind of at my wits’ end with this person. What started the entire thing was me voicing my thoughts about gay marriage (after reading everyone else state that Christians were evil for “hating” homosexuals and “condemning” them by not allowing them to marry their partners, etc.). This person pretty much attacked me and asked why I hated homosexuals if I was a Christian and that “nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin.” I pointed out to her that I never said being homosexual was a sin, either – but the homosexual ACTS are sinful. Again, she said the Bible doesn’t say that, and further added that, “Christ would never have condemned gay marriages.” I’ve shown her Scripture that says that homosexual acts are sinful. I have even shown her what the Catechism says. She continues to dismiss them and claim that they are my opinion only, that the book of Leviticus is not to be taken literally and again, that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual acts or homosexual marriage is wrong. She also claims that if there is something in the Bible that “hints that it’s okay to treat people with disregard such as Lev. 18:22, then you can ignore that because God would never want our righteousness to get in the way of loving other people.” O_o I don’t even know how to respond to that! What can I possibly say to this person to make her understand that what the Bible says is not my “opinion” and that I’m not just pulling things out of thin air? She just refuses to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. Help!
Click to expand...
She is correct. There is no verse in scripture that states homosexual acts are “sinful” There ARE verses that state engaging in homosexual acts that are part of pagan religious practices are either an “abomination” as in Leviticus…or as in Romans chapter 1 which deal with temple prostitution…or in 1Cor that deal with pedarstry…but scripture does not condemn nor address any understanding of human sexuality as “we” have come to understand it. Trying to convince her that the views of your church on the subject are “correct” and her’s are “wrong” is a rough row to hoe.
 
Publisher said:
She is correct. There is no verse in scripture that states homosexual acts are “sinful” There ARE verses that state engaging in homosexual acts that are part of pagan religious practices are either an “abomination” as in Leviticus…or as in Romans chapter 1 which deal with temple prostitution…or in 1Cor that deal with pedarstry…but scripture does not condemn nor address any understanding of human sexuality as “we” have come to understand it.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality and acts are defects of human sexuality. They are not the norm nor should they be sought.

We should act according to our design.
 
I thank you all so much for taking time to respond to my dilemma. I feel more confident on how to handle it if she brings it up again in the future! Thanks again!
 
Publisher said:
She is correct. There is no verse in scripture that states homosexual acts are “sinful” There ARE verses that state engaging in homosexual acts that are part of pagan religious practices are either an “abomination” as in Leviticus…or as in Romans chapter 1 which deal with temple prostitution…or in 1Cor that deal with pedarstry…but scripture does not condemn nor address any understanding of human sexuality as “we” have come to understand it. Trying to convince her that the views of your church on the subject are “correct” and her’s are “wrong” is a rough row to hoe.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Publisher, but I think your exegesis of Romans and 1 Corinthians is a bit off.

Paul, it seems, is writing about homosexual actions in the context of pagan idolatry because it was primarily practiced by pagans, that is, non-Jews, and his audience in Rome is principally a Jewish audience, though with some pagans (perhaps God-fearers, who would have rejected idolatry). It seems quite clear from what Paul says at the end of Romans 1 that unnatural relations between the sexes is a form of punishment.

As for 1 Corinthians, ἀρσενοκοῖται probably refers not only to pederasty but many sorts of unnatural sexual intercourse, which would have included anal sex. In fact, this fits well the context because Paul goes on to talk about keeping the physical body pure and cites the passage from Genesis, alluding to the joining of male and female by doing so.

When you take passages like this, the constant witness and interpretation of the Church against homosexual actions (as early as the Didache, it is not difficult at all. But if they are blind, how can they see?
 
jonathan_hili said:
Sorry, Publisher, but I think your exegesis of Romans and 1 Corinthians is a bit off.

Paul, it seems, is writing about homosexual actions in the context of pagan idolatry because it was primarily practiced by pagans, that is, non-Jews, and his audience in Rome is principally a Jewish audience, though with some pagans (perhaps God-fearers, who would have rejected idolatry). It seems quite clear from what Paul says at the end of Romans 1 that unnatural relations between the sexes is a form of punishment.

Since Roman chapter 1 is an “artificial break”, in chapter 2 it begins with several verses that indicate…“as such were some of you…” The whole first chapter of Romans 1 deals with worship…so the sexual practices would seem also to be about worship…unless he just stuck a few verses in there.:shrug:

As for 1 Corinthians, ἀρσενοκοῖται probably refers not only to pederasty but many sorts of unnatural sexual intercourse, which would have included anal sex. In fact, this fits well the context because Paul goes on to talk about keeping the physical body pure and cites the passage from Genesis, alluding to the joining of male and female by doing so.

Agreed, however it was common practice in Paul’s time for an older man to take unders his wing a younger man…teenager as patron and introduce him into society in exchange for sexual favors as well as teach him a skill set which would benefit him throughout life. Not to mention, “homosexuality” as understood today was not part of their mind set…sexual orientation was an unknown concept…when read thru the lens of time and culture homosexuality was not being discussed.

When you take passages like this, the constant witness and interpretation of the Church against homosexual actions (as early as the Didache, it is not difficult at all. But if they are blind, how can they see?
Click to expand...
It would make sense that the interpretaion of the prevailing religious institutions, which also were mistaken on a great many things from their understanding of human reproduction…the woman was the receptical of the male “seed” and offered a place for it to grow…the concept of DNA and traits from both sexes was unknown. The sciences concerning human sexuality, cosmology, immuneoloy, physics, and world history was qiuite incorrect on so many levels…

While our modern translations of the Didache use the word “homosexuality” there is no word in the first century which connotes our understanding of homosexuality…“homosexual” and “homosexuality” are modern words with no counterpart from the first century.

For those of us who do not view your church as having any unique authority to “interpret”, the arguement that “it was always believed” doesn’t hold a lot of “water”.

If the “sciences” embraced by those of the first century…and beliefs in talking snakes and floating axheads, parting seas, the sun moving across the sky and stopping at the behest of Joshua so he had more daylight to win his battle was wrong…well…modernity is replacing the “magic” and “miracles” of the ancients.

Biblical myths and stories are giving way to the sciences and modernity…that is one reason the gay rights movement is winning…it’s based on modernity…not religious myth and belief.
 
Publisher said:
It would make sense that the interpretaion of the prevailing religious institutions, which also were mistaken on a great many things from their understanding of human reproduction…the woman was the receptical of the male “seed” and offered a place for it to grow…the concept of DNA and traits from both sexes was unknown. The sciences concerning human sexuality, cosmology, immuneoloy, physics, and world history was qiuite incorrect on so many levels…

While our modern translations of the Didache use the word “homosexuality” there is no word in the first century which connotes our understanding of homosexuality…“homosexual” and “homosexuality” are modern words with no counterpart from the first century.

For those of us who do not view your church as having any unique authority to “interpret”, the arguement that “it was always believed” doesn’t hold a lot of “water”.

If the “sciences” embraced by those of the first century…and beliefs in talking snakes and floating axheads, parting seas, the sun moving across the sky and stopping at the behest of Joshua so he had more daylight to win his battle was wrong…well…modernity is replacing the “magic” and “miracles” of the ancients.

Biblical myths and stories are giving way to the sciences and modernity…that is one reason the gay rights movement is winning…it’s based on modernity…not religious myth and belief.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality, Sodomy…are descriptors…

in the year 100 AD…

Two men, joined by their reproductive part and the end of the alimentary tract…are no
different than

those two men in the year 2013

What was noticed in the year 100 AD, was called…look at those men acting whatever, doing whatever, and it was not approved in time, we know…and it was in a manner that was other than English…and whatever language it was, was descriptors for that language. Language as a descriptor does not change the act of what was observed.

Today we call it Homosexuality, Sodomy…

So regardless of what we called it, regardless of the words used, what was, was…and what is, is…

Black Angus Steak…was meat…was…animal running from human…was…tonights meal…matters not if the word existed or the words used today existed…

what they did was seen, responded to and noticed…as you know the English Langauge as we know it is only about 600 years old and the only people that describe events in English around the world are Air Traffic Controllers…

So whatever it was called, whatever it was named prior to1600 was named in words that were other than English.
 
Since we are discussing why a Protestant friend of a Catholic cannot “believe” homossexuality is wrong, I have provided one of the possible answers.

Even the word “sodomy” is a construct and is used no where in scripture…if I remember correctly, in some of the older English translations the word “sodomy” is used where 'male prostitute" is used in more modern translations. If I remembeer correctly it was a term “coined” by Jerome when the scriptures were translated in Latin…the “Vulgate”.

While homosexuality was know and it was not called “sodomy” until the 4th century nor called “h9mossexuality” until the late 19th or early 20th centuery if memory serves me correctly, “sodomy” is an inaccurate term. “Male prostitute” is more correct…and since the understanding of homosexuality has understood today has no “counterpart” in 1100 BCE…100 CE…or even 400CE…neither was the complexities of human sexuality, disease or cosmology.

The Levitical law calls “bats” birds" because they flew…but we know today “bats” are not “birds.”
 
Publisher said:
If the “sciences” embraced by those of the first century…and beliefs in talking snakes and floating axheads, parting seas, the sun moving across the sky and stopping at the behest of Joshua so he had more daylight to win his battle was wrong…well…modernity is replacing the “magic” and “miracles” of the ancients.

Biblical myths and stories are giving way to the sciences and modernity…that is one reason the gay rights movement is winning…it’s based on modernity…not religious myth and belief.
Click to expand...
Gosh, there’s a bigger issue here than the morality of homosexual activity!

So you believe the Exodus story is based on a myth?

And Jesus, did he actually perform miracles, or was it all stage-acting or make-believe?

Ummm modernity in its core is long gone, Publisher. As for replacing “magic” and “miracles” (as if the two are alike - you should read what C.S. Lewis has to say on the matter), how does science explain Lourdes or Fatima or Lanciano or Guadeloupe?
 
Publisher said:
.
Click to expand...
jonathan_hili said:
how does science explain Lourdes or Fatima or Lanciano or Guadeloupe?
Click to expand...
Or better yet Publisher, how does science explain Katya’s stigmata filmed entirely on video, showing that in no way she could have self inflicted her wounds, proving they were real wounds as Mike Willesee took samples of blood from them and than the next day within 24 hours, these very real wounds were completely healed.

Please view these short clips and the video of Katya’s stigmata and tell me how science explains it -
Mike Willesee, a former outspoken athiest, and a very well known and respected Australian journalist went to extreme measures to try and prove that there was no such thing as miracles and that they were all a hoax, until he witnessed them for himself and ever since, is now a devout Catholic.

You can witness them for yourself aswell, just by clicking on these links here, they are also in my signature.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top