Sacred tradition against homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FireFromHeaven

Guest
I am wondering how we can prove the church’s teachings on homosexuality from the early church. Anyone know any quotes?
 
You wouldn’t want to know about them, as they usually involve gross and disturbing violence and hatred.

“If a man is to lay with another man, he shall be stoned” -Leviticus.

I’d also like to point out that tradition is only important to followers of that tradition.
That doesn’t constitute that the tradition is necessarily true or holds any logical water.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I am wondering how we can prove the church’s teachings on homosexuality from the early church. Anyone know any quotes?
Click to expand...
If you want to get any point across, speak the other party’s language (meaning no “Bible thumping” as they put it) But, as Gaerteuth put it, OT was pretty harsh about it 😦
 
Gaerteuth said:
You wouldn’t want to know about them, as they usually involve gross and disturbing violence and hatred.

“If a man is to lay with another man, he shall be stoned” -Leviticus.

I’d also like to point out that tradition is only important to followers of that tradition.
That doesn’t constitute that the tradition is necessarily true or holds any logical water.
Click to expand...
That is not a quote from the early Church. It is a quote from the Mosaic Law.
 
St. Catherine relaying the words of our Lord:

"For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”
  • St. Catherine of Siena
How can we Christians be called hateful for wanting to prevent people with same-sex attraction from committing these horrible acts? What kind of monsters would we be if we sat by and said nothing while our fellow brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction put their souls in this kind of danger?

And this is a word of warning to those Catholics out there who support homosexual activity, either through their vote or by not speaking up against it. If it’s true that our Lord wants us to love our neighbours as ourselves, you have a great deal to be worried about on judgment day.
 
MidnightSun12 said:
How can we Christians be called hateful for wanting to prevent people with same-sex attraction from committing these horrible acts? What kind of monsters would we be if we sat by and said nothing while our fellow brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction put their souls in this kind of danger?

And this is a word of warning to those Catholics out there who support homosexual activity, either through their vote or by not speaking up against it. If it’s true that our Lord wants us to love our neighbours as ourselves, you have a great deal to be worried about on judgment day.
Click to expand...
You’re going to be sorry if you don’t conform to assembled hatred of a bronze-age scapegoat" is pretty much what you just said.

Homosexuality appears everywhere in nature. That is an irrefutable fact.
It is a natural phenomenon, thought to be almost confirmed by the study of epigenetics.

Because it is epigenetically “installed” into the a fetus in the womb, you cannot “become” homosexual. You only discover it later, usually at puberty when the testosterone starts flowing (or in the case of homosexual males, fails to start flowing).

Likewise, you cannot become straight after that discovery. Every single thing in your body points in the other direction. It is quite literally, unnatural to make a homosexual become straight.
 
Gaerteuth, stop speaking rubbish,

Assuming we accept that people CAN be born homosexual, we must unequivocally state that homosexuality is the occurrence of a DEFECT, it is not intended by nature to occur, now we can all debate whether or not people are actually born that way or not but what is not debateable is whether it is an advantageous defect or otherwise, it is an extremely bad defect according to nature.

In fact we can make the same claims for paedophiles, well at least THEY can make the same claims as homosexuals as regards being born that way

On top of that purely speaking from a genetic position, whilst we are clearly born, well at least meant to be born with heterosexual makeup, it is quite easy to convert from homosexual to heterosexual practice and enjoyment and backwards and forwards so to speak with the right persuasion, ala Pavlovs dog.
 
Gaerteuth said:
You’re going to be sorry if you don’t conform to assembled hatred of a bronze-age scapegoat" is pretty much what you just said.

Homosexuality appears everywhere in nature. That is an irrefutable fact.
It is a natural phenomenon, thought to be almost confirmed by the study of epigenetics.

Because it is epigenetically “installed” into the a fetus in the womb, you cannot “become” homosexual. You only discover it later, usually at puberty when the testosterone starts flowing (or in the case of homosexual males, fails to start flowing).

Likewise, you cannot become straight after that discovery. Every single thing in your body points in the other direction. It is quite literally, unnatural to make a homosexual become straight.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality.
 
kotim said:
Gaerteuth, stop speaking rubbish,

Assuming we accept that people CAN be born homosexual, we must unequivocally state that homosexuality is the occurrence of a DEFECT, it is not intended by nature to occur, now we can all debate whether or not people are actually born that way or not but what is not debateable is whether it is an advantageous defect or otherwise, it is an extremely bad defect according to nature.

In fact we can make the same claims for paedophiles, well at least THEY can make the same claims as homosexuals as regards being born that way

On top of that purely speaking from a genetic position, whilst we are clearly born, well at least meant to be born with heterosexual makeup, it is quite easy to convert from homosexual to heterosexual practice and enjoyment and backwards and forwards so to speak with the right persuasion, ala Pavlovs dog.
Click to expand...
You believe that a homosexual can, by simple act of will, ‘convert’ to heterosexuality?

Ok then… I challenge you to do this: convert, just for a moment, to homosexuality and like it.

Oh, what’s that? You don’t like it?

What you’re talking about is ‘persuasion’: i.e. to be forced under some sort of influence or motivation to ACT differently. Now that motivation may well be religious, in that you are persuaded that your homosexual activity is sinful and will result in your mortal damnation, and that persuasion would therefore be rooted in fear, but your acts would still be contrary to your normal state. Just be acting in a way contrary to what you are doesn’t make you different. It just makes you a hypocrite. That itself may be right or wrong, depending on your moral viewpoint, but nothing is actually changing the essence of what or who you are.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I am wondering how we can prove the church’s teachings on homosexuality from the early church. Anyone know any quotes?
Click to expand...
The Churchs teaching is that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered (“misaligned”).

This is the truth, as human biology clearly demonstrates.

The Church thoughts on homosexuality were orginally formed via applying Aristotlean philosophy to the human body - ie deducing the purpose of body parts via examining their structure, functions and features. This lead to an logical understanding of how human bodies worked, which was later borne out in full by the more detailed understanding gained through biological science.

Accordingly, what the Church says about homosexuality is the truth, has always been the truth and it could only credibly change if human biology somehow changed.
 
Gaerteuth said:
Homosexuality appears everywhere in nature. That is an irrefutable fact.

Thats wrong actually - we do not see homosexuality among animals, the same way as we do among humans.

Animals will try to hump anything - this is because they are lesser forms of life than humanity which are controlled by their passions. They do not have the ability to reason or discern as humans can and so can be easily overwhelmed by feelings of lust which they will “take out” on anything. On the other hand, human beings are in control of their passions (at least are supposed to be).

For example, when I go to my sisters home, her dog reliably tries to have sex with my leg. It tries to have sex with all manner of things, cushions, peoples legs, other dogs even.

This just shows how animals are passion driven - their passions drive their behaviour. But the fact my sisters dog sometimes humps other dogs doesnt mean he is homosexual, any more than his humping my leg means he has some kinky fetish for human legs.

There is a lot of propaganda which seeks to portray animals as “gay animals” - but this is absurd nonsense.

The only genuine proof of “gay animals” would be (eg) one male animal sodomising another. But animals cannot do this - why?

Well - human homosexual acts are disordered because they involve acts between same-sex bodies which are not physically or biologically compatible in the same way which opposite sex bodies are compatible.

To overcome this, homosexual people have to use artificial means - such as lubricants, for example, to facilitate what they call sex. (note it is not sex however: sex requries two partnters to combine their sexual organs, homosexual couples cannot do this).

Animals fundamentally lack the capacity for this artificial intervention to overcome their own physical bodies and so we will never genuinely see “gay animals”. We will only see passion-driven animal behaviour which is falsely presented as “gay animals”.

One of the most appalling examples of this propaganda was the so-called “gay penguins” zoo story. This story attempted to portray two male penguins in a zoo behaving just as male penguins do in nature - ie hanging out together and looking after eggs (the zoo penguins had found a rock which they thought was an egg).

This natural behaviour was presented by the media as “a gay penguin couple” which had “started a family” together. These appalling anti-scentific lies were a particularly good example of how low and crude the tactics of the homosexual lobby are.

(the media later backed away from the story - from the lies - and quietly reported that both “gay” penguins now each had a female mate).

In any case, even if animals could be shown to be gay, that does not justify the behaviour in humans. Some animals (dogs) eat their own faeces off the pavement, or eat their own young, I would hope no-one would suggest thats acceptable for humans, purely because animals do it.
Click to expand...
 
CaptBell800 said:
There is no scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between claiming conjecture and claiming consensus.
I’d like one person on this forum to read about “Epigenetics.”

There is no “gay gene.” It’s something physiologically different.
 
GWright said:
Thats wrong actually - we do not see homosexuality among animals, the same way as we do among humans.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of rubbish.

Humans ARE animals. We are descended from animals. We have the largest animal brains we can afford to push through a mother’s birth canal.

That is a simple fact. There is no debate. No controversy.

So the concept of a soul is merely a lie, leavened with conjecture over the years to seem more plausible. A lie, not in the sense that it’s untrue, end of story, but in the sense that it was told to people despite no other answers being consulted first.
 
Gaerteuth said:
What a bunch of rubbish.

Humans ARE animals. We are descended from animals. We have the largest animal brains we can afford to push through a mother’s birth canal.

That is a simple fact. There is no debate. No controversy.

So the concept of a soul is merely a lie, leavened with conjecture over the years to seem more plausible. A lie, not in the sense that it’s untrue, end of story, but in the sense that it was told to people despite no other answers being consulted first.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
We don’t need Tradition to prove that homosexuality is wrong as the Bible is quite clear on this. However, here are some “Early Teachings on Homosexuality”:

catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
Click to expand...
Problem is, the Bible -is- tradition.

It’s traditionally kept as a canon part of the Church.

It’s traditionally read and interpreted by monks and scholars.

It’s traditionally copied and translated.

It’s traditionally held with high esteem.

And finally,

It’s traditionally held in people’s hands while shouting words of hatred at scapegoats.
 
Gaerteuth said:
Problem is, the Bible -is- tradition.

It’s traditionally kept as a canon part of the Church.

It’s traditionally read and interpreted by monks and scholars.

It’s traditionally copied and translated.

It’s traditionally held with high esteem.

And finally,

It’s traditionally held in people’s hands while shouting words of hatred at scapegoats.
Click to expand...
If you think the Church uses the bible to spread hatred, you know nothing about the Church and nothing about the bible.
 
OxygenMan said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
Easy.

Humans did not descend from monkeys. They are cousins.
Let me clear that up.

There is an ancestor of creature that came before both chimps and humans, but we are both descended from them on separate branches of the binary tree of life.

It’s scientifically sound to assume that whatever predates the advanced creature of monkey and the advanced creature of Man was less advanced than both according to the indisputable science of evolution.

It can also be noticed from there that the creature predating both species was an animal.
So the only things that can descend from IT are animals.
Humans and chimps are those two animals, since they are descendants.

Evolution cannot be disputed as a whole. Even Pope John Paul II could accept this.
What the remarkable thing is though, is that the Church, recognizing this fact, still kept it’s old traditions that relied solely on Creationism for any logical basis. Such as:

Baptism against original sin of Adam.
The belief that humans are not animals.
The book of Genesis.
The sacrament of matrimony.
The belief in immortality.
That Jesus died for Adam’s sin.
The belief in resurrection of a dead body. (Not Jesus, but the people Jesus resurrected.)
The belief that diseases spontaneously leave a body.
The belief that pig-demons willingly throw themselves off cliffs.
The belief that snakes can talk.
The belief that fish prefer certain sides of boats when Jesus is around.

I could go on.
 
CaptBell800 said:
If you think the Church uses the bible to spread hatred, you know nothing about the Church and nothing about the bible.
Click to expand...
I read the entire bible.

It is probably the most disturbing book I’ve ever read in my life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top