I like to come down hard for sins that I know I’ll never be tempted by. Makes me feel righteous.Why didn’t he say “The view of the Church is constant in the area of sexual morality and as followers of Christ, and sinners in need of repentance, it is we who must change - not the Church.”?
It is often mentioned the Christ consorted with sinners and did not mention homosexuality (sodomy, etc.) - could it be that he too did not find it necessary to condemn “abominations”?Why didn’t he say “The view of the Church is constant in the area of sexual morality and as followers of Christ, and sinners in need of repentance, it is we who must change - not the Church.”?
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same. Christ already condemned homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13. Read Romans 1:26-27. Christ is the “Word.” Hence, when the Father spoke in the OT, He spoke through Christ.
The sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of fornication. The difference is living in a continued state of sin, such as, a gay union or the divorced and civily remarried. Even gay unions that are supposedly chaste wreak havoc on society just as two people living together out of wedlock.
Of course, that said God the Father spoke in Leviticus not Christ.They are distinct, yet one in the same. They cannot contradict each other. Read your catechism. Not made, but consubstantial. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Um, okay. But now I’m curious to see what you would consider an intolerant approach. (Although realistically I’m probably better off not knowing.)could it be that he too did not find it necessary to condemn “abominations”?
In our current socio-political environment (western Europe and North America), “tolerance”, the acceptance in society of many things that for centuries were considered aberrant or immoral behavior, has become the norm. There is really nothing new in these behaviors. Yet, expecting the Abrahamic religions of the world to rewrite the Talmud, Christian Bible and Koran to accommodate what has been condemned, is pushing the envelope of “tolerance” to the point of absurdity. I am a sinner - weak and subject to all the temptations that are thrown before us all. I accept Christ, God’s forgiveness and the faith as passed down from the Apostles. I cannot rewrite the rules to accommodate my sins and I will not try to “normalize” them to make myself feel good. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a Camp Free Good. The state can recognize whatever it wants to, that does not mean that the state is the source of morality. The state is not God and social science is not religion. I am not being intolerant by not considering what is sinful to be a positive - nor will I cast a stone at another sinner.Um, okay. But now I’m curious to see what you would consider an intolerant approach. (Although realistically I’m probably better off not knowing.)
I like to come down hard for sins that I know I’ll never be tempted by.
What? Nobody’s even going to chuckle at either of those?Benjohnson there’s an interesting case I heard about: a pastor who had recently moved to a new town found that every time he preached against something, he “stepped on the toes” of somebody or other. He came close to losing his position, until one of his parishioners offered this bit of advice: “Preach against those awful cannibals. There’s not one of them in a hundred miles.”
Apologies for the ardent tone - those lines are very funny!What? Nobody’s even going to chuckle at either of those?