What if the Church's teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

[bingbang]

If they’re celibate, they’re not having sex and if they’re having sex they’re not celibate.

Celibate before having sex. I should have said virgins instead of celibate.

 

[bingbang]

So so you’re morality is based on anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt?

It is interesting that you find sex between a father and son not problematic but find a priest being celibate to be so. And this is a great example of the convoluted thinking one must engage in when they believe all morality is subjective.

I find your comments about the celibate priest telling in another way and that is you seem to think that our basic indenity(who we are) is derived from the manner in which we engage in sex. You feel there’s something wrong with a priest because he doesn’t have sex but the father having sex with his adult son is okay because he is just affirming his sexual identity.

I never said it was immoral that a priest is celibate. I said it was against nature, which in turn according to natural law makes it immoral, but I do not accept natural law morality.

As for a son having sex with his father…according to the Bible that is immoral. In fact the Bible lists all incestuous relationships to be immoral in Leviticus, except ONE: A Father having sex with his daughter. Why do you suppose they left this out?

 

[Garyjohn2]

Well if you believe in God you can say that anything good that anyone ever does comes from God (Paul basically says this in Romans). But there really isn’t much support for this argument. And if you make this argument you also have to place a supernatural being behind the bad thins that people do (which many would say is the devil). So are God and the devil battling for good and evil? Because if they are, it seems like the devil is winning, and that doesn’t make much theological sense, does it.

As for atheists being good people because at some point their ancestors were likely once religious…that is absolutely preposterous and has absolutely no proof beyond a hunch.

Don’t say it’s preposterous until you do the research I suggested you do. Or, you can just sum up what I was saying in one silly sounding sentence and ridicule away.

Religion is most often the source the mores and morals in a society. Mores and morals are passed down from parent to child, or generation to generation. I don’t see how this is preposterous at all.

Yes, the Devil seems to be winning the world at this point. The world is his kingdom, in a way. We are the ones that make our choices though, and in the end, God is the judge of all, even the Devil.

 

[bingbang]

Why have safeguards? What do such safeguards have to do with morality?

You’ve apparently not heard of the medical problems that frequently occur with homosexual sex. I won’t go beyond that in terms of details, but let’s just say that certain body parts are not meant for certain activities, and when they’re used for such, they develop problems, and I’m not just talking about infections.

What do you believe is their origin?

I agree, Bob. Methinks even the most “rational rationalist” would have moral difficulty accepting homosexual sex between a father and a son. Heck, I think most homosexuals would have moral problems with that one.

Is it gross for a man to have sex with his son? In my opinion, its pretty gross. Is it immoral? I don’t really think so. As long as both are consenting adults, I don’t really see how it hurts anyone.

As for homosexual sex causing infections and health problems…what does that have to do with morality? What about racing cars or playing sports? These things can kill people and cause serious bodily injury. Are they immoral?

 

[bingbang]

I have faith in God. You have faith in yourself, or is I’m sure you tell yourself, faith in knowledge. I am sure you believe that while we are driven by superstition you are driven only by knowledge and again, in your mind, logic… Not exactly a new faith, and yes it is a faith. It is just warmed over Gnosticism, which has been around since about the first century BC.

As I’ve said before a debate with someone who considers themselves intellectually superior yet offers no proofs that their opinion is pretty useless.

I don’t see how this doesn’t describe you perfectly. You obviously view yourself as intellectually superior to me and you have offered no proof of your faith.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Is it gross for a man to have sex with his son? In my opinion, its pretty gross. Is it immoral? I don’t really think so. As long as both are consenting adults, I don’t really see how it hurts anyone.

As for homosexual sex causing infections and health problems…what does that have to do with morality? What about racing cars or playing sports? These things can kill people and cause serious bodily injury. Are they immoral?

Bingbang, I think we just filled up a whole page of thread by quoting and responding to some of each other’s posts. After this one, I am resigning temporarily for the weekend.

If I am reading this correctly, you think that if it doesn’t hurt anyone, it isn’t immoral (in terms of incest). Also, if it may hurt someone, it isn’t necessarily immoral either (like racing).

The question that begs to be asked (and I think has been asked) is: What do you consider moral or immoral?

 

[bingbang]

Let me answer this question by comparing it to gambling. A good bet is one where the conditions are favorable based on probability. A bad one is when they are not. The winning and losing are irrelevant to whether the bet is good or bad.

If the information and reasoning behind a belief system seems correct and you act according to them you are not doing a bad thing. If you were a juror and convicted a man of murder who was executed based on the evidence before you, but later the evidence was proven tainted, you can not say you did something wrong.
For certain types of religious people this kind of question is very difficult to even think about. That is not because they are stupid, though some may be. If I were to ask; if at the end of life you discovered there was no God, would you regret the moral choices you have made. Many religious people would find it hard to even approach the question because to them is not an academic exercise. The question poses a challenge to their fundamental faith. And many would not want that possibility of doubt to creep in.
There are certain things one gets out of having absolute faith. Of course I can argue that one may also lose some intellectual objectivity, which has it’s own risks and problems. But it is really not possible for many of the people here to address this issue the way you would want.

The answer, just one would feel pain for the innocent who was executed, one would feel a certain level of sadness for any potential pain your theoretical homosexual couple may have experienced, one would not feel they had done something wrong because their actions were based on the best information and beliefs available to them at the time.
However it is just very difficult for some religious people the really address this kind of question, and you really can not expect them to.

Great post.

 

[bingbang]

But what if they are wrong? Well then I guess active homosexuals can go to heaven and those that spoke out against them go to hell. Is that the answer that was being sought?

LOL…this is the LAST thing I would want to say. I don’t think anyone is going to hell.

 

[PatrickSebast]

To answer the original question: If the Church were to be wrong about any of its teachings then going against the Churches authority would still be considered sinful since we are called to submit to that authority, even when we don’t understand it, for the sake of Christ. However the people who declared the incorrect teaching as an authoritative teaching, and those that didn’t listen to God’s call to correct would be held equally responsible for all the sins of disobedience to this teaching since they misused their authority in a way that caused others to struggle unnecessarily and find sin in an action that was not otherwise sinful. So a lot of Popes would have a lot to answer for on their day of judgement if the hypothetical presented were the case. On the other hand if the Church falsely declared a sin to not be sinful the laity could freely commit that sin without fear of punishment since the Church’s misused authority would shield them from the guilt, but the leaders who declared it not to be sinful would have to answer for all those sins committed as a result. That is why the Bible says that leadership is a burden.

 

[bingbang]

Bingbang, I think we just filled up a whole page of thread by quoting and responding to some of each other’s posts. After this one, I am resigning temporarily for the weekend.

If I am reading this correctly, you think that if it doesn’t hurt anyone, it isn’t immoral (in terms of incest). Also, if it may hurt someone, it isn’t necessarily immoral either (like racing).

The question that begs to be asked (and I think has been asked) is: What do you consider moral or immoral?

I think the golden rule is the backbone of any good moral system. Racing cars isn’t immoral because although you could hurt yourself or others, everyone involves knows the risks they are taking. Even driving a car is dangerous, or walking on a road, or playing any sport at all. These things are not immoral though because these people weigh the risks before doing these activities.

 

[bingbang]

To answer the original question: If the Church were to be wrong about any of its teachings then going against the Churches authority would still be considered sinful since we are called to submit to that authority, even when we don’t understand it, for the sake of Christ. However the people who declared the incorrect teaching as an authoritative teaching, and those that didn’t listen to God’s call to correct would be held equally responsible for all the sins of disobedience to this teaching since they misused their authority in a way that caused others to struggle unnecessarily and find sin in an action that was not otherwise sinful. So a lot of Popes would have a lot to answer for on their day of judgement if the hypothetical presented were the case. On the other hand if the Church falsely declared a sin to not be sinful the laity could freely commit that sin without fear of punishment since the Church’s misused authority would shield them from the guilt, but the leaders who declared it not to be sinful would have to answer for all those sins committed as a result. That is why the Bible says that leadership is a burden.

This is an interesting answer but I was more leaning towards “What if the Church was wrong because it wasn’t being guided by the Holy Spirit.”

 

[PatrickSebast]

This is an interesting answer but I was more leaning towards “What if the Church was wrong because it wasn’t being guided by the Holy Spirit.”

Care to clarify that a little? I think it would be assumed that in the case it was wrong that it had not been guided by the spirit and thus my original answer stands. Or do you mean to say “What if the Church isn’t guided by the Spirit at all, and their authority is imagined?”

If that is the case then the answer depends on what the real truth of the Spirit is and who holds it, if anyone. Hard to answer the question without a platform to judge it from, and I am sure that many different theologies could supply many different answers to this.

 

[davidv]

I never said it was immoral that a priest is celibate. I said it was against nature,

You have not proven this to be true. A single person can remain a virgin their whole life without detrimental effects.

which in turn according to natural law makes it immoral, but I do not accept natural law morality.

Obviously. But you non-acceptance not rationally based.

As for a son having sex with his father…according to the Bible that is immoral. In fact the Bible lists all incestuous relationships to be immoral in Leviticus, except ONE: A Father having sex with his daughter.

According to the Bible this was immoral too.

Why do you suppose they left this out?

It was not left out.

 

[Newbie2]

Is it gross for a man to have sex with his son? In my opinion, its pretty gross. Is it immoral? I don’t really think so. As long as both are consenting adults, I don’t really see how it hurts anyone.

As for homosexual sex causing infections and health problems…what does that have to do with morality? What about racing cars or playing sports? These things can kill people and cause serious bodily injury. Are they immoral?

That begs the question, why is it “gross” to you if you find it morally acceptable?

As far as taking risks with your body, yes, such things can be immoral.

I noticed that you ducked the question, “what do you consider immoral”. Can you give us a specific situation? Group sex? Incest? Polygamy? Where do you draw that line?

 

[Newbie2]

Too late to edit, sorry.

BB, nevermind my last post; don’t bother to respond. Anyone who thinks that homosexual sex between a father and son is not immoral truly has no sense of morality, religiously based or not.

So…I cannot contribute much else. Toodles.

 

[Daniel6312]

This is an example of pride rearing its ugly head.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. - Proverbs 3:5

There are some things God will demand of you that may not make sense to you for a time. But you do them anyway, because that is obedience. Eve didn’t understand why God forbade her from eating from the tree of knowledge, so she did it. It goes without saying - she figured out quick that God told her not to for *her own *benefit.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If the Church is wrong about homosexuality, then why hasn’t homosexuality prospered? Remember that the Church was established by Christ in 33AD. Homosexuality existed way before that. So if homosexuality is okay, is natural, is fine, why then has it not prospered?

I think that is a pretty clear indication that homosexuality is wrong, not the Church.

 

[bingbang]

You have not proven this to be true. A single person can remain a virgin their whole life without detrimental effects.

Obviously. But you non-acceptance not rationally based.

According to the Bible this was immoral too.

It was not left out.

Can you post the passage?

You mention that a single person can remain a virgin their whole life without detrimental effects, but an active homosexual can do the same thing.

 

[bingbang]

That begs the question, why is it “gross” to you if you find it morally acceptable?

As far as taking risks with your body, yes, such things can be immoral.

I noticed that you ducked the question, “what do you consider immoral”. Can you give us a specific situation? Group sex? Incest? Polygamy? Where do you draw that line?

When it comes to sexual relations, I believe it is immoral when it hurts someone. Adultery is severely immoral. Pre marital sex can be immoral if one party is leading the other party on (making them believe that they are going to have a committed relationship when that isn’t the intention) so they can have sex. The problem is that this can happen a lot in pre marital sex…where one party perceives there to be more to the relationship to the other. And this can be hurtful, and thus sinful.

Polygamy is sinful in most cases because I can’t imagine a situation where it wouldn’t be hurtful to one or more people involved. People have egos and it would be very hard to stop this.

 

[PatrickSebast]

If the Church is wrong about homosexuality, then why hasn’t homosexuality prospered? Remember that the Church was established by Christ in 33AD. Homosexuality existed way before that. So if homosexuality is okay, is natural, is fine, why then has it not prospered?

I think that is a pretty clear indication that homosexuality is wrong, not the Church.

That doesn’t make any sense. Why HAS Artificial Birth Control prospered? Why is the priestly vocation dying? There are more things that effect this stuff. 500 years ago you would have been able to argue that freedom of speech was a terrible thing.