Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re being legalistic now. Same sex civil unions happen mainly for the purpose of affording a same sex couple of romantic inclination to have most of the rights and privileges afforded to a straight, married couple. Yes, they can happen for the purposes of having a pair of sisters share assets if they’ve never been married. But, that is not the context of which we are speaking now.
 
Yes, it is. If they’re of a union, married or civil and have relations per that union, then they have one.
 
What? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I’m citing the Pope’s own opinions here. Not just my own.
 
Would you please, remove your mental block here and realize the church is in the 21st century and needs to adapt to better serve its people per the God it represents.
 
Last edited:
Andy_82 said:
But, that is not the context of which we are speaking now.
Click to expand...
You are wanting to assert that the Pope endorses same sex sexual acts as good. He has not addressed that despite opportunity. In the midst of a debate about legalizing SSM he says “call them civil unions” and you conclude the Pope is ok with same sex sexual acts that the Church deems intrinsically evil and you also conclude there’ll be no need for the pope to write this new position down. Who are you kidding?
 
Not a conjugal union, which is what marriage is, a totality of union across the entire person.

Same sexers can’t share their entire union, all of their selves; it’s spilled, closed in on itself, unopen to life, to growth beyond itself. It’s imperfectible.
 
Last edited:
Andy_82 said:
Would you please, remove your mental block here and realize the church is in the 21st century and needs to adapt to better serve its people per the God it represents.
Click to expand...
Would you please wake up and realize that abandoning the moral law is not how the Church serves the people.
 
The purpose of an encyclical is to address church law. This wouldn’t be part of church law as per issues of reproduction gays can’t perform under a marriage. However, by apologizing for the church’s conduct per gays while endorsing their being able to be civilly unified he effectively denounces the practice of considering homosexuality a sin. How you can arrive at a separate point over the course of this discussion reveals you have some growing to do. You cannot separate the topic of same sex relations from same sex unions without, honestly, declaring their activities as not sinful. It’s the only end game that argument has. Why on Earth else would two people go into a civil union when they’re romantically inclined to one another? Yes, they can be used to share assets. But, it’s easier to set up a trust for that than it is to go this far with it. Your logic lacks reason and is therefore moot.
 
Egocentric view of God.

It’s just the opposite.

We need to serve God, not ourselves.

The Church exists to help us to know, love, and serve Him.

You’ve given into the egocentric view of God…how can God serve me?

That leads to an entire life of unhappiness and friction among the people.

Lots of medication time.
 
Last edited:
The church isn’t serving its people if it categorically rejects them without proper reason. The idea that homosexuality is ‘disordered’ goes against every scientific and philosophical argument going and only stands on an ancient misconception of the matter. This could’ve been better addressed by Pope John Paul II in his Catechumic Council. But, given the recent collapse of the Soviet Union and the resurgent Latin America of the day, they passed the buck by declaring it ‘disordered.’ It could have been better explored. But, the politics of the day didn’t allow for it given the social push back that would’ve occurred at the time.
 
Andy_82 said:
The purpose of an encyclical is to address church law.
Click to expand...
Wrong and nonsense. Church law is addressed in a document called the Code of Canon Law. Enclyclicals address just the matters of which we speak. Eg. What is good. What is evil. The Catechism captures in one place and time much of what was earlier taught through encyclicals.

Your religious affiliation is set as “Andy”. I see why.
 
How can you serve God in the capacity of the church if the church won’t allow you to live as you are? To cling to a long outmoded mindset by tossing up a single line on the matter is to be egocentric as it supports your own view and not that of the people the church is supposed to represent. The church lobbed this ball down the court in 1992. It needs to address it now. The Papal office and the opinions of the man in charge of it are part of that process. It’s obvious that it is changing.
 
8 billion people on the planet…how many over the centuries.

Not one came from a same sex union, naturally.

Good bye
 
Richard the Lionheart was gay and only had a kid because he was forced to marry a woman and many straight people are barren. Yet, sexually active. Your argument is too limited in scope to work.
 
Andy_82 said:
The church isn’t serving its people if it categorically rejects them without proper reason.
Click to expand...
The Church should reject no person - and therein lies past failings. But it does emphatically reject actions which are contrary to the moral law. We are all called to turn away from immoral behaviours.
 
That’s just the thing: how is gay sex amoral? There is no teaching per that matter beyond declaring it akin to onanism. Never mind that sex between monogamous, straight couples is considered a healthy party of a marriage. How is that not similar? We know homosexuality to be natural. Therefore, we should recognize it as being without sin. You’re being too narrow minded here.
 
I didn’t say that. I said that it could’ve been addressed then. But, was instead tossed to the back of the file cabinet and as I’ve already shown, there have been periods in the church’s history in which they were not a problem.
 
They are immoral because they go against God’s word and the good He designed in nature. And they are closed off to life.

Acts that go against the good are immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top