Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve already shown you how they are not against God’s nature. HE designed people to apparently be so. It’s only an ancient misconception about the nature of sex that bars such from being otherwise and that was based upon marriage as a business contract. Not a matter of love. Denying people who love each other without harm is to cause it.
 
I never said anything of the sort. I said that by restricting a large portion of the population from living per their nature when that nature is unharmful is to cause harm. To be sinful in itself. By not being able to realize that before a litany of arguments and facts for the sake of upholding a dysfunctional logic is to be narrow minded.
 
Andy_82 said:
restricting a large portion of the population from living per their nature…
Click to expand...
It is not the nature of men to exchange gametes with each other. They have a desire…which they indulge. Regrettably, that desire is contrary to their evident nature.
 
No, I showed you that at the time gay sex wasn’t considered sex. It was considered an activity as there wasn’t even a means of classifying it at the time. Homosexuality wasn’t a recognized way of life. It was an action that wasn’t considered inherently sinful or of sex as no procreation took place. In the mindset of the medieval church, that meant it wasn’t sinful. There were also kings that were so and many, many others. You are comparing a modern understanding to an ancient concept and it’s not working.
 
You do know I can read the captions that appear in my browser per comments before they’re withdrawn, right? I certainly did by showing how sex was only considered sex if it took place as a potential act of procreation. Heck, even masturbation wasn’t really considered an issue until the French began publishing pornography in the 18th century.
 
Andy_82 said:
It was an action that wasn’t considered inherently sinful or of sex as no procreation took place.
Click to expand...
You showed no such thing. You asserted some bishops did certain things. Priests abused children in recent times and there are cases where the bishop knew and did not act properly in response. Do you hold that to mean the Church did not teach the sexual abuse of children is not Ok? Your reasoning is lacking.
 
I did by showing how it wasn’t considered a sexual activity. By equating it to the priest sex abuse scandal you’re drawing the line across the room from the topic.
 
Andy_82 said:
I did by showing how it wasn’t considered a sexual activity.
Click to expand...
I am sure you can “show” how the sexual abuse of children is not sexual activity too. :roll_eyes: It is more than just that, but it is that too.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn’t. It was only then that the church began to examine the issue beyond a monastic capacity. Prior to then it was a venial sin and wasn’t considered so beyond the bounds of married man doing it. Father Giovanni Cappelli undertook an exhaustive study of this matter in the early 90’s and found the church’s teaching on the matter over time to be scattered at best until that point. In his contribution to the Marquette University paper “The Pastoral Problem of Masturbation” from 1993 found exactly that. Once pornography became wider spread the church began to take action on the matter. http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1845&context=lnq
 
It is harmful, sexual activity in our context and is akin to rape. It is by no means the same thing that occurs between two consenting adults of the same sex.
 
Andy_82 said:
It is harmful, sexual activity in our context and is akin to rape. It is by no means the same thing that occurs between two consenting adults of the same sex.
Click to expand...
Different, yet both sexual activity. Agreed.
 
Per our context. Not that of 1000 years ago when it wasn’t recognized as inherently sexual. It was just an oddity then.
 
You haven’t shown anything, nothing of the sort.

Just because a person can orgasm using different means doesn’t make it natural. Sorry.

A person can become attracted to things…receive forms of consolation from them…and these things still could be very bad for the person.

You’ve wasted a lot of time, and haven’t shown anything. Haven’t made a single inch of progress.
 
You have a faulty definition of love…an emptional one. Not one from the Chruch.
 
Andy_82 said:
Father Giovanni Cappelli undertook an exhaustive study of this matter
Click to expand...
And one of his conclusions: “It would be wrong,however, to interpret the silence ofthe Fathers about masturbation as a tacit approval of it, or as a virtual indifference. The principles they elaborated concerning sexual ethics and their general attitudes could easily have led to a condemnation of masturbation. We do not know why this was not done; probably it was due to the fact that early Christian writers were primarily concerned with sexual sins that were interpersonal in nature.”

That paper will not help you argue that masturbation can be good. Nor that 2 men engaging in sexual acts can be good.

On masturbation, the author writes: “In my pastoral experience of forty-seven years I have yet to meet a penitent who did not want to rid himself of the habit of masturbation, or who continues to deliberately masturbate. Most likely those who continue the habit deliberately either do not come to confession, or do not confess the sin, because they have been brainwashed into the belief that masturbation is not sinful, or at most a venial sin which one need not confess.“
 
Last edited:
It’s provided rigorous reason for rejecting same sex attraction and behavior as disordered.

But the lobby wants to do what it wants to do.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top