Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_82 said:
It’s supposed to be. But, not at the high cost that’s been assigned to it in the last few centuries in response to the rise of the porn industry. Like I said, it was in the context of venality. Not graveness. A trivial matter.
Click to expand...
Is “trivial” how you understand venial sin? Perhaps so in the Church of Andy.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
Even if he did say something like the Church should accept Homosexual acts as not a sin, he could not teach that as doctrine.
Click to expand...
Though to be clear, he’s not said so, nor implied it.
 
Well said.

Andy’s statement here on venial sin provides a lens to understand all his weaving and dodging trying to get same sex “over the goal line” of acceptability.
 
Last edited:
You won’t find a Catholic source on the matter as it comes to us from Protestantism. Dr. Balthazar Bekker, a Dutch theologian, published his work ‘Onania’ in 1712 in which he proclaimed that it by way of its spiritual pollution on the body caused an array of physical symptoms to crop up. The Dutch at the time were a religious hot bed from which everyone from the Quakers to the Anabaptists and many other protestant hardliners were emerging. This was at the time that the French aristocracy were infamous for sexual experimentation. The Marquis De Sade and the like were well known figures and were readily known to the public for their exploits. Aristocratic gardens often featured lewd depictions of female genitalia (West Wycombe Park, Temple of Venus) and porn was now being published in the form of lewd etchings all over the place there. The church, noting the rise of secularism in the form of the works of Voltaire and Vauvenargues realized a growing sexual looseness there and that it involved a lot of extramarital sex. This is also when it began to more strongly enforce the laws of adultery. But, masturbation prior to then was a minor sin. If for any reason it wasn’t that common. The paper did note that prior to this era that masturbation was such.
 
Andy_82 said:
Actually, it sounds less like a healing and more as if you simply changed. Sexuality is often times fluid and it doesn’t always remain one way or another. It may be that your lesbianism was affected by time less faith and you were able to marry a man. This happens a lot more than people think: especially in women as female sexuality is viewed as being more flexible than male. Think of Anne Heche, she considers herself bisexual now and after leaving Ellen Degeneres married a man. But, does not consider herself straight. The University of Utah several years ago found that women seem to change per age and reproductive status. It may simply be your brain changed on its own.
Click to expand...
Wow, the arrogance of someone trying to tell me my life story.

So glad you could use my personal life to back up your own opinions on this here thread.

This is one of the reasons I don’t my past up very often. Some total stranger tries to explain MY life to me. What. Complete. Arrogance.
 
How? Venial sin is of a minor affair and while not correct, it’s not wicked either. I never said that venial sin doesn’t matter. It’s just that it’s not also a major problem.
 
How is it being arrogant? All I did was note what most likely occurred for you to be blessed with this child and gave you an example. A healing implies that something was wrong with you when being gay isn’t so. It just means you changed. There is a big difference there.
 
Oh for the love of Pete! His very actions put his thinking on display! How can you not see this! He supports same sex civil unions as they offer same sex couples much of the legal protection that marriage does and he’s offered his apology for acts committed against them by the church. Reason being the church, in her divinity, is never wrong. But, the mortals that administer it can be. The church doctrine does change. Recall how I mentioned that the catechism was amended in the early 90’s earlier (it’s further up in the comments). It changed a lot from the last time it had done so four hundred years earlier. Divine Law is not divine in itself. It is Law ascribing to what is Divine. It’s not written by God Himself. To think so is to not realize man’s position. God shows us what is right and wrong by way of revelation and observation. He doesn’t write the books himself. We do over time.
 
Andy_82 said:
Oh for the love of Pete! His very actions put his thinking on display! How can you not see this! He supports same sex civil unions as they offer same sex couples much of the legal protection that marriage does and he’s offered his apology for acts committed against them by the church.
Click to expand...
First off he plainly said marriage is between a man and a woman and that is it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. Second, he offered apologies to Homosexual persons from abuse, etc. He doesn’t say let’s condone Homosexual acts.
Andy_82 said:
The church doctrine does change. Recall how I mentioned that the catechism was amended in the early 90’s earlier (it’s further up in the comments). It changed a lot from the last time it had done so four hundred years earlier. Divine Law is not divine in itself. It is Law ascribing to what is Divine
Click to expand...
I would like to see where it shows laws, moral laws, not ceremonial laws, have changed.
Andy_82 said:
Divine Law is not divine in itself. It is Law ascribing to what is Divine. It’s not written by God Himself. To think so is to not realize man’s position. God shows us what is right and wrong by way of revelation and observation. He doesn’t write the books himself. We do over time.
Click to expand...
He inspired the books of the Bible. It’s his will written on those pages, not the will of man. Also it clearly says in the NT that Homosexual actions are sinful
 
Remember, every sin is an offense against infinite goodness.

It’s we who make them seem “trivial”, for a variety of reasons, none noble, all selfish.

Remember what St Augustine said of venial sins:

“While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them…”
 
Andy_82 said:
You won’t find a Catholic source on the matter
Click to expand...
Oh, well that clears that up. So the Church (by which term on this site we refer to the Catholic Church) has always regarded masturbation as grave matter. Which is what the document you posted also says. Fine. So please don’t assert something different without quoting an authoritative source.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Engaging meaningfully with others is what matters, thus better to use unambiguous language where possible.
Click to expand...
How is what the Church states ambiguous?

Same sex attraction (no sexual activity) is disordered but not a sin.
Homosexuality (sexual activity) is gravely disordered and a sin.
 
Andy_82…

Quick hint: When a person says we should stop discriminating against XYZ group or treating them badly, he does not thereby endorse all the activities engaged in by XYZ group.
 
thistle said:
How is what the Church states ambiguous?
Click to expand...
Some language is easily understood unambiguously. Example: “Same sex sexual acts are intrinsically evil.”

“Homosexuality is intrinsically evil” is ambiguous because in common usage many people understand homosexuality to be the state of experiencing certain attractions, rather than the engaging in the relevant acts. This is the reality of their understanding.

When engaging in apologetics, first speak unambiguously. The language of the Church (where that risks ambiguity on account of a break with common usage) can be introduced gradually, with explanation.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
Quick hint: When a person says we should stop discriminating against XYZ group or treating them badly, he does not thereby endorse all the activities engaged in by XYZ group.
Click to expand...
Nah, Prodigal! That’s too narrow-minded! 😉
 
I am not putting words in his mouth and have stated several times that marriage by the church is between a man and a woman. I have said that as a legal matter separate from the church that it is fine with me and that the pope seems to have little problem with it being so as well given his actions over the past several years. You, however, are taking words out of his mouth by imposing a secondary interpretation. Also, it does not say homosexual actions outside of pagan goddess worship are sinful. If you bother yourself to read it fully you’ll note that the greater context includes that meaning. Paul was talking about pagan temple sex in which fertility rites often involved male on male sex to appease a goddess popular in the area of Thrace, Greece.
 
Did he call them damnable? No, he means that if you look over how many you commit over the course of a lifetime you’ll see how intrinsically wicked you really are. Despite your self centered perception to the contrary. By the way, legalism, which includes the cherry picking of texts to suit one’s own purpose, is a sin. In leaving out the meaning of Augustine’s words while trying to implicate them beyond his purpose, you committing that.
 
Andy_82 said:
You, however, are taking words out of his mouth by imposing a secondary interpretation.
Click to expand...
Exactly how?
Andy_82 said:
Also, it does not say homosexual actions outside of pagan goddess worship are sinful. If you bother yourself to read it fully you’ll note that the greater context includes that meaning. Paul was talking about pagan temple sex in which fertility rites often involved male on male sex to appease a goddess popular in the area of Thrace, Greece.
Click to expand...
the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
 
You piker. You left out Romans 1:25 intentionally. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” The next line, Romans 1:26 then goes into what they did to worship the creature. AKA: a pagan fertility goddess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top