Coming soon to a billboard near you

[Like a Child]

I have no idea why this is coming out in a couple of different posts. . .I meant it to all be in one. Sorry!

--Also, in the past few decades, numerous studies have come out indicating how human sexuality may form. Here is just one interesting example from the APA:

"The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7]."

Before you get the chance to say it, yes, these are hypotheses. But they are tantalizing. I don't think it will be that much longer before science prooves that homosexuality, while sometimes attributal to NURTURE, is often attributal to NATURE as well.
That, I imagine, will cause those who think homosexuality is disorded some serious discomfort. Does God create these people to be disordered? And, if they are born this way, should we have the right to condemn them to a life of involuntary celibacy? It would be like saying, "Oh, sorry, you have red hair. We will not allow you to date or settle down with anyone. . .because you came out wrong. . .oh yeah, and because we already defined marriage a certain way before we knew that red hair was normal, you can't have any part in the Sacrament of Marriage --ever!"

My point here is that our modern understanding of human sexuality is VERY different from the understanding that Paul (and the Old Testament writers) had. I think if Paul had had this information back when he was writing, he may have written differently. He did his best, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but no, he wasn't omniscient. The idea of homosexuality being a matter of biological human nature WOULD impact his thoughts on the matter.

Finally, the reason this whole issue is important is because our thoughts on the matter of homosexuality likely determine how we treat homosexuals. If a person can believe that homosexuality is gravely disordered and sinful and still sincerely love a homosexual, more power to him/her! Perhaps there are people like that out there somewhere. But I have my doubts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1026974' date='Jul 18 2006, 03:24 PM']
Sorry, I've been away from this thread for a few days. . .and I don't have the energy to go back through and comment on each individual thought/comment that you all brought up. I will try, however, to summarize my points, and hopefully they will serve as a response to everyone's general objections above.

I had the great fortune (I'm sure most of you would see it as a misfortune) to grow up in a progressive Protestant family with an Episcopalian theologian for a father. So my whole life, I have been surrounded by and had great conversations with priests, religious, theologians, and lay people who feel very different about the issue of homosexuality than the folks on this forum do. In fact, (prepare yourselves for this one!) at one of the churches we attended as kids, we were shepherded by two openly gay pastors (gasp!).

I mention this for the following reason: As much as it may bother you to read this, there ARE many, many well-respected and learned biblical scholars who do not believe that homosexuals are "gravely disordered" and that their affections are sinful because they do not lead to "fruitfulness." These scholars are not "trying to find ways around biblical passages" that they do not agree with, as Socrates suggested. They simply, after looking at all the evidence, came up with a different conclusion than have more conservative scholars. (Many of these scholars challenge classical interpretations of the passages in 1 Corninthians and Romans mentioned above.)[/quote]
I am quite aware that there are (and have been for a long time) plenty of "well-respected" and learned "Biblical scholars" who reject much of Christian theology and moral teaching. I have been arguing against such things for years.
Many of them not only deny the immorality of homosexuality and other immoral activity, but also deny such things as the divinity of Christ, the reality of Christ's resurrection, and the historical truth of the Gospel accounts. Don't expect me to be shocked and awed at the existance of liberal theologians and "bible scholars" who deny many key aspects of the Christian Faith as it has been handed down for 2000 years.

These liberal scholars do not base their views on homosexuality and other moral issues with "evidence" written in the Bible, but rather tailor their "interpretation" of biblical passages to conform with their own liberal relativist views. (i.e. "We know homosexuality is fine and good. Therefore anything in the Bible condemning it either [i]really[/i] is condemning something else, or is wrong and mistaken and doesn't need to be heeded in our 'enlightened' age")

(I wonder how they'd answer Romans 1:26-27 part of which I quoted earlier. The issue there is clearly people lusting and committing sexual acts with people of the same sex, rather than of the opposite sex. It's a little hard to say the real issue there is age/class differences, or slavery or prostitution, etc.)

These people try to conform their religious beliefs to the world, rather than conforming their beliefs to the Christian Faith.

[quote]But, let us say for the sake of argument, that the authors of the Bible DID intend to condemn homosexuality outright. Well,
--This still doesn't mean God/Jesus condemned it. Yes, scripture is inspired. Yes, its writing was led by the Holy Spirit. But the men who wrote it down still had their own free agency. I do not believe, as Biblical literalists do, that the Bible was copied down verbatim as the authors heard the exact words and meanings from God. No, what makes far more sense, is that the men who wrote the Bible were influenced by the popular opinions (and prejudices) of their time. Just as the story of Adam and Eve no doubted sprouted from fertile legends that predated it, so all of the Biblical writings sprout in some way from their surroundings, and ESPECIALLY, from the HUMAN minds of the men who wrote them.[/quote]
This is not the Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture can teach no error - particularly regarding Faith and Morals.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but believe that the moral teachings in the Bible can be brushed aside as mere human opinions and prejudices, there is little point in arguing about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality or anything else. Why should we even pay attention to the Bible at all? With this line of thinking, it is quite easy for anyone to dismiss anything he disagrees with as outdated prejudiced poppycock.
My whole original point is that it is absurd to argue that the Bible promotes homosexuality.

[quote] --Also, perhaps as I said, Paul would not be so quick to condemn homosexuality in our modern world. When he was alive, the term "homosexuality" didn't even exist. There was no scientific, biological, sociological, or behavioral understanding of it to speak of. Today, the vast majority of scholars in these fields (except maybe those working for Focus on the Family or other such organizations) accept that homosexuality is AT LEAST IN PART caused by biological factors. Are there some gays and lesbians out there who CHOSE to "be gay"? No doubt. But are most influenced completely or at least in part by their biology (read: their physical makeup given to them by God)? A huge amount of evidence indeed suggests this, YES!
Consider:
--Within countless animal species, a certain percentage of the creatures exhibit unmistakable homosexual tendencies.[/quote]
Whether the term "homosexuality" existed, what is today known as homosexual behavior did exist, and is condemned in the passages I have listed. (Men lying with men as with a woman, sodomy, etc.) There is nothing new under the sun in terms of human vices. It is just that now we try to justify them as virtues.
These biological theories you speak of are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It has not been clearly established that homosexuality is biologically determined, and even if it were, that would have no bearing on the morality of human actions.
Some scientists now claim a biological basis for basically all human behavior.
Would you suppose that if St. Paul were up-to-date on all the latest in evolutionary and biological theory, he would be ok with fornication and adultery too?
After all, a lot of secular scientists argue that these things are part of our biological make-up. Monkeys are pretty promiscuous animals, so why whould we act any different?
Based on the behavior of apes, some have concluded that even such things as murder and war are a part of our biological nature.
Should such theories have any bearing on our moral theology?

Human morality is not determined by biology. Man is a spiritual moral creature. As Christians, we are not called to behave like monkeys or rats.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Socrates

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Re: "biological" evidence for homosexuality...

We live in a fallen world. People are born with deformities all the time. Part of the mental disorder that homosexuality is could include biological/physical deformities (I think I read once about a study on receptors in the nose that are malformed in many homosexual persons). Ergo, even if homosexuality is related to biology, it is still a disorder-- in need of desperate repair.

As I've said numerous times, marriage, by the very word itself, can only be between a man and a woman. Homosexual persons cannot, no matter how much they love each other, make the other person a mother or father. They cannot will parenthood for the other, and this is the very word "marriage" itself that comes from the Latin 'mater' (meaning 'mother'). A man asks a woman to marry him so that he can make her a mother.

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1027052' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:43 PM']
I am quite aware that there are (and have been for a long time) plenty of "well-respected" and learned "Biblical scholars" who reject much of Christian theology and moral teaching. I have been arguing against such things for years.
Many of them not only deny the immorality of homosexuality and other immoral activity, but also deny such things as the divinity of Christ, the reality of Christ's resurrection, and the historical truth of the Gospel accounts. Don't expect me to be shocked and awed at the existance of liberal theologians and "bible scholars" who deny many key aspects of the Christian Faith as it has been handed down for 2000 years.

These liberal scholars do not base their views on homosexuality and other moral issues with "evidence" written in the Bible, but rather tailor their "interpretation" of biblical passages to conform with their own liberal relativist views. (i.e. "We know homosexuality is fine and good. Therefore anything in the Bible condemning it either [i]really[/i] is condemning something else, or is wrong and mistaken and doesn't need to be heeded in our 'enlightened' age")

(I wonder how they'd answer Romans 1:26-27 part of which I quoted earlier. The issue there is clearly people lusting and committing sexual acts with people of the same sex, rather than of the opposite sex. It's a little hard to say the real issue there is age/class differences, or slavery or prostitution, etc.)

These people try to conform their religious beliefs to the world, rather than conforming their beliefs to the Christian Faith.
This is not the Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture can teach no error - particularly regarding Faith and Morals.
If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but believe that the moral teachings in the Bible can be brushed aside as mere human opinions and prejudices, there is little point in arguing about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality or anything else. Why should we even pay attention to the Bible at all? With this line of thinking, it is quite easy for anyone to dismiss anything he disagrees with as outdated prejudiced poppycock.

[i]A couple of things:

1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am in no way suggesting that the moral teachings in the Bible be "brushed aside." There is a big difference between totally disregarding Biblical teaching and recognizing that God's wisdom and instruction has been delivered to us via fallible human beings. God built His "C"hurch on the backs of errant apostles and even picked perhaps the weakest of them, Peter, as His foundation. No doubt Christ knew the apostles would make mistakes in the future just as they made mistakes and proved lacking in faith and love while he was still with them. He knew they wouldn't be perfect. So would he have thought the Bible would somehow turn out perfect? I don't think so. Nonetheless, He has trusted us (as long as we have Him by our side) to work out our own salvation. I believe God gave me a mind and a conscience to be able to interpret his Word and to live a moral life. And his instructions to us were so simple: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we TRULY are doing this, then Socrates, I'm not sure it much matters that you and I disagree on God's opinion of homosexuals.

So what does my perspective on the Bible look like in practice? Well, I look to the Bible for guidance. I try not to sin. I agree that fornication is wrong, so instead of indulging myself whenever I please, I live a chaste life. If I was gay, I would still live a chaste life. I go to Mass everyday; I pray hard everyday; I go to confession at least twice a year; I am active in my church; I try not to kill people . Most importantly, I try to love as God, through Christ, has instructed me to love. This, I think, is what God wants us to focus on. After all, there are far more references in the Bible to love, humility, patience, sacrifice, and faith than there are to issues like homosexuality. There are also a TON more references about the danger and sinfulness of wealth in the New Testament than there are to homosexuality. But does anyone talk about that on this forum? I feel silly going back and forth on this issue for so long, because really, if what we want is to JUDGE someone, we should spend our time judging the rich. Judging by the Bible, it is THEIR salvation that is in serious peril, much more so than the homosexual's. But I guess the issue of wealth isn't as "sexy" as this one; it's not as fun to judge the rich. . .perhaps because in this capitalistic Western society of ours, we ARE the rich.


2. Conservatives "tailor their interpretations of biblical passages" for their own purposes as well. I'd bring up some examples, but that would rightfully be considered a hijack and would spin us into other arguments. . .my point is, we all need to interpret the Bible on own. Yes, we have the Church to help us in our understanding (and thank God for that; it's because of the Church that we DO see Christ as divine, his resurrection as real, and the truth of the Gospels as valid), but I, for one, will not be spoon-fed every tiny piece of doctrine dished out for me. (One critical example being the idea that the suffering people in AIDS-torn Africa cannot use condoms to save their own lives. . .that seriously makes me want to puke). I cannot, as a God-fearing Christian, support teachings like that.[/i]

My whole original point is that it is absurd to argue that the Bible promotes homosexuality.
Whether the term "homosexuality" existed, what is today known as homosexual behavior did exist, and is condemned in the passages I have listed. (Men lying with men as with a woman, sodomy, etc.) There is nothing new under the sun in terms of human vices. It is just that now we try to justify them as virtues.
These biological theories you speak of are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It has not been clearly established that homosexuality is biologically determined, and even if it were, that would have no bearing on the morality of human actions.
Some scientists now claim a biological basis for basically all human behavior.
Would you suppose that if St. Paul were up-to-date on all the latest in evolutionary and biological theory, he would be ok with fornication and adultery too?
After all, a lot of secular scientists argue that these things are part of our biological make-up. Monkeys are pretty promiscuous animals, so why whould we act any different?
Based on the behavior of apes, some have concluded that even such things as murder and war are a part of our biological nature.
Should such theories have any bearing on our moral theology?

Human morality is not determined by biology. Man is a spiritual moral creature. As Christians, we are not called to behave like monkeys or rats.
[/quote]

[i]I think you make very good points here. We ARE spiritual, moral creatures and we SHOULD rise above our biology. I guess that does mean that none of us should be fornicating (whether gay or straight). . .but again, where we differ is on this fact: I believe that individuals involved in mature, loving, and respectful homosexual relationships that CAN and oftentimes DO rise above mere biology (read: sexual gratification) just as heterosexuals can and do.[i]


I'm not sure exactly how I'm messing up these posts, but this (below) somehow ended up in the same box with my quotes of Socrates' comments above. So anyway, here are my comments again:

A couple of things:

1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am in no way suggesting that the moral teachings in the Bible be "brushed aside." There is a big difference between totally disregarding Biblical teaching and recognizing that God's wisdom and instruction has been delivered to us via fallible human beings. God built His "C"hurch on the backs of errant apostles and even picked perhaps the weakest of them, Peter, as His foundation. No doubt Christ knew the apostles would make mistakes in the future just as they made mistakes and proved lacking in faith and love while he was still with them. He knew they wouldn't be perfect. So would he have thought the Bible would somehow turn out perfect? I don't think so. Nonetheless, He has trusted us (as long as we have Him by our side) to work out our own salvation. I believe God gave me a mind and a conscience to be able to interpret his Word and to live a moral life. And his instructions to us were so simple: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we TRULY are doing this, then Socrates, I'm not sure it much matters that you and I disagree on God's opinion of homosexuals.

So what does my perspective on the Bible look like in practice? Well, I look to the Bible for guidance. I try not to sin. I agree that fornication is wrong, so instead of indulging myself whenever I please, I live a chaste life. If I was gay, I would still live a chaste life. I go to Mass everyday; I pray hard everyday; I go to confession at least twice a year; I am active in my church; I try not to kill people . Most importantly, I try to love as God, through Christ, has instructed me to love. This, I think, is what God wants us to focus on. After all, there are far more references in the Bible to love, humility, patience, sacrifice, and faith than there are to issues like homosexuality. There are also a TON more references about the danger and sinfulness of wealth in the New Testament than there are to homosexuality. But does anyone talk about that on this forum? I feel silly going back and forth on this issue for so long, because really, if what we want is to JUDGE someone, we should spend our time judging the rich. Judging by the Bible, it is THEIR salvation that is in serious peril, much more so than the homosexual's. But I guess the issue of wealth isn't as "sexy" as this one; it's not as fun to judge the rich. . .perhaps because in this capitalistic Western society of ours, we ARE the rich.


2. Conservatives "tailor their interpretations of biblical passages" for their own purposes as well. I'd bring up some examples, but that would rightfully be considered a hijack and would spin us into other arguments. . .my point is, we all need to interpret the Bible on own. Yes, we have the Church to help us in our understanding (and thank God for that; it's because of the Church that we DO see Christ as divine, his resurrection as real, and the truth of the Gospels as valid), but I, for one, will not be spoon-fed every tiny piece of doctrine dished out for me. (One critical example being the idea that the suffering people in AIDS-torn Africa cannot use condoms to save their own lives. . .that seriously makes me want to puke). I cannot, as a God-fearing Christian, support teachings like that.

[CoffeeCatholic]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1024830' date='Jul 14 2006, 09:13 PM']
Here I go again getting myself in trouble. . .[b]Jesus[/b] never said homosexuality is a sin. [/quote]


sure, neither does the pope. having homosexual inclinations isn't the sin. The sin(s) is(are) having sex outside of the institution of holy matrimony, which Jesus instituted Himself, leaving no room for editing, and clearly stated it was to be between a man and a woman. As much as I can't have sex with my fiance because we're not married yet, neither could i have sex with a woman because we're not married.

the other sin is perhaps less noticed. Lately, Christians have been feeling compelled to re-write the word of God... and I'm talking all of us. How many times has this issue been brought up by many different "brands" of Christianity? The truth is, because of our sinful nature, we are CONSTANTLY trying to come up with a loop hole to make whatever it is that we want to do, Ok. But anything that we want to do that is outside of the will of God is NEVER ok, no matter if it might be ok later on. That being said, it is not ok for 2 (or 3 or 6) people to have sex, regardless of their gender, outside of marriage, but it IS ok for 2 people to have sex, which glorifies God, inside of marriage. Therefore sex is not bad, but the timing may be. Kinda like how it's perfectly fine to run around your house butt naked normally, but when your in-laws or the boss comes over, you might find it to be a different story. wait until everyone leaves and your fine!

so, regardless of what Leviticus says, even though it is fine and good, Jesus said :"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."(Matt 19:4-6)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1027666' date='Jul 20 2006, 02:41 PM']
I think you make very good points here. We ARE spiritual, moral creatures and we SHOULD rise above our biology. I guess that does mean that none of us should be fornicating (whether gay or straight). . .but again, where we differ is on this fact: I believe that individuals involved in mature, loving, and respectful homosexual relationships that CAN and oftentimes DO rise above mere biology (read: sexual gratification) just as heterosexuals can and do.[/quote]
However, we are not to act [i]contrary[/i] to the nature of biology.
The primary purpose of sexuality is the procreation of children.

Procreation and raising a family is the primary purpose of marriage. The marital act must always be open to the procreation of children.

Homosexual acts by their very nature cannot be open to procreation, and thus are contrary to the purpose of human sexuality.

[quote]I'm not sure exactly how I'm messing up these posts, but this (below) somehow ended up in the same box with my quotes of Socrates' comments above. So anyway, here are my comments again:

A couple of things:

1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am in no way suggesting that the moral teachings in the Bible be "brushed aside." There is a big difference between totally disregarding Biblical teaching and recognizing that God's wisdom and instruction has been delivered to us via fallible human beings. God built His "C"hurch on the backs of errant apostles and even picked perhaps the weakest of them, Peter, as His foundation. No doubt Christ knew the apostles would make mistakes in the future just as they made mistakes and proved lacking in faith and love while he was still with them. He knew they wouldn't be perfect. So would he have thought the Bible would somehow turn out perfect? I don't think so. Nonetheless, He has trusted us (as long as we have Him by our side) to work out our own salvation. I believe God gave me a mind and a conscience to be able to interpret his Word and to live a moral life. And his instructions to us were so simple: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we TRULY are doing this, then Socrates, I'm not sure it much matters that you and I disagree on God's opinion of homosexuals.[/quote]
It seems, unfortunately, that your understanding of the nature of Church teaching and authority is weak at best. I'd suggest some serious reading-up on this topic with orthodox Catholic sources. You might start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are plenty of resources available in Phatmass' apologetics section. (It seems you consider yourself Catholic, yet you seem to disagree with much of Church teaching - correct me if I'm mistaken on that.)

The Church is indeed made up of sinful fallen men, however, Jesus Christ Himself gave the Church the charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith in morals. The Pope can sin, but he is preserved from error when teaching authoritatively through the Magisterium. It is in this way, that Christ protects the Church from error in teaching.
The Bible likewise is the infallible word of God and does not teach error, despite the fact that God used sinners to write it. That is Church teaching.

[quote]So what does my perspective on the Bible look like in practice? Well, I look to the Bible for guidance. I try not to sin. I agree that fornication is wrong, so instead of indulging myself whenever I please, I live a chaste life. If I was gay, I would still live a chaste life. I go to Mass everyday; I pray hard everyday; I go to confession at least twice a year; I am active in my church; I try not to kill people . Most importantly, I try to love as God, through Christ, has instructed me to love. This, I think, is what God wants us to focus on. After all, there are far more references in the Bible to love, humility, patience, sacrifice, and faith than there are to issues like homosexuality. There are also a TON more references about the danger and sinfulness of wealth in the New Testament than there are to homosexuality. But does anyone talk about that on this forum? I feel silly going back and forth on this issue for so long, because really, if what we want is to JUDGE someone, we should spend our time judging the rich. Judging by the Bible, it is THEIR salvation that is in serious peril, much more so than the homosexual's. But I guess the issue of wealth isn't as "sexy" as this one; it's not as fun to judge the rich. . .perhaps because in this capitalistic Western society of ours, we ARE the rich.[/quote]
This in no way proves that the Church is wrong in her teachings on the sinfulness of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not the only sin out there. Nobody claimed it was. Christ did not spend as much time preaching on sexual morality because He was preaching to the Jews, who already considered such things gravely sinful. He was preaching to the smugly self-righteous who did not see the need for their own repentence. Yet Christ was not lax in his teachings on sexual morality (see the Sermon on the Mount), and he never condoned sexual sin. (He forgives the repentent sinner, yet says, "go and sin no more.") He would call homosexuals to repent of their sin and follow Him, just as He does all other sinners. And Christ does not say that wealth is in itself sinful, rather it is the love and undue attachment to wealth which is evil. (But that's another issue).
The fact that greed is sinful does not make homosexual lust any less sinful. When something sinful is being promoted as good, Christians are called to speak out against it. This is true whatever the sin is. (Be it homosexuality, abortion, contraception, greed, whatever.)

[quote]2. Conservatives "tailor their interpretations of biblical passages" for their own purposes as well. I'd bring up some examples, but that would rightfully be considered a hijack and would spin us into other arguments. . .my point is, we all need to interpret the Bible on own. Yes, we have the Church to help us in our understanding (and thank God for that; it's because of the Church that we DO see Christ as divine, his resurrection as real, and the truth of the Gospels as valid), but I, for one, will not be spoon-fed every tiny piece of doctrine dished out for me. (One critical example being the idea that the suffering people in AIDS-torn Africa cannot use condoms to save their own lives. . .that seriously makes me want to puke). I cannot, as a God-fearing Christian, support teachings like that.[/quote]
Well, as its's unclear what you are referring to, I guess that can wait for another debate. And I do not deny that "conservatives" can be just as capable of mis-interpreting Scripture as liberals. However, this is in reality not a "conservative vs. liberal" issue. It is about fidelity to the constant moral teaching of the Church. Anyone can "interpret" the Bible their own way, and use it to justify whatever they want. That is why we have the authoritative teaching guidance of the Church. Without it, we get thousands of protestant denominations who cannot all agree on anything regarding interpretation of Scripture.

Basically, you are preaching "Cafeteria Catholicism." You want to pick and choose which doctrines to beleive and which to reject. The Catholic Faith does not work that way. That is simply putting our own will ahead of the teaching of Christ's Church.
For example, what if I were to decide, for instance, that the Church was wrong about giving to the poor, and that theft and adultery are not really sinful?
We are not to pick and choose, but to accept [i]all[/i] of the Church's teachings.

(And your example with condoms and AIDS is fallacious. Contraception is sinful, and we cannot use sinful means to accomplish a good end. And condoms do not save lives. They are NOT fail-safe against the HIV virus, and if a man really wants to save lives, he can abstain from sex. No-one says its easy, but virtue is not always easy. If abstinence and fidelity were promoted in Africa, rather than condoms and "safe sex," there would be much less death from AIDS.)

I strongly suggest you seriously study the Church's teachings on sexuality and Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Socrates

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1026974' date='Jul 18 2006, 05:24 PM']
I mention this for the following reason: As much as it may bother you to read this, there ARE many, many well-respected and learned biblical scholars who do not believe that homosexuals are "gravely disordered" and that their affections are sinful because they do not lead to "fruitfulness." These scholars are not "trying to find ways around biblical passages" that they do not agree with, as Socrates suggested. They simply, after looking at all the evidence, came up with a different conclusion than have more conservative scholars. (Many of these scholars challenge classical interpretations of the passages in 1 Corninthians and Romans mentioned above.)
[/quote]

The fact that there are biblical scholars who disagree says nothing. There are biblical scholars who say that God doesn't exist. Besides, it is in the realm of moral theology, not Scriptural theology, to determine the sinfulness of homosexuality as based on the Scriptures. Scriptural theology can only interpret Scripture; moral theology applies those tenets to the modern day.

[Like a Child]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the debate. . .I've enjoyed it. I'm bored with the topic, though.

I've said my piece, you've said yours, and I think both sides are now fully aware of the opposite position. You aren't going to convince me that homosexuality is wrong, and I know I'm not going to convince you that it can, in fact, be a beautiful, sinless thing.

The bigger issue here, as Socrates alluded to, is that we differ in our degree of orthodoxy. If that makes me what you call a "Cafeteria Catholic," then so be it. Like I said, I will not be spoon-fed every little piece of doctrine that the Church wants me to believe. I do, however, believe wholeheartedly in the BIG stuff, the stuff without which, I think, one cannot be a Christian. But there's material for a new topic.

I'm not just trying to get the last word. . .I'll check here again, but I just wanted to tell you that, for my part, I wouldn't mind dropping this for now.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1028343' date='Jul 21 2006, 02:58 PM']
The bigger issue here, as Socrates alluded to, is that we differ in our degree of orthodoxy. If that makes me what you call a "Cafeteria Catholic," then so be it. Like I said, I will not be spoon-fed every little piece of doctrine that the Church wants me to believe. I do, however, believe wholeheartedly in the BIG stuff, the stuff without which, I think, one cannot be a Christian. But there's material for a new topic.
[/quote]

The big stuff, as you say, is just doctrine. As Catholics, we believe in doctrine only secondarily; firstly, we believe in a Person, Jesus Christ. Those doctrines must be held in good faith by those who believe in Jesus Christ, because they are the doctrines He teaches and which He passes on through His Church. They lead us to Him. Without holding the Church's teachings, and thus the Church, to be true, excepting invincible ignorance, one cannot be saved. The Church spoon feeds sometimes because St. Paul says it is needed. Spoon-feeding is one level up from feeding the milk of the faith. One must acknowledge the truth St. John of Arc stated, "the Church and Christ are the same thing," and submit his or her will to Jesus Christ. We listen to the Church because it speaks with the voice of Jesus Christ. I hope you come to acknowledge that without the Church, we would all be lost and proclaiming a different Gospel. The Church proclaims only one Gospel.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1024170' date='Jul 14 2006, 07:44 AM']
I first noticed these signs a few weeks ago lining Indianapolis streets, and they've been causing quite the uproar in our city:

[img]http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/wouldjesusdiscriminate_1.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www2.indystar.com/articles/6/245960-6216-127.html"]Now an Associated Press article notes that the signs, part of a national campaign, will be sprouting up elsewhere.[/url]
[/quote]
thats a little weird but the answer is no

[Franimus]

It appears to me that Like A Child has issues with the authority of the Church and the infallibility of the Bible (er... the Bible is infallible, right? although our own interpretations and translations of it are fallible) which, as you respectfully noted, is a different topic for a different thread.

PS I literally fell asleep while reading parts of this thread... Perhaps it's past my bedtime.

[iheartjp2]

Since when is denying someone the sanction of marriage or indulgence in their unnatural behavior 'mistreating' or 'destroying' anyone?

Simple answer: it isn't.

However, holding up vulgar signs that say things like 'GOD HATES FAGS' and 'GOD DIDN'T MAKE ADAM AND STEVE', yelling at people that gays will go to hell and that they have no CHANCE of repentence is doing so. That's what people did to my church one Sunday last fall. This group randomly chose 5 churches in my county and did that, which isn't a very smart thing to do, considering my parish is probably the most conservative and orthodox of the Catholic parishes in the city, and know better than even these radical anti-gay activists do. These sorts of things are the reason why people mesh the orthodox with the heterodox concerning God's stance on homosexuality. Of course these things would leave people confused, hurt, and thinking that this is actually what Christians believe, even though it's not. If people really knew the true Church teaching on the matter, they wouldn't be so quick as to ask such loaded questions. They're probably not attacking us at all. They're attacking the idiots that really do believe that Jesus would in the more conventional or commonly misconstrued sense of the word, discriminate.

We would do better to not only show Christ's love and true teaching to those who are gay or support gay marriage, but also and rather to those who are actually mistreating them as they claim the whole of Christianity is, even though what they claim really isn't the case.

[quote name='Socrates']Those signs are ridiculous and disgusting[/quote]

A little strong language there, eh? I agree with you to the extent that they're a little mixed up, but would you actually walk up to someone in the MCC and say that to their face? That's not exactly Christ's love, and if you really think about it, a lot of these people haven't experienced Christ's love at all. Try to be a little more charitable, even on the boards when not necessarily speaking to them directly.

[quote name='CCC par. 2358']The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. [b]Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard[/b] (meaning anything which they would deem to be offensive, which would definitely be your comment, Socrates) [b]should be avoided.[/b][/quote]



I just thought I'd like to reiterate this post since no one's really paid that much attention to it. I think the root of the problem is what I said before, the perception of gays/lesbians towards the Church. They basically think we're just like the people that protested at my parish.

Edited July 23, 2006 by iheartjp2

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Like a Child' post='1028343' date='Jul 21 2006, 12:58 PM']
Hey Guys,

Thanks for the debate. . .I've enjoyed it. I'm bored with the topic, though.

I've said my piece, you've said yours, and I think both sides are now fully aware of the opposite position. You aren't going to convince me that homosexuality is wrong, and I know I'm not going to convince you that it can, in fact, be a beautiful, sinless thing.

The bigger issue here, as Socrates alluded to, is that we differ in our degree of orthodoxy. If that makes me what you call a "Cafeteria Catholic," then so be it. Like I said, I will not be spoon-fed every little piece of doctrine that the Church wants me to believe. I do, however, believe wholeheartedly in the BIG stuff, the stuff without which, I think, one cannot be a Christian. But there's material for a new topic.

I'm not just trying to get the last word. . .I'll check here again, but I just wanted to tell you that, for my part, I wouldn't mind dropping this for now.
[/quote]

The thing is, it can't be a beautiful, sinless thing because God didn't make it. It wasn't in the beginning because God made man and woman, so it just couldn't be, and as long as God doesn't change, his laws by which we live our lives, this is, the moral law that is written on each and everyone one of our hearts, doesn't change.

It's very interesting that you likened yourself to someone who won't be "spoon-fed every little piece of doctrine that the church wants me to believe", yet your phorum name is "Like a Child". Speaking of things that Jesus said, as you've mentioned that Jesus was always the compassionate one who never judged, he also said that those who came to him "as little children" would be given the kingdom of God. How you're approaching this is anything short of being like a child, as your name would make it seem. You seem pretty determined that Jesus didn't feel the same way the Church does, even though He and the Church are one in the same, as St. Joan of Arc pointed out, and he told his apostles, "He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me".

Also, about believing only the BIG stuff, sexuality is one of the BIG things in Catholicism. I suggest you read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul the Great, I dare call him, and tell me that homosexuality isn't a violation of one of the most central things to creation itself: our very sexuality. Without believing whole-heartedly in the fact that "male and female, God created them" and that it should stay that way, even though someone else for any reason is attracted to someone of the same sex, you've left out one of the most central teachings of the Church. I'm not going to run through everything right now. I'm just saying that this position is absolutely incompatible with Catholicism. It can't be done.

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1029145' date='Jul 22 2006, 08:15 PM']
A little strong language there, eh? I agree with you to the extent that they're a little mixed up, but would you actually walk up to someone in the MCC and say that to their face? That's not exactly Christ's love, and if you really think about it, a lot of these people haven't experienced Christ's love at all. Try to be a little more charitable, even on the boards when not necessarily speaking to them directly.
[/quote]
Actually, I would. (Or at least I hope I could have that courage).
Actually, my language there is a little weak.

In the Gospels, Christ called those who opposed Him a "brood of vipers," "whited sepulchers," "hypocrites," and "sons of the devil."

I am sure Christ would have similar (or worse) things to say to those today who twistedly use His name to deliberately promote the perversion of homosexuality within Christian churches.

The mamby-pamby, mealy-mouthed Jesus so beloved of liberals, who would never utter a harsh word to anybody, is not the real Christ found in the Gospels.

Yes, we should exercise charity, but sometimes charity means saying it like it is.
While repentant sinners deserve kindness and respect, those who knowingly promote evil as good deserve stern condemnation.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1029620' date='Jul 23 2006, 05:21 PM']
Actually, I would. (Or at least I hope I could have that courage).
Actually, my language there is a little weak.

In the Gospels, Christ called those who opposed Him a "brood of vipers," "whited sepulchers," "hypocrites," and "sons of the devil."

I am sure Christ would have similar (or worse) things to say to those today who twistedly use His name to deliberately promote the perversion of homosexuality within Christian churches.

The mamby-pamby, mealy-mouthed Jesus so beloved of liberals, who would never utter a harsh word to anybody, is not the real Christ found in the Gospels.

Yes, we should exercise charity, but sometimes charity means saying it like it is.
While repentant sinners deserve kindness and respect, those who knowingly promote evil as good deserve stern condemnation.
[/quote]

There's a big difference between those who have been persecuted by mad, fanatical, so-called Christians who hold offensive (and by offensive, I mean holding absolutely inappropriate signs and yelling absolutely inappropriate things) protests, and people who have been put in a seat of authority but abuse their power (the pharisees that [b]John the Baptist[/b] called brood of vipers, not Jesus) and need to get over themselves. These people need charity, it's not like they know what they're doing and that they're committing intellectual suicide to conform to what they want and then try and fight the Church. They're people who Jesus came to save and are in need of Christ's mercy [b]just as much as you are[/b] because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There's not one thing that we've done that can make us deserve God's gift of mercy, salvation, love, and compassion more than them because we're all in the same boat here, whether you like it or not. You breathe the same air, you walk the same Earth, and believe it or not, you seek the same love, yet you've chosen the better part, as Mary did. These people are still in darkness, in need of the light, and if you speak to them as if they're below you, as basically telling them that what they're trying to work for (which is basically acceptance from the Church) is disgusting and ridiculous, then you'll drive them even further away from the abundant life that God has planned and wants for their lives because they won't have to assume wrongly that the Church condemns them. You, a member of the Church who has the responsibility to convey to them the message of Christ's infinite mercy and love, will have shown them that they were right all along, and the saddest part is that they would still be wrong. I'd hate to be you on judgement day if you were to do such and thing and not repent of it. What they don't know if that they don't need to work against the Church to break them down until they do accept them, because they already are accepted, they're behaviors just aren't. That's what they really don't see and that's what we need to make them see. We can't just assume that they're doing something in bad faith, no matter how ridiculous or disgusting it may be in your eyes, Socrates. That's a very rash insinuation to make about them, and I think you know it. I don't see anything right about what they're doing either, I'm would just try to show them that the Church does care and that they don't need to be afraid that the Church is condemning them in any way. They aren't, they're actions are.

Also, concerning whether or not you would say that to their face, something makes me feel as if it wouldn't really take that much courage for you to do that, Socrates, but it would take a lot more to tell them that the Church accepts them, even though they're behaviors based on their attractions and they're fight to get their behaviors sanctioned aren't, I really do feel that.

Edited July 24, 2006 by iheartjp2

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1029753' date='Jul 23 2006, 09:37 PM']
There's a big difference between those who have been persecuted by mad, fanatical, so-called Christians who hold offensive (and by offensive, I mean holding absolutely inappropriate signs and yelling absolutely inappropriate things) protests, and people who have been put in a seat of authority but abuse their power (the pharisees that [b]John the Baptist[/b] called brood of vipers, not Jesus) and need to get over themselves. These people need charity, it's not like they know what they're doing and that they're committing intellectual suicide to conform to what they want and then try and fight the Church. They're people who Jesus came to save and are in need of Christ's mercy [b]just as much as you are[/b] because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There's not one thing that we've done that can make us deserve God's gift of mercy, salvation, love, and compassion more than them because we're all in the same boat here, whether you like it or not. You breathe the same air, you walk the same Earth, and believe it or not, you seek the same love, yet you've chosen the better part, as Mary did. These people are still in darkness, in need of the light, and if you speak to them as if they're below you, as basically telling them that what they're trying to work for (which is basically acceptance from the Church) is disgusting and ridiculous, then you'll drive them even further away from the abundant life that God has planned and wants for their lives because they won't have to assume wrongly that the Church condemns them. You, a member of the Church who has the responsibility to convey to them the message of Christ's infinite mercy and love, will have shown them that they were right all along, and the saddest part is that they would still be wrong. I'd hate to be you on judgement day if you were to do such and thing and not repent of it. What they don't know if that they don't need to work against the Church to break them down until they do accept them, because they already are accepted, they're behaviors just aren't. That's what they really don't see and that's what we need to make them see. We can't just assume that they're doing something in bad faith, no matter how ridiculous or disgusting it may be in your eyes, Socrates. That's a very rash insinuation to make about them, and I think you know it. I don't see anything right about what they're doing either, I'm would just try to show them that the Church does care and that they don't need to be afraid that the Church is condemning them in any way. They aren't, they're actions are.

Also, concerning whether or not you would say that to their face, something makes me feel as if it wouldn't really take that much courage for you to do that, Socrates, but it would take a lot more to tell them that the Church accepts them, even though they're behaviors based on their attractions and they're fight to get their behaviors sanctioned aren't, I really do feel that.
[/quote]
Yes, John the Baptist called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers," and so did Jesus. (Matthew 23:33)
"You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?"

The "gay rights" activists putting up these billboards and such are not innocent victims, but people who are knowingly pressing an agenda of immorality on Christians. In the name of Christ and the Bible, they demand acceptance of [b]homosexual acts[/b].
They are demanding sanction and recognition of their perverted activities (by demanding such things as "gay marriage") and insist that homosexual acts be no longer seen as sinful.
If this is not evil, I do not know what is.

There is indeed a "culture war" being waged in this country, and the "gay rights" crowd has been rapidly gaining ground. The current widespread state of confusion over the homosexuality issue among Christians (as shown by even many Catholics on Phatmass) is evidence of this.
Christians/Catholics need to start standing up for the truth, rather than let the homosexualists bully them into silence.

The "mad, fanatical, so-called Christians" you mention are only a tiny percentage of Christians in this country (though of course, they receive much media attention). Most of these homosexual activists would consider even preaching that homosexuality is sinful or denying them "gay marriage" to be "oppressive."

We are not dealing here with people struggling in private against their sins. We are talking about an aggressive, concerted effort to change the teachings of Christian morality.

It's time we all took a stand for the truth, rather than let the enemy define the terms and continue lose ground because of false "charity."

[Fides_et_Ratio]

:applause:

Edited July 25, 2006 by Fides_et_Ratio

[iheartjp2]

I agree with you to the extent that rash and vile language not be used to try and convert gay rights activists. It doesn't matter if Jesus used it. Did it convert them? Did he convert Mary Magdelene, Zaccheus, Matthew, or anyone else by being rude to them. C'mon, you have got to admit that some of the things you've said in the past have been rude. I'm not saying that we should be silent, I'm not saying that we should use false charity, as you call it. Preach the truth in love, not in offense, as if they've done something horrible to you and just need to get them back and have the last word and win the argument, all the things that seem to pretty much fit you, Socrates. If they honestly believe what they believe in the face of the truth, that homosexual acts cannot and will not be sanctioned by the Church, then there's no more you can really do to try and convince them because their hearts aren't open. You're beating a dead horse when you do that. I'm not saying you should leave them. Pray for them and if and when they finally come to you and say that they were wrong, be ready to accept them the way Christ would accept them and the way the Church would accept them. I'm sorry to have to disagree, but I don't think beating them upside the head is going to get them over here, but rather, push them in the other direction. I don't know why one would think otherwise unless they were really intent on making someone look stupid or they just wanted someone to fall to their knees and repent when they've had enough. Even if they are converted by your horsewhippings, which I can't really see happening, it wasn't you who did it anyway, it was the Spirit that moved upon their heart. Do all things in the truth and love of the spirit, not in the condemnation and the judgement of your anger for their actions, because that won't get you anywhere. It's alright to be zealous, just not inflammatory.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1030208' date='Jul 24 2006, 08:16 PM']
I agree with you to the extent that rash and vile language not be used to try and convert gay rights activists. It doesn't matter if Jesus used it. Did it convert them? Did he convert Mary Magdelene, Zaccheus, Matthew, or anyone else by being [b]rude[/b] to them.[/quote]
Wow. That's the first time I've heard someone call Jesus "rude". I would rather think of it as tough love. He knew the gravity of the situation and loved His people so much to call them on the carpet. He knew these were issues of eternal damnation or salvation.

In the beginning, this started with the idea that Jesus didn't discriminate:
"He (Jesus the Christ) will separate chaff from grain, and burn up the chaff with eternal fire and store away the grain." Luke 3:17

What's he got against chaff?! And is that grain the more nutritious "whole grain"?

[Like a Child]

[quote name='Franimus' post='1028699' date='Jul 22 2006, 03:43 AM']
It appears to me that Like A Child has issues with the authority of the Church and the infallibility of the Bible (er... the Bible is infallible, right? although our own interpretations and translations of it are fallible) which, as you respectfully noted, is a different topic for a different thread.

PS I literally fell asleep while reading parts of this thread... Perhaps it's past my bedtime.
[/quote]


It probably isn't past your bedtime. . .this thread is actually THAT boring!

And yes, good guess, I have "issues" with the authority of the church. . .insofar as I do not accept every teaching they dish out. I love the church, but I love Jesus even more. My faith is anchored in Christ's moral teachings, as written in the Gospels.