The Old Testament laws clearly show which actions were abominable, and your list of 'Moral Laws' clearly ignores many of them
Because the Mosaic Law and the moral law
are not the same thing. The Mosaic Law was given to a specific group for a specific time. That time - according to Christians - has come and gone. On the other hand, the Biblical prohibition against same sex acts is a moral prohibition. Not just Mosaic. And we know this because the prohibition against it is specifically affirmed in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
So there's two contradicting principles, straight off. A Consistent Opinion that the majority will be damned whilst St Faustina tells you that any who wish salvation shall have it.
It is not a contradiction. Anyone who sincerely wishes salvation will achieve it. But to wish salvation is to be willing to do all that is necessary to accomplish that end.
Secondly, the idea that the majority of people will wind up in Hell is as I said not a doctrine of faith. It is an opinion. If an eminently justifiable one.
Rubbish...... it is just a fact that people can be in love with others of their own gender. There's no 'moral' good or bad about it.
One of the major themes in Christian thought is that our passions incline us towards sin. It is seen as a sad fact of the human condition. And you're right in that this inclination (concupiscence) (and homosexuality is but one manifestation of concupiscence) is not in and of itself a sin. We sin, when we consent to that inclination by illicit thoughts or acts. Our responsibly as rational creatures with free wills is to resist the pull of our concupiscent desires and instead pursue virtue. As the Buddhists say. Desire is suffering. Kill desire.
You didn't need to listen to Aquinas, you had Jesus who explained quite clearly which laws to follow or not.
Well no actually. Protestant presuppositions won't get you far with me. The Bible is neither all-exhaustive or self-evident. And in fact Jesus gave us no texts whatsoever. He gave us a Church with a teaching authority. So in terms of how I am to understand Scripture, I look to the tradition and the great thinkers of the Church's history. If I were to read Scripture by the power of my own lights I would certainly fall into error.
There was no 'moral' law, but there were commandments, sacrificial rules and ceremonial rules.
Nonsense. Many of the commandments are clearly moral in content. The Christian contention is that the those commandments which hold moral content (such as the prohibition against murder) still apply.
Not because they are Mosaic. But because those commandments fall under the moral law. Or in old terms,
the natural law, which existed before the Mosaic covenant.
The commandments were all about building a strong, powerful, large and successful nation of people. Jesus dismissed the sacrificial/ceremonial stuff because it just kept a fat, greedy, hypocritical, corrupt priesthood.
That may be your view, but I reject it. The commandments were a condition of the covenant which God made with the Israelites. And while God did promise the Israelites worldly strength as a nation, the covenant's main purpose was the foreshadowing of Christ. That the messiah was to take birth among them necessitated their separation from the surrounding cultures. Also, the Pharisees were not all priests. They were the forerunners of the Rabbis, which isn't a priesthood. And the sacrificial system ceased to exist with the destruction of the second temple by the Romans. Which in the Christian view has been superseded by the new New Covenant in Christ. Which itself is a sacramental system with a priesthood.
Total bunkum. The dietary laws were ALL required back then to avoid sickness and death. Sin led to sickness, not evil.
No. The dietary laws were required as a condition of the the Mosaic covenant. Your assertion that it was
really about making a strong, healthy nation is just that... An assertion.
No it does not. It is a human right which should be acknowledged.
It speaks volumes that you think anal sex is a human right. But wouldn't that logically entail that anyone who denies me sex violates my human rights?
Look. It's one thing to say that consenting adults should not be criminalized for what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And I agree with you. If you want to have sex with another man fine, do it. It is your conscience. But to say that everything permissible is a 'human right' frankly trivializes the very concept of human rights.
It can lead to sickness where couples are not closed, just as it can with hetero-couples.
Continually sticking things up your butt runs certain risks regardless of monogamy. If you want to take those risks fine.
Today we do have much better understanding about safety, security and medicine and don't need to have masses of babies to strengthen our tribes, so some adjustment would be sensible.
Actually, many nations have serious looming problems in regards to a declining population. That is rapidly ageing mind you.
But some Christians are just stuck in the millennia old framework, whilst other Christians accept gay love, recognise gay partnerships, ordain gay priests and even marry gays. Those are the Churches that should grow, imo.
Those are the churches collapsing the fastest.
My hope is not to please you. It is not to spare people's feelings. It is not to be progressive and fall in line with the social orthodoxy of the moment. My hope, ultimately, is to face God with a clean conscience. To be ready the day I'm summoned from this world.
