firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright.
- In 1853 (or was that 56) the so called Islamic khalifate gave full gay rights.
- In the 20th century Stalin was jailing them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Catholic church cannot bless same-sex unions
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
Alright.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
If you meet someone in public life caught doing the thing he or she preaches against
then you are right in calling out their 'hypocrisy.' So if some politician is preaching
against theft, and is caught stealing - that's no licence for YOU to go and steal.
And I would draw a line with what the Catholic Church does and what the bible says.
They are often very different.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Oh well. If they want to keep digging their own grave and nailing their coffin shut I'm all for it. It's getting harder to accept and justify the fact the Vatican is basically everything Jesus said to not be.
So if they are going to be ringing their own death knell, I may offer to lend them an amplifier.
So your reviling, while condemned by God, doesn't give anyone else license to be gay. Got it.
Sure. My point is that even if we think that the Catholic Church is travelling at a snail's pace on the issue of respect for LGBTQ people, it's still many times faster than their pace on other issues (e.g. slavery).
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Re this LGBTQ.
We are seeing the wholesale decriminalization of marijuana use. And following
hard on its heals the decriminalization of other drugs too.
Should the RCC now adjust its thinking on drugs too?
And the issue of divorce - the RCC HAS softened its stance, but should it?
What about stealing if you are poor or your victim is wealthy?
And should we be able, as Peter Singer put it, be allowed to terminate the
life of any child with some incurable condition?
Glaurung
Denizen of Niflheim
No it is not. You may bless and pray for an individual, even an individual in a same sex relationship. But you cannot bless the same sex relationship itself as such relationships are inherently sinful. Sex may only occur in marriage and marriage is - in the clear teachings of our lord - between one man and one woman until death.
Matthew 19:4-6 NIV
“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 flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“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 flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
What was true yesterday remains true today.
The Cross is heavy and the path narrow, uphill and littered with sharp stones. We all must struggle against our disordered passions which tempt us to turn from the laws of God. No matter the species of concupiscence one happens to suffer. The reward awaits those who trust in God and walk the hard path. Not for those who gratify their carnal desires, which modern people believe to be the human good.
I saw two roads. One was broad, covered with sand and flowers, full of joy, music and all sorts of pleasures. People walked along it, dancing and enjoying themselves. They reached the end without realizing it. And at the end of the road there was a horrible precipice; that is, the abyss of hell. The souls fell blindly into it. As they walked, so they fell. And their number was so great that it was impossible to count them. And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of this path there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings” (Diary 153). Saint Faustina
On the contrary I expect the opposite. I expect to find myself in an increasingly hostile society which despises the Gospel. Because I see a society which has been given over to its lusts.
Romans 1:24-25 NIV
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen
Abstaining from sexual activity is called continence. I claim commitment to the truth as I believe it to be. And while I accept the possibility that Christianity as the exclusive truth could be wrong, I am nonetheless convinced of the following:
- God exists.
- The soul exists.
- The moral law exists. And it is not up for compromise.
- The moral law is more or less as laid out in the New Testament.
- The soul will be judged according to his or her deeds in life.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Abstinence is a better term to use.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
OK.... So you are a 'By Deeds alone' Christian, which is unusual amongst Christians, imo. The 'By Faith Alone' Christians do seem more numerous.
The Romans ideas about extreme punishment could control large numbers of people, I mean, a three day lingering death on a cross, the convict actually keeping themselves alive to the last minute of unbelievable torture, that sure was a bit of a deterrent to any kind of heavy misbehaviour.
But the Christians really designed the ultimate deterrent to any naughtiness!
You cannot hide a single naughtiness, thousands of which will be pumped in to you as 'moral laws', and if you do anything bad you won't have a three day death-of-torture but an everlasting continuous existence in unbelievable pain and suffering.
Well, it's worked quite well up until now. But we need to encourage the World to dump this stuff..... really.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The Bible says multiple times that if a man lies with another man they are to both be executed. Their blood is on their hands. This is OT and NT. Jesus said nothing of genitals, but he made it very clear he did not change a single word of the Law.
These "affirming churches" are doing what Jesus said to not do. Which is changing and lessening the Word. They say this-and-that no longer applies. It doesn't mean that. Jesus speaks of warnings to those who would do such a thing.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
20th and 21st century: Several Muslim majority countries continue to criminalize homosexuality, some following through with that Biblical command to kill them.
Glaurung
Denizen of Niflheim
Not by deeds alone for it is impossible to please God without faith. But faith by itself is meaningless if you continue in habitual sin or neglect to do good.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
I remember reading an article about western Buddhists getting a shock as they enter Sri Lankan temples, which often sport murals depicting the suffering of those condemned to rebirth in Hell. Likewise in Thailand, there are parks filled with sculptures created by Buddhist monks which depict sinners being tortured by demons in the Hell realm, which one will be reborn into for various sins. You can also find Hindu art that depicts much the same.
The doctrine that those who transgress the moral law (or the dharma if you prefer) are liable for divine or cosmic retribution is not a Christian invention. It is shared by most major religious traditions. And I do not think this is an accident.
The Christian message is that faith in Christ combined with a sincere effort to follow his commandments is an infallible path of escape from that retribution we all deserve. We're not expected to live morally flawless lives. We're expected to try our hardest. And in response to our faith, God will make up the difference with grace.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well you missed FAITH completely off your 'top 5' list.!!
Don't try and blame somebody else!
Christianity is full of threat and demand and blackmail.
Well on that basis most Christians are going to have a very bad time in death.
They insist upon cherry-picked laws to suit their bigotries and ignore the ones that they would like to break.
For example:-
Which of these two laws is the most important?
Leviticus {11:12} Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.
Leviticus {18:22} Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Answer: Back then, breaking either law could lead to sickness and resulting weakness in the people. Back then both were abominable! Not just the second one! If everybody was strong and healthy then Israel would be invincible. Christians just became hyper-bigoted about one or two such laws.
Today you can ignore both of those laws........ we have learned more about medicine.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ignorant humans are quite capable of keeping communities together.
In fact, it likely will even be easier.
I know why it was put there. Fear, ignorance and superstition.
How so?
Also, isn't the right to free speech quite a recent development?
It certainly didn't exist in the "good" ol' theocratic days that you apparantly think were so much better.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Here are some things that were true "yesterday":
- slavery is okay
- black people aren't real people
- homosexuals should be killed
- adulterers should be stoned to death
- witches must die
- desease is the result of demonic posession and requires exorcism
- bloodletting is a proper medical practice
- ....
Need I go on?
Altfish
Veteran Member
That is two separate peoples;
Altfish
Veteran Member
Glaurung
Denizen of Niflheim
You misunderstood the post. Those five points are the truths of which I am convinced irrespective of whether or not Christianity itself is true.
Blame whom? I think those religions are correct insofar as they teach that transgressions of the moral law are punished after our time here on Earth.
Yes, Christianity is a demand. The moral law is not optional. And indeed, the Gospel does threaten those who would be obstinate in scorning God.
Although it is not a doctrine of the Catholic faith, it has been the consistent opinion throughout the Church's history that the majority of people will be damned. Christians included. The words of Jesus in regards to salvation being a narrow road also imply it. On the other hand, we have the words of mystics and visionaries who have reportedly spoken with God directly. I believe it was Saint Faustina who said something along the lines of that no one who genuinely wants salvation will fail to achieve it. We condemn ourselves to Hell because we love the transient over the eternal.
I take it you believe that those who do not accept sodomy as a moral good are bigots. So be it. What you consider bigotry is not a concern of mine.
And with that you confirm what I already suspected. You don't understand the Christian tradition.
Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature.[2] Ceremonial precepts (the "ceremonial law", dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness) and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21[3]) came into existence only with the Law of Moses[4] and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ".[5] Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind,[6] and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.[7]
Christian views on the Old Covenant
Christian views on the Old Covenant
The first law is dietary and falls under the ceremonial in regards to ritual cleanliness. It does not apply to Christians as we are not under Mosaic Law. The second you list is moral. It applies for all time and for all people as it is a precept of the natural law.
Sodomy still leads to sickness. I have read one brutal testimony of one unfortunate gay man who found Christ and gave up his sins, yet must live with the permanent problem of damaged sphincters condemning him to a life of pain when going to the toilet. Not to forget the mental scars he has to carry, having watched many of his friends and comrades die from AIDS. And it isn't just gay men. Sexual immorality in general usually comes back to haunt people in the long run.
And what is going to happen if and when certain STDs such as gonorrhea become more resistant to antibiotics? When our current medicines cease to work? Will you then preach restraint?
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Another way to look at this, is that things that endure don't follow generational fads that do not last. They need to lead and not follow. The decline of the Church in America, for example, began when they tried to appease liberalism. Dumbing down the Church into the light of Progressive and secular fads did not work, after a 60 year trial period. Once the dumb down started attendance steadily declined. This continued path only makes sense for those who wish it not to endure. Learn from your mistakes.
If you recall marriage was originally considered a union between a man and woman. The Progressive were the one who tried force a change in thousands of years of traditions. They tried to hijack marriage at the secular level, with lawyers and not just common sense dialog. The high jackers are now surrounded by the law enforcement of enduring traditions. If you let the hijacker get away with this, then there will be more hijackings, until nobody will want to fly the friendly skies.
If the Church wants to grow it needs to look backward to a healthier system restore point, so it can start down a proven path to the future. Same sex marriage cannot create children. Marriage was originally defined by the church and most religions as the union of male and female. This made the multiplier effect of children possible; be fruitful and multiply, so the flock can multiply, even though there will be attrition due to some secular high jacking.
The Church is still strong in second and third world countries where the old ways are practiced; humble surrounds. It is on decline, as was pointed out, where secular forces highjack it to a larger degree. Common sense now has to apply.
Why don't same sex people form their own union, their own church, and then bless each other? See if this can endure, while fighting off hijackers. Why act like a virus needing to alter a host to your own needs? The corona virus shows what happens when cells are invaded by virus, who cannot live on the own. I am not value judging behavior, but only pointing how virus work and how cells work. Be a healthy cell and be your own entity. The path of the virus will make people defensive.
"I came to chastity because I loved my partner so much. I’m a veteran of a 17-year-long committed relationship with another man. It’s a deep friendship, and it has been since almost the moment we met. It was sexually active for the first seven years, and then—after I became a Christian, after I began reflecting on what Scripture and tradition had taught for 2,000 years—I went to my partner and said, “I love you. Can we please stop having sex?”
What is genuine love? The supposition on the left is that if I can’t have sex, my life must be loveless, lonely, and cold. And that’s just not true. What I’ve come to understand is that erotic love is only one aspect of the love human beings experience, that we don’t need to have sex to live a life that is joyful and committed and filled with friends and family. The question, then, is whether having sex is worth risking the kingdom of heaven."
Quoted from 'Catholic and Gay'
Catholic and gay - BCM - Summer 2003
That's a rather long-winded way to deflect from your hypocrisy.