Ok, thanks for the definition. Now, this would lead to question, what does the attraction mean in practice, but you don’t have to answer to that, because from my point of view, it is enough if people understand that the act itself is the wrong thing in the Bible.
-
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!
How should religions honour the freedom of conscience of their members?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Ok, thanks for the definition. Now, this would lead to question, what does the attraction mean in practice, but you don’t have to answer to that, because from my point of view, it is enough if people understand that the act itself is the wrong thing in the Bible.
Bible encourages to love all people, not only their spouses. it seems to me that you have some different definition for love. In Biblical point of view love is not something that is only for married people, and it does not mean anything sexual. So, you are free to love whoever you meet. I think I love most people, still I don’t want to marry them and I don’t think love depends on that.
And by the way, I hate that they have taken the word gay for themselves. Originally it meant lighthearted and carefree. The theft of the word has made Dean Martin’s good song, that's amore, less good.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It becomes a problem, though, when understanding and difference of opinion becomes judging and hurt.
For example, if a christian parent realizes his child is gay, he may be thinking of a couple of things that are incongruent with facts. If a christian feels homosexuality is an action and realizes their child is gay, they correlate the child's attraction with their definition-and essentially speaking and teaching the child he is wrong because of incorrect definitions.
It is also a problem with the parent doesn't ask his child what being gay or homosexuality means to that child. They may flip to scripture and tell that child "I love you just don't do X" before the child is even old enough to do such things.
It's a problem when that child meets someone they love, want to bring that person home, and is told they cannot touch the person they love even though they see their parents touching each other in the same affection and commitment he (or she) has for his partner.
It sends mixed signals. I do wish it was a difference of opinion, but we really do need to have correct definitions and association of love and commitment should be based (ideally) on one's relationship with god not what's in between their legs.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Bible encourages to love all people, not only their spouses. it seems to me that you have some different definition for love. In Biblical point of view love is not something that is only for married people, and it does not mean anything sexual. So, you are free to love whoever you meet. I think I love most people, still I don’t want to marry them and I don’t think love depends on that.
It depends. Love the sinner and hate the sin may be love to a christian but an insult to many gay people. How do you love someone at the same time say they are sinning because of how they love (in other words, how can you-people in general-love someone you condemn to sin because of how he or she identifies him/herself what you think he or she does/sins)?
I feel love has more dynamics than love your stranger or love the sinner. For example, if you have two Christian friends-gay and straight-and that christian friend says "I will not judge you; I love you; but I don't want to support you who you love, why, and how cause it's against my morals," there's a serious problem. Does that friend actually love the other? What's the definition of his love to where one's morals changes how we see others in respect to what's right or wrong?
How can love be contradicting in that one loves a person but disagrees with the love that person gives to another human being?
I'm not sure how the bible defines love-but in respect to relationship-its pretty much associated with one's sex rather than just a person's commitment.
And by the way, I hate that they have taken the word gay for themselves. Originally it meant lighthearted and carefree. The theft of the word has made Dean Martin’s good song, that's amore, less good.
Well, I hate the way homosexual is used to demean gay people because the word is in scripture and the application of scripture definition is placed on people who may not fit the bill regardless what they call themselves.
But, I get what you're saying. But that's English for you. I mean how many translations of the bible do we have in English if the context is the same despite the language? I like how Jews see it (and I think Muslims) where they keep their original language and learn about god from the original language than translations (and words used by translators).
Maybe it would be less bloody if they used, I don't know, zawamaphily (made up word) instead of homosexuality in the bible.
Don't know.I have understood love means in the Bible that person cares without conditions. It is the same in all cases. If one loves, he cares and doesn’t do anything evil to others, as said for example in this:
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10
Now, in Biblical point of view, if “homosexual” person truly loves other, he don’t do for the other person anything that is bad/stupid/wrong/harmful. There is no different kind of loves to give.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Do you understand, though, the rest of my post that love in respect to what the bible "does" say about homosexuality isn't relate to homosexuals (those with same-sex sexual orientation)?
Do you believe christian homosexual couples can be intimate the same as opposite-sex couples if the nature of their commitments was not of lust but that of god?
The love I'm speaking of is between two people and the nature of their commitment in relation to their sexes rather than the love you're speaking of.
GardenLady
Active Member
Angels dancing on the head of the pin. "There is no salvation outside the Church." is still a position of the Catholic Church, or if not an "official" teaching, it is still taught.. "Separated brethren" are claimed to be part of the church without knowing they are. Yeah. I left.
I don’t think it can be of God, when God says in the Bible that the act is detestable. It doesn’t matter is it from the lust, if the act itself is stupid and wrong. It would be stupid and wrong, even if person claims it is of love.
Or what do you think, if I hit you with a hammer and say it was of love, does it make the hit any better?
Sorry, in that case I think you are using the word “love” incorrectly.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Question:
Why does the Catholic Church pronounce anathemas upon those who disagree with its teachings? This was done, for example, at the Council of Trent. Isn't it presumptuous of the Catholic Church to "damn to hell" someone who refuses to submit to its doctrines?
Answer:
The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual’s unique prerogative – if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean “let him be damned to hell,” but “let him be cut off.” There is a great difference...
That’s why, for example, the Council of Trent said, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (session VI, can. 9). This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses – before it’s too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy. -- Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings? [note the underlined part]
BTW, your leaving the Church is irrelevant to me as I had left it myself for over 20 years, nor do I judge others therefore.
Right. The Catholic Church's current position is more like like:
"There's not generally salvation outside the Church. We recognize that God can save who he pleases, but we think that he set us up as people's main path to salvation.
"Also, we identified a couple of specific cases where non-Catholics can be saved (baptism of desire and baptism of blood), and while we can't read minds to say if a particular person falls into one of these categories, we expect that they apply to very few people."
To Pius XII, "The conscience is the innermost and most secret nucleus of man. There he withdraws with his intellectual capacities into complete separation, alone with himself or better, alone with God, whose voice echoes in his conscience. There he decides over good or bad. There chooses between victory or defeat."
And that was unfortunate, there remain many faithful priest who are homosexuals. In the the present the Church does not except anyone with a homosexual tendency to the priesthood since homosexuals were confused with pedophiles. And until it changes its teaching concerning the purpose of marriage -to procreate- it cannot except same sex marriage.
It must be taken into consideration that the Council of Trent was primarily in defense of the Reformation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think you mean the Counter-Reformation.
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour John Paul II
My mistake, I intended 'in defense against the Reformation, with its 125 anathemas.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Marriage I understand their position, but I heavily disagree with it. Being a priest, I'm sure there are many homosexual priests who have no homosexual tendency (which is an insult in itself). I mean, personally I don't think about my sexual orientation 24/7 and I'm sure priests (and straight people) don't either given their conviction to their god. And mixing pedophiles (murderers, abusers, etc) with homosexuals floors me. The interesting thing is, we talk with a lot of people and don't know who is homosexual. How do their nature and tendency change once they reveal the sex they are attracted to?
I think we have our priorities mixed up honestly.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thanks for the clarification, and may you & yours have a Most Blessed Easter.
I agree Ratzinger's wording was unfortunate and misleading. It was at a time when the world screamed to take action.
There is a lovely little book, 'Morality and its Beyond', given to me after completing a study on Christian Morality. Just a few excerpts illustrating the possibility change, however slow (the Church measures time in centuries not decades) may be coming.
"We do God little justice when we depict him from the beginning to have been as badly misinformed on homosexuality as we have been until recently. Blinded by the thoughts of abomination and perversion, we have simply written Homosexuals out of the Kingdom, thinking them incapable of achieving the highest of Christian ideals. There is nothing at all in the requirements for a "marriage in the Lord" or a sacramental marriage, that would automatically disqualify homosexuals."