NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my pro-gay bible arguement, and I won't even get into the debunking of the bible itself:
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Have you ever lied? Most of us have, and if so, it is wrong and you are not allowed into the kingdom of heaven, as indicated by Romans 3:7 and 3:8, Colossians 3:9, and Revelations 22:14 and 22:15. Lying is clearly a sin.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know no murderer hath eternal life abiding within him
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
Your god does not wish for you to judge or hate another, especially those of you who are yourselves sinners. Allow your god to be the final judge, and accept that in the meanwhile, homosexuals do exist and are just as much human as you are.

My view on it is, since it doesn't hurt anyone, and makes people happy I don't view it as wrong.

My view on it is, since it doesn't hurt anyone, and makes people happy I don't view it as wrong.
*Claps.*

My view on it is, since it doesn't hurt anyone, and makes people happy I don't view it as wrong.

I agree, I and I dont understand why go would create homosexuals if he thought they were wrong.

~snip~

What was the point of this? The god squad already know all this junk, for gods sake, everyone knows the "judge not lest ye be judged" line, and the god squad still think homosexual actions are sins. How is telling them stuff they already know going to do squat?

*Claps.*

Well to me it seems like common sense. If something makes you happy/better person/enjoy life more, and doesn't hurt anyone then more power to you.

What was the point of this? The god squad already know all this junk, for gods sake, everyone knows the "judge not lest ye be judged" line, and the god squad still think homosexual actions are sins. How is telling them stuff they already know going to do squat?
I'm simply showing them a pro-gay, bible-sanctioned view. They can choose to ignore it, and they probably will. We shall see.

Well to me it seems like common sense. If something makes you happy/better person/enjoy life more, and doesn't hurt anyone then more power to you.
I totally agree.

I'm simply showing them a pro-gay, bible-sanctioned view. They can choose to ignore it, and they probably will. We shall see.

I'm no bible knower, but I do know that there's is a passage that explicitly states that homosexual actions are sinful. All your original post proves is that it's wrong for one man to hate gays or judge them. Unless the judgers repent.

I think I've said this one on another post about homosexuality (wow we really like to beat this one to death here don't we?), I do not see the sense in G-d giving us free will and then condemning us to eternal torment for making the "wrong" choice...and that's assuming that homosexuality is in fact a choice. It's not. Which leads us back to...if you believe that G-d creates everyone, why would G-d create homosexuals just to have them burn for HIS decision later? Not that I believe that there's a hell in the first place...

I applaud you on your expert decimation of the Bible, and of Catholic Dogma.

Hmmmm. Could some check Lectivus I think there is an anti gay Biblical passage in there but I'm not sure.

I'm no bible knower, but I do know that there's is a passage that explicitly states that homosexual actions are sinful. All your original post proves is that it's wrong for one man to hate gays or judge them. Unless the judgers repent.
Yes, homosexuality, according to the most common interpretation of the bible, is a sin, but so are many, many, other things, including, say, lying. If lying is a sin, than I doubt there is a single person on the face of the planet who has not sinned. Who is to say what is a "bigger" sin than anything else? The belief that homosexuality is wrong and therefore homosexuals are "evil" or "deviant" in some way stems from the human nature to wish to condemn all those who are different is some way. Religious support of such a belief only strengthens one's determination and pride in it. They then feel it is justified. Is it, really? I, personally, do not believe it is.

I applaud you on your expert decimation of the Bible, and of Catholic Dogma.
Thank you.

Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultry, lying, cheating, etc. In the end there is only one answer to sin, regardless of the sin, and that is the saving blood of Christ. Good loves and does forgive homosexuals, just like liar's, cheats, adulters, etc...but gays, like anyone else, must first see their actions as sinful and want to repent and change. That seems to be the real issue. Lack of acceptance of the sin and the desire to be redeemed and saved.

Hmmmm. Could some check Lectivus I think there is an anti gay Biblical passage in there but I'm not sure.

I believe it's something like "Thou shalt not lie with a man as you do with a woman, for it is an abomination", give or take a few filler words. However what I hear is that it's specifically in the context of male prostitutes in a temple of some sort, which combined with the clause "as with a woman" suggests that were a man to "lay" only with a man (as in marriage) there would be no problem. Also makes no mention of woman/woman conduct.

Of course there's the whole "origin of marriage with Adam and Eve" argument, but you know, if the purpose of marriage is to control our sexual urges by giving us one partner (not that I believe it is, but that's the Biblical argument), then wouldn't it be better to let those of us with different sexual urges have that same structure?

I believe it's something like "Thou shalt not lie with a man as you do with a woman, for it is an abomination", give or take a few filler words. However what I hear is that it's specifically in the context of male prostitutes in a temple of some sort, which combined with the clause "as with a woman" suggests that were a man to "lay" only with a man (as in marriage) there would be no problem. Also makes no mention of woman/woman conduct.

Of course there's the whole "origin of marriage with Adam and Eve" argument, but you know, if the purpose of marriage is to control our sexual urges by giving us one partner (not that I believe it is, but that's the Biblical argument), then wouldn't it be better to let those of us with different sexual urges have that same structure?
The hardest anti-gay passages in the bible to debate are Romans 1:26 and 1:27, the only ones that clearly condemn lesbians as well as gay men.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
However, it's important to note that this was not directly from Jesus himself, but rather from Paul. Paul is the only one who definitely has a problem with homosexuality in the NT.

Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm) is a site I have found quite interesting, which includes passages in the bible on homosexuality and both the liberal and conservative views on them.

The Bible clearly states that man has no right to pass judgement, so those condemning homosexuals to eternal damnation are committing a sin themselves, and for this reason, must repent as well. And yes, in response to some of the other posts in this thread, in many translations there is an explicit passage condemning homosexuality.

And as for the idea of homosexuality being a choice -- no, it's not a person's choice to have homosexual feelings, but it is his or her decision to decide to act on them and engage in such activity, the same being with those inclined to steal, murder, etc. In the end, however, homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other (albeit not accepting the word of Jesus) -- a sin is a sin, and they all exist on the same level. (This is all derived from research of fundamentalist Christian beliefs)

Hmmmm. Could some check Lectivus I think there is an anti gay Biblical passage in there but I'm not sure.
Leviticus doesn't count because Christians aren't Levite priests.

I think...it's been a long time since my theology course.

The Bible clearly states that man has no right to pass judgement, so those condemning homosexuals to eternal damnation are committing a sin themselves, and for this reason, must repent as well. Yes, that's correct… however, there's a big difference between saying an action is wrong and completely condemning those who act that way. I think theft is wrong, but I don't pour hellfire on thieves.

God doesn't hate "fags" (in reference to the "God Hates Fags" shite). I believe that God is merely saddened by their actions. Big difference.

Yes, that's correct… however, there's a big difference between saying an action is wrong and completely condemning those who act that way. I think theft is wrong, but I don't pour hellfire on thieves.

God doesn't hate "fags" (in reference to the "God Hates Fags" shite). I believe that God is merely saddened by their actions. Big difference.
And, of course, you have a right to think that. What is your position on gay marriage?

First off,... The question of "Is homosexuality a sin" is not a complete question. The complete question is "Is homosexuality a sin for me?"

Romans 14:22-23

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.



Your relationship between G-d and you is strictly between G-d and you. if you have faith that something is ok with G-d, then so it shall be if you believe it in your heart. But even if something is ok with god and you feel it is a sin and do it anyways, you have sinned.

I am gay and between G-d and me thats ok. I dont care who else may consider it a sin and they can throw any passage at me they want. I feel in my heart that I am doing the right thing.

Wait a minute....wait a minute...

Romans 3:23- 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

There we go. Everyone has sinned. Everyone. I don't know anyone who's condemned homosexuals to hell. Jesus forgives, Jesus saves.

Besides, none of it matters when you consider God's love for us. Nothing else matters.

sin? no...its a way to live...its who they are. its how they are born. God doesn't make junk.

On the issue of homosexuality:


Leviticus 20:13 13If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.


Romans 1:18-32 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.




1 Corinthians 6:7-11 7Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.




On the issue of judging:


Leviticus 19:17 17"You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.



Proverbs 13:18 18Poverty and shame will come to him who disdains correction, but he who regards a rebuke will be honored.



Proverbs 24:25 25But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.


Proverbs 27:5 5Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.


Luke 17:3 3Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you,[a] rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.


1 Timothy 5:20 20Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.



2 Timothy 4:2 2Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.



Titus 1:13 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,


Titus 2:15 15Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.


Revelation 3:19 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

I agree, I and I dont understand why go would create homosexuals if he thought they were wrong.

Why would he create murderers if he thought they were wrong?

Nice job taking the Bible out of context.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a sin, and none of your quotes contradict that. Some of them condemn judgement and hate, and some of them have nothing even remotely to do with the issue, but none of them contradict the fact that homosexuality is a sin.

You must love the sinner but hate the sin.


If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Why do you live by an old book scripted by other people? Plus... why do you say God as G-d?

Why do you live by an old book scripted by other people? Plus... why do you say God as G-d?

I don't know, why do you follow instructions for using software, or blueprints for construction? Hell, just put the thing together however the fuck you want. Scripture along with the Church guides us to the ultimate goal, eternal life with God in heaven.

He's an orthodox Jew, and considers himself unworthy to call on God by name, despite the fact God is simply the English interpretation of the proper Hebrew name Jews have for him. Very humble.

I believe it's something like "Thou shalt not lie with a man as you do with a woman, for it is an abomination", give or take a few filler words. However what I hear is that it's specifically in the context of male prostitutes in a temple of some sort, which combined with the clause "as with a woman" suggests that were a man to "lay" only with a man (as in marriage) there would be no problem. Also makes no mention of woman/woman conduct.

Of course there's the whole "origin of marriage with Adam and Eve" argument, but you know, if the purpose of marriage is to control our sexual urges by giving us one partner (not that I believe it is, but that's the Biblical argument), then wouldn't it be better to let those of us with different sexual urges have that same structure?

actually when the bible uses the term lay it means in the sexual conotation.

sin? no...its a way to live...its who they are. its how they are born. God doesn't make junk.



Matthew 16:24 24Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.


1 Corinthians 10:13 13No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.




We are all born with differing intrinsic urgings to sin and pleasure ourselves. For some, it is a love of excess consumption. For some, it is a love of alcohol. For some it is homosexual attractions. We are all tempted, yet there are no temptations that we cannot resist.


Also:


Matthew 5:29 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.



Matthew 19:12 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

Nice job taking the Bible out of context.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a sin, and none of your quotes contradict that. Some of them condemn judgement and hate, and some of them have nothing even remotely to do with the issue, but none of them contradict the fact that homosexuality is a sin.

You must love the sinner but hate the sin.

I find it interesting, though, that certain "sins" are considered worthy of excoriation, while others are quite easily overlooked.

It seems more to do with political bent, and the advantage to be gained thereof, than faith...

Matthew 19:12 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

This refers to those like Paul who became priests and abstained from sexual activity in general. It is really on a higher level than those who abstain from sex because to have sex the way they wanted to would be sinful. These are people who don't partake in sex despite the fact it would be perfectly right for them to.

This refers to those like Paul who became priests and abstained from sexual activity in general. It is really on a higher level than those who abstain from sex because to have sex the way they wanted to would be sinful. These are people who don't partake in sex despite the fact it would be perfectly right for them to.



But this was prior to the ordination of priests and the Catholic dogma of clerical abstinence (I don't remember the official name of the dogma, so I put it in my terms). Anyway, I shouldn't be spending my birthday on internet forums, so I'll be leaving for the night :D

This refers to those like Paul who became priests and abstained from sexual activity in general. It is really on a higher level than those who abstain from sex because to have sex the way they wanted to would be sinful. These are people who don't partake in sex despite the fact it would be perfectly right for them to.

Oh, come off it! So being a self-hating gay like Saul is somehow holy?

What did Jesus have to say about those who made a pretense of their piety?

The precept of the Church that forced Priests to be celebate was imposed later, yes. But priests were always encouraged to abstain from sex, since it is hard to remove the legitimite pleasure from the vice.

Oh, come off it! So being a self-hating gay like Saul is somehow holy?

What did Jesus have to say about those who made a pretense of their piety?

It's claimed that Paul was generally unfriendly to women, but that doesn't mean he's a self-loathing gay.

I don't think it's being pretensious, it's not like priests go around bragging about how much holier they are. The real priests anyway. It's a very humble life of service, and I think you're arrogant and obnoxious.

http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

I've posted this link on another thread (twice), but it's worth posting again. Check it out if you think the Bible condemns homosexuality. Those translations and interpretations are demonstrably false.

These passages* are among the most frequently used by religious conservatives as arguments against homosexuals:

1. Leviticus 18:22-23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."

2. Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

Bear in mind, however, that Leviticus also promotes slavery regular animal sacrifice and public burnings while considering disobedience to parents, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, eating seafood, wearing clothes of different fabrics (yes, cotton/polyester blends included), wearing jewelry, long hair and other “sins” to be punishable by death.

So, those who most ardently turn to Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality is a sin are also commanded to kill anyone who commits any of the listed offenses.

Either that, or they practice very selective reading.

*There are many different translations of Leviticus (and the bible, for that matter); most religious conservatives tend to use this phrasing or a similar phrasing.

It's claimed that Paul was generally unfriendly to women, but that doesn't mean he's a self-loathing gay.

I don't think it's being pretensious, it's not like priests go around bragging about how much holier they are. The real priests anyway. It's a very humble life of service, and I think you're arrogant and obnoxious.

But Saul did make a show of his piety, at least from what I've read of his Epistles. (Of course, at the time, he was in a bit of a religious war with Simon Peter, so it's somewhat understandable.)

And you're welcome to think what you wish of me. If you give it some reasonable context, I might even pay it some heed.

So, those who most ardently turn to Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality is a sin are also commanded to kill anyone who commits any of the listed offenses.

Either that, or they practice very selective reading.


We don't stone them anymore because Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and preached forgiveness instead of retribution. There are also some examples from the New Testament previously enumerated in this thread.

*There are many different translations of Leviticus (and the bible, for that matter); most religious conservatives tend to use this phrasing or a similar phrasing.
These translations are, in fact, incorrect. The Bible was edited in by monks way back in the early Church days to make certain old Testament passages more friendly to Christian interpretations. Much of the original meaning was lost in the translation. Additionally, many modern editions don't retranslate (some of them even "simplify" (read as worsen) mistranslated copies), allowing certain mistakes to continue and perpetuate themselves.

The whole issue really hinges on wheter you believe in god or not. If you dont then no it isnt a "sin". If you do then it is if you follow what the bibles says. What I dislike is when people decide that other people's beliefs arent as valid as their own and decide to force the so called "right" way on people. You can believe whatever the hell you want. Just dont go shoving it down other people's throats.

The whole issue really hinges on wheter you believe in god or not.

Not merely "God," but one very specific conception of what God might be.

First off, I would like to thank Deleuze for the link and Everyknowledge for starting this thread.

To Paternia, I would like to clarify that I am by no means trying to make an attack on Christians or Christianity. However, I do think that the people who site Leviticus without considering other text, other translations/mistranslations of the bible, or other provisions within Leviticus are committing a great disservice and, in many cases, notable hypocrisy.

http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

I've posted this link on another thread (twice), but it's worth posting again. Check it out if you think the Bible condemns homosexuality. Those translations and interpretations are demonstrably false.

There's a clear conflict of interests here. Of course those who practice the sin will try to make it okay.

For example:

But what of Paul's statement at Romans 1 where "females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust towards one another"? The answer lies in Paul's words in verses 22 & 23: "Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." Obviously, Paul's reference here is to idolatry. As mentioned above in examining the Hebrew scriptures, many pagan idol-worshipping religions of Paul's day taught that by granting sexual favors to the high priest, the one giving the favor would be rewarded with fertility of crops and offspring. It then becomes clear that Paul's reference was not to same-sex, loving relationships, but his condemnations focused on heterosexuals who, going against their own sexual nature, granted sexual favors to the leaders of pagan religions in expectation of reward by the pagan gods.

Of course it wasn't talking about homosexuals, because we're homosexuals, and we know that even though we don't follow the Bible, we sure as hell can interpret it for those who do.

This is why the Catholic Church never accepted personal interpretation of scripture. :rolleyes:

My opinion on the story Sodom and Gomorrah is that the people of that city were going to 'know' them, or engage in intercourse. But I think the lesson was that they were not friendly towards the guests, in a land where basically the ONLY rule to society was hospitality in the middle of the desert. For that reason (giving up daughters) was Lot saved.

Now, later that journey, Lot participated in incest, but... well I mean if it's in the Bible.. :fluffle:

my view is simply that procreation is impossible between two people of the same sex. thus, it is against nature.

Of course those who practice the sin will try to make it okay.

Sins such as judgmentalism, or hypocrisy, for example?

Sins such as judgmentalism, or hypocrisy, for example?

Judgement isn't a sin.

I haven't been hypocritical, at least not in this thread.

Now I'm sure I'm going to catch a lot of crap for this, but let's think way back for a minute here... Who wrote the bible? Nobody knows... What we do know was that it was written by a bunch of political people trying to push their agenda (sound's a lot like familiar use of the bible today...)

We also know that the original bible translations have been long forgotten, and who know's WHAT they may have originally ment to say about GLBT people as a whole...

Let's just keep in mind that as we try to use the bible as a tool to furthur our arguments about right and wrong (which I know isn't what the thread was about in the first place) that the bible isn't exactly an objective, creditble source, and that it was written on memory long after the J-man died for us...

Anyways please go back to your discussion, It's so far intelligent and intresting, unlike many shout matches about GLBT rights and wrongs..

Peace and Love.

Judgement isn't a sin.

I haven't been hypocritical, at least not in this thread.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Though, what makes you think that I was specifically referring to your sins? Perhaps it was merely a general statement concerning the state of modern Christianity.

There's just one problem with the first post in this thread: ALL the "references" are from the New Testament, the markedly more loving and tolerating part of the Bible. There are conveniently NO references from Old Testament scripture, which was more concerned with law and judgement than the New Testament.

The only conclusion one can draw from the Bible is that NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE BIBLE!

It is a collection of stories, laws, and parables recorded by dozens of scribes over hundreds of years; it is nearly impossible to draw a single, unified statement on an issue as narrow as homosexuality from such a complex book. Quit trying. Find some other way to support or oppose homosexuality, or anything for that matter.

There's just one problem with the first post in this thread: ALL the "references" are from the New Testament, the markedly more loving and tolerating part of the Bible. There are conveniently NO references from Old Testament scripture, which was more concerned with law and judgement than the New Testament.

The only conclusion one can draw from the Bible is that NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE BIBLE!

It is a collection of stories, laws, and parables recorded by dozens of scribes over hundreds of years; it is nearly impossible to draw a single, unified statement on an issue as narrow as homosexuality from such a complex book. Quit trying. Find some other way to support or oppose homosexuality, or anything for that matter.

Thank you!!!!

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Though, what makes you think that I was specifically referring to your sins? Perhaps it was merely a general statement concerning the state of modern Christianity.

That quote taken in context condemns hypocrisy, not judgement in general.

[QUOTE=Nysenuf]Who wrote the bible?

We also know that the original bible translations have been long forgotten, and who know's WHAT they may have originally ment to say about GLBT people as a whole...

that it was written on memory long after the J-man died for us...

The apostals wrote the bible.

and actually we do have the original translations, what else would you call the dead sea scrolls?

And the bible was written during Jesus' time how else could we have gotten his words?

Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultry, lying, cheating, etc. In the end there is only one answer to sin, regardless of the sin, and that is the saving blood of Christ. Good loves and does forgive homosexuals, just like liar's, cheats, adulters, etc...but gays, like anyone else, must first see their actions as sinful and want to repent and change. That seems to be the real issue. Lack of acceptance of the sin and the desire to be redeemed and saved.
For me, thats completely missing the point. I think the point is that should homosexuals need to repent for something they feel justified in doing. You can say that they need to seek forgiveness from G-d for being homosexuals, but they are probably just going to do it again. BECAUSE THEY FEEL JUSTIFIED. So I think we should just let them work it out for themselves. Oh, one more thing. Not everyone is Christian, so why are we assuming that everyone should suffer under anti-gay laws which limit their civilk rights on the basis that the Bible determines our laws. Anyone heard of the separation of church and state?

That quote taken in context condemns hypocrisy, not judgement in general.

It's been great fun antagonizing you, but I must get some sleep. Good night.

There's just one problem with the first post in this thread: ALL the "references" are from the New Testament, the markedly more loving and tolerating part of the Bible. There are conveniently NO references from Old Testament scripture, which was more concerned with law and judgement than the New Testament.

The only conclusion one can draw from the Bible is that NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE BIBLE!

It is a collection of stories, laws, and parables recorded by dozens of scribes over hundreds of years; it is nearly impossible to draw a single, unified statement on an issue as narrow as homosexuality from such a complex book. Quit trying. Find some other way to support or oppose homosexuality, or anything for that matter.

Here's where Christian and secular thought take a sharp turn and debate can no longer be fruitful.

Christians believe that the Bible, especially in it's original form, is the inspired word of God, and it isn't merely cobbled together by religious scholars, but revealed to them from God, and they merely recorded it.

Here's where Christian and secular thought take a sharp turn and debate can no longer be fruitful.

Christians believe that the Bible, especially in it's original form, is the inspired word of God, and it isn't merely cobbled together by religious scholars, but revealed to them from God, and they merely recorded it.

Not all Christians... just the Fundamentalist types.

For me, thats completely missing the point. I think the point is that should homosexuals need to repent for something they feel justified in doing. You can say that they need to seek forgiveness from G-d for being homosexuals, but they are probably just going to do it again. BECAUSE THEY FEEL JUSTIFIED. So I think we should just let them work it out for themselves. Oh, one more thing. Not everyone is Christian, so why are we assuming that everyone should suffer under anti-gay laws which limit their civilk rights on the basis that the Bible determines our laws. Anyone heard of the separation of church and state?

This isn't about anti-gay laws or seperation of Church and State. It's simply a debate whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

The essence of this thread is people who don't believe in the Bible interpreting it for those who do, which is rather condescending.

Even if they feel justified, it doesn't change the fact it is a sin. Choosing to offend God is a sin, even if they think it's right, but still know it's an affront to God. Having access to the knowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and disregarding it because they don't believe it, doesn't excuse them from their sin.

My view on it is, since it doesn't hurt anyone, and makes people happy I don't view it as wrong.

*laughs histerically*

[QUOTE=Freudotopia] it is nearly impossible to draw a single, unified statement on an issue as narrow as homosexuality from such a complex book. Quit trying. Find some other way to support or oppose homosexuality, or anything for that matter.

We can draw a single statement from the Bible. Such as Don't lie, or covet. And on this topic

(Speaking to men)
Leviticus 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Yeah pretty much I'm a fool trying to include myself in a debate FAR above my head, I'm just gonna fall out and observer because as welcome as I'm sure my opinions are, I can tell they are just getting in the way, I'm no expert on these issues here, so I'll just watch and become one ^_^.

Anyways you guys, Peace and Love..

Not all Christians... just the Fundamentalist types.

The majority do. Last I checked: Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Coptics, and Orthdox all believe in divine inspiration of Scripture. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's one of the fundamental aspects of being considered Christian by other Christians, so the only ones who don't are relatively new fringe elements like Mormons.

[QUOTE=Freudotopia] it is nearly impossible to draw a single, unified statement on an issue as narrow as homosexuality from such a complex book. Quit trying. Find some other way to support or oppose homosexuality, or anything for that matter.

We can draw a single statement from the Bible. Such as Don't lie, or covet. And on this topic

(Speaking to men)
Leviticus 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

See what I mean? A quote from Leviticus, which is one of the Torah books of law, illustrates my point that every reference against homosexuality can be matched by one in support of it. People should follow my advice and stop trying to use the Bible as justification for their beliefs. Stand up for yourselves, cowards. Form your own opinions. Some of you do, which is good. Some of you need some work.

Okay. So this is a debate that can and will go on and on. :headbang:

I will add my 2 cents and be quiet for a little while and see if anyone reads and understands or believes what is written here.

First of all, if you are to take a good look at the bible and realize exactly how many times it has been translated, how much language has changed over the centuries you would see that there is really no way you can do anything except what feels true and right in your heart. If a queer lifestyle is not where your heart leads you then DON'T GO THERE. But, stay out of other peoples bedrooms and stop being a peeping tom about it. It's none of your business.

Secondly, if you are going to take just certain little quotes and excerts out of books, anything can come of it. Doesn't the bible also say that it is okay to own slaves? Come on people! Don't be so literal about a book that is meant to inspire faith and belief.

Third, my understanding is that although we are to remember the old testament, Jesus spoke and said that the new covenant was to 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you'. As I said, this does not mean forget the old testament, but in my mind and heart of hearts it tells me that this is the most important thing now. To love each other. To try to understand, to accept, to not hate and to above all else recognize that we are all different.

Now. God allowed humans free will to choose things of a moral nature, to choose between right and wrong. I will be the first to say that love is not a right or wrong issue when talking about consenting adults. To say that homosexuality is wrong is to say that god is wrong for creating it. Don't give me that bologna about it being a choice either, there are to many examples of it in nature (monkeys, seahorses etc.) for it to be a choice.

My last bit of information is to tell you to go look at a sight online. It was put up by a older preacher and shows how much research can be put into this whole issue. The site is www.godmademegay.com and goes into so much detail that you can't help but think about things.

As for myself, yes, I am a part of the queer community that so many christians seem to hate. No, I am not christian and therefore care very little what a biased, patriarchal belief system in my opinion. I know to much history to put stock in this type of religion. I know of the crusades, including the children's crusade where hundreds of children died. I know that at the time Jesus and his apostles roamed around preaching the 'good word' there were also the roving bands of homosexual men roaming around from village to village.

If we look at things clearly, and read the entire story, or at least what is still available to us, we can come to the following conclusion:

1) Jesus WAS a BLACK man. (his hair was wooly like that of a lamb)

2) The bible looses some time during his life, but, we know that he was married and had children. So where were his wife and children while he was out hanging out with the guys?

3) No religion, no politician or tyrant has killed more people than christianity.

I do not hate christians, despite their persecutions. I believe that truth is something that is universal, and it is for this reason that I believe I should do unto others as I would have others do to me. I will be kind, show respect and treat life, all life as something that should be respected and cherished.

Now go start fighting over the truth. Because truth is only right according to your perspective.

Here's where Christian and secular thought take a sharp turn and debate can no longer be fruitful.

Christians believe that the Bible, especially in it's original form, is the inspired word of God, and it isn't merely cobbled together by religious scholars, but revealed to them from God, and they merely recorded it.

Regardless, even most fundamentalist Christians will agree that even if the Bible is a human record of God's word, which is a perfectly acceptable belief, it does have differing messages. Whether they conflict is another matter, but the fact remains that it is impossible to draw a conclusion one way or another solely from scriptural reference. After all, who is to say whether it is the Judgemental God or the Loving God that is most accurately reflected in the Bible?

Okay. So this is a debate that can and will go on and on. :headbang:

1) Jesus WAS a BLACK man. (his hair was wooly like that of a lamb)

2) The bible looses some time during his life, but, we know that he was married and had children. So where were his wife and children while he was out hanging out with the guys?

3) No religion, no politician or tyrant has killed more people than christianity.


Now go start fighting over the truth. Because truth is only right according to your perspective.

1) Jesus was not black, he was Hebrew. There is a difference. He was not from Africa, he was from Judea, now Israel. As such, it is not accurate to say that he was black any more than it is to say he was white. He was neither; he probably looked a lot like many modern-day Arabs and Israelis.

2) There is no conclusive proof that Jesus had a wife or children. There is no conclusive proof to refute that theory, either. The point is that we have no way of knowing whether Jesus was married or had children, so no further argument on this is needed. Don't waste my time.

3) "Christianity" has not killed anyone. A religion cannot kill people, nor can it be directly responsible for anyone's death. People kill people. Whether or not they were truly influenced to do so by any religion is debatable. For example, Adolf Hitler was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Pope Urban II was directly responsible for many deaths because he used his influence over people to drive them to war, just as Hitler did. That being said, however, all the people who carried out the wishes of these leaders did so of their own free will, so neither man was entirely responsible for all the deaths attributed to them.


Oh dear. It seems that I have perforated your argument in several places. My sincerest apologies.

Here's where Catholic thought further diverges from secular thought than christian thought in general. The Pope and the Magisterium together have the teaching authority to interpret the meaning of scripture. This interpretation holds the same importance as the scripture itself. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church has always held under the authority entrusted to Peter by Christ that homosexuality is a sin. There really is no room as a faithful Catholic for debate on this matter.

(I know this will catch both me and the Church a bunch of shit for being "monolithic" or the like.)

3) "Christianity" has not killed anyone. A religion cannot kill people, nor can it be directly responsible for anyone's death. People kill people. Whether or not they were truly influenced to do so by any religion is debatable. For example, Adolf Hitler was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Pope Urban II was directly responsible for many deaths because he used his influence over people to drive them to war, just as Hitler did. That being said, however, all the people who carried out the wishes of these leaders did so of their own free will, so neither man was entirely responsible for all the deaths attributed to them.


Oh dear. It seems that I have perforated your argument in several places. My sincerest apologies.

Wow. Nice antagonism there. Okay. I will concede to your point in 2, that there is technically no proof, although I doubt entirely in a culture that was in the extreme determined to 'go forth and multiply' that someone whose mother believed she had given birth to the mortal son of god that there would not be a following of the 'natural' order of things such as marriage. We are talking about like, what, 20 years of his life missing here?

As for part 3, well, let's talk about this a bit. Now. Let's say that I control what you know of the world, I control who your children can and can't marry, how much money you get to have, your standing in the eyes of all your peers and whether or not you get to keep the very land you 'own'. Now, let's say that I decide it would be best for you to go out and prove your faith by killing the 'muslim infidels' (no disrepect to people of the muslim faith intended here, mulsims were just who the crusades were primarily aimed at) or lose face, political power and of course not be given absolution. SO. What are you going to do? You are going to do what I say, that's what you are going to do. Oh, and while you are over there fighting the godly fight, I've decided you've been gone too long and am going to take your lands, I've decided your wife/daughter/sister is now going to become a nun/wife to some one that is in my favor. OH! What? You're tired of fighting and want to go home? Oh, well, we can fix that! YOU ARE NOW EXCOMMUNICATED. You will go automatically to hell. Do not pass purgatory. Do not collect on a death free of sin. Why? Because it's okay to kill if you are doing it for God isn't it? Of course it is. But it wasn't just the crusades. Did ya know that there NEVER WERE ANY SNAKES IN IRELAND?!?!?! St. Patrick went to Ireland to drive out the 'followers of satan' or, in other words to kill off the druids/midwifes/anyone not following the christian faith. BUT WAIT! We are going to go to the temples the followers of the old ways had set up and build churches ON TOP OF THEM! We are going to put the pews over the very tiles that show the pentacles these people created. While I'm thinking about it...where do you think christmas trees came from? They sure weren't christian symbols of a holiday. In fact...Take a good look at a lot of the catholic rites, the christian holidays and you will find that almost all holidays overlap a pagan one. The rites are almost mirror images of pagan ones. For Pete's sake...weddings weren't even originally ALLOWED inside churches, they weren't even popular until someone realized they could charge for the 'bans' being posted and have a union that was recognized by the church, just like the forgiveness of priests could be bought for a few shillings or whatever. To poor? Too bad. To hell with you. (Literally.) Well, unless you have a sister...or daughter. We won't go into the 'Divine Right of Kings' here, that's a whole other subject.

I do want to clarify that I do not hate/loathe/despise or have any negativity towards christians. I have the utmost respect for those that actually follow their faith, follow their hearts and realize that people are people.

As for your number 1...my point is really that there is no way Jesus could have been blonde and blue eyed...unless....Mary was really a Spaniard! No! A Norwegian! No! Wait! Jesus was ALBINO! No...no...I've got it....God, wanting to show how pure and true his son was, gave Jesus blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes, proving that Hitler IS right and the master race IS BLONDE and BLUE EYED! :gundge: :eek:

I agree, I and I dont understand why god would create homosexuals if he thought they were wrong.

God did not "create" homosexuals as you put it. He created people. People have the ability to sin. As for the points of the first post, the Chrisitan view is to love the sinner hate the sin. People should be judged no diffrently if they are homosexual or not. However some homosexuals make it difficult to do that by refusing to seperate themselves as people from their actions. Also note it is the act of homosexual sex that is the sin, not the desire/attraction.

As for your number 1...my point is really that there is no way Jesus could have been blonde and blue eyed...unless....Mary was really a Spaniard! No! A Norwegian! No! Wait! Jesus was ALBINO! No...no...I've got it....God, wanting to show how pure and true his son was, gave Jesus blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes, proving that Hitler IS right and the master race IS BLONDE and BLUE EYED! :gundge: :eek:

He didnt say he was blone or blue eyed. He said he was Hebrew. Check your facts. :rolleyes:

3) No religion, no politician or tyrant has killed more people than christianity.


Firstly, religions do not kill people. Religions are simply ideals and a set of beliefs. Religious follower are diffrent. But I'd be interested to see you attempt to prove this point. I think the cause that has caused the most death than any other is that of teritioral ambition. Does that mean we should now live in the clouds as opposed to on the ground since territory has caused so many wars.

Even the devil can quote scripture. so this whole thing means crap no matter how you look at it you can "make" it look how you want. There are damn well many passages you can clip from to make things seem like another. I know half of the original quotes had a semi colon left on them with nothing behind them.

Hmmmm. Could some check Lectivus I think there is an anti gay Biblical passage in there but I'm not sure.

Yeah, but speak to any Rabbi, you know, the ones who actually *STUDY* the bible rather than the idiot ranters from the evangelical cult, and they'll be quite happy to tell you that there are many things in there that were made out of ignorance.

Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultry, lying, cheating, etc. In the end there is only one answer to sin, regardless of the sin, and that is the saving blood of Christ. Good loves and does forgive homosexuals, just like liar's, cheats, adulters, etc...but gays, like anyone else, must first see their actions as sinful and want to repent and change. That seems to be the real issue. Lack of acceptance of the sin and the desire to be redeemed and saved.

Why is it a sin? don't quite bible versus, actually logically layout the reason why it is a sin - why it is particulary evil, to the point that sex seems to be the number one facination that Christians have.

"hey, I killed people, raped children, and lied, but I'm straight!" <-- That seems to be the logic from the cult of Christ, aka Christians.

There is no such thing as Sin.

The Bible is a collection of fables, influenced by many sources (the Jews didnt include a reference to a Devil until their religious leaders were captured by Persians. When they returned, surprise!, they now spoke of "Satan" or, as he'd been known in Persia "Shitain") and written down by many different people at widely divergent times. This cobbled together "text" was then vetted, changed, and edited so many times over the years as the Catholic church was forming and solidifying itself that it is likely unrecognizable from its original incarntaion.

Literal word of God. Bleh.

Homosexuality is neither immoral or moral. It, in itself, injures nobody and benefits only the participants (pleasure)-- just like any consensual sex between adults.

Stop trying to ascribe morality to deeds which neither hinder nor help society in any way.

Homosexuality is neither immoral or moral. It, in itself, injures nobody and benefits only the participants (pleasure)-- just like any consensual sex between adults.

Stop trying to ascribe morality to deeds which neither hinder nor help society in any way.

Technically, it can be -- and has been -- argued that homosexuality is detrimental to society because it does not encourage procreation and, concordantly, the continuation of society.

Though, frankly, being the misanthrope I am, I'd argue that it is in fact beneficial for the selfsame reason.

Why is it a sin? don't quite bible versus, actually logically layout the reason why it is a sin - why it is particulary evil, to the point that sex seems to be the number one facination that Christians have.

"hey, I killed people, raped children, and lied, but I'm straight!" <-- That seems to be the logic from the cult of Christ, aka Christians.

Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God.

Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God.

So.... unless you're starving, every piece of chocolate would be sin? You see, it's not really vital to nourish you and god created eating so that you could nourish yourself. Are you allowed to eat even if you don't really feel hungry?
Are you allowed to eat things that will just fill you up but do little or nothing to sustain you?

So.... unless you're starving, every piece of chocolate would be sin? You see, it's not really vital to nourish you and god created eating so that you could nourish yourself. Are you allowed to eat even if you don't really feel hungry?
Are you allowed to eat things that will just fill you up but do little or nothing to sustain you?

I'm guessing you aren't religious, because if you were, you would have your own answers to the questions, and you would be too busy telling everyone what to do to ask stuff like this. Am I right?

Anyway, gluttony is a sin. So if you don't need the food, but you eat it anyway, that's a sin. Of course you are allowed to do it, but it's sinful.

Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God.

Just pleasure and lust, eh? What about love? Is it inconceivable that homosexual intercourse arise from a mutual respect and spiritual connection between two compatible individuals?

And can love be "evil", whatever that is supposed to entail?

As far as I can tell, according to the bible it is a sin. But so are alot of other things, coveting (?) another man's wife for example, which is a greater sin as it features specifically in the commandments!
So yes it's a sin, but from what I read in the bible, man is not here to judge another's sins, and you can commit a sin and still be a good person.
Comes down to the let he who is without sin... quote.

Just pleasure and lust, eh? What about love? Is it inconceivable that homosexual intercourse arise from a mutual respect and spiritual connection between two compatible individuals?

And can love be "evil", whatever that is supposed to entail?

It's not a sin to love someone of the same gender as yourself. only to have sex with them is a sin. It's not that hard to understand. The feelings are not sinful, the act is.

Yes love can be evil. Loving oneself is evil.

I'm guessing you aren't religious, because if you were, you would have your own answers to the questions, and you would be too busy telling everyone what to do to ask stuff like this. Am I right?

Anyway, gluttony is a sin. So if you don't need the food, but you eat it anyway, that's a sin. Of course you are allowed to do it, but it's sinful.

I've seen religious people eat chocolate.... how do they cope with the guilt?

The reason homosexuality is a sin is that it perverts the original meaning of sex: to join in the process of creation with God.

The same reason birth control and abortion are wrong. If men has uteruses in their asses, maybe the Church would reconsider.

It's not because we hate gay people.

I've seen religious people eat chocolate.... how do they cope with the guilt?

It's a terrible burden, let me assure you, shouldering the onus of the world's chocolate.

The reason homosexuality is a sin is that it perverts the original meaning of sex: to join in the process of creation with God.

Cite that, please. Preferably in the original language.

It's not a sin to love someone of the same gender as yourself. only to have sex with them is a sin. It's not that hard to understand. The feelings are not sinful, the act is.

Yes love can be evil. Loving oneself is evil.

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" Mk 12,30-31

Loving yourself can't be evil if you are supposed to love others "as you love yourself"

I've seen religious people eat chocolate.... how do they cope with the guilt?

Maybe they were hungry? then there's no guilt.

Oh, and pretty much everything is a sin. the atheists may all be going to hell for all eternity, but at least they get an easy ride this side of death.

It's not a sin to love someone of the same gender as yourself. only to have sex with them is a sin. It's not that hard to understand. The feelings are not sinful, the act is.

Yes love can be evil. Loving oneself is evil.

Love is never evil. It's not a queston of loving onself too much, but too much pride in oneself.

i hate gays theyre all perverts that will all go to hell

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" Mk 12,30-31

Loving yourself can't be evil if you are supposed to love others "as you love yourself"

Maybe you aren't supposed to love your neighbours either?

Bloody hellbound atheists and their bloody easy ride :rolleyes:

i hate gays theyre all perverts that will all go to hell

people like you give trolls a bad name.

Love is never evil. It's not a queston of loving onself too much, but too much pride in oneself.

they're basically the same thing, though, aren't they

they're basically the same thing, though, aren't they

Not necessarily. One can love oneself in the sense of knowing and accepting the entirety of his spiritual makeup without strutting about with tailfeathers splayed.

i hate gays theyre all perverts that will all go to hell
Thank you for sharing your amazing insight with us lowly beings, most revered master of discussion! I am humbled to be in the same thread as you.

Not necessarily. One can love oneself in the sense of knowing and accepting the entirety of his spiritual makeup without strutting about with tailfeathers splayed.

then where is the line between love and pride?

That quote taken in context condemns hypocrisy, not judgement in general.



Of course, but those who love to lambast Christians for rebuking sinners loooove to ignore the context.

Ok so Gay people are allowed to love each other... Just not have sex because it doesnt have a productive purpose? and anything interferring with a child being born between conception and birth is and affront?

Does that mean if a sterile man has sex with his wife its a sin? Or if you have sex at a time of the menstral cycle when the woman isnt fertile its a sin? Or if a woman miscarries its a sin? And sex as an expression of love is a sin too?

If the only purpose of sex was reproduction and anything going wrong with that process is an affront to god then why does it feel so good? Why couldnt we lack sexual pleasure sensors and just deposit the sperm near the ova without any of the naughty pleasure stuff happening? And why do miscarriages happen? Are they an affront to God too since the woman didnt do as he wishes bring forth a healthy child?

off topic:
but what the real problem is... that atheist like me will always be a minority (2,5 % of world population) and although i think everyone who believes in a god or religion is not that smart. I'll loose every argument...

luckily i live in a country where religion is in heavy decline... hurray for the Netherlands!

on topic:
Gay is not natural because they cannot repreduce...

But hey i think that's why humans are way much better then other animals... we grown out of our natural/ animal instinct habits!!

[QUOTE=God007]

See what I mean? A quote from Leviticus, which is one of the Torah books of law, illustrates my point that every reference against homosexuality can be matched by one in support of it. People should follow my advice and stop trying to use the Bible as justification for their beliefs. Stand up for yourselves, cowards. Form your own opinions. Some of you do, which is good. Some of you need some work.



Proverbs 15:33 The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, [a]and humility comes before honor.

Gay is not natural because they cannot repreduce...

Isolated homosexual behaviours and exclusive homosexual pairings have been observed in both wild and captive animals. It is "natural".

Ok so Gay people are allowed to love each other... Just not have sex because it doesnt have a productive purpose? and anything interferring with a child being born between conception and birth is and affront?

That's what I said, isn't it?

Does that mean if a sterile man has sex with his wife its a sin?

Yes

Or if you have sex at a time of the menstral cycle when the woman isnt fertile its a sin?

Not precisely, but that's because the sex doesn't have to happen precisely at the time when a woman is fertile for her to become pregnant. The sperm can survive for some time.

And sex as an expression of love is a sin too?

Yes, if it cannot produce children. What part of that troubled you the first time around?

If the only purpose of sex was reproduction and anything going wrong with that process is an affront to god then why does it feel so good? Why couldnt we lack sexual pleasure sensors and just deposit the sperm near the ova without any of the naughty pleasure stuff happening?

It's not that god doesn't want to like sex, or to have pleasure. It's just that that should not be the primary motive for sexual intercourse.

And why do miscarriages happen? Are they an affront to God too since the woman didnt do as he wishes bring forth a healthy child?

yes. But it isn't the woman's fault. It is just a bad thing that happens.

Cite that, please. Preferably in the original language.

CATHECHISMUM CATHOLICAE ECCLASIAE

PARS TERTIA
VITA IN CHRISTO

SECTIO SECUNDA
DECEM PRAECEPTA

CAPUT SECUNDUM
«DILIGES PROXIMUM TUUM TAMQUAM TEIPSUM»

ARTICULUS 6
SEXTUM PRAECEPTUM

« Non moechaberis » (Ex 20,14). 217

« Audistis quia dictum est: "Non moechaberis". Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis, qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo » (Mt 5,27-28).

I. « Masculum et feminam creavit eos... »

2331 « Deus est amor in Seque vivit Ipse ex mysterio personalis amoris communionis. Ad Suam imaginem creans [...] humanam naturam viri et mulieris, Deus indidit ei vocationem ac propterea potestatem et officium, cum conscientia coniunctum, amoris atque communionis ». 218

« Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem Suam; [...] masculum et feminam creavit eos » (Gn 1,27); « Crescite et multiplicamini » (Gn 1,28); « In die qua creavit Deus hominem, ad similitudinem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam creavit eos et benedixit illis; et vocavit nomen eorum Adam in die, quo creati sunt » (Gn 5,1-2).

2332 Sexualitas omnes personae humanae afficit rationes, in unitate corporis eius eiusque animae. Speciatim ad vim affectivam spectat, ad capacitatem amandi et procreandi et, generaliore modo, ad aptitudinem vincula communionis cum alio nectendi.

2333 Ad unumquemque, virum et mulierem, pertinet suam sexualem identitatem agnoscere et accipere. Differentia et complementaritas physicae, morales et spirituales ad bona matrimonii ordinantur et ad vitae familiaris progressum. Utriusque coniugis et societatis harmonia partim dependet e modo quo complementaritas inter sexus, necessitas mutua et mutuum adiutorium deducuntur in vitam.

2334 « Deus, homines creans "masculum et feminam", pari donavit personali dignitate virum et mulierem ». 219 « Homo persona est, pariter vir et mulier: ambo namque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei personalis creati sunt ». 220

2335 Uterque sexus, pari dignitate, licet modo diverso, imago est potentiae et teneritatis Dei. Viri et mulieris unio in matrimonio quidam est modus, in carne, imitandi generositatem et fecunditatem Creatoris: « Relinquet vir patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae; et erunt in carnem unam » (Gn 2,24). Ab hac unione omnes humanae generationes procedunt. 221

2336 Iesus venit ut creationem in puritate eius originis restauraret. In sermone montano, propositum Dei modo interpretatur rigoroso: « Audistis quia dictum est: "Non moechaberis". Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis, qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo » (Mt 5,27-28). Homo non debet separare quod Deus coniunxit. 222

Ecclesiae Traditio sextum intellexit praeceptum sicut sexualitatis humanae comprehendens complexum.

II. Vocatio ad castitatem

2337 Castitas integrationem sexualitatis in persona significat obtentam atque ideo interiorem hominis unitatem in eius corporali et spirituali realitate. Sexualitas, in qua exprimitur hominem ad mundum corporalem et biologicum pertinere, personalis et vere humana fit, cum in relatione inseritur personae ad personam, in dono mutuo integro et temporaliter illimitato viri et mulieris.

Castitatis igitur virtus integritatem implicat personae et totalitatem doni.

Personae integritas

2338 Persona casta integritatem servat virium vitae et amoris, quae in ea sunt positae. Haec integritas unitatem personae praestat, ea omni procedendi opponitur modo qui illam vulneraret. Nec duplicem vitam nec duplicem tolerat sermonem. 223

2339 Castitas implicat dominii sui tirocinium, quod libertatis humanae est paedagogia. Optio est clara: homo aut suas regit passiones et pacem obtinet, aut se in servitutem redigi permittit per eas et miser fit. 224 « Dignitas igitur hominis requirit ut secundum consciam et liberam electionem agat, personaliter scilicet ab intra motus et inductus, et non sub caeco impulsu interno vel sub mera externa coactione. Talem vero dignitatem obtinet homo cum, sese ab omni passionum captivitate liberans, finem suum in boni libera electione persequitur et apta subsidia efficaciter ac sollerti industria sibi procurat ». 225

2340 Qui sui Baptismi promissionibus fidelis vult permanere et tentationibus resistere, incumbet ut ad id adhibeat media: sui cognitionem, exercitium ascesis aptatae condicionibus in quibus versatur, oboedientiam praeceptis divinis, virtutum moralium operationem et fidelitatem orationi. « Per continentiam quippe colligimur et redigimur in unum, a quo in multa defluximus ». 226

2341 Virtus castitatis dependet ex virtute cardinali temperantiae, quae sensibilitatis humanae passiones et appetitus intendit ratione imbuere.

2342 Dominium sui est longae constantiae opus. Numquam considerandum est tamquam in perpetuum iam adquisitum. Nisum implicat in omnibus vitae aetatibus iterum atque iterum suscipiendum. 227 Requisitus nisus quibusdam temporibus potest esse intensior, ut cum personalitas formatur, in pueritia et adulescentia.

2343 Castitas cognoscit incrementi leges, quae per gradus procedunt imperfectione signatos et nimis frequenter peccato. Homo castus et virtutis studiosus « de die in diem quasi exstruitur pluribus cum suis optionibus: ergo cognoscit, diligit, perficit morale bonum secundum incrementi eius gradus ». 228

2344 Castitas laborem constituit quam maxime personalem, ea nisum culturalem etiam implicat, quia revera « apparet humanae personae profectum et ipsius societatis incrementum ab invicem pendere ». 229 Castitas observantiam praesupponit iurium personae, praesertim iuris ad informationem et educationem recipiendas, quae morales et spirituales vitae humanae observent rationes.

2345 Castitas virtus moralis est. Est etiam donum Dei, gratia, fructus operis spiritualis. 230 Spiritus Sanctus puritatem Christi ei concedit imitari 231 quem Baptismi regeneravit aqua.

Totalitas doni sui ipsius

2346 Caritas est omnium virtutum forma. Sub eius influxu, castitas tamquam schola apparet doni personae. Dominium sui ad sui ordinatur donum. Castitas ducit eum, qui eam exercitat, ut coram proximo testis fiat fidelitatis et teneritatis Dei.

2347 Castitatis virtus in amicitia expanditur. Discipulo indicat quomodo sequatur et imitetur Illum qui nos tamquam Suos proprios elegit amicos, 232 Se nobis totaliter donavit nosque participes effecit Suae divinae condicionis. Castitas immortalitatis est promissio.

Castitas praesertim in amicitia erga proximum exprimitur. Amicitia, inter personas eiusdem sexus vel diversorum sexuum exculta, magnum pro omnibus bonum constituit. Ad spiritualem perducit communionem.

Diversa castitatis genera

2348 Omnis baptizatus ad castitatem vocatur. Christianus Christum induit, 233 omnis castitatis exemplar. Omnes christifideles vocantur ut vitam castam ducant secundum suum peculiarem vitae statum. Christianus, in sui Baptismi momento, se obligavit ad suam affectivam vim in castitate regendam.

2349 Castitate « pro variis vitae suae statibus homines ornari debent: alteri virginitatem aut coelibatum Deo sacrum profitentes, qua quidem eminenti ratione ipsi facilius uni Deo vacare indiviso corde possunt; alteri vero vitam agentes ea forma, quae omnibus lege morali statuitur, prout matrimonio iunguntur aut sunt caelibes ». 234 Personae matrimonio coniunctae vocantur ut in castitate coniugali vivant; ceterae castitatem colunt in continentia:

« Docemur itaque triplicem castitatis esse virtutem: unam coniugalem, aliam viduitatis, tertiam virginitatis; non enim sic aliam praedicamus, ut excludamus alias. [...] In hoc Ecclesiae est opulens disciplina ». 235

2350 Sponsi vocantur ut castitatem colant in continentia. In hac subiectione ad probationem videbunt detegi mutuam observantiam, tirocinium fidelitatis et spei se a Deo mutuo recipiendi. Ad matrimonii tempus servabunt manifestationes teneritudinis, quae amoris coniugalis sunt specificae. Se mutuo adiuvabunt ut in castitate crescant.

Contra castitatem offensae

2351 Luxuria est inordinata cupiditas vel intemperans delectatio voluptatis venereae. Voluptas sexualis moraliter est inordinata, cum per se ipsam quaeritur, a procreationis et unionis dissociata finibus.

2352 Masturbationis nomine intelligere oportet voluntariam organorum genitalium excitationem, ad obtinendam ex ea veneream voluptatem. « Revera tum Ecclesiae Magisterium — per decursum constantis traditionis — tum moralis christifidelium sensus sine dubitatione firmiter tenent masturbationem esse actum intrinsece graviterque inordinatum ». « Quaecumque est ipsa agendi causa, deliberatus usus facultatis sexualis extra rectum coniugale commercium essentialiter eius fini contradicit ». Delectatio sexualis tunc quaeritur extra relationem sexualem, « quae ordine morali postulatur, quae nempe ad effectum deducit integrum sensum mutuae donationis ac humanae procreationis in contextu veri amoris ». 236

Ad aequum iudicium de responsabilitate morali subiectorum efformandum et ad pastoralem actionem recte ducendam, perpendentur immaturitas affectiva, vis habituum contractorum, angustiae status vel alia elementa psychica vel socialia, quae possunt moralem minuere, fortasse etiam ad minimum reducere, culpabilitatem.

2353 Fornicatio unio est carnalis extra matrimonium inter virum et mulierem liberos. Ea est personarum dignitati graviter contraria atque sexualitati humanae ad bonum coniugum et ad filiorum generationem et educationem naturaliter ordinatae. Est praeterea grave scandalum, cum iuvenum habetur corruptio.

2354 Pornographia consistit in actibus sexualibus, realibus vel simulatis, ab agentium intimitate substrahendis, ad eosdem deliberate aliis personis exhibendos. Castitatem offendit quia actum coniugalem, intimum coniugum mutuum donum, pervertit. Graviter dignitatem attentat eorum qui se ei tradunt (actores, negotiatores, spectatores), siquidem alius pro alio obiectum efficitur vulgaris voluptatis et illiciti lucri. Alios et alios in illusionem submergit mundi fictitii. Culpa gravis est. Auctoritates civiles debent productionem et distributionem prohibere rerum pornographicarum.

2355 Prostitutio attentat personae, quae prostituitur, dignitatem, redactam ad voluptatem veneream, quae ab illa obtinetur. Qui pecunia retribuit, graviter contra se ipsum peccat: castitatem frangit, ad quam eius Baptismus obligat, et corpus inquinat suum, Spiritus Sancti templum. 237 Prostitutio sociale constituit flagellum. Generatim mulieres afficit, sed etiam viros, pueros vel adulescentes (in his duobus ultimis casibus, peccatum scandalo duplicatur). Etsi semper graviter peccato obnoxium sit se tradere prostitutioni, miseria, minaciae et socialis sollicitatio imputabilitatem culpae attenuare possunt.

2356 Stuprum ingressum indicat per vim, cum violentia, in sexualem alicuius personae intimitatem. Iustitiam attentat et caritatem. Stuprum profunde uniuscuiusque violat ius ad observantiam, ad libertatem, ad physicam et moralem integritatem. Damnum causat grave, quod victimam per totam eius vitam potest signare. Actus est semper intrinsece malus. Adhuc gravius est stuprum a propinquis commissum (cf incestus) vel ab educatoribus erga pueros ipsis concreditos.

Castitas et homosexualitas

2357 Homosexualitas relationes designat inter viros vel mulieres qui sexualem experiuntur allectationem exclusive vel praevalenter erga eiusdem sexus personas. Per saecula et culturas, formas induit valde diversas. Eius psychica origo manet magna ex parte non explicata. Traditio, sacra nitens Scriptura, quae eos tamquam graves depravationes praesentat, 238 semper declaravit « actus homosexualitatis suapte intrinseca natura esse inordinatos ». 239 Legi naturali sunt contrarii. Actum sexualem dono praecludunt vitae. E vera complementaritate affectiva et sexuali non procedunt. Nullo in casu possent accipere approbationem.

2358 Virorum et mulierum numerus non exiguus tendentias homosexuales praesentat profunde radicatas. Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem. Excipiendi sunt observantia, compassione et suavitate. Relate ad eos vitandum est quodlibet iniustae discriminationis signum. Hae personae vocantur ad voluntatem Dei in sua vita efficiendam, et, si ipsae christianae sunt, ad coniungendas cum Sacrificio crucis Domini difficultates quas in facto suae condicionis possunt invenire.

2359 Personae homosexuales ad castitatem vocantur. Ipsae, dominii virtutibus quae libertatem educant interiorem, quandoque amicitiae gratuitae auxilio, oratione et gratia sacramentali, possunt et debent ad perfectionem christianam gradatim et obfirmate appropinquare.

III. Coniugum amor

2360 Sexualitas ad coniugalem ordinatur amorem viri et mulieris. In matrimonio, corporalis coniugum intimitas signum et pignus fit spiritualis communionis. Inter baptizatos, matrimonii vincula sacramento sanctificantur.

2361 « Sexualitas [...], per quam vir ac femina se dedunt vicissim actibus coniugum propriis sibi ac peculiaribus, minime quiddam est dumtaxat biologicum, sed tangit personae humanae ut talis veluti nucleum intimum. Sexualitas modo vere humano expletur tantummodo, si est pars complens amoris, quo vir et femina sese totos mutuo usque ad mortem obstringunt »: 240

« Exsurrexit Thobias de lecto et dixit [...] [Sarae]: "Surge, soror! Oremus et deprecemur Dominum nostrum, ut faciat super nos misericordiam et sanitatem". Et surrexit, et coeperunt orare et deprecari Dominum, ut daretur illis sanitas. Et coeperunt dicere: "Benedictus es, Deus patrum nostrorum [...]. Tu fecisti Adam et dedisti illi adiutorium firmum Evam, et ex ambobus factum est semen hominum. Et dixisti non esse bonum hominem solum: Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. Et nunc non luxuriae causa accipio hanc sororem meam, sed in veritate. Praecipe, ut miserearis mei et illius, et consenescamus pariter sani". Et dixerunt: "Amen, amen!". Et dormierunt per noctem » (Tb 8,4-9).

2362 « Actus [...], quibus coniuges intime et caste inter se uniuntur, honesti ac digni sunt et, modo vere humano exerciti, donationem mutuam significant et fovent, qua sese invicem laeto gratoque animo locupletant ». 241 Sexualitas fons est gaudii et delectationis:

« Idem Creator [...] etiam disposuit coniuges, pro hoc munere [generationis], in corpore et in spiritu delectationem invenire et felicitatem. Coniuges igitur, hanc delectationem quaerentes istaque fruentes, nihil operantur mali. Ipsi id accipiunt quod Creator eis destinavit. Tamen etiam coniuges scire debent, se intra limites iustae moderationis tenere ». 242

2363 Coniugum unione, duplex matrimonii finis ducitur in rem: ipsorum coniugum bonum et vitae transmissio. Hae duae significationes seu valores matrimonii separari non possunt, quin vita spiritualis coniugum alteretur et matrimonii bona atque familiae futurum in discrimen adducantur.

Sic amor coniugalis viri et mulieris sub duplici exigentia fidelitatis et fecunditatis est positus.

Coniugalis fidelitas

2364 Ab utroque coniugum constituitur « intima communitas vitae et amoris coniugalis, [quae] a Creatore condita suisque legibus instructa, foedere coniugii seu irrevocabili consensu personali instauratur ». 243 Uterque, alter alteri, se donat definitive et totaliter. Amplius duo non sunt, sed unam iam constituunt carnem. Foedus libere a coniugibus contractum eis imponit obligationem illud unum et indissolubile conservandi. 244 « Quod [...] Deus coniunxit, homo non separet » (Mc 10,9). 245

2365 Fidelitas constantiam exprimit in verbo dato servando. Deus fidelis est. Matrimonii sacramentum virum et mulierem introducit in fidelitatem Christi erga Eius Ecclesiam. Castitate coniugali coram mundo testimonium praebent huius mysterii.

Sanctus Ioannes Chrysostomus iuvenibus uxoratis suggerit ut suis uxoribus hos proferant sermones: « Te sum amplexus et te diligo, et meae etiam animae praefero. Nihil est enim vita praesens, oroque et hortor et omnia facio, ut nos ita digni habeamur qui praesentem agamus vitam, ut illic etiam possimus in futuro saeculo cum magna securitate simul versari. [...] Ego dilectionem tuam praefero omnibus; neque est quidquam mihi aeque molestum quam a te umquam dissidere ». 246

Matrimonii fecunditas

2366 Fecunditas quoddam est donum, quidam matrimonii finis, quia amor coniugalis naturaliter ad id tendit ut fecundus sit. Filius mutuo coniugum amori extrinsece addendus non accedit; surgit in ipso corde huius mutui doni, cuius ipse fructus est et adimpletio. Sic Ecclesia, quae « a vitae parte consistit », 247 docet « necessarium esse, ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat ». 248 « Huiusmodi doctrina, quae ab Ecclesiae Magisterio saepe exposita est, in nexu indissolubili nititur, a Deo statuto, quem homini sua sponte infringere non licet, inter significationem unitatis et significationem procreationis, quae ambae in actu coniugali insunt ». 249

2367 Coniuges, ad vitam dandam vocati, potentiam creatricem et paternitatem participant Dei. 250 « In officio humanam vitam transmittendi atque educandi, quod tamquam propria eorum missio considerandum est, coniuges sciunt se cooperatores esse amoris Dei Eiusque veluti interpretes. Ideo humana et christiana responsabilitate suum munus adimplebunt ». 251

2368 Peculiaris huius responsabilitatis ratio ad procreationem regulandam refertur. Coniuges, iustis de causis, 252 possunt suorum filiorum procreationes intervallis separare velle. Ad eos pertinet comprobare eorum optatum ex caeco sui amore (ex « egoismo ») non promanare, sed illud iustae generositati paternitatis responsabilis esse conformem. Praeterea suum agendi modum secundum criteria moralitatis regulabunt obiectiva:

« Moralis [...] indoles rationis agendi, ubi de componendo amore coniugali cum responsabili vitae transmissione agitur, non a sola sincera intentione et aestimatione motivorum pendet, sed obiectivis criteriis, ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura desumptis, determinari debet, quae integrum sensum mutuae donationis ac humanae procreationis in contextu veri amoris observant; quod fieri nequit nisi virtus castitatis coniugalis sincero animo colatur ». 253

2369 « Quodsi utraque eiusmodi essentialis ratio, unitatis videlicet et procreationis, servatur, usus matrimonii sensum mutui verique amoris suumque ordinem ad celsissimum paternitatis munus omnino retinet ». 254

2370 Continentia periodica, methodi ad procreationem regulandam fundatae super auto-observationem et recursum ad periodos infecundas, 255 sunt criteriis obiectivis moralitatis conformes. Hae methodi corpus verentur coniugum, teneritudinem promovent inter eos et educationi favent authenticae libertatis. E contra, est intrinsece malus quivis « actus qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur »: 256

« Naturali verbo, quod reciprocam plenamque coniugum donationem declarat, conceptuum impeditio verbum opponit obiectivae contradictionis, videlicet nullius plenae sui donationis alteri factae: hinc procedit non sola recusatio certa ac definita mentis ad vitam apertae, verum simulatio etiam interioris veritatis ipsius amoris coniugalis, qui secundum totam personam dirigitur ad sese donandum. [...] Discrimen anthropologicum simulque morale, quod inter conceptuum impeditionem et observationem intervallorum temporis intercedit [...], implicat duas personae ac sexualitatis species, quae inter se nequeunt conciliari ». 257

2371 « Omnibus vero compertum sit vitam hominum et munus eam transmittendi non ad hoc saeculum tantum restringi neque eo tantum commensurari et intelligi posse, sed ad aeternam hominum destinationem semper respicere ». 258

2372 Status responsabilis est prosperitatis civium. Hoc titulo, legitimum est eum intervenire ad incolarum incrementum ordinandum. Id obiectiva et observanti informatione facere potest, sed nequaquam via imperiosa et constringenti. Legitime non potest se substituere pro incepto coniugum, qui primi sunt responsabiles procreationis et educationis suorum filiorum. 259 In hoc dominio, auctoritate caret ut mediis interveniat quae legi morali sunt contraria.

Donum filii

2373 Sacra Scriptura et traditionalis praxis Ecclesiae in familiis numerosis signum vident benedictionis divinae et generositatis parentum. 260

2374 Magnus est dolor matrimonio coniunctorum qui se steriles detegunt. « Quid dabis mihi? », quaerit Abram a Deo. « Ego vadam absque liberis... » (Gn 15,2). « Da mihi liberos, alioquin moriar », clamat Rachel ad suum maritum Iacob (Gn 30,1).

2375 Investigationes quae humanam minuere intendunt sterilitatem, fovendae sunt, si deserviant « personae humanae, eius iuribus inalienabilibus eiusque vero atque integro bono, secundum Dei consilium ac voluntatem ». 261

2376 Technicae artes, quae parentum provocant dissociationem per interventum personae a matrimonio alienae (spermatis vel ovocyti donum, uteri commodatum) graviter sunt inhonestae. Hae technicae artes (inseminatio vel fecundatio artificiales heterologae) filii laedunt ius nascendi e patre et matre ab ipso cognitis et inter se matrimonio coniunctis. Ius produnt « ad hoc ut alter pater aut mater fiat solummodo per alterum ». 262

2377 Hae technicae artes intra matrimonium exercitae (inseminatio et fecundatio artificiales homologae) fortasse minus sunt damnosae, sed moraliter manent inacceptabiles. Actum sexualem ab actu dissociant procreativo. Actus, filii fundans exsistentiam, iam non est actus quo duae personae se mutuo donant, ipse « vitam identitatemque embryonum humanorum in potestatem redegit medicorum atque biologorum, sicque rei technicae dominatum quemdam in personae humanae originem et sortem instaurat. Huiusmodi dominatus suapte natura contradicit dignitati et aequalitati, quae parentibus et filiis communes esse debent ». 263 « Eadem vero procreatio tunc debita sua perfectione destituitur sub aspectu morali, cum animo non intenditur ut fructus coniugalis actus seu illius gestus qui est proprius unionis coniugum. [...] Praeterea solummodo observantia erga vinculum quod inter significationes actus coniugalis intercedit, et observantia erga viventis humani unitatem id efficiunt, ut procreatio habeatur, quae congruat cum humanae personae dignitate ». 264

2378 Filius non est quid debitum, sed donum. « Donum [...] praestantissimum [...] matrimonii » est persona humana. Filius nequit considerari quasi proprietatis obiectum, ad quod induceret agnoscere ambitum « ius ad filium ». In hoc campo, solummodo filius vera possidet iura: illud « ad exsistendum tamquam fructus proveniens ex actu coniugalis amoris proprio suorum parentum, idemque ius habet ad observantiam sibi tamquam personae tribuendam inde a momento conceptionis ». 265

2379 Evangelium ostendit physicam sterilitatem malum absolutum non esse. Coniuges, qui, exhaustis legitimis ad medicinam recursibus, infecunditatem patiuntur, se Domini sociabunt cruci, quae omnis fecunditatis spiritualis est fons. Suam significare possunt generositatem, filios relictos adoptando et aspera pro aliis adimplendo servitia.

IV. Offensae contra matrimonii dignitatem

2380 Adulterium. Hoc verbum infidelitatem designat coniugalem. Cum duo, quorum saltem alter est matrimonio coniunctus, relationem sexualem, etiam fugacem, nectunt inter se, adulterium committunt. Christus adulterium damnat, etiam illud simplicis optati. 266 Sextum praeceptum et Novum Testamentum absolute adulterium proscribunt. 267 Prophetae eius denuntiant gravitatem. In adulterio perspiciunt figuram peccati idololatriae. 268

2381 Adulterium quaedam est iniustitia. Qui illud committit, a suis deficit obligationibus. Foederis frangit signum quod vinculum est matrimoniale, alterius coniugis laedit ius et matrimonii attentat institutionem, contractum violans qui illam fundat. Bonum generationis humanae adducit in discrimen atque filiorum qui unione parentum egent stabili.

Divortium

2382 Dominus Iesus originali institit intentioni Creatoris qui matrimonium volebat indissolubile. 269 Abrogat tolerantias quae in Legem veterem irrepserant. 270

Inter baptizatos, « Matrimonium ratum et consummatum nulla humana potestate nullaque causa, praeterquam morte, dissolvi potest ». 271

2383 Coniugum separatio, vinculo matrimoniali permanente, quibusdam in casibus iure canonico praevisis, potest esse legitima. 272

Si divortium civile unus restat modus ad quaedam iura legitima praestanda, filiorum curam vel patrimonii defensionem, potest tolerari quin culpam constituat moralem.

2384 Divortium gravis est contra legem naturalem offensa. Contractum simul usque ad mortem vivendi, libere a coniugibus initum, frangere conatur. Divortium iniuriam infert salutis Foederi, cuius sacramentale Matrimonium est signum. Novam contrahere unionem, etiamsi haec a lege civili agnoscatur, rupturae addit gravitatem: coniux iterum matrimonio iunctus tunc in statu versatur publici et permanentis adulterii:

« Non licet viro, uxore dimissa, aliam ducere: neque fas est repudiatam a marito, ab alio duci uxorem ». 273

2385 Divortium suam indolem pravam etiam habet ex inordinatione quam in familiarem cellulam introducit et in societatem. Haec inordinatio damna gravia secum fert: pro coniuge, qui se derelictum invenit; pro filiis, parentum separatione profunde vulneratis, et saepe subiectis contentione inter eosdem; propter suum contagionis effectum, qui ex eo veram plagam efficit socialem.

2386 Fieri potest ut alter ex coniugibus victima sit innocens divortii lege civili declarati; hic tunc praeceptum morale non infringit. Notabilis est differentia inter coniugem qui cum sinceritate nisus est ut Matrimonii sacramento esset fidelis et se iniuste videt derelictum, et illum qui, gravi culpa e parte sua, canonice validum destruit Matrimonium. 274

Aliae contra dignitatem matrimonii offensae

2387 Tragoedia intelligitur illius qui, ad Evangelium volens converti, se perspicit obligatum ad unam vel plures repudiandas mulieres, cum quibus vitae coniugalis particeps fuit per annos. Attamen polygamia cum lege morali non concordat. Coniugali « communioni funditus polygamia adversatur: haec enim directe recusat Dei propositum, sicut ipsis initiis revelatur, quoniam pari personalique dignitati viri et mulieris repugnat, qui in matrimonio alter alteri se dant amore integro ideoque ex se unico et exclusorio ». 275 Christianus, qui prius fuit polygamus, graviter iustitia tenetur ad obligationes relate ad suas antiquas uxores et suos filios contractas honorandas.

2388 Incestus relationes indicat intimas inter consanguineos et propinquos, in gradu qui matrimonium vetat inter illos. 276 Sanctus Paulus huic culpae speciatim gravi inurit notam: « Omnino auditur inter vos fornicatio et talis fornicatio [...] ut uxorem patris aliquis habeat. [...] Iam iudicavi [...], in nomine Domini nostri Iesu, [...] tradere huiusmodi Satanae in interitionem carnis... » (1 Cor 5,1.3-5). Incestus relationes corrumpit familiares et ad animalitatem obsignat regressionem.

2389 Ad incestum referri possunt abusus sexuales ab adultis patrati in pueros et adulescentes eorum custodiae concreditos. Culpa tunc duplicatur scandaloso facinore peracto contra psychicam et moralem integritatem iuvenum, qui illo, sua vita perdurante, manebunt signati, et violatione responsabilitatis educativae.

2390 Libera iunctio habetur, cum vir et mulier recusant iuridicam et publicam dare formam relationi intimitatem sexualem implicanti.

Locutio fallax est: quidnam potest significare iunctio in qua personae invicem non obligantur et sic defectum testantur fiduciae in alteram, in se ipsam vel in futurum?

Locutio ad diversas extenditur condiciones: concubinatum, reiectionem matrimonii qua talis, incapacitatem se obligationibus vinculandi ad longum tempus. 277 Omnes hae condiciones dignitatem offendunt matrimonii; ipsam familiae destruunt ideam; sensum fidelitatis debilitant. Eaedem contrariae sunt legi morali: actus sexualis locum habere debet solummodo in matrimonio; extra illud, grave semper constituit peccatum et a communione excludit sacramentali.

2391 Plures hodie speciem quamdam « iuris ad experimentum » tunc postulant, cum intentio habetur matrimonium contrahendi. Quaecumque est propositi firmitas eorum qui se his praematuris vinciuntur relationibus sexualibus, « hae iunctiones non sinunt, ut sinceritas ac fidelitas mutuae necessitudinis inter viri et mulieris personas in tuto ponantur, nec praesertim ut haec necessitudo a cupiditatum et arbitrii mobilitate protegatur ». 278 Unio carnalis moraliter est solummodo legitima, cum vitae definitivae inter virum et mulierem instaurata est communitas. Amor humanus « experimentum » non tolerat. Totale et definitivum exigit donum personarum inter se. 279

Compendium

2392 « Amor est princeps et naturalis cuiusque hominis vocatio ». 280

2393 Deus, creaturam humanam virum creans et mulierem, utrumque pari donavit personali dignitate. Ad unumquemque pertinet, ad virum et mulierem, suam sexualem agnoscere et acceptare identitatem.

2394 Christus est castitatis exemplar. Omnis baptizatus vocatur ad vitam castam ducendam, unusquisque secundum suum proprium vitae statum.

2395 Castitas integrationem sexualitatis significat in persona. Dominii personalis secum fert tirocinium.

2396 Inter peccata graviter castitati contraria, notare oportet masturbationem, fornicationem, pornographiam et homosexuales usus.

2397 Foedus, quod coniuges libere contraxerunt, amorem implicat fidelem. Ipsum eis obligationem infert matrimonium suum custodire indissolubile.

2398 Fecunditas quoddam est matrimonii bonum, donum, finis. Coniuges, vitam donantes, Dei participant paternitatem.

2399 Nativitatum regulatio quemdam responsabilium paternitatis et maternitatis repraesentat aspectum. Legitimitas intentionum coniugum recursum non iustificat ad media moraliter inacceptabilia (exempli gratia ad sterilizationem directam vel ad contraconceptionem).

2400 Adulterium et divortium, polygamia et libera iunctio graves sunt offensae contra matrimonii dignitatem.

Hm. Heron, you posit a fascinating view on sexuality, reproduction, and morality. I don't ascribe to it, but I find the divinely inspired self-denial and frustration intriguing.

That's the position of the Catholic Church.

It is just a bad thing that happens.
Nothing happens without God willing it so. That is, if you believe in him. Thus God wants that miscariage.

CATHECHISMUM CATHOLICAE ECCLASIAE

PARS TERTIA
VITA IN CHRISTO...

Impressive. I didn't think you'd actually attempt it.

On the other hand, you and I both know that Latin isn't the original language. :p

Nothing happens without God willing it so. That is, if you believe in him. Thus God wants that miscariage.

What? No, muppet, things can happen without God wanting them to. otherwise, why is their sin of any kind, or how can an antichrist be born, as per the Book of Revelations? God doesn't want people to suffer, but there are things he chooses not not to control. Free will was given to mankind. Everyone knows that.

Hm. Heron, you posit a fascinating view on sexuality, reproduction, and morality. I don't ascribe to it, but I find the divinely inspired self-denial and frustration intriguing.

You saying you think I'm in the closet? :confused:

Ok so Gay people are allowed to love each other... Just not have sex because it doesnt have a productive purpose? and anything interferring with a child being born between conception and birth is and affront?

Does that mean if a sterile man has sex with his wife its a sin? Or if you have sex at a time of the menstral cycle when the woman isnt fertile its a sin? Or if a woman miscarries its a sin? And sex as an expression of love is a sin too?

If the only purpose of sex was reproduction and anything going wrong with that process is an affront to god then why does it feel so good? Why couldnt we lack sexual pleasure sensors and just deposit the sperm near the ova without any of the naughty pleasure stuff happening? And why do miscarriages happen? Are they an affront to God too since the woman didnt do as he wishes bring forth a healthy child?



Note: I am not Catholic, but I think the obvious response is: Sin produces pleasure. That is why we are so tempted to sin. We, as Christians, are to resist the temptations for worldly pleasures.

Impressive. I didn't think you'd actually attempt it.

On the other hand, you and I both know that Latin isn't the original language. :p

It is for that.

Isolated homosexual behaviours and exclusive homosexual pairings have been observed in both wild and captive animals. It is "natural".


i know this, but you gotta agree that if everybody does it.. the human race is extinct in 2130... not that this is a problem in my eyes

Yes, if it cannot produce children. What part of that troubled you the first time around?
Demonstrably false. Read the Bible. God commanded Abraham to have children with Sarah. They tried, and tried, and tried - but she was infertile, and then God told Abraham to produce a child through Hagar. Of course, God later made Sarah fertile, but that was a miracle, which we can all agree is a special case.

This puts you in a bind, either:
a) Infertile sex isn't a sin because God commanded it to happen and there's no direct Biblical text saying it is, or

b) God isn't omniscient, because He commanded them to commit a sin that He never told them was a sin (so it couldn't have been a test), and then we're taught to believe they're going to Heaven.

<snip>


I dont think this line of conversation is going to go anywhere because i seriously cant even begin to comprehend the mindset and personal logic you work on.

But i'll ask one more set just to be thorough:

So if a man doesnt know he's sterile but has sex is that a sin too?

If you have sex at a time when it will be impossible for the sperm to live long enough i assume thats a sin too then.

The idea of not being able to express love with sex is so incredibly troubling to me that i cant understand where you're coming from. To me the expression of love through sex is something innate and inbuilt. Maybe my lack of understanding offends you, but seriously, my mind boggles... I hope this doesnt sound like I'm trolling but have you ever had really fantastic sex with someone you love? Or even just fantastic sex? It really doesnt sound like you've actually experienced 'making love' in its true form. Or even just anyone who is good in bed.

If i believed in God in the first place i could accept that he would still want us to have some pleasure .. But the amount of pleasure possible from sex seems disproportinate to the function when viewed from a moral standpoint where sex=sin.

Why does God allow miscarriaged to happen? If we are his perfect children made in his image why dont we have mechanisms inbuilt that prevent miscarriage. Shouldnt be hard for an omnipotent being. And surely people deserve to at least get born before God takes them.

You saying you think I'm in the closet? :confused:

What? No, not at all. How'd you come to that conclusion? :confused:

Demonstrably false. Read the Bible. God commanded Abraham to have children with Sarah. They tried, and tried, and tried - but she was infertile, and then God told Abraham to produce a child through Hagar. Of course, God later made Sarah fertile, but that was a miracle, which we can all agree is a special case.

This puts you in a bind, either:
a) Infertile sex isn't a sin because God commanded it to happen and there's no direct Biblical text saying it is, or

b) God isn't omniscient, because He commanded them to commit a sin that He never told them was a sin (so it couldn't have been a test), and then we're taught to believe they're going to Heaven.

It was a test. To see how much he loved God. He passed.

CATHECHISMUM CATHOLICAE ECCLASIAE

PARS TERTIA
VITA IN CHRISTO

SECTIO SECUNDA
DECEM PRAECEPTA

CAPUT SECUNDUM
«DILIGES PROXIMUM TUUM TAMQUAM TEIPSUM»

ARTICULUS 6
SEXTUM PRAECEPTUM

« Non moechaberis » (Ex 20,14). 217

« Audistis quia dictum est: "Non moechaberis". Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis, qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo » (Mt 5,27-28).

I. « Masculum et feminam creavit eos... »

2331 « Deus est amor in Seque vivit Ipse ex mysterio personalis amoris communionis. Ad Suam imaginem creans [...] humanam naturam viri et mulieris, Deus indidit ei vocationem ac propterea potestatem et officium, cum conscientia coniunctum, amoris atque communionis ». 218

« Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem Suam; [...] masculum et feminam creavit eos » (Gn 1,27); « Crescite et multiplicamini » (Gn 1,28); « In die qua creavit Deus hominem, ad similitudinem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam creavit eos et benedixit illis; et vocavit nomen eorum Adam in die, quo creati sunt » (Gn 5,1-2).

2332 Sexualitas omnes personae humanae afficit rationes, in unitate corporis eius eiusque animae. Speciatim ad vim affectivam spectat, ad capacitatem amandi et procreandi et, generaliore modo, ad aptitudinem vincula communionis cum alio nectendi.

2333 Ad unumquemque, virum et mulierem, pertinet suam sexualem identitatem agnoscere et accipere. Differentia et complementaritas physicae, morales et spirituales ad bona matrimonii ordinantur et ad vitae familiaris progressum. Utriusque coniugis et societatis harmonia partim dependet e modo quo complementaritas inter sexus, necessitas mutua et mutuum adiutorium deducuntur in vitam.

2334 « Deus, homines creans "masculum et feminam", pari donavit personali dignitate virum et mulierem ». 219 « Homo persona est, pariter vir et mulier: ambo namque ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei personalis creati sunt ». 220

2335 Uterque sexus, pari dignitate, licet modo diverso, imago est potentiae et teneritatis Dei. Viri et mulieris unio in matrimonio quidam est modus, in carne, imitandi generositatem et fecunditatem Creatoris: « Relinquet vir patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae; et erunt in carnem unam » (Gn 2,24). Ab hac unione omnes humanae generationes procedunt. 221

2336 Iesus venit ut creationem in puritate eius originis restauraret. In sermone montano, propositum Dei modo interpretatur rigoroso: « Audistis quia dictum est: "Non moechaberis". Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis, qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo » (Mt 5,27-28). Homo non debet separare quod Deus coniunxit. 222

Ecclesiae Traditio sextum intellexit praeceptum sicut sexualitatis humanae comprehendens complexum.

II. Vocatio ad castitatem

2337 Castitas integrationem sexualitatis in persona significat obtentam atque ideo interiorem hominis unitatem in eius corporali et spirituali realitate. Sexualitas, in qua exprimitur hominem ad mundum corporalem et biologicum pertinere, personalis et vere humana fit, cum in relatione inseritur personae ad personam, in dono mutuo integro et temporaliter illimitato viri et mulieris.

Castitatis igitur virtus integritatem implicat personae et totalitatem doni.

Personae integritas

2338 Persona casta integritatem servat virium vitae et amoris, quae in ea sunt positae. Haec integritas unitatem personae praestat, ea omni procedendi opponitur modo qui illam vulneraret. Nec duplicem vitam nec duplicem tolerat sermonem. 223

2339 Castitas implicat dominii sui tirocinium, quod libertatis humanae est paedagogia. Optio est clara: homo aut suas regit passiones et pacem obtinet, aut se in servitutem redigi permittit per eas et miser fit. 224 « Dignitas igitur hominis requirit ut secundum consciam et liberam electionem agat, personaliter scilicet ab intra motus et inductus, et non sub caeco impulsu interno vel sub mera externa coactione. Talem vero dignitatem obtinet homo cum, sese ab omni passionum captivitate liberans, finem suum in boni libera electione persequitur et apta subsidia efficaciter ac sollerti industria sibi procurat ». 225

2340 Qui sui Baptismi promissionibus fidelis vult permanere et tentationibus resistere, incumbet ut ad id adhibeat media: sui cognitionem, exercitium ascesis aptatae condicionibus in quibus versatur, oboedientiam praeceptis divinis, virtutum moralium operationem et fidelitatem orationi. « Per continentiam quippe colligimur et redigimur in unum, a quo in multa defluximus ». 226

2341 Virtus castitatis dependet ex virtute cardinali temperantiae, quae sensibilitatis humanae passiones et appetitus intendit ratione imbuere.

2342 Dominium sui est longae constantiae opus. Numquam considerandum est tamquam in perpetuum iam adquisitum. Nisum implicat in omnibus vitae aetatibus iterum atque iterum suscipiendum. 227 Requisitus nisus quibusdam temporibus potest esse intensior, ut cum personalitas formatur, in pueritia et adulescentia.

2343 Castitas cognoscit incrementi leges, quae per gradus procedunt imperfectione signatos et nimis frequenter peccato. Homo castus et virtutis studiosus « de die in diem quasi exstruitur pluribus cum suis optionibus: ergo cognoscit, diligit, perficit morale bonum secundum incrementi eius gradus ». 228

2344 Castitas laborem constituit quam maxime personalem, ea nisum culturalem etiam implicat, quia revera « apparet humanae personae profectum et ipsius societatis incrementum ab invicem pendere ». 229 Castitas observantiam praesupponit iurium personae, praesertim iuris ad informationem et educationem recipiendas, quae morales et spirituales vitae humanae observent rationes.

2345 Castitas virtus moralis est. Est etiam donum Dei, gratia, fructus operis spiritualis. 230 Spiritus Sanctus puritatem Christi ei concedit imitari 231 quem Baptismi regeneravit aqua.

Totalitas doni sui ipsius

2346 Caritas est omnium virtutum forma. Sub eius influxu, castitas tamquam schola apparet doni personae. Dominium sui ad sui ordinatur donum. Castitas ducit eum, qui eam exercitat, ut coram proximo testis fiat fidelitatis et teneritatis Dei.

2347 Castitatis virtus in amicitia expanditur. Discipulo indicat quomodo sequatur et imitetur Illum qui nos tamquam Suos proprios elegit amicos, 232 Se nobis totaliter donavit nosque participes effecit Suae divinae condicionis. Castitas immortalitatis est promissio.

Castitas praesertim in amicitia erga proximum exprimitur. Amicitia, inter personas eiusdem sexus vel diversorum sexuum exculta, magnum pro omnibus bonum constituit. Ad spiritualem perducit communionem.

Diversa castitatis genera

2348 Omnis baptizatus ad castitatem vocatur. Christianus Christum induit, 233 omnis castitatis exemplar. Omnes christifideles vocantur ut vitam castam ducant secundum suum peculiarem vitae statum. Christianus, in sui Baptismi momento, se obligavit ad suam affectivam vim in castitate regendam.

2349 Castitate « pro variis vitae suae statibus homines ornari debent: alteri virginitatem aut coelibatum Deo sacrum profitentes, qua quidem eminenti ratione ipsi facilius uni Deo vacare indiviso corde possunt; alteri vero vitam agentes ea forma, quae omnibus lege morali statuitur, prout matrimonio iunguntur aut sunt caelibes ». 234 Personae matrimonio coniunctae vocantur ut in castitate coniugali vivant; ceterae castitatem colunt in continentia:

« Docemur itaque triplicem castitatis esse virtutem: unam coniugalem, aliam viduitatis, tertiam virginitatis; non enim sic aliam praedicamus, ut excludamus alias. [...] In hoc Ecclesiae est opulens disciplina ». 235

2350 Sponsi vocantur ut castitatem colant in continentia. In hac subiectione ad probationem videbunt detegi mutuam observantiam, tirocinium fidelitatis et spei se a Deo mutuo recipiendi. Ad matrimonii tempus servabunt manifestationes teneritudinis, quae amoris coniugalis sunt specificae. Se mutuo adiuvabunt ut in castitate crescant.

Contra castitatem offensae

2351 Luxuria est inordinata cupiditas vel intemperans delectatio voluptatis venereae. Voluptas sexualis moraliter est inordinata, cum per se ipsam quaeritur, a procreationis et unionis dissociata finibus.

2352 Masturbationis nomine intelligere oportet voluntariam organorum genitalium excitationem, ad obtinendam ex ea veneream voluptatem. « Revera tum Ecclesiae Magisterium — per decursum constantis traditionis — tum moralis christifidelium sensus sine dubitatione firmiter tenent masturbationem esse actum intrinsece graviterque inordinatum ». « Quaecumque est ipsa agendi causa, deliberatus usus facultatis sexualis extra rectum coniugale commercium essentialiter eius fini contradicit ». Delectatio sexualis tunc quaeritur extra relationem sexualem, « quae ordine morali postulatur, quae nempe ad effectum deducit integrum sensum mutuae donationis ac humanae procreationis in contextu veri amoris ». 236

Ad aequum iudicium de responsabilitate morali subiectorum efformandum et ad pastoralem actionem recte ducendam, perpendentur immaturitas affectiva, vis habituum contractorum, angustiae status vel alia elementa psychica vel socialia, quae possunt moralem minuere, fortasse etiam ad minimum reducere, culpabilitatem.

2353 Fornicatio unio est carnalis extra matrimonium inter virum et mulierem liberos. Ea est personarum dignitati graviter contraria atque sexualitati humanae ad bonum coniugum et ad filiorum generationem et educationem naturaliter ordinatae. Est praeterea grave scandalum, cum iuvenum habetur corruptio.

2354 Pornographia consistit in actibus sexualibus, realibus vel simulatis, ab agentium intimitate substrahendis, ad eosdem deliberate aliis personis exhibendos. Castitatem offendit quia actum coniugalem, intimum coniugum mutuum donum, pervertit. Graviter dignitatem attentat eorum qui se ei tradunt (actores, negotiatores, spectatores), siquidem alius pro alio obiectum efficitur vulgaris voluptatis et illiciti lucri. Alios et alios in illusionem submergit mundi fictitii. Culpa gravis est. Auctoritates civiles debent productionem et distributionem prohibere rerum pornographicarum.

2355 Prostitutio attentat personae, quae prostituitur, dignitatem, redactam ad voluptatem veneream, quae ab illa obtinetur. Qui pecunia retribuit, graviter contra se ipsum peccat: castitatem frangit, ad quam eius Baptismus obligat, et corpus inquinat suum, Spiritus Sancti templum. 237 Prostitutio sociale constituit flagellum. Generatim mulieres afficit, sed etiam viros, pueros vel adulescentes (in his duobus ultimis casibus, peccatum scandalo duplicatur). Etsi semper graviter peccato obnoxium sit se tradere prostitutioni, miseria, minaciae et socialis sollicitatio imputabilitatem culpae attenuare possunt.

2356 Stuprum ingressum indicat per vim, cum violentia, in sexualem alicuius personae intimitatem. Iustitiam attentat et caritatem. Stuprum profunde uniuscuiusque violat ius ad observantiam, ad libertatem, ad physicam et moralem integritatem. Damnum causat grave, quod victimam per totam eius vitam potest signare. Actus est semper intrinsece malus. Adhuc gravius est stuprum a propinquis commissum (cf incestus) vel ab educatoribus erga pueros ipsis concreditos.

Castitas et homosexualitas

2357 Homosexualitas relationes designat inter viros vel mulieres qui sexualem experiuntur allectationem exclusive vel praevalenter erga eiusdem sexus personas. Per saecula et culturas, formas induit valde diversas. Eius psychica origo manet magna ex parte non explicata. Traditio, sacra nitens Scriptura, quae eos tamquam graves depravationes praesentat, 238 semper declaravit « actus homosexualitatis suapte intrinseca natura esse inordinatos ». 239 Legi naturali sunt contrarii. Actum sexualem dono praecludunt vitae. E vera complementaritate affectiva et sexuali non procedunt. Nullo in casu possent accipere approbationem.

2358 Virorum et mulierum numerus non exiguus tendentias homosexuales praesentat profunde radicatas. Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem. Excipiendi sunt observantia, compassione et suavitate. Relate ad eos vitandum est quodlibet iniustae discriminationis signum. Hae personae vocantur ad voluntatem Dei in sua vita efficiendam, et, si ipsae christianae sunt, ad coniungendas cum Sacrificio crucis Domini difficultates quas in facto suae condicionis possunt invenire.

2359 Personae homosexuales ad castitatem vocantur. Ipsae, dominii virtutibus quae libertatem educant interiorem, quandoque amicitiae gratuitae auxilio, oratione et gratia sacramentali, possunt et debent ad perfectionem christianam gradatim et obfirmate appropinquare.

III. Coniugum amor

2360 Sexualitas ad coniugalem ordinatur amorem viri et mulieris. In matrimonio, corporalis coniugum intimitas signum et pignus fit spiritualis communionis. Inter baptizatos, matrimonii vincula sacramento sanctificantur.

2361 « Sexualitas [...], per quam vir ac femina se dedunt vicissim actibus coniugum propriis sibi ac peculiaribus, minime quiddam est dumtaxat biologicum, sed tangit personae humanae ut talis veluti nucleum intimum. Sexualitas modo vere humano expletur tantummodo, si est pars complens amoris, quo vir et femina sese totos mutuo usque ad mortem obstringunt »: 240

« Exsurrexit Thobias de lecto et dixit [...] [Sarae]: "Surge, soror! Oremus et deprecemur Dominum nostrum, ut faciat super nos misericordiam et sanitatem". Et surrexit, et coeperunt orare et deprecari Dominum, ut daretur illis sanitas. Et coeperunt dicere: "Benedictus es, Deus patrum nostrorum [...]. Tu fecisti Adam et dedisti illi adiutorium firmum Evam, et ex ambobus factum est semen hominum. Et dixisti non esse bonum hominem solum: Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. Et nunc non luxuriae causa accipio hanc sororem meam, sed in veritate. Praecipe, ut miserearis mei et illius, et consenescamus pariter sani". Et dixerunt: "Amen, amen!". Et dormierunt per noctem » (Tb 8,4-9).

2362 « Actus [...], quibus coniuges intime et caste inter se uniuntur, honesti ac digni sunt et, modo vere humano exerciti, donationem mutuam significant et fovent, qua sese invicem laeto gratoque animo locupletant ». 241 Sexualitas fons est gaudii et delectationis:

« Idem Creator [...] etiam disposuit coniuges, pro hoc munere [generationis], in corpore et in spiritu delectationem invenire et felicitatem. Coniuges igitur, hanc delectationem quaerentes istaque fruentes, nihil operantur mali. Ipsi id accipiunt quod Creator eis destinavit. Tamen etiam coniuges scire debent, se intra limites iustae moderationis tenere ». 242

2363 Coniugum unione, duplex matrimonii finis ducitur in rem: ipsorum coniugum bonum et vitae transmissio. Hae duae significationes seu valores matrimonii separari non possunt, quin vita spiritualis coniugum alteretur et matrimonii bona atque familiae futurum in discrimen adducantur.

Sic amor coniugalis viri et mulieris sub duplici exigentia fidelitatis et fecunditatis est positus.

Coniugalis fidelitas

2364 Ab utroque coniugum constituitur « intima communitas vitae et amoris coniugalis, [quae] a Creatore condita suisque legibus instructa, foedere coniugii seu irrevocabili consensu personali instauratur ». 243 Uterque, alter alteri, se donat definitive et totaliter. Amplius duo non sunt, sed unam iam constituunt carnem. Foedus libere a coniugibus contractum eis imponit obligationem illud unum et indissolubile conservandi. 244 « Quod [...] Deus coniunxit, homo non separet » (Mc 10,9). 245

2365 Fidelitas constantiam exprimit in verbo dato servando. Deus fidelis est. Matrimonii sacramentum virum et mulierem introducit in fidelitatem Christi erga Eius Ecclesiam. Castitate coniugali coram mundo testimonium praebent huius mysterii.

Sanctus Ioannes Chrysostomus iuvenibus uxoratis suggerit ut suis uxoribus hos proferant sermones: « Te sum amplexus et te diligo, et meae etiam animae praefero. Nihil est enim vita praesens, oroque et hortor et omnia facio, ut nos ita digni habeamur qui praesentem agamus vitam, ut illic etiam possimus in futuro saeculo cum magna securitate simul versari. [...] Ego dilectionem tuam praefero omnibus; neque est quidquam mihi aeque molestum quam a te umquam dissidere ». 246

Matrimonii fecunditas

2366 Fecunditas quoddam est donum, quidam matrimonii finis, quia amor coniugalis naturaliter ad id tendit ut fecundus sit. Filius mutuo coniugum amori extrinsece addendus non accedit; surgit in ipso corde huius mutui doni, cuius ipse fructus est et adimpletio. Sic Ecclesia, quae « a vitae parte consistit », 247 docet « necessarium esse, ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat ». 248 « Huiusmodi doctrina, quae ab Ecclesiae Magisterio saepe exposita est, in nexu indissolubili nititur, a Deo statuto, quem homini sua sponte infringere non licet, inter significationem unitatis et significationem procreationis, quae ambae in actu coniugali insunt ». 249

2367 Coniuges, ad vitam dandam vocati, potentiam creatricem et paternitatem participant Dei. 250 « In officio humanam vitam transmittendi atque educandi, quod tamquam propria eorum missio considerandum est, coniuges sciunt se cooperatores esse amoris Dei Eiusque veluti interpretes. Ideo humana et christiana responsabilitate suum munus adimplebunt ». 251

2368 Peculiaris huius responsabilitatis ratio ad procreationem regulandam refertur. Coniuges, iustis de causis, 252 possunt suorum filiorum procreationes intervallis separare velle. Ad eos pertinet comprobare eorum optatum ex caeco sui amore (ex « egoismo ») non promanare, sed illud iustae generositati paternitatis responsabilis esse conformem. Praeterea suum agendi modum secundum criteria moralitatis regulabunt obiectiva:

« Moralis [...] indoles rationis agendi, ubi de componendo amore coniugali cum responsabili vitae transmissione agitur, non a sola sincera intentione et aestimatione motivorum pendet, sed obiectivis criteriis, ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura desumptis, determinari debet, quae integrum sensum mutuae donationis ac humanae procreationis in contextu veri amoris observant; quod fieri nequit nisi virtus castitatis coniugalis sincero animo colatur ». 253

2369 « Quodsi utraque eiusmodi essentialis ratio, unitatis videlicet et procreationis, servatur, usus matrimonii sensum mutui verique amoris suumque ordinem ad celsissimum paternitatis munus omnino retinet ». 254

2370 Continentia periodica, methodi ad procreationem regulandam fundatae super auto-observationem et recursum ad periodos infecundas, 255 sunt criteriis obiectivis moralitatis conformes. Hae methodi corpus verentur coniugum, teneritudinem promovent inter eos et educationi favent authenticae libertatis. E contra, est intrinsece malus quivis « actus qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur »: 256

« Naturali verbo, quod reciprocam plenamque coniugum donationem declarat, conceptuum impeditio verbum opponit obiectivae contradictionis, videlicet nullius plenae sui donationis alteri factae: hinc procedit non sola recusatio certa ac definita mentis ad vitam apertae, verum simulatio etiam interioris veritatis ipsius amoris coniugalis, qui secundum totam personam dirigitur ad sese donandum. [...] Discrimen anthropologicum simulque morale, quod inter conceptuum impeditionem et observationem intervallorum temporis intercedit [...], implicat duas personae ac sexualitatis species, quae inter se nequeunt conciliari ». 257

2371 « Omnibus vero compertum sit vitam hominum et munus eam transmittendi non ad hoc saeculum tantum restringi neque eo tantum commensurari et intelligi posse, sed ad aeternam hominum destinationem semper respicere ». 258

2372 Status responsabilis est prosperitatis civium. Hoc titulo, legitimum est eum intervenire ad incolarum incrementum ordinandum. Id obiectiva et observanti informatione facere potest, sed nequaquam via imperiosa et constringenti. Legitime non potest se substituere pro incepto coniugum, qui primi sunt responsabiles procreationis et educationis suorum filiorum. 259 In hoc dominio, auctoritate caret ut mediis interveniat quae legi morali sunt contraria.

Donum filii

2373 Sacra Scriptura et traditionalis praxis Ecclesiae in familiis numerosis signum vident benedictionis divinae et generositatis parentum. 260

2374 Magnus est dolor matrimonio coniunctorum qui se steriles detegunt. « Quid dabis mihi? », quaerit Abram a Deo. « Ego vadam absque liberis... » (Gn 15,2). « Da mihi liberos, alioquin moriar », clamat Rachel ad suum maritum Iacob (Gn 30,1).

2375 Investigationes quae humanam minuere intendunt sterilitatem, fovendae sunt, si deserviant « personae humanae, eius iuribus inalienabilibus eiusque vero atque integro bono, secundum Dei consilium ac voluntatem ». 261

2376 Technicae artes, quae parentum provocant dissociationem per interventum personae a matrimonio alienae (spermatis vel ovocyti donum, uteri commodatum) graviter sunt inhonestae. Hae technicae artes (inseminatio vel fecundatio artificiales heterologae) filii laedunt ius nascendi e patre et matre ab ipso cognitis et inter se matrimonio coniunctis. Ius produnt « ad hoc ut alter pater aut mater fiat solummodo per alterum ». 262

2377 Hae technicae artes intra matrimonium exercitae (inseminatio et fecundatio artificiales homologae) fortasse minus sunt damnosae, sed moraliter manent inacceptabiles. Actum sexualem ab actu dissociant procreativo. Actus, filii fundans exsistentiam, iam non est actus quo duae personae se mutuo donant, ipse « vitam identitatemque embryonum humanorum in potestatem redegit medicorum atque biologorum, sicque rei technicae dominatum quemdam in personae humanae originem et sortem instaurat. Huiusmodi dominatus suapte natura contradicit dignitati et aequalitati, quae parentibus et filiis communes esse debent ». 263 « Eadem vero procreatio tunc debita sua perfectione destituitur sub aspectu morali, cum animo non intenditur ut fructus coniugalis actus seu illius gestus qui est proprius unionis coniugum. [...] Praeterea solummodo observantia erga vinculum quod inter significationes actus coniugalis intercedit, et observantia erga viventis humani unitatem id efficiunt, ut procreatio habeatur, quae congruat cum humanae personae dignitate ». 264

2378 Filius non est quid debitum, sed donum. « Donum [...] praestantissimum [...] matrimonii » est persona humana. Filius nequit considerari quasi proprietatis obiectum, ad quod induceret agnoscere ambitum « ius ad filium ». In hoc campo, solummodo filius vera possidet iura: illud « ad exsistendum tamquam fructus proveniens ex actu coniugalis amoris proprio suorum parentum, idemque ius habet ad observantiam sibi tamquam personae tribuendam inde a momento conceptionis ». 265

2379 Evangelium ostendit physicam sterilitatem malum absolutum non esse. Coniuges, qui, exhaustis legitimis ad medicinam recursibus, infecunditatem patiuntur, se Domini sociabunt cruci, quae omnis fecunditatis spiritualis est fons. Suam significare possunt generositatem, filios relictos adoptando et aspera pro aliis adimplendo servitia.

IV. Offensae contra matrimonii dignitatem

2380 Adulterium. Hoc verbum infidelitatem designat coniugalem. Cum duo, quorum saltem alter est matrimonio coniunctus, relationem sexualem, etiam fugacem, nectunt inter se, adulterium committunt. Christus adulterium damnat, etiam illud simplicis optati. 266 Sextum praeceptum et Novum Testamentum absolute adulterium proscribunt. 267 Prophetae eius denuntiant gravitatem. In adulterio perspiciunt figuram peccati idololatriae. 268

2381 Adulterium quaedam est iniustitia. Qui illud committit, a suis deficit obligationibus. Foederis frangit signum quod vinculum est matrimoniale, alterius coniugis laedit ius et matrimonii attentat institutionem, contractum violans qui illam fundat. Bonum generationis humanae adducit in discrimen atque filiorum qui unione parentum egent stabili.

Divortium

2382 Dominus Iesus originali institit intentioni Creatoris qui matrimonium volebat indissolubile. 269 Abrogat tolerantias quae in Legem veterem irrepserant. 270

Inter baptizatos, « Matrimonium ratum et consummatum nulla humana potestate nullaque causa, praeterquam morte, dissolvi potest ». 271

2383 Coniugum separatio, vinculo matrimoniali permanente, quibusdam in casibus iure canonico praevisis, potest esse legitima. 272

Si divortium civile unus restat modus ad quaedam iura legitima praestanda, filiorum curam vel patrimonii defensionem, potest tolerari quin culpam constituat moralem.

2384 Divortium gravis est contra legem naturalem offensa. Contractum simul usque ad mortem vivendi, libere a coniugibus initum, frangere conatur. Divortium iniuriam infert salutis Foederi, cuius sacramentale Matrimonium est signum. Novam contrahere unionem, etiamsi haec a lege civili agnoscatur, rupturae addit gravitatem: coniux iterum matrimonio iunctus tunc in statu versatur publici et permanentis adulterii:

« Non licet viro, uxore dimissa, aliam ducere: neque fas est repudiatam a marito, ab alio duci uxorem ». 273

2385 Divortium suam indolem pravam etiam habet ex inordinatione quam in familiarem cellulam introducit et in societatem. Haec inordinatio damna gravia secum fert: pro coniuge, qui se derelictum invenit; pro filiis, parentum separatione profunde vulneratis, et saepe subiectis contentione inter eosdem; propter suum contagionis effectum, qui ex eo veram plagam efficit socialem.

2386 Fieri potest ut alter ex coniugibus victima sit innocens divortii lege civili declarati; hic tunc praeceptum morale non infringit. Notabilis est differentia inter coniugem qui cum sinceritate nisus est ut Matrimonii sacramento esset fidelis et se iniuste videt derelictum, et illum qui, gravi culpa e parte sua, canonice validum destruit Matrimonium. 274

Aliae contra dignitatem matrimonii offensae

2387 Tragoedia intelligitur illius qui, ad Evangelium volens converti, se perspicit obligatum ad unam vel plures repudiandas mulieres, cum quibus vitae coniugalis particeps fuit per annos. Attamen polygamia cum lege morali non concordat. Coniugali « communioni funditus polygamia adversatur: haec enim directe recusat Dei propositum, sicut ipsis initiis revelatur, quoniam pari personalique dignitati viri et mulieris repugnat, qui in matrimonio alter alteri se dant amore integro ideoque ex se unico et exclusorio ». 275 Christianus, qui prius fuit polygamus, graviter iustitia tenetur ad obligationes relate ad suas antiquas uxores et suos filios contractas honorandas.

2388 Incestus relationes indicat intimas inter consanguineos et propinquos, in gradu qui matrimonium vetat inter illos. 276 Sanctus Paulus huic culpae speciatim gravi inurit notam: « Omnino auditur inter vos fornicatio et talis fornicatio [...] ut uxorem patris aliquis habeat. [...] Iam iudicavi [...], in nomine Domini nostri Iesu, [...] tradere huiusmodi Satanae in interitionem carnis... » (1 Cor 5,1.3-5). Incestus relationes corrumpit familiares et ad animalitatem obsignat regressionem.

2389 Ad incestum referri possunt abusus sexuales ab adultis patrati in pueros et adulescentes eorum custodiae concreditos. Culpa tunc duplicatur scandaloso facinore peracto contra psychicam et moralem integritatem iuvenum, qui illo, sua vita perdurante, manebunt signati, et violatione responsabilitatis educativae.

2390 Libera iunctio habetur, cum vir et mulier recusant iuridicam et publicam dare formam relationi intimitatem sexualem implicanti.

Locutio fallax est: quidnam potest significare iunctio in qua personae invicem non obligantur et sic defectum testantur fiduciae in alteram, in se ipsam vel in futurum?

Locutio ad diversas extenditur condiciones: concubinatum, reiectionem matrimonii qua talis, incapacitatem se obligationibus vinculandi ad longum tempus. 277 Omnes hae condiciones dignitatem offendunt matrimonii; ipsam familiae destruunt ideam; sensum fidelitatis debilitant. Eaedem contrariae sunt legi morali: actus sexualis locum habere debet solummodo in matrimonio; extra illud, grave semper constituit peccatum et a communione excludit sacramentali.

2391 Plures hodie speciem quamdam « iuris ad experimentum » tunc postulant, cum intentio habetur matrimonium contrahendi. Quaecumque est propositi firmitas eorum qui se his praematuris vinciuntur relationibus sexualibus, « hae iunctiones non sinunt, ut sinceritas ac fidelitas mutuae necessitudinis inter viri et mulieris personas in tuto ponantur, nec praesertim ut haec necessitudo a cupiditatum et arbitrii mobilitate protegatur ». 278 Unio carnalis moraliter est solummodo legitima, cum vitae definitivae inter virum et mulierem instaurata est communitas. Amor humanus « experimentum » non tolerat. Totale et definitivum exigit donum personarum inter se. 279

Compendium

2392 « Amor est princeps et naturalis cuiusque hominis vocatio ». 280

2393 Deus, creaturam humanam virum creans et mulierem, utrumque pari donavit personali dignitate. Ad unumquemque pertinet, ad virum et mulierem, suam sexualem agnoscere et acceptare identitatem.

2394 Christus est castitatis exemplar. Omnis baptizatus vocatur ad vitam castam ducendam, unusquisque secundum suum proprium vitae statum.

2395 Castitas integrationem sexualitatis significat in persona. Dominii personalis secum fert tirocinium.

2396 Inter peccata graviter castitati contraria, notare oportet masturbationem, fornicationem, pornographiam et homosexuales usus.

2397 Foedus, quod coniuges libere contraxerunt, amorem implicat fidelem. Ipsum eis obligationem infert matrimonium suum custodire indissolubile.

2398 Fecunditas quoddam est matrimonii bonum, donum, finis. Coniuges, vitam donantes, Dei participant paternitatem.

2399 Nativitatum regulatio quemdam responsabilium paternitatis et maternitatis repraesentat aspectum. Legitimitas intentionum coniugum recursum non iustificat ad media moraliter inacceptabilia (exempli gratia ad sterilizationem directam vel ad contraconceptionem).

2400 Adulterium et divortium, polygamia et libera iunctio graves sunt offensae contra matrimonii dignitatem.



Yeah, what she said.

What? No, not at all. How'd you come to that conclusion? :confused:

Sorry. Thats what the divinely inspired self denila and frustration thing sounded like. Just wondered.

What? No, muppet, things can happen without God wanting them to. otherwise, why is their sin of any kind, or how can an antichrist be born, as per the Book of Revelations? God doesn't want people to suffer, but there are things he chooses not not to control. Free will was given to mankind. Everyone knows that.
Well, does everybody know that miscarriage is not the product of free will? Look, God is omnipotent and omniscient. If he choses not to interfere to save the life of a poor, innocent unborn baby he is guilty of negligence. The baby has no will in this, its dying because a) God wants to stay uncaring or b) wants the baby dead.

It is for that.

I apologise. I did not read your post with enough care to realize it was not from the Bible. I disrespected you as a peer.

Beyond that, is this thread not concerning Christianity as a whole, if not further? Therefore, shouldn't we disregard texts belonging and applying only to the Catholic church?

Demonstrably false. Read the Bible. God commanded Abraham to have children with Sarah. They tried, and tried, and tried - but she was infertile, and then God told Abraham to produce a child through Hagar. Of course, God later made Sarah fertile, but that was a miracle, which we can all agree is a special case.

This puts you in a bind, either:
a) Infertile sex isn't a sin because God commanded it to happen and there's no direct Biblical text saying it is, or

b) God isn't omniscient, because He commanded them to commit a sin that He never told them was a sin (so it couldn't have been a test), and then we're taught to believe they're going to Heaven.

It isn't a sin unless you KNOW you could never possibly ever conceive.

God told them to try, so it gave them faith.

If you're sterile and don't know it, or have repetitive miscarriages but still have the hope to conceive, it isn't a sin, since it isn't deliberately choosing to go against God's will.

It's different for vasectomies, and the like.

What? No, not at all. How'd you come to that conclusion? :confused:

maybe he has unresolved issues. he thinks you're onto his secret ;)

NOTE: This is said in jest. Offense disclaimer in affect

Quote:
And why do miscarriages happen? Are they an affront to God too since the woman didnt do as he wishes bring forth a healthy child?

yes. But it isn't the woman's fault. It is just a bad thing that happens.

Then why did God design the female body to have miscarriages 30-50% of the time :( ?

And if it is a sin to love yourself, because that would be pride, is it not allright to value ones own life either ?

I dont think this line of conversation is going to go anywhere because i seriously cant even begin to comprehend the mindset and personal logic you work on.

But i'll ask one more set just to be thorough:

So if a man doesnt know he's sterile but has sex is that a sin too?

Yes. ignorance is no excuse for an adult to sin. But remember, it's never too late to repent. So, when he finds out he is impotent, he repents, and his sins are washed clean.

If you have sex at a time when it will be impossible for the sperm to live long enough i assume thats a sin too then.

Yes. Technically.

The idea of not being able to express love with sex is so incredibly troubling to me that i cant understand where you're coming from. To me the expression of love through sex is something innate and inbuilt. Maybe my lack of understanding offends you, but seriously, my mind boggles... I hope this doesnt sound like I'm trolling but have you ever had really fantastic sex with someone you love? Or even just fantastic sex? It really doesnt sound like you've actually experienced 'making love' in its true form. Or even just anyone who is good in bed.

No it doesn't sound like trolling. And I have never had sex. All my opinions are based on scripture. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, once I do have fantastic sex. Who knows?

If i believed in God in the first place i could accept that he would still want us to have some pleasure .. But the amount of pleasure possible from sex seems disproportinate to the function when viewed from a moral standpoint where sex=sin.

Not all sex is sinful. Only non-reproductive sex. If it's really that amazing, maybe it should be viewed as a reward. Kind of like, if you go around having sex with everyone, it becomes increasingly less enjoyable as you are desensitised to it, but if you save yourslef for the right person, it's compeletely amazing.

Why does God allow miscarriaged to happen? If we are his perfect children made in his image why dont we have mechanisms inbuilt that prevent miscarriage. Shouldnt be hard for an omnipotent being. And surely people deserve to at least get born before God takes them.

To make us appreciate God's gifts even more. As a trial of faith, to see if we truly love God.

Well, does everybody know that miscarriage is not the product of free will? Look, God is omnipotent and omniscient. If he choses not to interfere to save the life of a poor, innocent unborn baby he is guilty of negligence. The baby has no will in this, its dying because a) God wants to stay uncaring or b) wants the baby dead.

You want God to mollycoddle your entire life? Nice try, better luck next time.

why are we all hung up on the bible argument? i the bible was written a long time ago. i really dont care what it has to say about gay. i know a couple gay guys and they are very nice. why dont we give the bible argument a rest?

It was a test. To see how much he loved God. He passed.

If God is supposed to be able to see into the hearts of men and know their faith anyway, why make Abraham do all these sinful things to prove something God should know?

I apologise. I did not read your post with enough care to realize it was not from the Bible. I disrespected you as a peer.

Beyond that, is this thread not concerning Christianity as a whole, if not further? Therefore, shouldn't we disregard texts belonging and applying only to the Catholic church?

If you wish I will attempt to find the basis of this law in the Bible. I can't make any promises though, it's a lonnggg book.

maybe he has unresolved issues. he thinks you're onto his secret ;)

NOTE: This is said in jest. Offense disclaimer in affect

Yes, that is funny. How funny you are.

why are we all hung up on the bible argument? i the bible was written a long time ago. i really dont care what it has to say about gay. i know a couple gay guys and they are very nice. why dont we give the bible argument a rest?

Good addition there. If you don't think the bible is relevant, 1)Your loss, sadly. 2)Go to some other thread.

Thanks for the spam!

If God is supposed to be able to see into the hearts of men and know their faith anyway, why make Abraham do all these sinful things to prove something God should know?

Well, I don't know. the Lord has neglected to tell me his master plan :rolleyes:

If you wish I will attempt to find the basis of this law in the Bible. I can't make any promises though, it's a lonnggg book.

Your choice. I wouldn't want to hold you to an arduous task for the sake of an internet forum. But if you feel like it's a challenge you'd get satisfaction completing, then I'd be interested in what it says.

actually i wasnt spamming. im really wondering why we are all talking about the bible argument?

Well, I don't know. the Lord has neglected to tell me his master plan :rolleyes:

Then why do you trust him ?

actually i wasnt spamming. im really wondering why we are all talking about the bible argument?

Because this topic is called "Homosexuality: Sin?"

actually i wasnt spamming. im really wondering why we are all talking about the bible argument?

Because the original post, and therefore the subject and theme of the entire thread, was steeped in Biblical verse.

Then why do you trust him ?


His actions are demonstrably good, e.g. sending his son to die for our sins. And I don't trust every aspect of my life to him. Some things you have to make happen for yourself. It's why sloth is a sin.

Yes. ignorance is no excuse for an adult to sin. But remember, it's never too late to repent. So, when he finds out he is impotent, he repents, and his sins are washed clean.



Yes. Technically.



No it doesn't sound like trolling. And I have never had sex. All my opinions are based on scripture. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, once I do have fantastic sex. Who knows?



Not all sex is sinful. Only non-reproductive sex. If it's really that amazing, maybe it should be viewed as a reward. Kind of like, if you go around having sex with everyone, it becomes increasingly less enjoyable as you are desensitised to it, but if you save yourslef for the right person, it's compeletely amazing.



To make us appreciate God's gifts even more. As a trial of faith, to see if we truly love God.

Well we've made more progress with this than i thought we would.

The infertile man.. If he dies before finding out he is infertile then does he die sinful and hence go to hell even though he didnt know he was sinning?

Fair enough. If you find the right person i have a strong feeling you will change you're mind on the "sex as an expression of love thing". I guess you'll find out when it happens.

Couldnt the pleasure of sex be a reward for giving genuine love to another person? And the reproductive aspect be something this inspires? I might not be making sense, like i said i dont believe in God so i'm trying to think as much on your terms as i can.

Miscarriage sounds like a really cruel test of faith to me. As someone who knows people who have experienced the emotional turmoil of miscarriage i cant see it as a good test. If i were christian and my partner had multiple miscarriages i would very quickly lose faith in such a cruel God. Not gain it. Miscarriage is incredibly harsh on emotions.

why are we all hung up on the bible argument? i the bible was written a long time ago. i really dont care what it has to say about gay. i know a couple gay guys and they are very nice. why dont we give the bible argument a rest?
Because the start of the thread mentioned the word sin rather than asking if it was moral or wrong. Sin being a theollogical concept.

Couldnt the pleasure of sex be a reward for giving genuine love to another person? And the reproductive aspect be something this inspires? I might not be making sense, like i said i dont believe in God so i'm trying to think as much on your terms as i can.

Though I state as a caveat that I am rather biased in my opinions due to my religious and philisophical beliefs, I'd like to affirm that I agree with you on this point. Love and making love seem to be too naturally entwined to claim elsewise.

You want God to mollycoddle your entire life? Nice try, better luck next time.
I dont need God in my life. I was pointing out the hypocrisy involved in arguing that God defines sex that isnt to meant reproduce as sin and allows miscarriage, making the couple sinners retroactively on top of gieving them grievance for losing a child. But you choose to ignore the arguments and deal with them and instead went for a cheap attack. Way to go.

His actions are demonstrably good, e.g. sending his son to die for our sins.

I wouldn't call letting his son die a painful dead "demonstrably good" of God at all. Jesus being willing to do it, yes - that is good of Jesus (ignoring he also got the whole "immortal godhood" in the package) - but not of God. Nor would I call things like the flood or the way some insects kill eachother signs of goodness...

And of course.. would you expect someone extremely evil but intelligent to say outright "hi - I'm evil" while eating babylegs - or would you expect him to at first give advice that seems good, do good deads, but at the same time insidiously leading you on a path that ultimately leads to destruction ?

But that is getting offtopic.

Well we've made more progress with this than i thought we would.

The infertile man.. If he dies before finding out he is infertile then does he die sinful and hence go to hell even though he didnt know he was sinning?

He finds out after he dies, when his life is being judged.

Fair enough. If you find the right person i have a strong feeling you will change you're mind on the "sex as an expression of love thing". I guess you'll find out when it happens.

We shall have to wait and see.

Couldnt the pleasure of sex be a reward for giving genuine love to another person? And the reproductive aspect be something this inspires? I might not be making sense, like i said i dont believe in God so i'm trying to think as much on your terms as i can.

It could be, I guess.
I think that the important part is that sex should never take place unless the two people are in love, and that it should be reproductive. Which of those is more important, well, I'd guess the first, but I can't actually say for sure.

Miscarriage sounds like a really cruel test of faith to me. As someone who knows people who have experienced the emotional turmoil of miscarriage i cant see it as a good test. If i were christian and my partner had multiple miscarriages i would very quickly lose faith in such a cruel God. Not gain it. Miscarriage is incredibly harsh on emotions.

Oh, it's very cruel. And, if you were in this position and did lose faith, it would, i think, demonstrate that you were not as committed to god as you should have been. i don't necessarily agree with the nature of the testing, but God is supposed to be the single ost important thing in our lives, so I guess, maybe, he's trying to see how far he can push people before they lose faith, to keep only the truly devout. Yes, that sucks, but there you go, life's a bitch.

I dont need God in my life. I was pointing out the hypocrisy involved in arguing that God defines sex that isnt to meant reproduce as sin and allows miscarriage, making the couple sinners retroactively on top of gieving them grievance for losing a child. But you choose to ignore the arguments and deal with them and instead went for a cheap attack. Way to go.

but the sex did result in reproduction. it just didn't result in a birth. God considers unborn babies to be alive.

And, to be honest, I cou;dn't find an argument in your post. it just wasn't very clear. Sorry.

Oh, it's very cruel. And, if you were in this position and did lose faith, it would, i think, demonstrate that you were not as committed to god as you should have been. i don't necessarily agree with the nature of the testing, but God is supposed to be the single ost important thing in our lives, so I guess, maybe, he's trying to see how far he can push people before they lose faith, to keep only the truly devout. Yes, that sucks, but there you go, life's a bitch.

I wouldn't call letting his son die a painful dead "demonstrably good" of God at all. Jesus being willing to do it, yes - that is good of Jesus (ignoring he also got the whole "immortal godhood" in the package) - but not of God. Nor would I call things like the flood or the way some insects kill eachother signs of goodness...

And of course.. would you expect someone extremely evil but intelligent to say outright "hi - I'm evil" while eating babylegs - or would you expect him to at first give advice that seems good, do good deads, but at the same time insidiously leading you on a path that ultimately leads to destruction?

Have we established, then, that God is
cruel, and
not unquestionably good?

Have we established, then, that God is
cruel, and
not unquestionably good?


Make 1 "Seemingly cruel on occasion" and add "3 Unwilling to disclose his motives" and you have the main reason I do not follow him.

Have we established, then, that God is
cruel, and
not unquestionably good?

No but the CHRISTIAN god as usualy described does seem both of these things sometimes to us

Very possible christianity got it wrong ... in that case god could still be good

He finds out after he dies, when his life is being judged.

So he has to make an instant unthinking repentance in the moment of judgement when its all laid out for him?



We shall have to wait and see.

Agreed



It could be, I guess.
I think that the important part is that sex should never take place unless the two people are in love, and that it should be reproductive. Which of those is more important, well, I'd guess the first, but I can't actually say for sure.

So if the expression of love could POSSIBLY be a reason for sex in-and-of itself. Is it therefore POSSIBLE for homosexual sex to be ok as long as the two individuals involved are truly in love?



Oh, it's very cruel. And, if you were in this position and did lose faith, it would, i think, demonstrate that you were not as committed to god as you should have been. i don't necessarily agree with the nature of the testing, but God is supposed to be the single ost important thing in our lives, so I guess, maybe, he's trying to see how far he can push people before they lose faith, to keep only the truly devout. Yes, that sucks, but there you go, life's a bitch.

So God is deliberately setting up cruel and inhumane tests involving the sacrifice of unborn children?
This tells me two things
a) God is NOT all-knowing if he needs all these crazy tests of faith to see the true quality of a person.
b) God is NOT benevolent. He is deliberately taunting and inflicting great emotional pain on them resulting in a ceasing of faith in him and thus he gets to send them to Hell for eternity. Wouldnt an all-loving God cherish his believers and want as many people as possible to retain faith. Instead of pushing them to breaking point? And he's doing this through the deaths of unborn souls????

Again sorry if this is trolling, But you're version of God is an evil psychopathic bastard.

Your choice. I wouldn't want to hold you to an arduous task for the sake of an internet forum. But if you feel like it's a challenge you'd get satisfaction completing, then I'd be interested in what it says.

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."120 All human generations proceed from this union.121

Enlgish this time

120: Gen 2:24. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.


121: Gen 4:1-2, 25-26; 5:1.

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God.

2 And again she brought forth his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd, and Cain a husbandman.


25 Adam also knew his wife again: and she brought forth a son, and called his name Seth, saying: God hath given me another seed for Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos: this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.


1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God.


And besides this:

"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)

In Latin: an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri
neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt

In the Original Greek(PDF) (http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/Corinthians.pdf)

And I'm spent.

Okay, okay. The majority of nonchristians have a problem with the Christian god. Let's get back on subject.

I'm a person of faith.
I also identify as homosexual/gay.

I understand that the bible has been used as a weapon by people of faith for many years. And for that I apologise.

As a gay man I don't see homosexuality as a sin. When God created everything she pronounced it as being good. Therefore my sexuality is good and a gift from her. I believe in God and love her work. Therefore I love my sexuality.

Okay, okay. The majority of nonchristians have a problem with the Christian god. Let's get back on subject.

To a point this goes to the crux of the issue. If the belief that "homosexuality is a sin" comes from a not-so-good, and possibly occasionally evil, God then it brings into question how much validity we can give to the belief in the first place.

To a point this goes to the crux of the issue. If the belief that "homosexuality is a sin" comes from a not-so-good, and possibly occasionally evil, God then it brings into question how much validity we can give to the belief in the first place.

I was under the impression that we were to decide whether homosexuality is a sin under the Christian god's system of morality, regardless as to whether he is a just god or not.

As far as I can tell, there are tons of sins in the bible (mostly in this thread, the Christian bible) and homosexuality is definitely one of them. It seems to me that this thread is mostly irrelevant because of how obvious that is. I happen to agree with the people here who believe that this holds little to no import over their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity (in all but the most liberal denominations) interprets homosexual acts as a sin. Of course, it does so for adultery, lying, eating excessively, abortion, sex before marriage, sex without the purpose of procreation, disrespecting your parents, worshipping idols (celebrities anyone). Homosexuality may be a sin (regardless of whether or not you care, which I don't), but it is no more of a sin than most others. Some people just choose to make it into a bigger deal.

Some of the problems that "non-believers" are having with ardent believers it that they feel that the believers are imposing their views on everyone. There is little question that gay sex is a sin, so if you believe this, don't have any. I guess I fail to see what gives you the right to stop anyone else from doing the same thing. You may feel that your beliefs are divinely true and the only truth or something similar, but clearly 1,001 other religions believe the same thing. Prohibit whatever you want for yourself and those who voluntarily ascribe to your religion. Just stay out of our bedrooms and the laws of our countries and we'll all get a long a lot better.

I'm a person of faith.
I also identify as homosexual/gay.

I understand that the bible has been used as a weapon by people of faith for many years. And for that I apologise.

As a gay man I don't see homosexuality as a sin. When God created everything she pronounced it as being good. Therefore my sexuality is good and a gift from her. I believe in God and love her work. Therefore I love my sexuality.

*claps*

You are beautiful.

Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!

I was under the impression that we were to decide whether homosexuality is a sin under the Christian god's system of morality, regardless as to whether he is a just god or not.

That depends on the definition of what the Christian God is... seems even Christians cant agree on that so what hope does anyone else have?

If its the literal old-testament God then homosexuality is a sin, end of story. Then the question becomes do we take any notice of this God. I for one would rather not.

Some of the problems that "non-believers" are having with ardent believers it that they feel that the believers are imposing their views on everyone. There is little question that gay sex is a sin, so if you believe this, don't have any. I guess I fail to see what gives you the right to stop anyone else from doing the same thing. You may feel that your beliefs are divinely true and the only truth or something similar, but clearly 1,001 other religions believe the same thing. Prohibit whatever you want for yourself and those who voluntarily ascribe to your religion. Just stay out of our bedrooms and the laws of our countries and we'll all get a long a lot better.

I, too, feel that spirituality, religion, and morality should be a personal journey, particular to each individual. However, some do not believe so.

Revisiting that homosexual webiste that presents the anti-homosexuality quotes from the bible as simply misinterpreted Greek, okay so maybe some of the words were not exact, but don't mention the fact that the meaning you've injected makes little to no sense and is either redundant or absolutely meaningless.

I, too, feel that spirituality, religion, and morality should be a personal journey, particular to each individual. However, some do not believe so.
Absolutly thats how I think it should be done ... mine lead to a lack of belief but others lead to belief
To each their own :fluffle:

Yes, that sucks, but there you go, life's a bitch.
And you believe in a God that is cruel and follow his commandments? What is your motivation?

Revisiting that homosexual webiste that presents the anti-homosexuality quotes from the bible as simply misinterpreted Greek, okay so maybe some of the words were not exact, but don't mention the fact that the meaning you've injected makes little to no sense and is either redundant or absolutely meaningless.

I am not educated enough to read the Greek document that you (quite impressively) linked, but as for the Latin, "masculorum concubitores" translates quite literally to "those who lie with men" if my Latin still serves true. Assuming, of course, that the entirety of the female gender is not meant here, and further assuming that the Latin translates clearly from the Greek, it seems rather clear that homosexual acts are being condemned in 1 Cor. 6:9–10. Whether homosexual desire is condemned, though, is up for debate.

Yes homosexuality is not a sin but for some country's it is like for Russia. Because there are problem's whit children and normal family it not very great to be gay in some town's like Tver or Tomsk. Like a nation russian people are die out. In 2200 there will be no Russia as a country if we can stop this. And one thing gay in Russia don't want kid's.

Is anyone here honestly claiming that homosexuality is a significant factor in population decline? That is completely ludicrous. There are not enough gay people in the world to make a significant population decline. In addition, straight people are not randomly becoming gay, so the majority will still be turning out babies. If you are worries about population decline, think about economics, housing availability, population density. In general, I think we could use fewer people in the world.

Much as I don't want to bring science into a religious debate, I believe that there has been fairly well documented studies that show a relatively consistent percentage of homosexuals per population in most areas.

I was under the impression that we were to decide whether homosexuality is a sin under the Christian god's system of morality, regardless as to whether he is a just god or not.

I don't think we really can argue with that. Apart from any Biblical evidence, we have the word of (most of) the churches that choose to believe in that god. Apart from stating our positions on the matter, we can do little "deciding" in the matter because it is either the Church's decision (pick one) or God's. The former being quite clear and latter being "ineffable".

What I find curious still, is why there is so much focus on this particular "sin".
Being a mortal, I seem to commit a multitude of sins every day. Not that I mean to... but I am, admittedly, imperfect. On the positive side, I'd like to think I have a positive influence on the lives of the people I interact with - through conversation and deed.

As far as I was aware - and I will happily cede my position to someone with greater knowledge than myself - we've only been given one ranking of Sin in the Bible and that was handed down at the start to Moses: The Ten Commandments. Since then, we were also given "The Golden Rule" from Jesus himself, which seems to encompass all of the others anyway.

The question I am forced to ask myself, and anyone else out there, is why are these Sins? Can we find a "requirement" in the Bible (aside from the anti-homosexuality clause) that is recognised as a Sin and does not come from a "look after others" perspective?

I only ask, because it seems to me that all other Sins that have been "kept" (ie not washed away by the blood of Jesus on the cross) have that trait.

What is it about being homosexual that is so bad?

Of course being homosexual is a sin!

Just like menstruating, sweating, production of sperm, and frizzy hair.

Homosexuality is a sin like theft, prolonged anger, jealousy, murder etc. etc.

We ALL sin. Why single out homosexuality? Homosexuals are human too - not like some creature from some other planet!

Atheist, but speaking against the argument:

In Christianity, an important point to note is that even if we commit "sin"...it is because of the human weakness. It is not uncommon for a person to give in to temptation, as most people do not possess strong will. A true Christian will be remorseful for their momentary temptations and urges, knowing that they are wrong, and hope for forgiveness. However, actively embracing a sin and identifying with the sin would go against the doctrine.

I believe the Bible says all sins are equal, so an unrepentful self-professed serial killer or a con-artist would not receive redemption as long as they continue to embrace their deeds. As such, if homosexuality is indeed a sin, willfully and purposely continuing the lifestyle as opposed to fighting it would fly in the face of God's law.

No of course not. What is sin anyway?

I believe the Bible says all sins are equal, so an unrepentful self-professed serial killer or a con-artist would not receive redemption as long as they continue to embrace their deeds. As such, if homosexuality is indeed a sin, willfully and purposely continuing the lifestyle as opposed to fighting it would fly in the face of God's law.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle - it is a sexuality. It's not like you can wake up one morning and say "You know what, I don't like my sexuality. I'm going to be attracted to members of the opposite sex."

Now, there are those who argue that having homosexual intercourse is a sin. I don't agree with them, but they can believe that if they like.

However, saying that homosexuality is, itself, a sin is exactly like saying that sweating is a sin, or liking purple is a sin, or not liking peas is a sin.

However, saying that homosexuality is, itself, a sin is exactly like saying that sweating is a sin, or liking purple is a sin, or not liking peas is a sin.

Don't get.

Don't get.

Eh?

Don't get.

I think what Dem is trying to say is that since homosexuality doesn't harm anyone being considered a sin is like considering making balloon animals a sin, or not liking broccoli. At least that's what I'm getting from it.

"Homosexuality is not a lifestyle - it is a sexuality. It's not like you can wake up one morning and say "You know what, I don't like my sexuality. I'm going to be attracted to members of the opposite sex."

When I speak of the entire "lifestyle" I speak of the combination of: Engaging in intercourse, seeking partners for the act, openly professing or taking pride in homosexual attraction etc. Biblically, that would be sin as those individuals aren't "fighting" it. I was saying that professing to be Christian and actively engaging in sin would be contradictory.

I agree that having an attraction to the other sex in and of itself is not a sin, especially if the condition has some weird psychological or genetic cause. Acting upon that attraction is...just as much as me acting upon an attraction to a female outside of marriage is considered sin.

I think what Dem is trying to say is that since homosexuality doesn't harm anyone being considered a sin is like considering making balloon animals a sin, or not liking broccoli. At least that's what I'm getting from it.

Oooh, I get your explanation.

A sin doesn't have to physically or emotionally harm anybody. It harms your relationship with God. That's a sin. Something that harms somebody else is called a crime.

When I speak of the entire "lifestyle" I speak of the combination of: Engaging in intercourse, seeking partners for the act, openly professing or taking pride in homosexual attraction etc. Biblically, that would be sin as those individuals aren't "fighting" it. I was saying that professing to be Christian and actively engaging in sin would be contradictory.

I agree that having an attraction to the other sex in and of itself is not a sin. Acting upon that attraction is...just as much as me acting upon an attraction to a female outside of marriage is considered sin.

You do know that there is only ONE, yes one mention of men laying down with men in the bible right? And it's also sort of vague.

In that same chapter or book if you wish, it's also equally sinful to eat lobster, shrimp, etc, etc, so I hope you don't like seafood.. it's right up there in the "sin" department. No shellfish for you!

You do know that there is only ONE, yes one mention of men laying down with men in the bible right? And it's also sort of vague.

In that same chapter or book if you wish, it's also equally sinful to eat lobster, shrimp, etc, etc, so I hope you don't like seafood.. it's right up there in the "sin" department. No shellfish for you!

Sorry...where???

I already said I was atheist so it doesn't affect me at all. :p


In that same chapter or book if you wish, it's also equally sinful to eat lobster, shrimp, etc, etc, so I hope you don't like seafood.. it's right up there in the "sin" department. No shellfish for you!

Some people know that, some don't. Some people choose to ignore it, so if they wish to continue doing so, they'll (theoretically) face the consquences I suppose.

You do know that there is only ONE, yes one mention of men laying down with men in the bible right? And it's also sort of vague.


How is this vague?

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I already said I was atheist so it doesn't affect me at all. :p
Some people know that, some don't. Some people choose to ignore it, so if they wish to continue doing so, they'll (theoretically) face the consquences I suppose.

So Red Lobster is going to hell.....damn I'm screwed....

You do know that there is only ONE, yes one mention of men laying down with men in the bible right? And it's also sort of vague.

In that same chapter or book if you wish, it's also equally sinful to eat lobster, shrimp, etc, etc, so I hope you don't like seafood.. it's right up there in the "sin" department. No shellfish for you!

There are also mentions of the sinfulness of homosexuality in Genesis, and throughout the New Testament. By decision of Pope Peter, and the elders in the early Church, it is unnecessary for a Christian to follow Mosaic law, including Leviticus. We know homosexuality is still considered a sin in the New Testament because it is enumerated as such. Only certain aspects of the law were abolished, that were considered arbitrary or no longer necessary.

Here's an idea... maybe there is no right or wrong. Think about it, the Bible has been translated and retranslated hundreds of times over the thousands of years it has been in existance. It is therefore no longer the word of God (or whoever wrote it). Everytime something is translated, the translator adds or takes out something, based on opinion. This means that all the Bible (and, if you think about it, religion in general) consists of is opinion. Therefore, there is only opinion, no right or wrong, so homosexuality is not wrong, gay people are not evil. There is no good or evil.

Sorry...where???

It's also in Leviticus.

The bottom line is the bible could very well be fiction for all anyone knows. At least we know gay people exist. So lets worry about defending the rights of people/things that we know for fact. Not fairy tales.

Apparently on the shellfish thing some believe that it was revoked in a vision to Peter, or so I read. Not sure though. Well, the Pope hasn't condemned it or the eating of pork so it may not be anymore.

It's also in Leviticus.


Ooh..that's more Jewish (religion) than Christian though...

In Romans Paul restated that homosexuality is a sin, and before that, during Acts, the ban on food was lifted when Peter had that divine message.

What is it about being homosexual that is so bad?

You'll have to excuse me, but I'm new to the discussion--I generally don't get involved in things like this, but it was so thoughtful and provocative that I couldn't restrain myself.

An important issue that has only been touched on here is the distinction between homosexuality--the quality of being attracted to one's gender--a homosexual form of existing, the amalgamation of personal and social traits that make homosexual men more than straight men with inverted sexual desires--and the basic crudity of the homosexual act. As a fringe observation, I've noticed that catholics tend to recognize the distinction between the first and third qualities whereas most protestants do not. (Interesting, but not significant.)

Speaking as a lapsed catholic and snarly faggot, I believe that the biblical position on the issue is more or less untouchable--not only (as someone observed earlier) does the church have good reasons for prohibiting personal interpretation of the text, but to do otherwise is to threaten the stability of the church itself--that's how Protestantism happened. Oops! :D

Returning to the point, however, the doctrine delineates simple homosexuality as morally neutra;The church focuses instead on the homosexual act--the gratification of the inherent desire as opposed to categoric rejection of extramarital lust.

The particular doctrine answers the question posited earlier, "Why would god create someone in a particular way which immediately condemns them to hell?" The Catholic (or, I suppose, the protestant) homosexual is expected to take his sexual preference as a "cross to bear," perhaps as an internal mandate to celibacy and perhaps the priesthood. Nevertheless, this is clearly not an acceptable option for most people.

A man's soul demands satisfaction in union, the closeness of bodies. How are we to be God's eunuchs with the whole wealth of the world draining from our dying limbs? It is said that the man incapable of marriage should become a bridegroom to God--but who can approach the majesty and horror of the monolithic God in anything but supplication? Only for the Ordained can love of god supplant love of one's fellow man, only the clergy is equipped for that unbearable lonliness. What man could love god this way, any more than we could love and be loved by a stone, an ocean, or a star? God is as inhuman as empty space--Even Christ, who could approach him?

But that way lies Mysticism, a feat for which I am not equipped.

On a related note, I have a question for Heron. How old are you? Are you a seminary student? Or were you, once? You remind me of myself when I was younger and an enflamed apologetic for the faith.

ADDENDUM: As I was writing this, about five people started talking about the homosexuality/homosexual intercourse thing. Sorry! It all happened so sqiftly. Goodness.

So he has to make an instant unthinking repentance in the moment of judgement when its all laid out for him?

It's not instant and it isn't unthinking. You have as long as you need; you're already dead, what's time to a dead person? And you have to think about it, otherwise it's not tue repentance.

So if the expression of love could POSSIBLY be a reason for sex in-and-of itself. Is it therefore POSSIBLE for homosexual sex to be ok as long as the two individuals involved are truly in love?

Not for homosexuals, no. But possibly it's a justification against the anti-contraceptive policy of the Catholic Church. the Bible expressly condemns homosexual sex.



So God is deliberately setting up cruel and inhumane tests involving the sacrifice of unborn children?
This tells me two things
a) God is NOT all-knowing if he needs all these crazy tests of faith to see the true quality of a person.

yes, it does seem to indicate that. Perhaps God is not all knowing when it comes to those decisions we are free to make on our own. Or perhaps it's more like he has the potential to know everything, but chooses, sometimes, to not find out ahead of time. or maybe it's like watching a TV programme you've already seen, I don't know for sure.

b) God is NOT benevolent. He is deliberately taunting and inflicting great emotional pain on them resulting in a ceasing of faith in him and thus he gets to send them to Hell for eternity. Wouldnt an all-loving God cherish his believers and want as many people as possible to retain faith. Instead of pushing them to breaking point? And he's doing this through the deaths of unborn souls????

Another point here, on the nature of God, is that God is different now to how he was in the Old Testament. He was a bit of a bastard back then, it would seem, but the New Testament shows a marked change.

Again sorry if this is trolling, But you're version of God is an evil psychopathic bastard.

A little, maybe. But remember, he has a plan.

The bottom line is the bible could very well be fiction for all anyone knows. At least we know gay people exist. So lets worry about defending the rights of people/things that we know for fact. Not fairy tales.

One could argue that the concept of "rights" is also a fairy tale. Exchanging religious morality for secular morality still involves the acceptance of abstract ideals.

Every day I come to this forum, somebody has to get an opinion about homosexuality. You all know my views. My question is this? Why does it need to keep getting thrown around? No one is going to change their minds about how they currently view this issue. Can't we just give it a rest? I'm tired of reading about it every day. Isn't there anything else worth arguing over?

Christianity is about love and acceptance. Christians who choose to hate and condem homosexuals obviously are focusing on the wrong aspect of Christianity. After all, I beleive the loving side of Christianity is more important than the hateful side.

And you believe in a God that is cruel and follow his commandments? What is your motivation?

You know the bit where he's all powerful and kicks sinner arse? That's my motivation. I don't want to be a pillar of salt if it's all the same to you.

Every day I come to this forum, somebody has to get an opinion about homosexuality. You all know my views. My question is this? Why does it need to keep getting thrown around? No one is going to change their minds about how they currently view this issue. Can't we just give it a rest? I'm tired of reading about it every day. Isn't there anything else worth arguing over?
Well, according to the logic, we wouldn't talk about anything?

I'm certainly not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm trying to express my own view and absorb other viewpoints for personal wellbeing.

Every day I come to this forum, somebody has to get an opinion about homosexuality. You all know my views. My question is this? Why does it need to keep getting thrown around? No one is going to change their minds about how they currently view this issue. Can't we just give it a rest? I'm tired of reading about it every day. Isn't there anything else worth arguing over?

Politics? And I don't know your views. And this might acheive something. Or we could just sit in silence staring at the computer. if this bores you, just don't read it. Don't want to discuss homosexuality? Don't click the thread "Homosexuality: Sin". Duh.

You know the bit where he's all powerful and kicks sinner arse? That's my motivation. I don't want to be a pillar of salt if it's all the same to you.

So you believe it out of fear?

I think what Dem is trying to say is that since homosexuality doesn't harm anyone being considered a sin is like considering making balloon animals a sin, or not liking broccoli. At least that's what I'm getting from it.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all.

I am saying that since homosexuality is a physical factor - like sweating or menstruating, considering it a sin is like saying that urination is a sin, or producing tears to lubricate your eyes is a sin.

Well, according to the logic, we wouldn't talk about anything?

I'm certainly not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm trying to express my own view and absorb other viewpoints for personal wellbeing.

You're sellin', but I'm not buyin'.

Ezralia']I think I've said this one on another post about homosexuality (wow we really like to beat this one to death here don't we?), I do not see the sense in G-d giving us free will and then condemning us to eternal torment for making the "wrong" choice...and that's assuming that homosexuality is in fact a choice. It's not. Which leads us back to...if you believe that G-d creates everyone, why would G-d create homosexuals just to have them burn for HIS decision later? Not that I believe that there's a hell in the first place...

why would god let the holocaust happen, why would he allow dieseases to run rampant in africa and the rest of the world, because we as humans have made those dieseases, god has made everything that is good and perfect, everything that is not good, and imperfect has been created by us. i believe homosexuality was created by humans, god gave man free will, so those who read the bible and believed in him, could feely believe in him( i know god is not a man it just refers to god as a him) no one in our world is forced to love another, forced love is fake and unfullfilling, god gave us free will so we could choose to obey him willingly or not obey him at all.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all.

I am saying that since homosexuality is a physical factor - like sweating or menstruating, considering it a sin is like saying that urination is a sin, or producing tears to lubricate your eyes is a sin.

My bad then.

How is this vague?

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, that's English.

Was the text originally written in English?

No, it wasn't. And there are several ways to translate that passage. One way to translate it actually ends up being a prohibition against lying in thev bed of a woman who is menstruating. Go go purity laws!

You're sellin', but I'm not buyin'.

Oh. I see what others have to offer, take a good look, and decide whether I buy. Most usually I don't, but the experiencing of looking and studying is good enough.

So you believe it out of fear?

better to be safe than sorry. And Christianity isn't a bad way to live.

Well, that's English.

Was the text originally written in English?

No, it wasn't. And there are several ways to translate that passage. One way to translate it actually ends up being a prohibition against lying in thev bed of a woman who is menstruating. Go go purity laws!

that's in a differant chapter.

Leviticus 15:24 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

There are also mentions of the sinfulness of homosexuality in Genesis, and throughout the New Testament. By decision of Pope Peter, and the elders in the early Church, it is unnecessary for a Christian to follow Mosaic law, including Leviticus. We know homosexuality is still considered a sin in the New Testament because it is enumerated as such. Only certain aspects of the law were abolished, that were considered arbitrary or no longer necessary.

(a) None of the NT depictions are clearly related to homosexuality as we know it. In fact, they couldn't be, since the society of the time had no concept of any such thing. It is very likely that Paul was talking about certain Roman customs - such as men taking young boys as prostitutes, or giving sexual favors at temples to members of the same sex, whether you were gay or not.

(b) That decision was not made by Peter (who was not a pope, since that concept didn't even come into being until hundreds of years later.) Paul had a vision and brought his claims before a council. They argued over it, with James and Peter in opposition at first. Eventually the council decided that Paul's vision was correct.

why would god let the holocaust happen, why would he allow dieseases to run rampant in africa and the rest of the world (...)?

Perhaps suffering is part of God's plan. Who is to say that comfort and well-being is "good" and that disaster is somewhere opposite of that? I look at the animal glory of the world and suspect that God is half mathematics, half horror.

(b) That decision was not made by Peter (who was not a pope, since that concept didn't even come into being until hundreds of years later.) Paul had a vision and brought his claims before a council. They argued over it, with James and Peter in opposition at first. Eventually the council decided that Paul's vision was correct.

Actually what you said with the vision is false. What they were arguing over was wether or not gentiles had to observe jewish law or not.

(T)he society of the time had no concept of any such thing.

It is true that the homosexual form of existence simply did not come into being until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Previous to that there can be very few parallels drawn between modern gay populations and /any/ behavior that predates it.

The degree to which this affects the moral impact of early christian writings is a subject that I lack the intestinal fortitude to personally apprehend. Perhaps someone else could pick up the baton?

Actually what you said with the vision is false. What they were arguing over was wether or not gentiles had to observe jewish law or not.

Almost. The argument was over whether or not Christians had to observe Jewish law. At first, the church said that they did, whether they were converting from Judaism or from another religion (aka, the gentiles).

However, Paul says he had a vision that these laws no longer applied because Christ had fulfilled them. Thus, the Gentiles could convert without following the Jewish laws.

I'm no bible knower, but I do know that there's is a passage that explicitly states that homosexual actions are sinful. All your original post proves is that it's wrong for one man to hate gays or judge them. Unless the judgers repent.

There is not a single bible quote about homosexuality that hasn't previously been taken out of context while translating or "updating" the bible. Before I came out as gay I was very much into the bible. What is written in the bible caused a great deal of distress for me as I tried to come to terms with who I was.

I prayed heaps, I read and reread the bible passages I knew spoke about it, then I looked at some other interpretations, not just the ones that are forced down our throats, and I found that most of those passages refer to going against what is natural, or involving yourself in lustful relationships. If it is natural for me to be attracted to men, then I don't believe I am a sinner because of it. I avoid lust, and am looking for love more than sex.

It is true that the homosexual form of existence simply did not come into being until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Previous to that there can be very few parallels drawn between modern gay populations and /any/ behavior that predates it.

Well, that isn't exactly true either. There very well may have been (and probably were) loving, long-term homosexual relationships before that. However, in the society in which the early Christians lived, the idea of someone actually being homosexual - as in only being attracted to members of the same sex, simply wasn't considered at all.

The degree to which this affects the moral impact of early christian writings is a subject that I lack the intestinal fortitude to personally apprehend. Perhaps someone else could pick up the baton?

I think we have to look at all of the writings in the context of the times. The only same-sex intercourse that would have been commonly known of was prostitution and temple favors given by otherwise heterosexual people. Thus, I think we can say that these two actions would be condemned.

that's in a differant chapter.

Leviticus 15:24 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

So?

Are you under the crazy impression that the Bible never repeats itself?

Do you know how many times some actions are condemned?

Regardless, the other text can be translated in a similar manner to this passage.

better to be safe than sorry. And Christianity isn't a bad way to live.

Pascal's wager is a fallacy.

If the reason you claim to be a Christian is "better to be safe than sorry," don't you think God can see through your ruse?

There is not a single bible quote about homosexuality that hasn't previously been taken out of context while translating or "updating" the bible. Before I came out as gay I was very much into the bible. What is written in the bible caused a great deal of distress for me as I tried to come to terms with who I was.

I prayed heaps, I read and reread the bible passages I knew spoke about it, then I looked at some other interpretations, not just the ones that are forced down our throats, and I found that most of those passages refer to going against what is natural, or involving yourself in lustful relationships. If it is natural for me to be attracted to men, then I don't believe I am a sinner because of it. I avoid lust, and am looking for love more than sex.

Ultimately, it's your choice, and not my place to judge you. If you're happy the way you are, fine. Since you already know the arguments I would use, there's nothing more for me to say.

But beware the "other interpretations". People screw around wiht the Bible to make it fit their views. If you can justify it for yourself, that's fine, but it sounds like you may have been willing to accept the first thing you could grab on to to justify your feelings.

Pascal's wager is a fallacy.

If the reason you claim to be a Christian is "better to be safe than sorry," don't you think God can see through your ruse?

What ruse? I believe in the Christian God. I follow the teachings of the Bible, even when I don't want to, because of the reason I gave. Most of them are the things decent people would do anyway.

What ruse? I believe in the Christian God. I follow the teachings of the Bible, even when I don't want to, because of the reason I gave. Most of them are the things decent people would do anyway.

And you think that the Christian God wants you to follow simply because if you didn't, you would go to hell?

Darling, that is Pascal's wager. "I'll believe in God and follow the rules because if God does exist, I'll be cool. If God doesn't exist, I'll still be cool."

That isn't true faith.

Well, that isn't exactly true either. There very well may have been (and probably were) loving, long-term homosexual relationships before that. However, in the society in which the early Christians lived, the idea of someone actually being homosexual - as in only being attracted to members of the same sex, simply wasn't considered at all.

All we have in historical records are, respectively, quite a bit of greco-roman pederastic/mentoring relationships between men of very disparate ages and Roman satirists making fun of men who behaved effeminately. The only relationship-context homosexuality of which I'm aware from the period is Petronius' gay duo in the Satyricon--but those characters are more of the Summoner/Pardoner type, a pair bound together by perverse inadequacy rather than love. There may have been legitimate homosexual relationships, but I'm inclined to think of it as a uniquely industrial-age phenomenon.

I think we have to look at all of the writings in the context of the times. The only same-sex intercourse that would have been commonly known of was prostitution and temple favors given by otherwise heterosexual people. Thus, I think we can say that these two actions would be condemned.[/QUOTE]

This isn't true. Same-sex behavior was widespread in upper-class roman hedonism, as evidenced (as I said) by the sheer bulk of Roman satire on the subject. However, once more, the Romans regarded any adult same-sex behavior as a humiliation ritual--you get some very interesting attack poetry from the genre. Catullus wrote to a pair of his critics, "I will bugger you and make you suck me, cakeboy Furius and Aurelius, you slut." This is really /all/ you get from the period, men humiliating each other or being made fun of for enjoying it. The educated compilers of the Gospels would have been aware of the hellenistic climate of the day.

And you think that the Christian God wants you to follow simply because if you didn't, you would go to hell?

Darling, that is Pascal's wager. "I'll believe in God and follow the rules because if God does exist, I'll be cool. If God doesn't exist, I'll still be cool."

That isn't true faith.

I'm cool all the time. :cool:

I believe. You got that? I believe in God and Jesus and their teachings. it's the threats that keep me in line when I want to do stuff like coveting my neighbours ass. I could ride that ass all day. Oh, that'd be sweet.

All we have in historical records are, respectively, quite a bit of greco-roman pederastic/mentoring relationships between men of very disparate ages and Roman satirists making fun of men who behaved effeminately. The only relationship-context homosexuality of which I'm aware from the period is Petronius' gay duo in the Satyricon--but those characters are more of the Summoner/Pardoner type, a pair bound together by perverse inadequacy rather than love.

Exactly. These things are what we have in the records (although I would also point out that homosexual lovers were not necessarily looked down upon in Greek or Roman societies). Thus, they are what would have been known to any of the writers of the time unless those writers were themselves homosexual.

There may have been legitimate homosexual relationships, but I'm inclined to think of it as a uniquely industrial-age phenomenon.

Are love and committment purely phenomena of the industrial-age?

And are we to ignore Native American and Druidic traditions completely?

This isn't true. Same-sex behavior was widespread in upper-class roman hedonism,

I was talking about within the community in which Paul lived, which was far from upper-class Roman.

The educated compilers of the Gospels would have been aware of the hellenistic climate of the day.

The compilers of the Gospels were hundreds of years down the road from the original writing. Roman society had changed a bit since then. In fact, Christianity had become the official relgion.

I'm cool all the time. :cool:

I believe. You got that? I believe in God and Jesus and their teachings. it's the threats that keep me in line when I want to do stuff like coveting my neighbours ass. I could ride that ass all day. Oh, that'd be sweet.

So you follow out of a rather infantile carrot-stick mentality. One could argue that this mentality is exactly what Christ came to counteract. It isn't about "follow the rules and you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hell." That shouldn't be your motivation. The motivation should come from love of God and an earnest belief that the rules are actually correct.

I was talking about within the community in which Paul lived, which was far from upper-class Roman.


Actually, Paul was very familiar with the customs of the Roman elite.

Actually, Paul was very familiar with the customs of the Roman elite.

And this changes the fact that he was not living among or writing to the Roman elite how?

I am familiar with the customs of the General Assembly in GA. That does not mean, however, that I am part of that social circle.

Well, yes, lying is a sin. And unrepentant liars will go to hell. As will unrepentant homosexuals. You can't use verses like that to justify yourself: most of those veses don't even talk about homosexuality. Plus, I don't think God would have fire-bombed Sodom, a city filled with "Men who buurned in their lust for each other" if he had no problem with people that walk on that side of the fence, if you catch my drift.

So you follow out of a rather infantile carrot-stick mentality. One could argue that this mentality is exactly what Christ came to counteract. It isn't about "follow the rules and you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hell." That shouldn't be your motivation. The motivation should come from love of God and an earnest belief that the rules are actually correct.

Did you see the part where I said that i believe in the teachings? You did? Oh good.

I don't know, why do you follow instructions for using software, or blueprints for construction?

Because if I don't my software won't work or my building will fall down. What the hell does that have to do with a mistranslated book written years after the events that it is about?

Ultimately, it's your choice, and not my place to judge you. If you're happy the way you are, fine. Since you already know the arguments I would use, there's nothing more for me to say.

But beware the "other interpretations". People screw around wiht the Bible to make it fit their views. If you can justify it for yourself, that's fine, but it sounds like you may have been willing to accept the first thing you could grab on to to justify your feelings.


Firstly, it's definately not a choice. I did not choose to have to deal with all the issues that come with being gay. This is not something, if I'd had the choice, I wouldn't have taken this option. Having said that though, I don't feel bad about it, it's part of who I am.

Secondly, I didn't say I took those other interpretations as my own. I said I read them, but came to my own conclusions on what I felt is right. Partly through reading other people's views, partly through prayer, and a little bit of just what felt right. What gives the people who wrote the King James bible to write certain scriptures in a certain context. Who gives my pastor the right to tell me how to interperet God's so called word. When Jesus told the deciples to start a church, it was to spread his word, not their interpretation of it. My interpretation of the bible is just as valid as anyone elses.

Did you see the part where I said that i believe in the teachings? You did? Oh good.

...which has nothing at all to do with anything I said.

I believe in speed limits. However, deep down, I don't really like them or think them necessary. Thus, I follow them only because there are legal problems associated if I don't.

However, I truly love God and want to follow God's rules. Thus, I don't do it because God will "hit me with a stick" if I don't. I do it because I wish to follow God.

I agree, I and I dont understand why go would create homosexuals if he thought they were wrong.

Why would God create murderers if he thought they were wrong? Why would he create sinners?

As I have been taught, Homosexuality is not a sin, Sodomy is. Sorry if this has already been said, didn't have time to read the whole thread.

...which has nothing at all to do with anything I said.

I believe in speed limits. However, deep down, I don't really like them or think them necessary. Thus, I follow them only because there are legal problems associated if I don't.

However, I truly love God and want to follow God's rules. Thus, I don't do it because God will "hit me with a stick" if I don't. I do it because I wish to follow God.

So you weren't saying I needed to believe in the the rules to justify following them? it wasn't you who said "The motivation should come from ... an earnest belief that the rules are actually correct."? Fair enough. :rolleyes:

Being hit with a stick is only a part of my motivation.

As for part 3, well, let's talk about this a bit. Now. Let's say that I control what you know of the world, I control who your children can and can't marry, how much money you get to have, your standing in the eyes of all your peers and whether or not you get to keep the very land you 'own'. Now, let's say that I decide it would be best for you to go out and prove your faith by killing the 'muslim infidels' (no disrepect to people of the muslim faith intended here, mulsims were just who the crusades were primarily aimed at) or lose face, political power and of course not be given absolution. SO. What are you going to do? You are going to do what I say, that's what you are going to do. Oh, and while you are over there fighting the godly fight, I've decided you've been gone too long and am going to take your lands, I've decided your wife/daughter/sister is now going to become a nun/wife to some one that is in my favor. OH! What? You're tired of fighting and want to go home? Oh, well, we can fix that! YOU ARE NOW EXCOMMUNICATED. You will go automatically to hell. Do not pass purgatory. Do not collect on a death free of sin. Why? Because it's okay to kill if you are doing it for God isn't it? Of course it is. But it wasn't just the crusades. Did ya know that there NEVER WERE ANY SNAKES IN IRELAND?!?!?! St. Patrick went to Ireland to drive out the 'followers of satan' or, in other words to kill off the druids/midwifes/anyone not following the christian faith. BUT WAIT! We are going to go to the temples the followers of the old ways had set up and build churches ON TOP OF THEM! We are going to put the pews over the very tiles that show the pentacles these people created. While I'm thinking about it...where do you think christmas trees came from? They sure weren't christian symbols of a holiday. In fact...Take a good look at a lot of the catholic rites, the christian holidays and you will find that almost all holidays overlap a pagan one. The rites are almost mirror images of pagan ones. For Pete's sake...weddings weren't even originally ALLOWED inside churches, they weren't even popular until someone realized they could charge for the 'bans' being posted and have a union that was recognized by the church, just like the forgiveness of priests could be bought for a few shillings or whatever. To poor? Too bad. To hell with you. (Literally.) Well, unless you have a sister...or daughter. We won't go into the 'Divine Right of Kings' here, that's a whole other subject.

I do want to clarify that I do not hate/loathe/despise or have any negativity towards christians. I have the utmost respect for those that actually follow their faith, follow their hearts and realize that people are people.

As for your number 1...my point is really that there is no way Jesus could have been blonde and blue eyed...unless....Mary was really a Spaniard! No! A Norwegian! No! Wait! Jesus was ALBINO! No...no...I've got it....God, wanting to show how pure and true his son was, gave Jesus blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes, proving that Hitler IS right and the master race IS BLONDE and BLUE EYED! :gundge: :eek:

For point three, I would like to point out that every human has a choice. No matter how pervasive the Church was, every single man or child who went on crusade chose to do it. On a related note, the Crusades weren't really about advancing Christianity or defeating the infidels. The popes who ordained crusades generally were advancing a political agenda, so Christianity still cannot be considered responsible.

And for point one, when did I say that Jesus was blonde-haired and blue eyed? Did you read? Can you read? I said he would look more Arabic than anything. Dark, curly hair, and a swarthy complexion. Dark eyes. A beard. That's what I meant when I said he was Hebrew/Israeli/Arab.

Oh, and one other thing. Do not insinuate that any point that I'm making resonates with anything Hitler said. I will gut you. Do not try my patience on this matter.

~snip~

Did you read? Can you read?

~snip~

Do not insinuate that any point that I'm making resonates with anything Hitler said. I will gut you. Do not try my patience on this matter.

Yay! Bonfires!!

Heron, I have no problem with you believing what you do and fearing the results of divine smackdown, but why should that affect what others do, think, or believe? If they aren't Christian and don't believe in hell or sin, why should they care what the bible says?

Most people have no problem with others disliking, hating, or disapproving of them, as long as those others don't attempt to make legislation about it. Just because the bible says something, that doesn't mean that it's relevant or valid for a heterogeneous population. Why should a gay Hindu care what the New Testament says? Why should a gay atheist care?

If the argument is, "is homosexuality a sin in the New Testament," the answer is yes. Anything beyond that is off topic. This is like asking if Moses had a sister or if Jesus could raise the dead. They're facts. Whether or not they are relevant is a completely different question.

Heron, I have no problem with you believing what you do and fearing the results of divine smackdown, but why should that affect what others do, think, or believe? If they aren't Christian and don't believe in hell or sin, why should they care what the bible says?

Most people have no problem with others disliking, hating, or disapproving of them, as long as those others don't attempt to make legislation about it. Just because the bible says something, that doesn't mean that it's relevant or valid for a heterogeneous population. Why should a gay Hindu care what the New Testament says? Why should a gay atheist care?

If the argument is, "is homosexuality a sin in the New Testament," the answer is yes. Anything beyond that is off topic. This is like asking if Moses had a sister or if Jesus could raise the dead. They're facts. Whether or not they are relevant is a completely different question.

Off topic in NS General? Waaahhh!!??!

Why should they care? No reason. Actually, they can do whatever they like. Men, women, squirrels, whatever. And I didn't start this thread, so why are you on my case about this?

Firstly, it's definately not a choice. I did not choose to have to deal with all the issues that come with being gay. This is not something, if I'd had the choice, I wouldn't have taken this option. Having said that though, I don't feel bad about it, it's part of who I am.

Choice does not mean nessecarly consicious. I wish people would understand that. There is evidence that homosexuality is learned as opposed to inate behavior.

Choice does not mean nessecarly consicious. I wish people would understand that. There is evidence that homosexuality is learned as opposed to inate behavior.

If it is learned, then does that not imply that one's sexuality is a function of his environment? Is one not then therefore powerless to choose one sexual orientation over another?

Yay! Bonfires!!

Yes, tomorrow at my house. You bring the vodka.

Choice does not mean nessecarly consicious. I wish people would understand that. There is evidence that homosexuality is learned as opposed to inate behavior.

No, there isn't.

There is evidence that homosexuality is affected by environment. This is not the same as saying it is "learned." To be learned, all homosexuals would have to have a homosexual mentor that they watched and learned homosexuality from. This is overwhelmingly not the case. It would also suggest that children of homosexual parents would have a greater tendency to be homosexual - again not the case.

Meanwhile, choice does imply consciousness.

Yes, tomorrow at my house. You bring the vodka.

We'll just use the blood of Christ.

Yes, tomorrow at my house. You bring the vodka.

In Soviet Union, vodka brings you!

And I was making the point that you were flaming that other guy.

Flaming = bad

as humans, we are all born with a sinful nature. whether the sin we carry out is a white lie about whether we think someone's hair looks nice, a vicious lie, hatred, murder, adultery, or homosexuality, sin is sin is sin, and none is bigger than the other..

yes, I do agree that if one lies he is just as guilty as the one who commits murder or a homosexual act -- and yes, i also agree that we aren't to judge, for when we do that we also sin-- but the fact remains the Bible teaches against homosexuality as well as all these other things, and therefore it is a sin.

I would ... point out that homosexual lovers were not necessarily looked down upon in Greek or Roman societies.

Untrue. The passive partner was extremely stigmatized, and the active one regarded as deviant. In Greece, relationships between men of disparate ages was considered socially acceptable, but Romans looked askance at most homosexual behavior.

Are love and committment purely phenomena of the industrial-age?

No. However, the conditions which produced the modern homosexual and his romantic and sexual relations are. A gay partnership could not have existed until the period because the social factors that would have permitted it had not yet come into being.

And are we to ignore Native American and Druidic traditions completely?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes. The native american tradition is not modern homosexuality in any way; the man in question lost his self-perception as a male in favor of a feminine gender role. Second, the Druidic tradition to which you refer has no verifiable factual basis. All extant literature about the "druids" is either based on Roman misrepresentation of the facts or simply fantasy. Whatever the celtic priesthood was like, their secrets passed into the grave with them. Even so, both of these references fall outside the western (christian) world and are on that count irrelevant to the discussion.

The compilers of the Gospels were hundreds of years down the road from the original writing. Roman society had changed a bit since then. In fact, Christianity had become the official relgion.

The first of the synoptic gospels was compiled about a century after the death of christ. Christianity was not made an official religion until the reign of constantine, which (I believe) was nearly three hundred years after their composition. The references to which I refer (Juvenal, Martial and Petronius in satire and Suetonius in biography) all fall within the same period, the "silver age" of roman literature--the period at hand--during which much less changed in the Latin-speaking world than you seem to believe.

And I was making the point that you were flaming that other guy.

Flaming = bad

Well, at least Godwin's Law has been fulfilled. Now we can get back to pureeing this dead horse. I brought the LAPD just for the occasion.

Wow. :eek: What happened to my thread while I was gone? There are now somethin' like 14 more pages for me to go through!

as humans, we are all born with a sinful nature. whether the sin we carry out is a white lie about whether we think someone's hair looks nice, a vicious lie, hatred, murder, adultery, or homosexuality, sin is sin is sin, and none is bigger than the other..

Do you honestly think that thinking someone's hair looks nice is a sin?

yes, I do agree that if one lies he is just as guilty as the one who commits murder or a homosexual act -- and yes, i also agree that we aren't to judge, for when we do that we also sin-- but the fact remains that I believe the Bible teaches against homosexuality as well as all these other things, and therefore I believe it is a sin.

Corrections in bold.

Untrue. The passive partner was extremely stigmatized, and the active one regarded as deviant. In Greece, relationships between men of disparate ages was considered socially acceptable, but Romans looked askance at most homosexual behavior.

This is rather in disagreement to every history I have read, so I guess it'll have to go in the book as undecided.

No. However, the conditions which produced the modern homosexual and his romantic and sexual relations are. A gay partnership could not have existed until the period because the social factors that would have permitted it had not yet come into being.

Since when did one need permission? You assume that gay relationships didn't happen because they weren't accepted. I would point out that, most likely, they did happen - but were hidden.

The first of the synoptic gospels was compiled about a century after the death of christ.

Ah, so you don't really mean compiled. You mean written. Ok. I thought you were talking about Canon.

Wow. :eek: What happened to my thread while I was gone? There are now somethin' like 14 more pages for me to go through!

Heron-Marked Warriors happened to your thread. I posted and I posted and then I posted some more.

This is rather in disagreement to every history I have read, so I guess it'll have to go in the book as undecided.

Some citations that might bolster my situation are the hendecasyllabic poetry of Catullus, Cicero's speeches attacking his political enemies with accusations of passive homosexual behavior, Suetonius and Tacitus sneering at the various emperors (particularly Domitian) about their supposed pederastic and homosexual tendencies, and Juvenal's satires. I think you may have gotten the wrong impression from the histories you read.

At any rate, I didn't say they needed "permission" to exist--just a different kind of culture. Bech suggested that homosexuality, and the total "syndrome" that defines the homosexual male in contrast to other men, was a result of the unique social and cultural pressures of the industrial period. This is, of course, only a theory--but my pet, as it were.

Choice does not mean nessecarly consicious. I wish people would understand that. There is evidence that homosexuality is learned as opposed to inate behavior.

How is choice not concious. And if I were to have subconciously "chosen" to be gay, in all my soul searching and crying myself to sleep, would I have not dicovered this and thought, "well, I'm not really gay, so now I'm going to chose to be straight and that's the end of it" ?

The fact you say homosexuality is learned (a moot point anyway as Dempublicents1 pointed out) implies that it's not a choice. Because you learned to walk, does that mean you subconciously decided to walk? I don't think so, your environment did have other humans walking around though, which means there may have been environmental factors involved in you walking. It may have also been that you were designed to walk. I didn't learn to be gay, and if I did, why isn't my brother gay?

Homosexuality has no productive aspect to it. It's all about pleasure. And lust. You know, one the seven deadly sins? And plus, God designed human beings such that the purpose of sex is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, then there should be no sex, or it is contravening the will of God.

1) The seven deadly sins were rules made up by the Catholic church, relating to their interpretation of the bible - thus, you failed to justify it, I said no bible references.

2) You seem to think that the only purpose on your life is to f*ck, live and die; well, quite frankly, that is a bloody shallow existance.

3) How do you know what I want out of a relationship? you think that the only reason a relationship stays together is because a sprog is forcing the parents to remain faithful?

You have a very shallow existance sunshine; may you live a misserable, shallow existance on this god forsaken rock of a planet.

Corrections in bold.

It's not a good habit to misquote people on purpose in a serious argument.

It's rather obnoxious, actually.