Christianity and Homosexuality

[Tokos]

It's quite simple. There is no Catholic dogma on slavery that has been overturned so trying to compare it to present-day heretics trying to get the Vatican to approve of their antics doesn't work. Homosexuality is not one of those Church rules that can be argued with, unlike, say, clerical celibacy.

Plus - I mean - it's in the Bible, for heaven's sake. Not Leviticus, either, but first letter to Timothy.

[Iron Chariots]

It's quite simple. There is no Catholic dogma on slavery that has been overturned so trying to compare it to present-day heretics trying to get the Vatican to approve of their antics doesn't work. Homosexuality is not one of those Church rules that can be argued with, unlike, say, clerical celibacy.

Why?

Plus - I mean - it's in the Bible, for heaven's sake. Not Leviticus, either, but first letter to Timothy.

Well according to the Bible, rich people go to hell if they don't give all their possessions to the poor.

Then again, the Bible also says that Christians are immune to poison, but I don't see any lining up to take these cyanide pills.

EDIT: Fixed quote formatting

[Gift-of-god]

It's quite simple. There is no Catholic dogma on slavery that has been overturned so trying to compare it to present-day heretics trying to get the Vatican to approve of their antics doesn't work. Homosexuality is not one of those Church rules that can be argued with, unlike, say, clerical celibacy.

I hear this argument from those Catholics (and the atheists) who like to pretend that Catholic teaching never changes. It's simply not true. In practice, and belief, Catholics (including the Pope) have changed their position on slavery since the beginnings of the Church.

Plus - I mean - it's in the Bible, for heaven's sake. Not Leviticus, either, but first letter to Timothy.

And slavery isn't?

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward

[Tokos]

Er, I don't know what translation you're using, but all of those say servants, not slaves. I am aware that the existence slavery is not condemned in the Bible, though.

And yes, you're right that Catholics have changed their opinions. That was precisely my point. Catholics have; Catholic dogma can't. Anything said ex cathedra is there to stay.

[Gift-of-god]

Er, I don't know what translation you're using, but all of those say servants, not slaves. I am aware that the existence slavery is not condemned in the Bible, though.

And yes, you're right that Catholics have changed their opinions. That was precisely my point. Catholics have; Catholic dogma can't. Anything said ex cathedra is there to stay.

Please post sources documenting all dogma concerning homosexuality. I have been unable to find any.

[Dyakovo]

Yes, intepretation differences. As in, some interpretations have existed for ~400 years, some even longer. Fred Phelps' private interpretation has existed since whenever he took them up.

Incorrect. Phelps interpretation is the classical Christian one. The more tolerant and openminded view, involving being nice to others is the thing that is new.

I'm skeptical, but go on. Any primary sources you can point me to that say "God hates fags"?

Primary Source?
How about the bible?

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[Tokos]

Er, I don't know what translation you're using, but all of those say servants, not slaves. I am aware that the existence slavery is not condemned in the Bible, though.

And yes, you're right that Catholics have changed their opinions. That was precisely my point. Catholics have; Catholic dogma can't. Anything said ex cathedra is there to stay.

Please post sources documenting all dogma concerning homosexuality. I have been unable to find any.

It is Church dogma that the Bible is truth. Therefore, the position articulated by St Paul (quoted above) stands.

Fornication also applies to this. Do you want a Catechism reference as well?

This has been the Church's position since it was first created. Never changing. To change it would deny the Council of Nicaea and the New Testament. The Church can't exactly back out of Nicaea!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No. I am sorry, but this is wrong.

http://www.dignitycanada.org/

Apaarently there are Catholics who feel that being gay and Catholic are not incompatible and have elected to stay within the Church in order to change it from within. Catholicism, like all things, is fluid and changing.

Kinda means that the term Catholic doesn't mean a goddamn thing, doesn't it? If you can think basically whatever the fuck you want to and still be a Catholic, then what's the point of the term? Extreme vagueness and pluralism in the beliefs of the parish is slowly, or perhaps even quickly destroying religion, not that I mind that.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Er, I don't know what translation you're using, but all of those say servants, not slaves. I am aware that the existence slavery is not condemned in the Bible, though.

And yes, you're right that Catholics have changed their opinions. That was precisely my point. Catholics have; Catholic dogma can't. Anything said ex cathedra is there to stay.

Please post sources documenting all dogma concerning homosexuality. I have been unable to find any.

It is Church dogma that the Bible is truth. Therefore, the position articulated by St Paul (quoted above) stands.

Fornication also applies to this. Do you want a Catechism reference as well?

This has been the Church's position since it was first created. Never changing. To change it would deny the Council of Nicaea and the New Testament. The Church can't exactly back out of Nicaea!

NOt for nothing, but the Nicean Creed is a compromise where MAN was trying to compromise on GODS doctrine. It means that all Nicean Creed religions are religions of man, not God.

[Flameswroth]

No. I am sorry, but this is wrong.

http://www.dignitycanada.org/

Apaarently there are Catholics who feel that being gay and Catholic are not incompatible and have elected to stay within the Church in order to change it from within. Catholicism, like all things, is fluid and changing.

Kinda means that the term Catholic doesn't mean a goddamn thing, doesn't it? If you can think basically whatever the fuck you want to and still be a Catholic, then what's the point of the term? Extreme vagueness and pluralism in the beliefs of the parish is slowly, or perhaps even quickly destroying religion, not that I mind that.

I had a co-worker once who was 'Catholic'. We went on a business trip together, and we were telling each other about our religions at the time. He basically said there was a set group of tenants that one could adhere to, but that they didn't have to. At least that's how I interpreted it; it was kind of a foreign concept to me.

[Gift-of-god]

It is Church dogma that the Bible is truth. Therefore, the position articulated by St Paul (quoted above) stands.

Fornication also applies to this. Do you want a Catechism reference as well?

This has been the Church's position since it was first created. Never changing. To change it would deny the Council of Nicaea and the New Testament. The Church can't exactly back out of Nicaea!

The Nicene creed does not mention homosexuality at all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saint Paul condoned slavery:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

You claim that it is Church dogma that the Bible is truth. Therefore, the position (of condoning slavery) articulated by St Paul (quoted above) should stand.

Well, that's how it would work if Catholic dogma operated the way you think it does. It doesn't.

There are several levels of Catholic dogma. The infallible stuff is considered De fide or Fides ecclesiastica. I have yet to hear of any Catholic dogma of this level discussing homosexuality.

Enlighten me.

[Blouman Empire]

I just don't get that, how can you say 'sure I believe in this god thing, but I ignore the parts I am uncomfortable with'.

Same problem here.

LOL, you two think that to believe in a god means you have to believe in what some religions say.

[Tokos]

This is ridiculous. Yes I am aware of that Paulian passage about slavery; you do realise that refers to existing hereditary slaves in bondage according to their laws? Furthermore, I did not claim that homosexuality is in ex cathedra dogma, merely that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it.

I very much doubt advocates of the Church being fine with sodomy are doing it in a spirit of Christian thoughtfulness and wishing to improve the spiritual lives of people. Rather, they're going against everything Christ said about lust and the Bible about sodomy, just to ease their consciences. Not very honest behaviour at all.

[Callisdrun]

They don't represent all Christianity. Just their specific take on it.

Which DOES happen to be closer to the literal Biblical text in many aspects than the more mainstream forms of Christianity.
Is describing a group as "not representative for Christianity" because they actually try to adhere to the main text perhaps not a tad bit... odd ?

Being raised Catholic (I'm not one anymore, but it still colors my perception of Christianity to some degree), I tend to think the old testament is not to be taken literally. Plus they're just heretical protestants anyway.

[Gift-of-god]

This is ridiculous. Yes I am aware of that Paulian passage about slavery; you do realise that refers to existing hereditary slaves in bondage according to their laws? Furthermore, I did not claim that homosexuality is in ex cathedra dogma, merely that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it.

I very much doubt advocates of the Church being fine with sodomy are doing it in a spirit of Christian thoughtfulness and wishing to improve the spiritual lives of people. Rather, they're going against everything Christ said about lust and the Bible about sodomy, just to ease their consciences. Not very honest behaviour at all.

My point is this: since the Church has been able to change its stance on slavery from one of condoning (some would say supporting) the practice to one of opposing the practice, the Church should then also be capable of changing their position on homosexuality from one of condemnation to one of acceptance.

Now, you can try to prove that the Church has not changed its stance on slavery in the last two thousand years. This is usually done by showing that the Magisterium has not issued any dogmatic statements concerning slavery. So, conservative Catholics will claim that doctrine has not changed, even though practice has.

Now, comparing it to homosexuality, we have to ask ourselves if the Magisterium has released any statements of dogma concerning homosexuality. If not, then it is in the same boat as slavery, and there is no reason to think that the Church cannot also change its practice.

You seem to be arguing that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Church must then accept that as a guide. Yet when I point out the Bible condones slavery, you seem to think that the Chruch need not accept that as a guide.

[Acadzia]

Yes, intepretation differences. As in, some interpretations have existed for ~400 years, some even longer. Fred Phelps' private interpretation has existed since whenever he took them up.

Incorrect. Phelps interpretation is the classical Christian one. The more tolerant and openminded view, involving being nice to others is the thing that is new.

I'm skeptical, but go on. Any primary sources you can point me to that say "God hates fags"?

Primary Source?
How about the bible?

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I still don't see God hating fags or saying that they're beyond His grace. I already admitted that the Bible states homosexuality is a sin, what I am trying to find is where He said He "hates fags." He didn't, but keep trying, I guess?

[F1-Insanity]

Yes, intepretation differences. As in, some interpretations have existed for ~400 years, some even longer. Fred Phelps' private interpretation has existed since whenever he took them up.

Incorrect. Phelps interpretation is the classical Christian one. The more tolerant and openminded view, involving being nice to others is the thing that is new.

I'm skeptical, but go on. Any primary sources you can point me to that say "God hates fags"?

Primary Source?
How about the bible?

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I still don't see God hating fags or saying that they're beyond His grace. I already admitted that the Bible states homosexuality is a sin, what I am trying to find is where He said He "hates fags." He didn't, but keep trying, I guess?

Denial denial denial...

facts are stupid things, then?

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32)

[New Mitanni]

You seem to be arguing that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Church must then accept that as a guide. Yet when I point out the Bible condones slavery, you seem to think that the Chruch need not accept that as a guide.

The Pauline passages referring to slavery can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul allowed slavery. If the law changes, then the status of slavery changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that slavery per se is good or that the Church finds slavery to be a required social institution.

The homosexual lifestyle choice, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to slavery, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

[Gift-of-god]

You seem to be arguing that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Church must then accept that as a guide. Yet when I point out the Bible condones slavery, you seem to think that the Chruch need not accept that as a guide.

The Pauline passages referring to slavery can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul allowed slavery. If the law changes, then the status of slavery changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that slavery per se is good or that the Church finds slavery to be a required social institution.

The homosexual lifestyle choice, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to slavery, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

I could just as easily say the following:

The Pauline passages referring to homosexuality can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul condemned homosexuality. If the law changes, then the status of homosexuality changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that homosexuality per se is bad or that the Church finds homosexuality to be a mortal sin.

Slavery, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to homosexuality, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

What I am looking for is some sort of logcial reason why a Catholic can accept the Church's change in its position on slavery but cannot accept that the Church could also change its position on other social issues.

[New Mitanni]

You seem to be arguing that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Church must then accept that as a guide. Yet when I point out the Bible condones slavery, you seem to think that the Chruch need not accept that as a guide.

The Pauline passages referring to slavery can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul allowed slavery. If the law changes, then the status of slavery changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that slavery per se is good or that the Church finds slavery to be a required social institution.

The homosexual lifestyle choice, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to slavery, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

I could just as easily say the following:

The Pauline passages referring to homosexuality can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul condemned homosexuality. If the law changes, then the status of homosexuality changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that homosexuality per se is bad or that the Church finds homosexuality to be a mortal sin.

Slavery, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to homosexuality, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

What I am looking for is some sort of logcial reason why a Catholic can accept the Church's change in its position on slavery but cannot accept that the Church could also change its position on other social issues.

You could "just as easily" say anything you want. That doesn't make any such argument you may make persuasive.

The homosexual lifestyle choice is not a mere "social issue." It directly impacts the very continued existence of the human race, not to mention the integrity of the family. The Church has a clear interest, right, and duty in defining teachings directed to these issues.

[Gift-of-god]

You could "just as easily" say anything you want. That doesn't make any such argument you may make persuasive.

The homosexual lifestyle choice is not a mere "social issue." It directly impacts the very continued existence of the human race, not to mention the integrity of the family. The Church has a clear interest, right, and duty in defining teachings directed to these issues.

And you could just as easily say anything you want.

My whole point was that your argument is not persuasive.

The whole point of asking whether or not the Magisterium had ever made any dogmatic statements concerning homosexuality was to find if there was an actual difference between the official Church position on slavery and that of homosexuality. If not, then all your judgements about any difference between them are simply your opinion.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It directly impacts the very continued existence of the human race, not to mention the integrity of the family.

How?

[Dyakovo]

It directly impacts the very continued existence of the human race, not to mention the integrity of the family.

How?

Didn't you know that if the catholic church accepts homosexuality then everyone will become a homosexual?

[Kobrania]

You seem to be arguing that as the Church accepts the Bible as the foundation of truth, the Bible becomes the guide on it. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Church must then accept that as a guide. Yet when I point out the Bible condones slavery, you seem to think that the Chruch need not accept that as a guide.

The Pauline passages referring to slavery can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul allowed slavery. If the law changes, then the status of slavery changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that slavery per se is good or that the Church finds slavery to be a required social institution.

The homosexual lifestyle choice, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to slavery, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

I could just as easily say the following:

The Pauline passages referring to homosexuality can be reconciled with modern practice by recalling Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The law at the time of Paul condemned homosexuality. If the law changes, then the status of homosexuality changes. Which is presently the case. Paul never states that homosexuality per se is bad or that the Church finds homosexuality to be a mortal sin.

Slavery, in contrast, is not an institution comparable to homosexuality, but a perversion of the natural order that no law can rectify.

What I am looking for is some sort of logcial reason why a Catholic can accept the Church's change in its position on slavery but cannot accept that the Church could also change its position on other social issues.

You could "just as easily" say anything you want. That doesn't make any such argument you may make persuasive.

The homosexual lifestyle choice is not a mere "social issue." It directly impacts the very continued existence of the human race, not to mention the integrity of the family. The Church has a clear interest, right, an duty in defining teachings directed to these issues.

NM, first, it isn't a choice to be gay, it is a choice if you act to your nature though. And going against your ingrained nature happens to be universally viewed as unnatural and self-harmful.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Didn't you know that if the catholic church accepts homosexuality then everyone will become a homosexual?

Oh I forgot about that scientifically proven idea. How does gays getting married affect other marriages?

Yes, I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to see your answer to this.