Does your religion accept homosexuality?

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are posting to a thread about sex.

It is clear from your post that you were thinking of sex. Otherwise it doesn’t have any relevance.

You can love a person with homosexual tendencies and encourage them to live straight just as you can love a person who smokes and encourage them to quit.

This thread is not about sex, and neither is my post. Is that what a relationship or romantic love boils down to for you? Banging someone? If so, that's sad and you have much to learn about life!

You can't change your sexual orientation. I wouldn't waste my time "encouraging" that if I cared for the person.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

85% of the offending priests were gay though, so it’s mostly a problem with homosexuals.

Do you have a source for that? That number (and them being "gay") sounds made up. Gay priests I know of have boyfriends on the side, not molest little children. You do know that there's a difference between a grown man and a prepubescent child, right?

Priests and bishops have raped nuns, knocked them up and made them have abortions. Pedophilia and rape have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Both males and females are victims of that, so trying to act like it's tied to homosexuality is just really stupid. I'm sure the woman I mentioned who was molested by a priest as a child will be relieved to hear that it's a "gay issue".

 

[wellwisher]

My religion accepts all people, but it does not accept all choices made by all individuals. Forgiveness of sins was given by Jesus, so one does not judge any individual as hopeless, since they, the individual, now have a mechanism to get a clean slate.

However, forgiveness of sin, is only needed if you do things that need forgiveness. The individual is always clean apart from some stains due to certain actions. This philosophy sets soft and loving guidelines, to help individuals, reach a state of grace, that does not need forgiveness, to wash off any dirt.

In my experiences, I have had many gay and lesbian friends who all were nice people. Many had human problems like most people. I found it difficult to judge them, when in person, but rather I felt friendships and compassion. My judgment only seems to happen while I was alone. These judgments would be connected to sin abstractions, in terms of general behavior. It was more about actions and choices, and not about any particular person, since nobody is perfect, and we all will need some forgiveness, in part.

In the spirit of behavior abstraction, in the context of acceptance of individuals, most of the pedophilic priests, went after boys, with this male and male interaction the definition of gay. The Church was tolerant of gay behavior way before it was faddish. This gay pedophile behavior was often buried by the church, since many people would judge other people by specific behavior and not the sum of who there are. Without this shady knowledge, the priests were more judged by their community service.

I often wondered about these pedophile choices. A Priest often chooses this path early in life. A boy can often accept the rules of being a priest, which require chastity and poverty to name a few. The boy is not married and he is poor living at the expense of their parents. When a priest is attracted to young males, they are sort of regressing back to their childhood and that cross roads of life, where choices made, that would cast a die, that would forever define their lives; hard adult reality meets boyhood dreams.

The boy victim is often at the same crossroads; alter boy, and the choice of the priest's past and the boys present, overlap. These illegal actions can make or break that choice for the boy and/or the priest. It reflects the choices, doubts and repressed desire of the priest, all mixed up with the nativity of youth.

When I was a child I thought that I would become a Catholic Priest. It seemed to be consistent with my nature. As a boy you are not married and you live off your parents. The extrapolation to a priest is just a extension of your youth, with the Church your parents. When I became an adolescent, I became more attracted to the secular world, money, females and science, but I could not fully release my vision and the choice of my youth. I became more or less stuck somewhere between the two mutually exclusive choices, unable to accept either path, 100%. This multitasking conflict was energy intensive and made me a man without a country. I felt a need to synthesis these two opposites paths into one; science/secular and religion, since both were needed for me to feel whole.

 

[rational experiences]

When homosexuality emerged in the past the temples of science owned the causes.

Hence being a hypocrite church builder on top of science temples said no homosexuals allowed as they realised sexual promiscurity was rampant in the streets.

So the membership was sexual abstinence.

Holy church holy life.

But then comes the aware reality how does life go on without sex. So they introduced the seasonal time for sex.

And made holy sacrificed moment the egg of the ovah a holy ceremony. If you studied old rituals sexual abstinence and holy sex was actually a human practice.

Men abstained from meeting or being with women. Then owned holy life ceremony. Once. Knowing sacrificed mind consciousness changed human behaviours was real.

Science caused it themselves.

Machines controlled constantly by human minds isn't any God act.

Sex continues life the egg female ovary ovah had been harmed but healed to arise from death ceremony.

 

[rational experiences]

If human men read a document that stated don't self idolise you never practiced what you preached.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Does your church tolerate heterosexual activity and marriage in general?

My Church teaches and believes that all desires should be expressed within the bounds that the Lord has set.

When it comes to sexual activities - all of them should be treated as sacred and should only be expressed between a man and woman who have been wedded as husband and wife.

Any sexual activity outside of these bounds is considered sinful and should be avoided.

 

[KW]

This thread is not about sex, and neither is my post. Is that what a relationship or romantic love boils down to for you? Banging someone? If so, that's sad and you have much to learn about life!

You can't change your sexual orientation. I wouldn't waste my time "encouraging" that if I cared for the person.

You can change your behavior.

Many people have sinful desires. Do you think that if you desire something that means it's morally acceptable?

 

[KW]

Do you have a source for that? That number (and them being "gay") sounds made up. Gay priests I know of have boyfriends on the side, not molest little children. You do know that there's a difference between a grown man and a prepubescent child, right?

Priests and bishops have raped nuns, knocked them up and made them have abortions. Pedophilia and rape have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Both males and females are victims of that, so trying to act like it's tied to homosexuality is just really stupid. I'm sure the woman I mentioned who was molested by a priest as a child will be relieved to hear that it's a "gay issue".

85% of the victims were male. The false claim by leftists that this doesn't mean the abusers were gay is just that, a false claim.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

85% of the victims were male. The false claim by leftists that this doesn't mean the abusers were gay is just that, a false claim.

I asked for a source for that figure. Do you have one?

You don't have to be a "leftist" to see that it's not a "gay issue". Sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has actually occurred for centuries. It's one of the reasons why they introduced the confessional box, to separate the lecherous priests from the penitents. As for children, it doesn't help that they started requiring little kids to start confessing one on one with a priest sometime in the early 20th century, I think it was. This is a good book about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Box-Secret-History-Confession/dp/0465039952

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can change your behavior.

Many people have sinful desires. Do you think that if you desire something that means it's morally acceptable?

I really don't care what the Catholic Church has to say about it. I left that church.

 

[Veyl]

My Church teaches and believes that all desires should be expressed within the bounds that the Lord has set.

When it comes to sexual activities - all of them should be treated as sacred and should only be expressed between a man and woman who have been wedded as husband and wife.

Any sexual activity outside of these bounds is considered sinful and should be avoided.

I honestly find it difficult to find sexual activity as sacred, or at least as more sacred than the sexless divinity that underlies it. Wouldn't have much of a problem with it, except that heterosexuals and homosexuals expect their predilections to be acknowledged by the law. I've found more humility with fetishists, to be honest.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I honestly find it difficult to find sexual activity as sacred, or at least as more sacred than the sexless divinity that underlies it.

God gave to Man the power to create life - which is a divine ability.

When you view sex as less than a device for personal pleasure - but more a means of expressing your love and devotion to your spouse - then you might start to see how it could be viewed as sacred.

That isn't even to mention the fact that the act has the potential to create more human life - which is divine and should also be considered sacred.

Wouldn't have much of a problem with it, except that heterosexuals and homosexuals expect their predilections to be acknowledged by the law.

I have no such expectation. I'd rather all secular governments stay out of marriage entirely.

I've found more humility with fetishists, to be honest.

You believe that it is arrogant for two people to want a legal contract with each other?

 

[Veyl]

God gave to Man the power to create life - which is a divine ability.

When you view sex as less than a device for personal pleasure - but more a means of expressing your love and devotion to your spouse - then you might start to see how it could be viewed as sacred.

That isn't even to mention the fact that the act has the potential to create more human life - which is divine and should also be considered sacred.

I have no such expectation. I'd rather all secular governments stay out of marriage entirely.

You believe that it is arrogant for two people to want a legal contract with each other?

I find the greater quintessence of divinity to be in a sexless being, beyond the need for reproduction. To be quite frank, I don't believe that anything can be created, let alone human life. Such would destroy the value of the soul, and thus of God. I'm not completely sure about your argument for sex from a devotional standpoint, as I've never desired it or a spouse, but I'll take your word for it; it appears that couples can tap into something of their own, even if it's attenuated when compared to the proverbial hermit on the mountaintop.

As for the matter of marriage, I don't see why people would need to create a legal contract with one another. You don't see that among friends, for example.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I find the greater quintessence of divinity to be in a sexless being, beyond the need for reproduction.

Neat - I believe that God is male and that He procreates - and that the spirits of all Mankind are the products of His procreation.

He finds joy and satisfaction in procreating.

To be quite frank, I don't believe that anything can be created, let alone human life.

That is true in the sense that something cannot come from nothing - but human life is "created" on Earth by us supplying the proper materials and conditions - and God provides the spirit.

Such would destroy the value of the soul, and thus of God.

I don't see how it could.

I'm not completely sure about your argument for sex from a devotional standpoint, as I've never desired it or a spouse, but I'll take your word for it; it appears that couples can tap into something of their own, even if it's attenuated when compared to the proverbial hermit on the mountaintop.

I believe it is one of the main reasons for our mortal existence - to find our eternal mate.

As for the matter of marriage, I don't see why people would need to create a legal contract with one another.

There are many reasons - the most secular is to better protect women and children.

You don't see that among friends, for example.

Thank God for that.

 

[Veyl]

Neat - I believe that God is male and that He procreates - and that the spirits of all Mankind are the products of His procreation.

He finds joy and satisfaction in procreating.

That is true in the sense that something cannot come from nothing - but human life is "created" on Earth by us supplying the proper materials and conditions - and God provides the spirit.

I don't see how it could.

I believe it is one of the main reasons for our mortal existence - to find our eternal mate.

There are many reasons - the most secular is to better protect women and children.

Thank God for that.

I suppose this is a matter of agreeing to disagree, ultimately. Nonetheless, it is good that we have been able to see the reasonings of the other. I must admit that I find the whole prominence of coupling perplexing, as it essentially feels sacralizing a fetish. That does raise the question of the ethics of marriage, come to think of it. Perhaps instead of cementing a personal matter into the law and thus necessitating the protection of rights, it would be better to remove it from that domain entirely and have neither opposite-sex or same-sex groups seeking marriage rights.