Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Forever_Catholic]

There’s no tolerance for homosexual acts in the Bible or in private revelation and no support for homosexuality in ancient Jewish or Christian societies, even though it seems to have been okay with people in ancient pagan cultures. There is support for it in much of contemporary secular society, and even growing support within certain Christian Churches. In fact, here’s a cut and paste from a news article:

DETROIT (AP) 20 Jun 14 - The top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voted by large margins to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian in the church constitution, adding language that marriage can be the union of "two people," not just "a man and a woman." …

So there’s some pro-gay Christianity, but it‘s people in a church voting on whether God is right or wrong. One more reason to love the Catholic Church, in my opinion -- societal indoctrination doesn’t get to supersede the Holy Spirit. And what's the point anyway of making a church conform to public opinion? Redefining a truth does not make a new truth.

A bright side of the Catholic Church for gays could be that they are welcome in it. We have categories of sin for everyone. Heterosexual pleasures of the flesh are sins too, outside of marriage. The love of a man’s life might be a woman he can’t have, can’t touch, can’t even desire without sinning. No slack will be given. There’s no getting a pass for lying, stealing, pride, envy, gluttony, or any other of our innumerable sins and potential sins.

We’re all a bunch of sinners, each with his or her own particular temptations, weaknesses, and sinful attachments. We can only fight against ours, support others fighting against theirs, ask for forgiveness as needed, and trust in the Divine Mercy. We can help each other get to heaven.

 

[McBell]

One wonders why, using the "logic" of this thread, why no one is proposing to bring back their god given right to own slaves?

 

[sojourner]

but it‘s people in a church voting on whether God is right or wrong.

No, it's people choosing to accept a certain POV, a certain standard of praxis, and interpretation of the texts.

One more reason to love the Catholic Church, in my opinion -- societal indoctrination doesn’t get to supersede the Holy Spirit.

Who says the Holy Spirit is, in any way, being "superseded" here?

A bright side of the Catholic Church for gays could be that they are welcome in it. We have categories of sin for everyone. Heterosexual pleasures of the flesh are sins too, outside of marriage. The love of a man’s life might be a woman he can’t have, can’t touch, can’t even desire without sinning. No slack will be given. There’s no getting a pass for lying, stealing, pride, envy, gluttony, or any other of our innumerable sins and potential sins.

Problem is that sexual orientation is part of a person's identity. People cannot be sin.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

And what's the point anyway of making a church conform to public opinion?

vs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

vs.

Actually, those liberal Mainline Protestant churches are dying out.

 

[McBell]

No slack will be given. There’s no getting a pass for lying, stealing, pride, envy, gluttony, or any other of our innumerable sins and potential sins.

Are you claiming the Catholic Church does not routinely give free passes for pedophilia, lying about it, covering it up, etc.?
Since when?

 

[Norman]

But it doesn't rule out anything else. Where is the word 'only'? They were not asking about something else, they were asking very specifically about a man divorcing his wife.

Norman: Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them‍ at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave‍ to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined‍ together, let not man put asunder.

Norman: You don't need the word only. And Yes they were and Jesus answered them. During the time of the Savior’s mortal ministry, divorce was a vexing issue, debated without resolution among rabbis. For many people, divorce was justified even for trivial reasons. The Pharisees sought to involve Jesus in the controversy by asking His opinion about divorce. In the first part of his response, the Savior emphasized the sanctity of marriage by referring to Adam and Eve, who provided the ideal of marital unity and permanence (again, see above Matthew 19:4-6) (You may also want to read Genesis 2:24 that Jesus was quoting.) The passages below answer's the rest of the question. You might need to ponder for yourself Thorbjorn why Jesus first mentioned Adam and Eve and marriage between a man and a woman to answer the question of the Pharisees about Divorce? To myself it is very clear.

Norman: Matthew 19:7 below records that the Pharisees referred to Deuteronomy 24:1, which some of their leaders understood to mean that if a man married a woman and she did not please him, he could provide her a written bill of divorcement. When asked why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus Christ declared, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so”

Norman: Matthew 19: 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I may, is there any clear reason to believe that Church doctrine is not meant to develop and improve as social understanding does?

 

[gsa]

Actually, those liberal Mainline Protestant churches are dying out.

The only ones who appear to be growing these days are Pentecostals, and I think that is mostly sorting of extreme evangelicals. Few Christian churches are growing, and some are on the verge of a demographic disaster.

The religion is dying in the west, but appears to be flourishing in Africa and parts of Asia.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The only ones who appear to be growing these days are Pentecostals, and I think that is mostly sorting of extreme evangelicals. Few Christian churches are growing, and some are on the verge of a demographic disaster.

The religion is dying in the west, but appears to be flourishing in Africa and parts of Asia.

Well, birthrates are dropping in the West so it really doesn't matter if religion as a whole is growing in the West or not. Looking at the trends, it seems clear that Western civilization is going bye-bye. Make way for the Global South because they're going to inherit the earth.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Problem is that sexual orientation is part of a person's identity. People cannot be sin.

Yes, sexual orientation is part of a person's identity, but neither the orientation nor the identity is a sin. A sinful act is a sin.

 

[gsa]

I'm confident that the same liberalizing trend will make its way to the global south, which includes Latin America which I consider Western. As economies develop and HD indicators rise, traditional religion dies.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm confident that the same liberalizing trend will make its way to the global south, which includes Latin America which I consider Western. As economies develop and HD indicators rise, traditional religion dies.

And when traditional religion dies, so does the country whether through not having kids, abortion or euthanasia. We just can't wait to get into our graves.

 

[LuisDantas]

And when traditional religion dies, so does the country whether through not having kids, abortion or euthanasia. We just can't wait to get into our graves.

You are a lot more optimistic about the decrease of natality than I am!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are a lot more optimistic about the decrease of natality than I am!

Well, I can guess from your views that you would love to see humanity die out so I can see how you would view that as "optimism".

 

[McBell]

And when traditional religion dies, so does the country whether through not having kids, abortion or euthanasia. We just can't wait to get into our graves.

Which traditional religion do you think has not died out?
Are you perhaps claiming that the vastly evolved Catholic religion has not "died" simply because they grasp desperately to the name?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which traditional religion do you think has not died out?
Are you perhaps claiming that the vastly evolved Catholic religion has not "died" simply because they grasp desperately to the name?

Yeah, that's not what I meant. Besides, this is all off topic. I notice the staff haven't bothered to move my thread like I asked.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I can guess from your views that you would love to see humanity die out so I can see how you would view that as "optimism".

I would love to see natality fall to a manageable rate so that humanity does not die out in agony. I doubt it will happen.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would love to see natality fall to a manageable rate so that humanity does not die out in agony. I doubt it will happen.

Demographic collapse is what will make humanity die out in agony. Mad Max, here we come! This century and I guess the next two will make the violence of the previous ones pale in comparison. I'd bet on it. We're only in the opening stages of WWIII. This is a picnic compared to what's coming as dying nations take one last gasp.

 

[LuisDantas]

Demographic collapse is what will make humanity die out in agony.

Due to overpopulation. Yes.