Can Homosexuality and the Christian Faith Exist Together?

Post Reply New Topic

That's nothing compared to the big guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmD9ZWD ... e=youtu.be

Regards
DL

This article provides a very good explanation of what "perfect" means in regards to God. I'll post some quotes and provide a link to the whole thing if you'd like to read it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space, being made up of parts in duration or extension, are essentially finite by comparison with God's infinity. Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an increase or diminution of perfection would be to suggest the absurdity of a changeable essence. It only remains, then, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such — that is, no expression of positive being as such — that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent must be infinite in all perfection. For self-existence itself is absolute positive being and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being.

In God "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration" (James 1:17); "They [i.e. "the works of thy hands"] shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the selfsame and thy years shall not fail" (Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalm 101:26-28. Cf. Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). These are some of the Scriptural texts which clearly teach Divine immutability or unchangeableness, and this attribute is likewise emphasized in church teaching, as by the Council of Nicaea against the Arians, who attributed mutability to the Logos (Denzinger, 54-old No. 18), and by the Vatican Council in its famous definition.

That the Divine nature is essentially immutable, or incapable of any internal change, is an obvious corollary from Divine infinity. Changeableness implies the capacity for increase or diminution of perfection, that is, it implies finiteness and imperfection. But God is infinitely perfect and is necessarily what He is. It is true that some attributes by which certain aspects of Divine perfection are described are hypothetical or relative, in the sense that they presuppose the contingent fact of creation: omnipresence, for example, presupposes the actual existence of spatial beings. But it is obvious that the mutability implied in this belongs to creatures, and not to the Creator; and it is a strange confusion of thought that has led some modern Theists — even professing Christians — to maintain that such attributes can be laid aside by God, and that the Logos in becoming incarnate actually did lay them aside, or at least ceased from their active exercise. But as creation itself did not affect the immutability of God, so neither did the incarnation of a Divine Person; whatever change was involved in either case took place solely in the created nature.

I 'hate' to reduce something

so complex to something

so simple..

BUT

If GOD IS a HE,

HOW IS GOD PERFECT.

ISN'T GOD BIGGER THAN 'A PENiS'.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY, THINK ABOUT THAT ONE,



LITERALLY,

if one can.

Obviously,
'tHis' GOD
IS MALE-MAdE.

GOD IS CERTAInLY
BIGGER THAN
'A
PENiS',

TO PUT 'IT' FRANkLY,
BLUNtLY
AND
IN
TRuTH,

WitH ALL
due
respect,

of course.

As far as I'm concerned they always have, and always will : )

Homosexuality isn't going anywhere, nor does it need to.

A lot of people have edited the bible and Tora. Both books have also been used as psa sound boards (don't eat pork or you could get sick, cut your willy so it doesn't get infected) and commerce (eat fish on Friday so fisherman can make a living, be heterosexual so there are more of us). These things would not offend a truly loving god. A lot of this stuff is dated. My understanding is just be a good person and when you die, God will want to hang out with you. Like in Sling Blade; if the guy is a good person who doesn't hurt anyone, why would God damn him? The God I know loves everyone.

^^^ I totally agree! It's frustrating to me how many people take their religious texts as 100% literal truth. It's impossible to reason with them.

IMO, if God/the divine were really the vengeful, angry, arrogant a-hole that some describe, he/she/it wouldn't be worthy of worship or respect in the first place.

We should disrespect all the Gods as they are all hiding in the bushes and are ashamed to show their faces.

Regards
DL

Here's my intuitive and personal take on it. Ever since I was born - I was raised Catholic. I remember hearing for the very first time what 'gay' meant when I was six years old, from another kid, and I thought it was odd/funny but didn't think much of it.

I, as well as many others can admit to, have had same sex attractions and urges. I think this is normal. I was always, and still am, disturbed by the warmongering and politics that goes on back and forth between the church, and the Gay rights people. I honestly don't think either of them are seeking honesty and purity but are both trying to push an agenda with every day people like you and me caught in the middle, trying to make sense of it. I had to go through this when I was younger, and it was very confusing. This is my honest opinion. I believe God made us all in his image, and therefor nothing that comes out of us as a sign of true or pure love for one another can be bad, but is good. I don't believe homosexual love is impure.
I disagree with the way the radical left tries to force the issue, and think it's a large part of the reason there is so much strife. I also don't believe in gay "marriage". Marriage is between a man and woman. I don't think there is anything wrong with any kind of love in any form, but you have to take the love on its merit but to say there is something wrong with same gender love flat out is just false and incorrect.
That is my personal opinion on the matter.

Last edited by Whathappened on 05 Apr 2015, 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The 'left' isn't forcing anything. If there wasn't so much discrimination against gays, it wouldn't be an issue. When pushing for human rights, there is little that goes too far... Try thinking before writing...

Excuse me? Check yourself. They most certainly are, and maybe you should take your own suggestion.

Where exactly am I wrong? do you really think that gays haven't been discriminated against in this country and elsewhere? Your turn...

Not too bad.

But why deny gays marriage. To deny them destroys the benefits on taxes, pensions and other social benefits that the married enjoy. Sure you might say give those some other way but then you split them even further from the status quo just because they are gay. That is discrimination all over again.

"both trying to push an agenda"

Indeed. The right wants to discriminate and denigrate gays for being the way God made them and the gays are against that discrimination without a just cause.

Choose a side and get of the fence.

Regards
DL

"

Again, from the Catholic perspective, they can't get married, it's impossible as they do not meet the basic criteria. In order for a Catholic marriage to be valid, it has to be consumated. This means engaging in sexual intercourse in a manner that is open to life. Technically, homosexuals are incapable of sexual intercourse and more broadly, their sex acts are always closed to the posibility of creating life.

But why should secular authorities use the Catholic perspective on marriage? And why should non-Catholics care what the church thinks of marriage? I think there are two types of marriage, marriage in the church and marriage as a piece of paper that proves to the government that you now have certain rights concerning taxes and other things. Let the church decide who they marry (in church), and let the government keep marriage open to all us sinners. "Render to Caesar...".
I would also not qualify for a Catholic marriage I think, since I am not a Catholic. That's no reason for the government to deny me the right to marry.

I believe that gays should have the same rights as far as government is concerned, I just think, for the sake of accuracy, it should be called something else. The fact that the heterosexual marriage has the capability and extreme likelihood to create life makes that relationship intrinsically different from a homosexual relationship. Calling them both marriage is like calling both a circle and square a circle.

This is only an issue if creating new life would be the goal of a marriage.
In my eyes, it is not. it's a (common) consequence, but not a goal. hence there is no reason to change the name of the situation: that only introduces potential problems and negates part of the equal rights