Should homosexuality become a religion?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Should homosexuality become a religion?

Post #1

Post by AlAyeti »

Christianity is incompatible with those that are involved in lifestyle contrary to the Biblical views on marriage, family and sexual morality, and/or that will not repent of their "sins."

The homosexual ideological stance refuses to believe that they are doing anything wrong, claiming that homosexuality is a set pre-birth condition. This sets the Christian ideological and Theological beliefs against those that want to live a homosexual lifestyle.

Maniline protestant Christianity is clear in its teachings about the incompatibilty of homosexuals in the Clergy and Pope Benedict and the Catholic church (after being palgued by homosexual pedophila scandals) has issued guideleines for homosexual behavior and being a Catholic Priest.

If homosexuals claim that they are born to "be" homosexuals and deny that they are behaving contrary to the Bible, which puts their position in diametric opposition of established Biblical truths, shouldn't "they just start their own religion?
From the Associated Press:

Vatican Closes Door on Gay Seminarians

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

The Vatican is toughening its stand against gay candidates for the priesthood, specifying in a new document that even men with "transitory" homosexual tendencies must overcome their urges for at least three years before entering the clergy.

A long-awaited "Instruction," due to be released next week, was posted Tuesday on the Internet by the Italian Catholic news agency Adista. A church official who has read the document confirmed its authenticity; he asked that his name not be used because the piece has not been published by the Vatican.

Conservative Roman Catholics who have decried the "gay subculture" in seminaries will likely applaud the policy because it clarifies what the Vatican expects of seminarians and their administrators.

Critics of the policy warned that, if enforced, it will likely result in seminarians lying about their orientation and will decrease the already dwindling number of priests in the United States. Estimates of the percentage of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a research review by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

The document from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education says the church deeply respects homosexuals. But it also says it "cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."

For many gay-rights activists, the Vatican's distinction between deep-rooted and "transitory" homosexuality is without basis.

"For decades now, the scientific and medical community have said that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, what some of us might call a gift from God," said Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

"This new policy causes candidates for the priesthood to be deceptive, and that should not be what the church should be about," he said.

Vatican prohibitions on sexually active gays becoming priests are not new, and a 1961 document says homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. But the issue came to the fore in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States.

A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders said homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about gay seminarians. In addition, some Catholic researchers said "gay subcultures" in seminaries were alienating heterosexuals, prompting them to drop out.

The new document underlines that long-standing traditions and church teaching consider homosexual acts "grave sins" and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law.

Thomas Plante, a psychologist who for more than 15 years has conducted evaluations of prospective seminarians for U.S. dioceses and religious orders, said the document would have an "enormous" ripple effect on the future U.S. priesthood if it is followed.

"Sexual orientation in almost all the evaluations I've done over 15 years hasn't really mattered," he said. "Now what's coming out of the Vatican is that it matters in a big way. That's a real challenge because we think that there are many, many, many gay men who are fabulous priests."

He questioned how seminary directors would apply the new regulations, and suggested that many may resort to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The candidates too, may try to hide their sexual orientation because homosexuality is now a deal-breaker, said Plante, who is chairman of the psychology department at Santa Clara University in California.

The document, called an "Instruction," is only five pages long, including footnotes. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation on Nov. 4, and says it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI on Aug. 31.

The text makes no reference to current priests, directed instead to people entering seminaries and preparing for ordination. Its title reads: "Regarding the criteria of vocational discernment regarding people with homosexual tendencies in view of their admission to the seminary and to sacred orders."

The sex abuse scandals have forced an unprecedented introspection into the clergy and how to train future priests. In September, Vatican-directed inspectors started visiting all 229 American seminaries. Part of their mission has been to seek any "evidence of homosexuality."

The Vatican has often visited the issue of homosexuality, reflecting an unbending theological opposition but also an acknowledgment that discrimination based on sexual preference is not justified.

In 2003, homosexuality was described as a "troubling moral and social phenomenon" in a document by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict this year.

User avatar
kiwimac
Apprentice
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Contact:

Post #21

Post by kiwimac »

Christianity is NOT incompatible with homosexuality. What it IS incompatible with are expressions of bias, prejudice and bigotry masquerading as theological rectititude.

Kiwimac

Priest & Theologian

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #22

Post by McCulloch »

kiwimac wrote:Christianity is NOT incompatible with homosexuality. What it IS incompatible with are expressions of bias, prejudice and bigotry masquerading as theological rectititude.
So before someone else does it, I must ask you, how do you answer those Bible passages which seem to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Yes, Christian theology teaches that Jesus came to forgive sins but he did not come to pretend that sin was not sin, did he?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #23

Post by juliod »

how do you answer those Bible passages which seem to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
That's easy, even I can answer it. If it's a sin, pray for forgiveness.

Kiwimac: Don't I remember you from some other theology debate forum?

DanZ

User avatar
kiwimac
Apprentice
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Contact:

Post #24

Post by kiwimac »

This is a topic I could write quite a lot on and intend to do so. Can you wait for a day or so?

Kiwimac

User avatar
kiwimac
Apprentice
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Contact:

Post #25

Post by kiwimac »

juliod wrote:
how do you answer those Bible passages which seem to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
That's easy, even I can answer it. If it's a sin, pray for forgiveness.

Kiwimac: Don't I remember you from some other theology debate forum?

DanZ
Not quite where I am going with my theology but certainly sound enough.

I am on dozens, CF, Cross+Flame, TheologyWeb, BOTCW etc.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #26

Post by Cathar1950 »

McCulloch asked:
So before someone else does it, I must ask you, how do you answer those Bible passages which seem to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
That is easy. :eyebrow:
You are justified by faith. Faith is believing is something without reason or evidence. You believe you are saved because you believe Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected where you become part of Christ's body and are no longer under the law of Moses but under the Law of Christ which is love. The many ideas and variation in the NT are irrelevant.
Even if Paul says not to do something it only shows that even Paul forgets he is no longer under the law.
It is all so simple. :roll:

User avatar
kiwimac
Apprentice
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Contact:

Post #27

Post by kiwimac »

Cathar1950 wrote:McCulloch asked:
So before someone else does it, I must ask you, how do you answer those Bible passages which seem to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
That is easy. :eyebrow:
You are justified by faith. Faith is believing is something without reason or evidence. You believe you are saved because you believe Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected where you become part of Christ's body and are no longer under the law of Moses but under the Law of Christ which is love. The many ideas and variation in the NT are irrelevant.
Even if Paul says not to do something it only shows that even Paul forgets he is no longer under the law.
It is all so simple. :roll:
It might be nice to WAIT and see what I have to say. That is if you are at all interested in discussion otherwise go for it!

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #28

Post by Cathar1950 »

Sorry I didn't mean to take the thunder.
Go right ahead I am sure I missed something.
I also agree. I don't see homosexuality at compleat odds with much of Christianity if you mean the good news concerning God's Kingdom and loving one another. In the two commandments Loving God and loving others. I see the second as the primary focus of the first.
But please do not let me stop you.
I would enjoy some sanity.

User avatar
kiwimac
Apprentice
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
Contact:

Post #29

Post by kiwimac »

Having written about Sodom and Gomorrah here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2533#62533

I would like to spend some time looking at the Levitical passages ( Leviticus 18:22 and 20 :13) & their rephrase in Deuteronomy (Deut 23:17)

Lev 18:22 (WEB) "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible."

Lev 20:13 (WEB)" If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Deut 23:17 (WEB) "There shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

In looking at Leviticus we must not take the passages out of their contexts, so let's quickly consider Leviticus 18 & 20 as a whole.

In Leviticus 18:19 having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet few today would consider this as sinful.

Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show polygamy is acceptable under the Levitical code yet this is now considered immoral.

19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.

19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.

19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.

11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, Yet most christians eat Bacon or ham!

11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.

11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians !

23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.

So the church accepts that some things considered abominations, to'evah are not sinful at all. Why? Because it these cases it is clear that the word "abomination" refers to ritual purity rather than actual sinfulness, yet we pluck a verse out of the middle of the Holiness code and insist that it means sinfulness and is still valid today, when all the verses around it are ignored as out-moded by Christians.

Deuteronomy 23:17 is a mis-translation. The word "qadesh" in the original text was mistranslated as sodomite when it actually translated as "holy one" and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. There is little evidence that the prostitutes engaged in sexual activities with men. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, prostitute and cult prostitute.

For instance the Good News Bible; Deut 23:17 " "No Israelite, man or woman, is to become a temple prostitute. " Or again the ESV: "Deu 23:17 "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. "

As a church we cannot insist that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 must be normative for the church when we deny the verses sitting next to it, claiming they are no longer binding on Christians.

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #30

Post by Jose »

kiwimac wrote:As a church we cannot insist that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 must be normative for the church when we deny the verses sitting next to it, claiming they are no longer binding on Christians.
I would tend to agree. Why, then, do so many people do exactly this? They insist that these two bits are valid, but happily ignore the rest. To me, that seems rather weird.
Panza llena, corazon contento

Post Reply