No to gay priests

Religion is so flimsy.
im happy to listen about all religions but I dont want to live my life by them.
I can make up my mind for myself.
If i can see that God didnt interveen when hundreds were dying in a Tsunami then I have to think, hmmm, maybe he dont exsist.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

Questioner wrote:
WHY IS HOMOSEXUAL SEX CONSIDERED A SIN[/quote[/quote]

The church determines its criteria for sin from the Bible, which lists homosexuallity as an abomination. Given that Christianity is based on the Bible, why would it seem strange to disallow homosexual priests, since priests are the church leadership? Whether you agree with it or not, it's silly to ask them to prove their beliefs using your moral compass. It's called Catholisism, not Material Girlisism.

0 Replies

I was just under the impression the Bible was about God and Gods about love and exceptance.Not leaving people out because of a sexuality that God invented but the Christians dont like.

The whole world doesnt embrace Catholisism but I think Material Girlism is alot nicer and fairer.

0 Replies

AliceInWonderland wrote:

material girl wrote:
Questioner wrote:
WHY IS HOMOSEXUAL SEX CONSIDERED A SIN

The church determines its criteria for sin from the Bible, which lists homosexuallity as an abomination. Given that Christianity is based on the Bible, why would it seem strange to disallow homosexual priests, since priests are the church leadership? Whether you agree with it or not, it's silly to ask them to prove their beliefs using your moral compass. It's called Catholisism, not Material Girlisism.

A few points to consider here.

1) Assuming that homosexuality is a chemical/genetic issue and not just a choice issue, why would god allow for that potential situation to arise in his creation and then condemn them to hell for it?

2) The church determines nearly all it's criteria from the bible. The same bible who's translations are questioned, debated, argued, and ignored all the time by the same church. Seems like a flimsy basis for condemnation.

3) It's also called Church of Christ, Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, Community Church, Al's drive-thru Church and Car wash.

4) The reason why it's somewhat odd to disallow homosexual priests isn't because homosexuality is disallowed in the bible (which is rather open to debate) but because the Catholic church is trying to find a scape goat to take the blame for all of the child-molesting priests it's managed to let into it's "leadership".

0 Replies

Though I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Christian, and I'll try to explain why I believe a homosexual should not be in a priest/pastor position.

First: If you do not believe that what the Bible says is true, then you will naturally not agree with the Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong. I understand that, and I understand why rejecting homosexual priests/pastors would seem intolerant to you. Before condemning all Christians who disagree with homosexuality as intolerant, however, try to understand the Christian position.

The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin. According to the Bible, when God created humans, He instituted attraction and life-long commitment between a man and a woman (which we have translated into the concept of marriage). Attraction and sexual relationships between members of the same sex was contrary to what He designed (which puts it into the category of sin, which is anything displeasing to God). Therefore, a person who is dedicated to the Bible's teachings would also believe that homosexuality is a sin.

If the church as a whole should be dedicated to obeying God, then it follows that it would not allow homosexuals to be in leadership.

My view is this: I do believe that homosexual behavior is a sin - however, I also believe that inappropriate heterosexual behavior is a sin. I want to be consistent in my moral stance. I don't believe homosexuals should be priests or pastors, but I also don't believe that molesters (homo or hetero) or those having extra-marital affairs (homo or hetero) should be in a leadership position either. I believe that all sexual relationships outside of marriage (between a man and woman) are sin. The church should be consistent in their decisions on the matter. If they believe that one type of "immorality" is sin, they should be strict about all others as well (or, conversely, be strict about none at all), because the Bible condemns all sexual immorality.

*Edited for a grammatical error.*

0 Replies

*Note: What I say stems from my acceptance of the Bible and my belief that it is true. I know this is a very sensitive topic, and I don't want to offend anyone. I do want to share my view, though.*

Questioner wrote:

Quote:

1) Assuming that homosexuality is a chemical/genetic issue and not just a choice issue, why would god allow for that potential situation to arise in his creation and then condemn them to hell for it?

I have struggled with that question as well. To begin answering it, I had to understand more about the Bible's concept of the relationships between sin, man, and God.

When God created the earth and man, He established perfection. The state in which He created everything was deemed perfect (therefore creating a standard). When man chose to sin (disobey God), the implications were vast. The perfect order and system that God created was corrupted.

This is my understanding: Since the fall of man (please forgive my use of "Christianese" Smile

), many genetic changes have occurred in the human race as a result of sin. The Bible says that one man's sin altered the entire state of the world. If humans were perfect (lacking nothing, completely whole) in the beginning, a genetic change could only result in deviation from perfection.

If homosexuality is genetic (which I am not sure has been scientifically proven), it would have to be a genetic change, would it not? This would result in an alteration of desire, leading to homosexual temptation. Temptation is never condemned in the Bible. Humans do not choose to be tempted. Temptation comes from Satan, and we are not held responsible for it.

We are, however, held responsible for our actions. When we are tempted, we choose to yield to or resist the temptation. A person who has homosexual feelings and desires would be in sin, then, if he or she acts upon or feeds the desires. The predisposition would not be a sin.

I also believe, then, that if God does not approve of homosexuality, He gives the homosexual grace in order to overcome the desires and live in a way that is pleasing to Him. There have been homosexuals who claim to have been "delivered" from it (using their terminology, not mine).

Sorry this is long... I would answer the other questions, but work calls. Smile

0 Replies

Let me add my two cents. As far as homosexuality is concerned I really don't see why it is so hard to see why it is considered a sin, even if you don't agree with the reason. If you believe that God made man and woman for each other, and that their respective reproductive organs are for the purpose of reproducing, than naturally you would believe that anything other than that is unnatural. A man sodomizing another man is not natural. Sorry to be so graphic, but the rectum(on a male or female) is not meant for sexual intercourse. Therefore it is a perversion. We have our respective body parts for a reason. Even if you don't believe in God, you can't tell me that there is anything natural about anal sex.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Let me add my two cents. As far as homosexuality is concerned I really don't see why it is so hard to see why it is considered a sin, even if you don't agree with the reason. If you believe that God made man and woman for each other, and that their respective reproductive organs are for the purpose of reproducing, than naturally you would believe that anything other than that is unnatural. A man sodomizing another man is not natural. Sorry to be so graphic, but the rectum(on a male or female) is not meant for sexual intercourse. Therefore it is a perversion. We have our respective body parts for a reason. Even if you don't believe in God, you can't tell me that there is anything natural about anal sex.

Of course what people fail to realize is that homosexuality as such does not have to include sexual relations. Two men who love each other and are sexually stimulated by each other in some way other than physical are not behaving in an immoral way.
Take it a step further, two homosexual men may kiss and cuddle the same as a heterosexual couple however they do not need to have any further physical contact to know how they feel about each other. They may progress to oral sex (although some say that isn't sex so for those who feel homosexuality is wrong if it includes sex, this is a loophole). Keep in mind that many homosexual relationships do not include anal sex.

What I wonder is would a person prefer a man who has feelings of the sexual nature only for men to be married in a stale and false marriage to a woman just for the purpose of creating a new life? Something tells me that God wouldn't be happy with that huge lie either. My belief is that God wants people to love each other and to be honest with each other. A sham marriage might fail on both counts.

And what about all those big God fearing Bible thumping heathens who attend church on Sunday morning telling of the indecency of two men going at it with each other because "hoomoosexual-ity" is a sin and then race home and pop a tape in their VCR and watch 2 women pleasuring each other or men having sex with women they are not married or even betrothed to? Is that better than 2 men who love each other sharing a home and a bed?

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:

And what about all those big God fearing Bible thumping heathens who attend church on Sunday morning telling of the indecency of two men going at it with each other because "hoomoosexual-ity" is a sin and then race home and pop a tape in their VCR and watch 2 women pleasuring each other or men having sex with women they are not married or even betrothed to? Is that better than 2 men who love each other sharing a home and a bed?

It is absolutely NOT better, in my belief. I believe that if I am going to stand against one kind of sexual immorality (as defined by the Bible), I have to stand against all of it. It is totally hypocritical for me to condone heterosexual or lesbian sexual activity while condemning gay men. I really want to be consistent and not hypocritical.

I think that, in God's eyes, one sin is just as bad as another. The earthly consequences of sins may vary by degree of severity (for instance, stealing a pencil seems relatively harmless, while stealing a thousand dollars will send you to jail). The Bible says that to God, though, all sin separates us from Him, no matter how small it seems.

That's why I think that heterosexual sin is just as bad as homosexual sin. I don't condone any of it.

0 Replies

Redeemed wrote:

That's why I think that heterosexual sin is just as bad as homosexual sin. I don't condone any of it.

Ah, yes...but who defines sin? who placed you or me or any of us mere mortals in charge of that? Further, isn't love better than just free for all wild orgies which hurt other people? These are my views and my beliefs, you have yours which is keen and I have mine so all in all everything is a-okay.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:

Ah, yes...but who defines sin? who placed you or me or any of us mere mortals in charge of that? Further, isn't love better than just free for all wild orgies which hurt other people? These are my views and my beliefs, you have yours which is keen and I have mine so all in all everything is a-okay.

I guess I should have clarified - sorry about that.

When I have talked about sin, I am thinking of the behaviors and attitudes that the Bible condemns. I'm definitely not the authority on what is sin and what isn't. I do believe that the Bible is truth, and my moral standard (and my view of the world) stems from what the Bible says.

I don't think I understood what you meant by "Further, isn't love better than just free for all wild orgies which hurt other people?" Could you explain? Thanks.

0 Replies

If people are going to engage in sexual acts, would you rather it be people who are showing a love for each other or 2 strangers or persons who may be causing damage to a wife, a husband or children? To me the bigger sin would be the people just going at it for the heck of it with no concern about who is getting hurt in the process.

0 Replies

Okay, I understand what you meant, and I kind of agree with what you are saying. I think that the consequences and the hurt caused by one are greater than the other. If I had to choose a better or worse, I would choose the 2 people showing love as better.

That said, however, I don't think that sin is defined just by the consequences of an action. For instance, if a person steals from a millionaire but isn't caught, is it still wrong? I think that a standard is required. I choose the Bible as my standard for making moral decisions. Others may choose a different standard (while others may not choose one at all).

So while I think that one situation has fewer consequences (for the people involved and the people they affect), I still consider both to be wrong, according to the standard I have accepted.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

AliceInWonderland wrote:
material girl wrote:
Questioner wrote:
WHY IS HOMOSEXUAL SEX CONSIDERED A SIN

2) The church determines nearly all it's criteria from the bible. The same bible who's translations are questioned, debated, argued, and ignored all the time by the same church. Seems like a flimsy basis for condemnation.

Okay, now that' another discussion entirely, one that I am more than happy to engage in if you wish. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this discussion, that of the debate/argument over translation, NONE of those points of contention have anything to do with an article of faith. None. Most translational discrepency is simple things like Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ. Everyone has access, if they so choose, to the original Greek (most the New Testament) with word for word translation and a codex to check out alternative word meanings - available in nearly any book store.

0 Replies

No to gay priests

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know