TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:The Catholic Church does not say that gay people will burn in hell for being gay.
Technically... but you can't be actively gay (practice your gay-ness?) without committing a sin. (I forget though if it's one of those "nope, you're going to hell" sins or if it's one of those "you have to spend some time in purgatory to atone" sins).
I think you have it mostly right. Everyone is a sinner. Christ came to Earth to redeem sinners. I don't pretend to speak for God, but the Bible does not seem very concerned with homosexuality. Murder, adultery, idolatry, etc., are much bigger concerns talked about much more frequently.
DSenette wrote:telling someone that their very being.....a core feature of their existence....is an affront to a god that supposedly created them for the sole purpose of loving them...and that they're going to hell....but still being polite to them when you preach to them that they are in fact going to burn in hell for who they are, is duplicitous and ultimately disgusting. at least with the wacko southern Baptists....they tell you they hate you to your face.
The Church as a whole, at least the Catholic part, definitely does not do this.
Izawwlgood wrote:\If you want to claim marriage is between a man and a woman and fucking is only for making babies, that's fine, have at it, just keep that shit to yourself.
Which is what the Church seems to be getting up to.
This is a very odd historical perspective. Marriage has been between women and men (especially for creating households to raise the next generation) for thousands of years. Sure, we're allowed to change that definition -- but claiming that the original definition is the abnormal one is itself abnormal.
I'm a gay Catholic and much prefer that the Church does not change its position. Its current position is rooted in the Bible; any change that comes from outside the faith undermines its texts and traditions. We're not talking about homosexuality out of theological passion: many dislike the Church's position because it conflicts their own.
Anyone can quote Leviticus to say something absurd. But did Jesus [url="http://www.gci.org/law/otl10"]fulfill the law and make Leviticus unnecessary[/url], or were those laws only given to a
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm wrote: specific people (the Israelites) at a specific moment,
or did Jesus affirm that [url="http://biblehub.com/mark/12-29.htm"]these laws were not terribly important[/url]?
It's complicated. And still, for thousands of years, people considered themselves good Christians without stoning whores, consecrating marriages with rapists, and mixing different kinds of cloth.
Here is something the New Testament does say about Homosexuality:
-- Romans 1:18-25, New International Version.
This is an uncomfortable passage. It rather implies that sin causes homosexuality and not the opposite. These are only the words of Paul, a man, but the Church's position is that they were divinely inspired. So if the Church were to change its position on this passage (which is not what's happening), is Paul still divinely inspired?
It's probably not an interesting question. But it's one worth asking if we're actually concerned about Church doctrines.
Otherwise, no concessions the Church makes to homosexuality will really be enough for anyone posting here.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley