HOMOSEXUALITY is

[tulc]

To call homosexuality not sinful, is common among liberals and non-Christians, but of course, the Bible is not their book. So why is it such a debate among even conservative and Christ-loving congregations? (emph. added)

Come now don't be coy, to most people on CF those words are synonymous.
tulc(pretty used to it by now!)

 

[UberLutheran]

If its false why didnt a Bible scholar correct it before printed if you want to get that technical

You do know the word "homosexual" didn't even exist until Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the word in 1869, right?

 

[thesearenotthecatholicsyouarelookingfor]

HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin.

Your profile says you're Catholic, so perhaps this would be worth quoting for you:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

So yeah. According to the Church you profess to follow, homosexuality is not a sin. It is a trait a person may have for no readily explainable reason. While homosexual acts (and I think by that the Vatican means "nookie" and not, like, RuPaul) are a sin accordinng to the RCC, homosexuality is a deep-seated inclination.



And I'm also going to quote this bit one more time, just since it really bears repeating:

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

 

[davedjy]

Your profile says you're Catholic, so perhaps this would be worth quoting for you:



So yeah. According to the Church you profess to follow, homosexuality is not a sin. It is a trait a person may have for no readily explainable reason. While homosexual acts (and I think by that the Vatican means "nookie" and not, like, RuPaul) are a sin accordinng to the RCC, homosexuality is a deep-seated inclination.



And I'm also going to quote this bit one more time, just since it really bears repeating:

The Catholic Church also sees masturbation as a sin...something not even mentioned in the Bible!

 

[UnitedInChrist]

The Catholic Church also sees masturbation as a sin...something not even mentioned in the Bible!

As a former Catholic, let me just say MOST of what they stand for are man made rules that have been set by the Vatican ions ago. Man made rules that have been written by the Pope, etc....

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Dare I suggest that people should read the book "The Heart of Christianity". It is our current bookclub read with our bible study class every Sunday AM. Excellent book. It clearly shows where Christianity is today. There is the "early" Christianity which believes there are "requirements" and "rewards" in order to be a christian. There is also the "emerging" Christianity which believe in living a Christian life today through God's words of love and compassion. Early Christianity see God as a vengeful, and angry God with casting his children into the firey lakes of hell, while Emerging Christians show God as a caring, loving, and embracing God of his children. Clearly spelled out, and clearly identifies with many that post here. Literalist (small and shrinking groups regardless of what you may think), and Interpretists (85% of Christians) that while the bible is considered HOLY and Sacred..it MUST be interpreted to be taken seriously. To read what two ancient civilizations did as literalist...totally misses the point of the bible altogether. Finally, it goes to say the misconception of those that would believe that God is basing anything on your "mindful bellefs" rather than your "heartful beliefes"...which are truly the core of Christianity. Great food for thought. Read it...Learn something. It's an excellent book

 

[ReformedChapin]

Dare I suggest that people should read the book "The Heart of Christianity". It is our current bookclub read with our bible study class every Sunday AM. Excellent book. It clearly shows where Christianity is today. There is the "early" Christianity which believes there are "requirements" and "rewards" in order to be a christian. There is also the "emerging" Christianity which believe in living a Christian life today through God's words of love and compassion. Early Christianity see God as a vengeful, and angry God with casting his children into the firey lakes of hell, while Emerging Christians show God as a caring, loving, and embracing God of his children. Clearly spelled out, and clearly identifies with many that post here. Literalist (small and shrinking groups regardless of what you may think), and Interpretists (85% of Christians) that while the bible is considered HOLY and Sacred..it MUST be interpreted to be taken seriously. To read what two ancient civilizations did as literalist...totally misses the point of the bible altogether. Finally, it goes to say the misconception of those that would believe that God is basing anything on your "mindful bellefs" rather than your "heartful beliefes"...which are truly the core of Christianity. Great food for thought. Read it...Learn something. It's an excellent book

Seems like a peace of garbage book to me considering early christianity wasn't about hate or death. That the crap they are feeding you in UCC?

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Seems like a peace of garbage book to me considering early christianity wasn't about hate or death. That the crap they are feeding you in UCC?

"seems" like would be exactly how you would feel given you haven't read it. There was not mention of "hate" or "death"...however the two beliefs that people hold today. For your info, it has NOTHING to do with any denomination whatsover. Oh, and by the way..as far as the UCC goes...it's a GROWING church my friend..and is the fastest growing in Christian denominations. Guess you hate that. The book clearly defines the basics, and they are clearly represented on this board. As far as "literalists" go...it is relatively a new phenomina. People NEVER LITERALLY read the bible until the Enlightenment Age when science began to show somethings in the bible were not true. People refused to accept it, and became what today are "literalists". Anyway..why do I even explain myself to you. It's been a logn time since I saw you on here...time for me to step away again.

 

[ReformedChapin]

"seems" like would be exactly how you would feel given you haven't read it. There was not mention of "hate" or "death"...however the two beliefs that people hold today. For your info, it has NOTHING to do with any denomination whatsover. Oh, and by the way..as far as the UCC goes...it's a GROWING church my friend..and is the fastest growing in Christian denominations.

Proof? Obviously I haven't read it. Why would I waste my time with a liberal piece of garbage that misrepresents the early church and it's beliefs?

Guess you hate that. The book clearly defines the basics, and they are clearly represented on this board. As far as "literalists" go...it is relatively a new phenomina. People NEVER LITERALLY read the bible until the Enlightenment Age when science began to show somethings in the bible were not true. People refused to accept it, and became what today are "literalists". Anyway..why do I even explain myself to you. It's been a logn time since I saw you on here...time for me to step away again.

Blah blah...always the liberal whining about how everyone hates them because they wont accept their illogical arguements and flawed sources.
NO ONE CARES.