What Would Jesus Say About Homosexual Sex?

This whole perversion of the Word of God began when Luther said each person should interpret the Bible for themselves. This has led to so called’ christians’ condoning and accepting homosexual sex and ‘marriage’. Luther is ‘turning in his grave’. He said that ‘having sex without having children was the sin of sodomy too.’

This slippery slide where christians accepting this perversion began with the condoning of divorce. It was well brought out when CNN asked Donald Trump what he believed about homosexual ‘marriage’. Trump responded by saying he is in favor of ‘traditional marriage’. They then called him on having married 3 times.

So here it is. King Henry the VIII made his own church, ‘The Church of England’ so that he could get around what Jesus said; ‘What God has united, let no man divide” and kill two of his wives and remarry four more times. He modified his christianity to suite his sexual desires. He then went on to steal Catholic property, killed thousands and caused years of persecution and starvation of Catholics in England and Ireland.

Then Margaret Sanger paid Episcopalian preachers to condone Eugenics and the use of birth control.

Then came the condoning of murdering the babies in the womb. Many ‘christian’ churches have gone along with this evil and have called it good.

Now we have the same with homosexual sin. More and more of the christian churches are supporting the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality and justifying it with perverted theology.

On July 1st 2015, in Salt Lake City, the Episcopal Church “voted overwhelmingly to approve two resolutions that effectively codify theological support for same-sex marriage. The first (A054) formally approves gender-neutral and same-sex marriage ceremonies, while the second (A036) changes the current marriage “canons” to allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages using either a marriage rite from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer or a “trial” liturgy.

..the resolution actually includes what amounts to a “conscience clause” for bishops and priests who disapprove of same-sex marriage to opt-out of performing unions, although they are required to accommodate couples in some way in every diocese.

“This is a definitive step for the Episcopal church,” Baker said. “To have this vote pass so soon after the Supreme Court decision…It was just breathtaking.”

“God has clearly been at work in the culture and in the church, changing the hearts and minds of Episcopalians,” he added. ThinkProgress.com

This week the Presbyterian Church of American also voted to ‘embrace an inclusive definition of marriage‘.

‘The measure sought to replace a phrase in the church’s constitution that defined marriage as “a civil contract between a woman and a man” with a sentence reading “marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives.”

A Presbyterian McNeil said; “We rejoice that all couples can now see those relationships solemnized before God and the Christian community in marriage, at the discretion of ministers and sessions, there is still more work to be done to ensure that the church guarantees LGBT people equal rights — and theological standing — across the board.’

Carmen Fowler LeBorge, also a Presbyterian, disagreed with the change. She said that “Any prophetic voice that the denomination may have once had to speak truth and call people to repentance is now lost. All she can do now is echo the voices of the world for she has abandoned the clarion call to bear faithful witness to the God who has clearly spoken on this matter.”

For the Presbyterian ministers there is also a conscience clause. They do not have to ‘officiate same-sex unions, and pastors can individually decline to perform a marriage — just as they can with any straight couple.’ ThinkProgress.com

A large Evangelical Christian Church in San Francisco, (City Church), just sent out a letter where they will not longer require celibacy for homosexual members. “Imagine feeling this from your family or religious community, ‘If you stay, you must accept celibacy with no hope that you too might one day enjoy the fullness of intellectual, spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical companionship. If you pursue a lifelong partnership, you are rejected.’ This is simply not working and people are being hurt. We must listen and respond.” religiousnewsservice.com

A New York Mega Church pastor Lentz, when asked in an interview with CNN if he every talks about homosexuality. “Yes, it’s a misquote because I do discuss it, just not the way people want me to, When it comes to homosexuality, I refuse to let another human being or a media moment dictate how we approach it. Jesus was in the thick of an era where homosexuality, just like it is today, was widely prevalent. And I’m still waiting for someone to show me the quote were Jesus addressed it on the record in front of people. You won’t find it because he never did.”

I guess this minister never read Matthew 15:19, ‘For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.’ Fornication means any sexual activity outside of marriage, (masterbation, premarital sex, homosexual sex).

‘The couple shared that gay men and women were welcomed at Hillsong NYC, with Lentz stating, “We have a lot of gay men and women in our church and I pray we always do.”

Mrs. Lentz added, “It’s not our place to tell anyone how they should live, it’s – that’s their journey.” christianpost.news

We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics and to believe in the complete Holy Bible. We have read where God calls homosexual sex an abomination and who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Does this clown even understand graphs or was this article the word of a V2 committee? He tries to blame Luther by focusing on one aspect of what he said, as if SS does not affirm the supreme authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God (unlike liberals), and the magisterial office and teachers, and excludes historical exegetical principals, and renders believers little popes who presume ensured formulaic veracity.

But RC sand castle apologetics much rely on strawman to support them, and which so many RC devotees mindlessly affirm.

Yet then he (or someone) provides clear testimony that those who hold to most strongly to Luther's attitude toward Scripture are the most conservative, while the overall fruit of Rome is liberal, along with liberal Prots, and who usually as those who are closest to Rome!

In addition, conservative RCs tend to be more like cultists who cannot examine evidence objectively, else it impugns Rome. Thus Rome is not the answer, but upholding Scripture as the supreme and accurate authority.

Here are some more stats someone who helped write the article may be interested in.

Fornication, homosexuality

In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%. ^
One-third of surveyed priests said they “do not waver” from their vow of celibacy, while 47% described celibacy as “an ongoing journey” and 14% said they “do not always succeed in following” it. 2% said celibacy is not relevant to their priesthood and they do not observe it. not celibate. ^
71 percent of priests responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. ^
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^
49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent. ^
To take one's own life if suffering from a debilitating disease: always, 59 percent; often, 18 percent; never, 17 percent. ^
A combined 15 percent of the clergy polled identified themselves as "gay (9%) > or more (6%) on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
17 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^
After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 – or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; studentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/pro-homosexual-clubs-at-107-catholic-colleges/print.html
39 percent of Roman Catholics and 79 percent of born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist American Christians affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful. LifeWay (SBC) Research study, released Wednesday. 2008 LifeWay Research study. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/survey-americans-divided-on-homosexuality-as-sin.htm
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)
Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)
This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.
69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^
19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage. ^
60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. ^
73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, and 63% favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. For the general public the figures are 68% and 58% respectively. ^
49% of Catholics and 45% of the general public agree that homosexuals should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements. ^
Among Catholics who attend services regularly (weekly or more), 31% say there should be no legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions), with 26% favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, versus 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less favoring allowance of homosexual marriage. ^
27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^
48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf
White evangelicals are most satisfied with their church’s handling of homosexuality, with 75 percent giving it an `A’ or a `B.’ Catholics are the most critical, with nearly a third — twice as many as any other group — giving their church a `D’ or `F.’ Oct. 2010 Poll sponsored by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service. http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/2010/10/22/survey-links-gay-bullying-to-religion/7682/
31% of Catholics called celibacy a major factor leading to sexual abuse, while another 28% called it a minor factor. 35% said celibacy did not play a part in the abuse. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_catholics_050410_2pm.pdf
30%, meanwhile, said homosexuality played a major role. An additional 23% said it played a minor role. 37% said it was not a factor. ^
The percentage of percentage of adults Protestants who have been married and divorced is 34% versus 28% for Catholics, (the survey not determining if the divorce occurred before or after conversions) while Evangelicals were at 26%. Atheists or agnostic were at 30% (only 65% were ever married, vs. 84% for born-again Christians) while those aligned with a non-Christian faith were at 38%. The largest disparity (17%) relative to divorce was between high and low income levels (22% to 39%). http://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released
More by God's grace. .

Two thirds of the Catholic on the Supreme Court voted against it; all of the Jews on the Supreme Court voted in favor of it. The last time we had a gay rights case (with protestants on the Supreme Court), there were 4 protestants: Souter, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Conner. 3/4 voted for the homosexual position.

Actually, the use of Protestantism by RCs is essentially meaningless as it lacks any meaningful definition, but is so wide that at you could drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian Unification 747 thru it.

Nor is anyone promoting a particular church here except RCs, and since they are, and since Rome counts and treats even proabortion/sodomite/Islam pols (as well as supporters) as members in life and in death, then they must own them.

Comparing groups based upon what their supreme authority is and how they see it is a valid comparison. RCs are to follow their pastors as docile sheep, and to give religious assent even to social teaching in papal encyclicals, which includes that latest by Francis.

And thus insofar as when that leadership goes South, so do their followers. And RCs forget the iniquity and confusion in Rome that preceded the Reformation.

In contrast, though who hold most strongly to Scripture literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God which was the most fundamental premise of the Reformation (in contrast to typical modern RC or lib Prot scholarship which renders historical accounts to being fables or folk tales - a slippery slope) are by far more conservative and unified in such basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.

And it is evangelicals who even voted for Romney more than any other major group that are the strongest supporters of the conservative RC justices, and critics of the compromising of them.

I suspect that Protestantism is at the point where it can no longer capable of producing people capable of serving on the USSC.

Rather, that is no more true than saying Catholicism is at the point where it is no longer capable of producing Scalia RCs, while true Protestants (evangelicals) would never even be considered due to how far left the USA has gone, and are the least responsible for the liberal justices.

The Catholic Church (liberal) annulment process has made it easy for catholics to end their marriages... since Vatican II, the marriage bond once claimed does not hold water any more......people refer to the annulment process as the “Catholic divorce”.

And as a SV site points out,

68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)

Some of the conditions that can allow for annulment, from the Catholic Diocese of Arlington

Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are:

marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.

In addition, there are youthful marriages;

marriages of very short duration;

marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;

deviant sexual practices;

profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;

conditional consent to a marriage;

fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;

serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.

- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds

Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that,

► MATRIMONIAL CONSENT and annulment

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].

List of diriment impediments to marriage

Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]

Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)

To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]

“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.

Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.

Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.

Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.

Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.

Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.

Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

. Wide interpretive provisions allow for saying the marriage never existed, and can see varying verdicts.

And then there is Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,

Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.

Though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for annulment, yet in the Bible, although marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, once a wife was taken — even foreign wives, or out lust, or even instead of the one contracted for, etc. — and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages “annulled,” meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.