Congratulations Steve Brown! You have earned a spot in my daily hall of shame!
AIDS is offensive to God. No possibility of new life is offensive to God. But, HE gave us free will. All members of the Catholic Church know this and they either follow Christ, or not.
Actually, AIDS is a disease. Does it stem from turning sex into pleasure? It seems the best sources relating to the origination of the HIV suggest so. However, the tragedy of sin extends even upon the innocents. All of humanity partakes in Adam’s sin but this does not mean we hold the fault of Adam’s sin. The Church has historically differentiated between personal sin and original sin where original sin has always been understood as the effects brought on humankind from Adam’s first sin–our subjection to the reign of death, pain in child-bearing, etc. Broken relationships are offensive to God but are not a sin–they are instead the effects of sin. Fornication has a possibility of new life but it is a sin which is offensive to God.
But as Neo points out, it is one sexual sin which seems to exercise people. The incidence of AIDS among non bisexual lesbians is lower than any other sector! Perhaps we need different indicators.
Precisely the point Steve Brown does not get. Using AIDS to explain why homosexuality is sinful is ridiculous in both modern and ancient arguments against homosexuality! The argument against homosexuality has always been about procreation! There was no knowledge of AIDS in the ancient Church!
different indicators…how about Sodom & Gomorrah. non bisexual lesbians…that took a PhD to figure out. sin which seems to exercise people…it’s un-natural and very offensive to both man and God.
Completely and totally missing the point. The question is how to address those outside the Church about this who think their desires natural. It certainly can be done without the use of such bizarre argumentation. The Church has historically taught that all humans in their natural will have a desire for God. For the unbeliever, they would naturally scoff at this suggestion–“I don’t have a desire for God! I don’t believe in God! Why would I desire something I don’t believe in?” And this disordered desire has been ruled as an act of insanity. But to state something unnatural or insane also further requires a re-assessment of what is natural. Natural is being made in the image of God in Christian anthropology. Natural is the state of Paradise we were created in. Much of what humans view as natural now-a-days is not at all related to the Paradisean creation of God’s at the beginning. Rather, natural has been re-defined to meet the fallen state. Natural for some men means dominance over their wives and de-humanizing women via abusing them. This is not at all natural but is a result of a fallen state. That which Christian anthropology understands as natural refers back to the Paradisean state–men as stewards over the Earth, men participating together in raising animals and naming the animals and caring for the animals. Men and women participating together in the domain as equal partners. Certainly both men and women have different essences as women was created as man’s helper indicating superiority in certain aspects. Femininity often tends to be superior in many ways to masculinity and likewise masculinity also has a superior side to it. This understanding of natural tends to be what homosexuals cannot wrap their minds around though. They want to state the way their desires are no matter how distorted is their natural, God-given inclinations when instead it is a result of human fallenness.