Dilemma of Being Homosexual [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

sayso

01-21-2009, 10:43 PM

My relatives and I have had many discussions about ****sexuality, since a person in my family is ****sexual. Unfortunately, one of the family members approve of the behavior, because she believes the person was born with a genetic defect. What is your view on this? Do you agree with the person's belief that a ****sexual is born this way? Do you think it is a genetic defect?

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

As a Christian I believe that they are born in sin as is everyone else. I believe it is a sin just as lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, and gossiping are all sins.

****sexual sin is no worse nor better than any other sin in God's eyes. God so loved the "world" that He gave His only begotten Son that "whoever" believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

With faith and after giving oneself to Christ we repent (change).
The Bible says that when one is born again that the old man must die and the person becomes a new creation in Christ.

Colossians 3

1 IF THEN you have been raised with Christ [to a new life, thus sharing His resurrection from the dead], aim at and seek the [rich, eternal treasures] that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 And set your minds and keep them set on what is above (the higher things), not on the things that are on the earth.
3 For [as far as this world is concerned] you have died, and your [new, real] life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, Who is our life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in [the splendor of His] glory.
5 So kill (deaden, deprive of power) the evil desire lurking in your members [those animal impulses and all that is earthly in you that is employed in sin]: sexual vice, impurity, sensual appe***es, unholy desires, and all greed and covetousness, for that is idolatry (the deifying of self and other created things instead of God).

Interesting that Paul says here that all sin is idolatry or the deifying of self and other created things instead of God. As I understand it the deifying of self is basically making yourself god of your own life (doing what you want to do instead of what God wants you to do). This is the choice that all people make.

So the focus shouldn't be on which sin has been committed but that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and need a Savior to deliver us from the bondage of sin.

GateKeeper

02-07-2009, 08:01 PM

My relatives and I have had many discussions about ****sexuality, since a person in my family is ****sexual. Unfortunately, one of the family members approve of the behavior, because she believes the person was born with a genetic defect. What is your view on this? Do you agree with the person's belief that a ****sexual is born this way? Do you think it is a genetic defect?

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

I love you user name "Heart2Heart" it makes one feel as if the conversation will be one filled with understanding. With that being said, ****sexuality is a sin like any other. We all have our shortcomings when it comes to living according to G-ds will, but willful acts of disobedience, such as living a ****sexual lifestyle are to be shunned, regardless of whether it is a genetic defect, or not.

I myself am bipolar, and I have what some might call an addictive personality. Meaning I am prone to addiction. (Yes, it is a genetic defect) My life is witness to this reality. I make no excuses for myself, I abuse things without thought of consequence. Some might call addiction gluttony, but whatever one calls it, it is a sin, and I know better that to allow myself to fall back into such practices.

Scripture tells us that we have to die to our old selves (Nature), and be made new in the spirit of our minds. It is a battle, and one we face daily. There is no easy answer to ****sexuality, or addiction for that matter. We simply have to allow Christ to reside within us, and let Him help us fight against our propensity to practice such lifestyles.

Yes, ****sexuality is a sin, but if one can refrain from the practice of, and seek G-d, they can, and will be set free. Such is my story when it comes to addiction. I have been clean for a very long time now, and since my addiction included sex, I have also become celibate, so it is certainly possible to refrain from our sinful practices. I can personally attest to this reality. We simply have to desire the things of G-d above our own ...

Blessings

GK

Heart2Heart

02-07-2009, 09:28 PM

I love you user name "Heart2Heart" it makes one feel as if the conversation will be one filled with understanding. With that being said, ****sexuality is a sin like any other. We all have our shortcomings when it comes to living according to G-ds will, but willful acts of disobedience, such as living a ****sexual lifestyle are to be shunned, regardless of whether it is a genetic defect, or not.

Thank you. I like the nickname also, because I also feel the name indicates understanding and caring.
I myself am bipolar, and I have what some might call an addictive personality. Meaning I am prone to addiction. (Yes, it is a genetic defect) My life is witness to this reality. I make no excuses for myself, I abuse things without thought of consequence. Some might call addiction gluttony, but whatever one calls it, it is a sin, and I know better that to allow myself to fall back into such practices.
I know a person who struggles with bipolar, and this individual has many challenges. But, I am learning that all of us have our own cross to bear in regards to life's challenges. Everyone has the propensity to have an addiction whether it be sex, cars, games, etc. I've had to literally walk away from my addiction, because I couldn't enjoy life in general. God gives other avenues or openings for us to get out, when we are about to face a struggle.

IncitingRiots

04-12-2009, 05:15 PM

****sexuals are more often than not born that way. I believe that early life experience can have an effect on the people we become later in life, but ultimately I think that is just they way people are born. If God made man in his imagine then God made ****sexuals in his image as well, therefore god must be part gay himself. Since God was the designer, why does he blame the people for the "faults" he gave them? Seems like a pretty poor excuse for a supreme being!

Columcille

04-13-2009, 02:05 PM

Why do you presuppose that they are born that way? What evidence is there to suggest it?

IncitingRiots

04-13-2009, 02:19 PM

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

Trinity

04-13-2009, 03:47 PM

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

This is a cultural question. People raised in a Judeo-Christian context are juggling with this notion of choosing. However, in the pagan Roman Empire it was a question of preference. They were not choosing. There was no abnormality for the romans, and even for the greeks. And no guilt.

We are our culture.

Trinity

Columcille

04-13-2009, 04:16 PM

What, you think people choose to be gay or straight?

I am just asking for your evidence. What differences are there in physical make-up at the time of birth? Can you verify evidence that will tell the parents that their child is gay? It is for the most part, ***umed by most parents that the child is normal and hence born a female or male will be heterosexual, and is treated in such a manner. If you can pinpoint evidence that a child is going to be gay, the parents should rearrange the child's clothing fashion, room appearance, and such to make them lead a healthy gay lifestyle. As is, no such evidence has been provided by you that children are born gay.

Until such time, I view the propensity of the gay lifestyle to be one where their psyche has been injured or neglected, and in some cases... undisciplined or overly disciplined. I base this on my own experience being molested by another guy and my going to Alternatives, a sister ministry located in San Diego based off of Exodus International that extends its ministry to people within dysfunctional families. I believe Catholic Courage also bases their ministry to the ****sexual with a similiar approach.

IncitingRiots

04-13-2009, 05:32 PM

asdf

04-13-2009, 05:45 PM

If you are asking for evidence of a gay gene, none exists. That doesn't mean, however, that no evidence will be found. The fact remains that most people who are gay are born that way all of my gay friends have told me that they didn't choose to be gay, nor was there any molestation or anything else in their life that made them gay. It was simply the way they were born.

Indeed. No gay gene has been found. Neither has a "straight gene" been found.

Nonetheless, the evidence still points to at least some genetic component involved in determining sexual preference and identification.

The old Nature vs. Nurture argument...I don't find it particularly useful - the fact is that according to all the evidence, at least for some people, sexual orientation appears to be at least partly innate.

Columcille

04-13-2009, 06:54 PM

Indeed. No gay gene has been found. Neither has a "straight gene" been found.

Nonetheless, the evidence still points to at least some genetic component involved in determining sexual preference and identification.

The old Nature vs. Nurture argument...I don't find it particularly useful - the fact is that according to all the evidence, at least for some people, sexual orientation appears to be at least partly innate.

Asdf, please produce such evidence rather than ***uming it is fact.

Inciting Riots, molestation is one of the ways, but not the only way that ****sexuality is introduced. There are many aspects that in most cases is a gradual raping or wearing down of the conscience, most of it is related to what parents teach or teach too much, or provide a gap by an absense of teaching. Television is one medium where we are taught that ****sexuality is acceptable. Parents who are abusive or overly strict provide a natural reaction and rebellion. Or parents are complacent and themselves teach that they are alright with it. In many cases, I would say that the living examples of the parents in their private lives is full of hypocricy, which most families may not share with their friends. Also, it is a natural tendency for people who go through trauma to suppress the event. I would not take such experience and sayings so lightly at face value; the human psyche is quite complex.

IncitingRiots

04-13-2009, 07:17 PM

Wow you took alot of time to essentially say nothing at all.

I was raised to believe that ****sexuality is acceptable, yet I didn't turn out gay. I spent quite a bit of time around gay family members, yet I didn't turn out gay. I watched alot of television, yet I didn't turn out gay. Maybe the reason I am straight is because I was "molested" by a 14 y/o female baby sitter when I was 10. I put molested in quotes because even though that is how society would view it, I remember enjoying my time with that girl.

Maybe the reason I am not gay is because I wasn't born that way.:eek:

Columcille

04-13-2009, 08:11 PM

asdf

04-13-2009, 08:31 PM

Asdf, please produce such evidence rather than ***uming it is fact.

You have just as much access to the evidence as I do.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The main reasons cited include genetic and environmental factors, likely in combination.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".

The American Psychological ***ociation has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.

The American Psychiatric ***ociation has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for ****sexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for ****sexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".
-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****sexuality#Etiology) (sources there)
From there, also see the evidence for Environmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation) (nurture) and Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation) (nature).

Columcille

04-13-2009, 09:28 PM

IncitingRiots

04-13-2009, 11:01 PM

Well, it explains a lot to me what you just relayed. You'll get a lot of self-praise from people who think like you, but on a board like this... I think you just ruined your credibility. I tell you what... you are motivating me enough to do some serous prayer for you.

Well, then I guess it is a good thing that I don't care whether or not you think I am credible. Pray all you want, you will only be wasting your time.

asdf

04-13-2009, 11:05 PM

Asdf,
the quotes you gave only substantiate their lack of evidence. I have a bible and Tradition, and in terms of experience with an affiliate of Exodus International, and in terms of a rationale ideal and experience that is shared in the purpose of reproductive organs... I should say that a workable quadrilateral exists that God is against ****sexuality.

We weren't talking about whether "God is against" ****sexuality - don't change the subject on us here. We were discussing the factors which determine sexual orientation.

If you want to pull the Scripture card, you could cite Romans 1 and convincingly say that the cause of ****sexuality is idolatry. (Of course, that hypothesis is pretty untenable, given the mul***ude of people who realize they are gay long before they have any opportunity to explicitly reject God.)

I have a lot of respect for the fact that Exodus worked for you. However, you're an absolute outlier. The scientific consensus is that reparative therapy is potentially harmful, and its efficacy has not been proved.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 06:34 AM

The going success rate of alcohol rehabilitation is not that great either, yet that doesn't stop the court from making it mandatory does it now?

If you view ****sexuality as an addiction of a thwarted fleshly state, it is a real addiction like alcoholism. Gambling, lust, and drug abuse are perhaps the biggies. Gambling's anonymous, Sex anonymous, and NA and AA spell out serious addictions. BTW, did you watch the interview with the serial killer, Ted Bundy with James Dobson? You can watch it online. http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={710D67E8-7AFB-411F-8A37-503EA8B69B5B}&FAMILYTYPE=null

asdf

04-14-2009, 08:35 AM

The going success rate of alcohol rehabilitation is not that great either, yet that doesn't stop the court from making it mandatory does it now?

Well played. And of course my next move is to point out that no medical organization regards ****sexuality as a mental disorder, and that treating it as such is potentially harmful.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 09:37 AM

Well played. And of course my next move is to point out that no medical organization regards ****sexuality as a mental disorder, and that treating it as such is potentially harmful.

As far as I recall, medical organizations haven't advanced in finding the root cause of ****sexuality... specifically identifying it with genetics. It has always been considered a disorder up until 1973, and then it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure--don't you love the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s? When medicine is ruled by politics rather than science, it just goes to show you that tolerance leads to condoning and condoning into acceptable practice. The only people who say it is potentially harmful are themselves that condone such practices. I do not see this applied to the alcoholic or the gambler, simply because the effects of their addiction are more severe to those around them.

asdf

04-14-2009, 09:51 AM

As far as I recall, medical organizations haven't advanced in finding the root cause of ****sexuality... specifically identifying it with genetics.

We talked about that above: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The main reasons cited include genetic and environmental factors, likely in combination."

It has always been considered a disorder up until 1973, and then it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure--don't you love the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s?What evidence do you have that politics and "the free love uninhibited sexual revolution of the 60s" are to blame for the removal of ****sexuality as a mental disorder from DSM-II?

The only people who say it is potentially harmful are themselves that condone such practices.Where "it" in this sentence, based on the previous post, is "treating ****sexuality as a mental illness".

Sorry, this view is not compatible with modern science or the experience of the gay and lesbian people I know.

I do not see this applied to the alcoholic or the gambler, simply because the effects of their addiction are more severe to those around them.Indeed - because ****sexuality is not an addiction. It's an inclination.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 10:02 AM

asdf

04-14-2009, 10:15 AM

look under "mental" in the ****sexual wikipedia entry. It discusses it being removed in 1973 because political activism. This you will read in the DSM link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual#DSM_and_sexual_o rientation

Thanks for the link. That apparently means something different to you than it does to me. I see protests "as well as the emergence of new data from researchers" - not, as you said, "it was removed not because of medical research, but by political pressure".

PS, if modern science has located a gene identifying ****sexuals, let me know... otherwise, it means absolutely nothing to call it modern.

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 10:43 AM

Likewise, let me know when science finds the gene that identifies heterosexuals. Or the gene that identifies vegetarians. Or the gene that identifies Republicans. Or the gene that identifies Catholics.

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed. :)

Trinity

asdf

04-14-2009, 10:52 AM

Scientists know nothing about the genes that make a small minority of the population left-handed. Rather, people self-report that they do not choose to be left-handed or right-handed.

I am an heterosexual left-handed. :)

Trinity

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 10:58 AM

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

The brain is a very mysterious organ, and this organ has not revealed his secrets yet. We know practically nothing on how the brain is working.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 12:30 PM

Trinity

04-14-2009, 02:50 PM

Precisely Trinity. Now, let us see you come out as a Catholic endorsing ****sexual acts as a viable Catholic lifestyle.

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community. However, I know when I was becoming Catholic that yourself along with many other Catholic posters here have a distain for "Cafeteria Catholicism." Picking and choosing what is politically expediant rather than relying on the authority of Scipture and Tradition. Right now, although you claim to be Catholic and speak it truthfully, I question your priorities. It is alright by me that you may view global warming as the biggest moral problem in our day and age, but I would not be rubbing elbows with the ****sexual community or those that are supportive of its lifestyle to be thrust into Church politics.

I do not applaud those people who are ****sexuals, however I do not reject those who are eating pork.

I think we should look at this condition without prejudice because this condition has been always present inside our own Church (and any other churches, even with the Mormons) from all centuries.

"Benedict of Nursia, who died in 547, first gained fame as a hermit, then founded a number of monasteries at Monte C***ino and its environs. He was the man who provided the written bylaws for monks, setting the behavioral standards for monastic living. The Rules of Benedict gave him a place in history. (1.) These rules made it clear that sexual behavior, and more specifically ****sexual behavior, was a large problem in monastic life. Benedict addressed the problem head-on. A separate bed was mandated for each monk. Further, all monks were required to sleep together in one room, fully clothed and girdled, without weapons; and a light must be kept burning all night. The beds of the older members must be interspersed with those of the younger. For those monks who did experience ****sexual urges, such rules must have felt something like Chinese water torture."

(1.) The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, trans. Boniface Verbeyen (Atcheson, KS: St. Benedict’s Abbey, 1949), pp. 480–543.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 06:08 PM

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind.

Chapter 22:
How the Monks are to sleep

All the monks shall sleep in separate beds. All shall receive bedding, allotted by the abbot, appropriate to their environment. If possible they should all sleep in one room. However, if there are too many for this, they will be grouped in tens or twenties, a senior in charge of each group. Let a candle burn throughout the night. They will sleep in their robes, belted but with no knives, thus preventing injury inslumber. The monks then will always be prepared to rise at the signal and hurry to the Divine Office. But they must make haste with gravity and modesty. the younger brothers should not be next to each other. Rather their beds should be interspersed with those of their elders. When they arise for the Divine Office, they ought to encourage each other, for the sleepy make many excuses.
(The Rule of Saint Benedict. Trans. Anthony C. Meisel and M.L. del Mastro. New York: Doubleday. 1975. p70).

I do not have a copy of the book you mention since it was written in 1949. However, I find it very strange that a translation of the text is embedded in an introduction rather than seperate from the introduction. To me this ruins the flavor of the rule rather than complimenting it. Besides, the introduction that I read in front of mine shows that Benedict was not well liked and an attempted poisoning was thwarted. Regardless of one's own feelings, the rule as laid out by him was for the purpose of holiness. The requirements of the monastic life are never easy regardless if an individual has ****sexual attractions or otherwise. The following chapter (23) discusses "excommunication for faults." Very appropriate. Asdf would very much like to advocate ****sexuality, the Church does not. therefore, you should be against his position.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 06:53 PM

Trinity, you are stating what is obvious to me. However, the goals and sentiment of Asdf are not the same as you and me on this subject... at least in regards to what Catholicism teaches on the subject. This you have to get clear in your mind

Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 07:02 PM

Trinity

04-14-2009, 07:36 PM

Then stop playing puss-yfoot with asdf.

OED definition of puss-yfoot:
1. intr. To tread softly or lightly to avoid being noticed; to proceed warily; to conceal one's opinions or plans; to behave evasively or timidly.

An extreme position is not always the voice of wisdom.

Vatican bishop defends abortion for nine-year-old

Monday March 16 2009

A SENIOR Archbishop has insisted that Brazilian doctors do not deserve excommunication for aborting the twin foetuses of a nine-year-old child who was allegedly raped by her stepfather because the doctors were saving her life.

The statement by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Vatican newspaper yesterday was highly unusual because church law mandates automatic excommunication for abortion.

Archbishop Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, also upheld the Church's ban on abortion and any implications of his criticism of excommunicating the doctors and the girl's mother weren't clear.

Archbishop Fisichella argued for a sense of "mercy" in such cases and respect for the Catholic doctors' wrenching decision, and strongly criticised fellow churchmen who singled out the doctors and mother for public condemnation.

"Before thinking about excommunication, it was necessary and urgent to save her innocent life and bring her back to a level of humanity of which we men of the church should be expert and masters in proclaiming," he wrote.

The doctors, he noted, had said the child's life was in danger if the pregnancy continued.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/vatican-bishop-defends-abortion-for-nineyearold-1674138.html

The stepfather, 23, confessed to the rape and was arrested. He was not excommunicated and received no blame. The child was sexually ***aulted over a number of years by her stepfather, since she was six.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 08:01 PM

Trinity, apparently you don't seem to understand the struggle here. The Church is merciful, but its position unmovable. Asdf is not your buddy in doctrinal arms. What he advocates is that Church changes its doctrinal stance. The following is his words, mark them well, for it seems your playing doesn't understand the undermining of the truth of the Christian faith, most especially for us the truth of the Catholic faith:

It is my opinion that one's propensity/orientation/iden***y toward one gender over another should not be considered a sin.

Furthermore, I believe that committed, monogamous, [in principle] lifelong same-sex relationships can be consistent with Christian morality.

In short, no - I do not believe that ****sexuality is a sin.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 08:35 PM

Trinity, apparently you don't seem to understand the struggle here. The Church is merciful, but its position unmovable. Asdf is not your buddy in doctrinal arms. What he advocates is that Church changes its doctrinal stance. The following is his words, mark them well, for it seems your playing doesn't understand the undermining of the truth of the Christian faith, most especially for us the truth of the Catholic faith:

I disagree with her [his] words according to my present religious basis. However, at this time, the science is not supporting one of the two positions with a perfect cer***ude. We were enough ridiculous with the case of Galileo Galilei. I keep a crack in the door.

Trinity

asdf

04-14-2009, 08:39 PM

Apparently, asdf seems to be getting different vib from you than from me in regards to ****sexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be approved by the Christian community.

For what it's worth, the reason I get a different vibe from Trinity than I do from you, Columcille, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trinity agrees with me about the compatibility of (faithful, committed, monogamous, lifelong) same-sex relationships and a faithful Christian ethos.

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself (sorry, I don't think I know your which pronoun to use, Trin :o) without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 08:44 PM

I disagree with her words according to my present religious basis. However, at this time, the science is not supporting one of the two positions with a perfect cer***ude. We were enough ridiculous with the case of Galileo Galilei. I keep a crack in the door.

Trinity

So you would choose politicized science over Scriptural and Traditional principles that ****sexuality is sinful? As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, what moral practice was it supposedly supporting? Do you think in your "present religious basis" that a new ecumenical council or papal decree or some "ex cathedra" statement is going to trump the longstanding Law of God that ****sexuality is sinful? Is Catholicism's doctrine and moral basis going to contradict itself? I would call that a lack of faith; a lack of trust in God's word both in season and out of season, as it is maintained in Tradition and found in Scripture.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 08:55 PM

So you would choose politicized science over Scriptural and Traditional principles that ****sexuality is sinful? As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, what moral practice was it supposedly supporting? Do you think in your "present religious basis" that a new ecumenical council or papal decree or some "ex cathedra" statement is going to trump the longstanding Law of God that ****sexuality is sinful? Is Catholicism's doctrine and moral basis going to contradict itself? I would call that a lack of faith.

No.

Like many Catholics I do not force my belief with an at***ude of intransigency. I propose my faith, I do not dictate it.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 09:12 PM

For what it's worth, the reason I get a different vibe from Trinity than I do from you, Columcille, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trinity agrees with me about the compatibility of (faithful, committed, monogamous, lifelong) same-sex relationships and a faithful Christian ethos.

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself (sorry, I don't think I know your which pronoun to use, Trin :o) without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

Your words express an undermining of the Catholic moral stance. I am fighting against such sinful reinterpretation. I am all for extending comp***ion to ****sexuals, but not at the expense of cheaping the Gospel's message that includes repentence. Trinity cannot have it both ways, either God is against ****sexuality or he is not. Either the Catholic's moral stance is truth or your position is truth. Comp***ion can be extended either way, just as Christ tells us to love our enemies and loving our friends and neighbors comes naturally. The issue is not prejudice or comp***ion, it is a matter of what is Truth. Trinity has so far only played lip-service to the Catholic moral teaching on ****sexuality. So now is the time to draw the line in the sand.............................................. ...............................
Trinity, either tell asdf that his position that ****sexuality is in God's eyes sinful or stay silent. Any other action will demonstrate clearly that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. As Dr. Martin has stated in many instances the proverb... better a fool stay silent then to speak and dispell all doubt.
It is a cop-out to say "Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics." God's moral instruction when it is fully revealed in the Catholic faith means regardless of the positions held by others that it is completely true. Of course it is not an obligation to them, they can continue in sin all they want. Let your yes be yes and your no no. State in clear terms whether ****sexuality is sinful or is not sinful.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 09:28 PM

Your words express an undermining of the Catholic moral stance. I am fighting against such sinful reinterpretation. I am all for extending comp***ion to ****sexuals, but not at the expense of cheaping the Gospel's message that includes repentence. Trinity cannot have it both ways, either God is against ****sexuality or he is not. Either the Catholic's moral stance is truth or your position is truth. Comp***ion can be extended either way, just as Christ tells us to love our enemies and loving our friends and neighbors comes naturally. The issue is not prejudice or comp***ion, it is a matter of what is Truth. Trinity has so far only played lip-service to the Catholic moral teaching on ****sexuality. So now is the time to draw the line in the sand.............................................. ...............................
Trinity, either tell asdf that his position that ****sexuality is in God's eyes sinful or stay silent. Any other action will demonstrate clearly that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. As Dr. Martin has stated in many instances the proverb... better a fool stay silent then to speak and dispell all doubt.
It is a cop-out to say "Like Catholics we obey to the teaching of the Church, but this is not an obligation for the non-catholics." God's moral instruction when it is fully revealed in the Catholic faith means regardless of the positions held by others that it is completely true. Of course it is not an obligation to them, they can continue in sin all they want. Let your yes be yes and your no no. State in clear terms whether ****sexuality is sinful or is not sinful.

There is things that should not be repeated.

“Historian John Boswell argued that ****erotic relationships existed, and even were ceremonialized, for long periods in Christian monasticism. And when the eleventh century theologian Peter Damien coined the term “sodomy,” he was referring especially to his fellow clerics, among whom in his view this sin was prevalent and virtually intractable.

Only in the latter half of the twelfth century did the Christian church systematically begin to persecute sodomites. Whether carried out under the auspices of the Crusades or (more frequently) those of the Inquisition, persecution was a collaboration of religious and secular authorities. The Papal Inquisition enlisted the secular arm to suspend the ordinary rights of citizens and to carry out its most terrible punishments, such as execution by burning. The Spanish Inquisition continued the persecution of sodomites as heretics, and extended this persecution to sodomy among indigenous peoples in the New World. The thirteenth century Crusade against the Cathars involved the accusation, if not the reality, of ****eroticism. The Cathars were a sect dating back to the Manichaean Gnostics, which had survived in Eastern Christianity, especially Bulgaria, and then found its way into Italy and Southern France. Because they rejected the body and the natural world, the Cathars encouraged nonprocreative sex among ordinary believers, and among the elite, celibacy. Hence the term “bugger” (a vulgarized form of Boulger) came to refer at once to heresy and sodomy. This view of sodomites is well illustrated in the case of the Order of the Knights Templar. In 1307 the Inquisition accused the Knights of sodomy, heresy, and witchcraft, consequently inflicting upon them torture and execution by burning.“ [p.10-11]

****sexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia
by Jeffrey S. Siker (Editor)
Greenwood Press
2007, 272 pages.
http://www.shop.com/+-a-****sexuality+and+Religion%3A+An+Encyclopedia+-p211908731-g1-k24-st.shtml

Dr. Jeffrey S. Siker
Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (New Testament Studies, 1989)
M.Div. Yale University Divinity School (1981)
M.A. Indiana University (Religious Studies, 1978)
B.A. Indiana University (double major: Music & Religious Studies, 1976)

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 09:33 PM

No.

Like many Catholics I do not force my belief with an at***ude of intransigency. I propose my faith, I do not dictate it.

Trinity

You know, every prophet in the O.T. and even the Apostles in the N.T. never was scared to speak the naked truth concerning what was sinful. The watchtower p***age of Ezekiel 33 clearly lays down God's teaching to a sinful nation and the duty from which we must clearly stand against. Faith is trust in God, doing as God asks of us. You can propose your faith, you can even lay out the boundaries that God has spoken and set. Asdf thinks you can be a good Christian practicing ****sexuality unashamed. And by Christian, that extends to Catholics and Protestant alike. If he held this position as a Catholic, he would be branded a Cafeteria Catholic. Of course he is not Catholic, but claims to be a Christian. We call many Protestants our seperate brothers and sisters, yet with such a moral decay, I would hardly be welcoming them in a state of unabashed sinfulness.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 09:41 PM

Again Trinity, you are branding me as without comp***ion. I am not condoning a witchhunt against ****sexuals. You HAVE to state that ****sexuality is sinful or not. Not doing so is only encouraging asdf that holding such position is alright by God. Giving this type of message clearly places you at fault in Ezekiel 33. 8 "If I say to the wicked, "O wicked ones, you shall surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand."

If you do not correct asdf on this issue, and he maintains such a position, you will be an accomplice to it. If you do correct him, and he still maintains such a position, you will not be an accomplice to his sinfulness.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 09:41 PM

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

I'm in the majority on both counts: I'm a heterosexual righty.

There is the religious truth and there is the historical truth. To defend the first truth by hiding the second this is to be untruthful.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 09:48 PM

There is the religious truth and there is the historical truth. To defend the first truth by hiding the second this is to be untruthful.

Trinity

Trinity, you sound more like a Protestant. How many times do you hear "historical truth" by a Protestant when they attribute falsehoods about the Catholic Church? I am not telling you to deny the history of the Church as it relates to bad policies or even of bad Catholics... I am say that doctrinal and moral truth needs to be told. You haven't done so thus far. Your are right now condoning asdf's position and if you do not heed my advice regarding Ezekiel 33.8, there will come a time when you will be held accountable. I've told you, so at present, I do not have to worry about the consequences for not telling you.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 09:57 PM

Trinity, you sound more like a Protestant. How many times do you hear "historical truth" by a Protestant when they attribute falsehoods about the Catholic Church? I am not telling you to deny the history of the Church as it relates to bad policies or even of bad Catholics... I am say that doctrinal and moral truth needs to be told. You haven't done so thus far. Your are right now condoning asdf's position and if you do not heed my advice regarding Ezekiel 33.8, there will come a time when you will be held accountable. I've told you, so at present, I do not have to worry about the consequences for not telling you.

Anyone who is not endorsing you in this forum is under an anathema. asdf is an adult and he [she] knows where I stand.

By the way, I am against the historical forgery, the exagerations, but not against the facts

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 10:05 PM

Anyone who is not endorsing you in this forum is under an anathema. asdf is an adult and he [she] knows where I stand.

Trinity

Its your own. I am only stating the consequences of condoning the sinful position.

Asdf has stated the following:

It has everything to do with Trinity's manner of expressing herself/himself ... without hostility, without antagonism to modern psychological, medical, and scientific advances.

Now, tell me honestly Trinity, were the prophet's in the O.T. liked by those whose position disagreed with God?
Was the Apostles, who were martyred and persecuted, loved by those whose lifestyle were in opposition to the Gospel message?

I am not running a popularity contest like you are. I am here to tell you that you need to clean up your positional stance to where God's is.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 10:19 PM

Its your own. I am only stating the consequences of condoning the sinful position.

Asdf has stated the following:

Now, tell me honestly Trinity, were the prophet's in the O.T. liked by those whose position disagreed with God?
Was the Apostles, who were martyred and persecuted, loved by those whose lifestyle were in opposition to the Gospel message?

I am not running a popularity contest like you are. I am here to tell you that you need to clean up your positional stance to where God's is.

Tell me where the death penalty was abandoned in the New Testament for the ****sexuals? Which tradition had cancelled this penalty? How do you know that killing a ****sexual is wrong?

By the law of the State.

Trinity

Columcille

04-14-2009, 10:23 PM

I am at times hostile to "modern" advances, because in most cases such advances are politicized. A "consensus" that ****sexuality is not sinful by psychologists is not viable when the Church has taught its sinfulness through the Scriptures and Tradition. "Modern" medicine has been a common catchphrase, but in terms of identifying a ****sexual gene has ended up at a dead end with a politicized consensus. Scientific advances are great, new technologies for examining things is all well and good, for the purpose of science is to observe, not to religiously or philosophically advance a hypothesis into a fact.

Columcille

04-14-2009, 10:27 PM

Trinity, on a personal level, Paul tells us not to reward evil with evil but evil with good.
As far as secular governance is concerned, there are bad policies and bad people, I am looking at the doctrinal and moral position that is truthful. My concern is living in the present state. Professing Christians stating that ****sexuality is good in God's eyes is what we are discussing.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 10:32 PM

Columcille

04-14-2009, 10:58 PM

For us this is a sin, but for others it is an open question. And we should respect that. The whole world knows where we stand on this issue. We are not requested to decide for them.

Trinity

The nation of Israel when it was in a state of sin thought their own rationale to be an open question. They knew where the Prophets of God stood, except there were some bad prophets prophesying peace and hope when God was not with them. We are not deciding for them, the parameters of holiness have been set by God. ****sexuality is not acceptable practice for any Christian, despite asdf's open questioning that they are compatible. I wonder why you are not defending the Godly position that ****sexuality and Christianity are incompatible. The whole point of the forum is to defend our faith where it stands consistent in doctrine and morals. Yet you haven't done this defending. You have taken a personal vendetta against me because our priorities are vastly different, yet our Church's doctrine and moral stance is the same. Funny, how you choose your bedfellows when it comes time to actually defending what the Church actually teaches that ****sexual acts are incompatible with living a genuine Christian lifestyle.

Trinity

04-14-2009, 11:15 PM

I wonder why you are not defending the Godly position that ****sexuality and Christianity are incompatible.

Because that is untrue. There are to much priests who are ****sexuals. However, a minority are active.

Trinity

Columcille

04-15-2009, 05:44 AM

Because that is untrue. There are to much priests who are ****sexuals. However, a minority are active.

Trinity

You just stated that ****sexuality and Christianity are compatible in the Catholic Church.

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality 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 ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 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.

IncitingRiots

04-15-2009, 08:47 AM

Why can't you just get over yourself? The fact is gay people aren't going to stop being gay because some imaginary character thinks it is "wrong".

I will bring this point up once again, as it was ignored: If God made everyone in his image that means he made gay people in his image therefore God is gay.(that's right, I said it, God is gay) If he is the creator then it was a flaw in the design on his part that created gay people so to take it out THEM for HIS mistake is pretty stupid. If your God is all powerful and hates ****sexuality; then why did he create it to begin with? I am really curious to see how your mental gymnastics can rationalize that.

Trinity

04-15-2009, 09:12 AM

You just stated that ****sexuality and Christianity are compatible in the Catholic Church.

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality 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 ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 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.

There is a rule and there is a reality.

There is hundreds of priests in USA that have died of AIDS, and this is not unique to the Catholic Church. There is ****sexuals in all churches, even with the fundamentalist protestants.

"In the Roman Catholic tradition, since all priests take a vow of celibacy upon ordination, the question about ****sexuality has in some sense been a non-issue. Whether a priest had a heterosexual or a ****sexual orientation made no substantive difference if in all cases the priest took a vow of celibacy. The issue in the Roman Catholic Church was not so much about ordination as it was about nonclergy ****sexual Catholics in terms of procreation and sex outside of marriage.

In 2005, however, the nature of the discussion changed somewhat with the publication of the “Instruction on the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with ****sexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Priesthood and to Sacred Orders,” by the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education. This document made it clear that men who have deep-seated ****sexual tendencies, or who even support the so-called “gay culture,” do not have the requisite affective maturity to be admitted to seminary for preparation for ordination to the priesthood. If a man experiences transitory ****sexual tendencies as part of the process of maturation, such an individual may be admitted to a seminary to prepare for ordination as long as these tendencies have been overcome for at least three years prior to ordination to the deaconate. The Vatican also made it clear that it was not seeking to retroactively invalidate the ordinations of any gay man previously ordained to the priesthood. It appears that the primary reason for the development of this “Instruction” was the clergy scandal in the United States revolving around clergy sexual abuse, especially those cases dealing with same-sex relations and pedophilia. The timing of the release of the document was criticized for scapegoating the gay Catholic community and blaming them for the sinful actions of a small group of priests." [p.92]

****sexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia
by Jeffrey S. Siker (Editor)
Greenwood Press
2007, 272 pages.
http://www.shop.com/+-a-****sexualit...1-k24-st.shtml

Before 2005, there was a rule (Catechism) but no checking point.

Trinity

asdf

04-15-2009, 09:46 AM

I am at times hostile to "modern" advances, because in most cases such advances are politicized. A "consensus" that ****sexuality is not sinful by psychologists is not viable...

Of course this is rubbish. Psychology has nothing whatsoever to say about "sin"; it has made no pronouncement on the "sinfulness" or otherwise of ****sexuality. Modern science has determined that ****sexuality is not a mental illness - that is all, and your refusal to see that based on hiding behind the Christian tradition of what is "sin" is the reason I'm not resonating with your words.

Columcille

04-15-2009, 02:43 PM

Trinity

04-16-2009, 12:05 PM

Trinity, nowhere have I denounced the statements in regards to the reality that there are sinful priests, or that there are people who struggle with temptation more than others. I just don't make the ***umption that modern science's consensus is accurate when they themselves state what is unknown or state as possibility rather than stating it absolutely. Asdf and others who believe like him probably have no problem teaching theory as fact, or infiltrating churches and voting a change in doctrine or a change in morals. You see the danger in the Episcopal Church USA and many of the Protestant churches... Do you want to have the same schism to happen in the Catholic Church? Would you want to see a Gay Bishop come out in public that is currently having sexual relations with a life-partner with full support of the Papacy? Because this is exactly what Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury is doing with Bishop Gene Robinson.

The priests are to be examples to the laity. If priests are to remain celebate as a requirement of their office, what is the laity suppose to do?
Is it alright for professing Catholic, that go to M*** often and partake without confession of their ****sexual acts, living with their life-partner, to be an example of an authentic viable Catholic in good standing with our Lord?

I think that the ****sexuals already involved in the priesthood should stay chaste (according to the experts, that could represent between 15% to 33% of the priests). ! also agree with the measures taken by my Church to limit the amount of scandals at his minimum. It is also true that I do not approve all the Gay parades (Gay pride) all over the world. I find this kind of carnival, absurd. I never saw heterosexuals exposing their sexuality in a parade anywhere on this planet. There is perhaps the Carnival of Rio but we know that this carnival has no political connotation.

However, I do not not want to ignore any ****phobic act in our society. I do not want to see the history repeated. Like Adolph Hitler when he had imprisoned numerous ****sexuals in the Nazi concentration camps.

"Growing awareness of the history of the gay community has influenced the Jewish community’s relation to gays and lesbians. In the 1990s, both the gay community and the Jewish community learned about the suffering of ****sexuals under the Nazi regime in Germany, as evidenced by the internment of thousands of ****sexuals in concentration camps together with Jews. As information on that aspect of Nazi-era history became more available, it has become part of the gay and Jewish collective memory. The Nazi persecution of ****sexuals has therefore given ****sexual people the status as fellow-sufferers with Jews." [p.144]

****sexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia
by Jeffrey S. Siker (Editor)
Greenwood Press
2007, 272 pages.
http://www.shop.com/+-a-****sexualit...1-k24-st.shtml

We are living in a pluralist society with numerous religions and ethnicities, and as citizens, we cannot impose our values to all. As a Catholic, I can not endorse that an active ****sexual priest could becomes also active in my Church. Though, I can accept an ****sexual priest who wants to stay chaste for his entire life. If ****sexuality is totally behavioral, any ****sexual act can be seen as a real sin.

I hope my position is more clear and without ambiguity.

Trinity

Columcille

04-16-2009, 01:01 PM

GraftedIn73

04-16-2009, 11:16 PM

Yes, it is much more clear. However, I do think the idea of imposing our values to all is not my representation. If you agree as a Catholic that there are genuine Christians in the Protestant sects that truly love the Lord, then there must be boundaries set in which such an understanding of "seperated brothers and sisters" is defined. I do not believe Asdf's position on ****sexuality being completely compatible with Christianity places him within the confines of being our "seperate brother," but more as an apostized "brother" to be not only seperate ecclesiastically, but in actuality. Such a position is no different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses,whom we would not accept their baptism due to doctrinal position on the nature of God and Christ... and such a moral position as Asdf holds is itself just as bad... since this also changes the nature of Christ in regards to the teachings p***ed on by his Church and by the prophets of old. Asdf will probably not change his position, and both you and I are not holding a gun to his head or sword or any manner of torture to convert him. I would love more than anything to sit down with him and buy him a cup of coffee and be civily disagreeable... but I am not going to encourage his ideology as authentically Christian.

I am in complete accord with you Collumcille.

God has revealed His existence in nature and His character in scripture. THAT He IS, can be known naturally. WHO He is can only be known through His self-revelation. We cannot know everything about God, because He is infinite and we are finite. What can be known about God, is that select amount of information He has chosen to reveal about Himself. In this self-revelation, He has chosen to declare that He considers certain actions/at***udes/behaviors/beliefs as bad/sinful, and others as good/righteous. Among those behaviors He has called sinful are acts of ****sexuality. The same God who has declared acts of ****sexuality as wrong has declared that hate is sinful and wrong. God has commanded us to love our enemies. This love includes both confronting and rejecting their sin, while at the same time, doing every good thing for them that we are able. We are never given license to hate someone and seek to condemn or destroy them. Unfortunately, in this age of 'tolerance' that we live in, those that are demanding tolerance are usually demanding unqualified acceptance. Many become intolerant, hateful, and judgemental, claiming that their opponents are ****phobic. Extreme examples are those who are demanding acceptance and tolerance while they parade through churches as rainbow haired, bearded nuns in drag demanding access to the Eucharist. These are blinded by their sin and are self condemned.

I believe that Jesus would have set down with a gay man or woman and spoken kindly, and lovingly to them, as He did with other sinners. This would not be an approval of their sinful behavor any more than feasting with publicans and tax collectors implied an acceptance of their sinful behavior. I am certain that He would have called them to repentance just as He did with all the other sinners He encountered.

God is God and He is our creator. He knows DNA. He knows nature. He knows nurture. In His infinite wisdom, He has chosen to reject as sinful, ****sexual acts. Those who choose to be identified with Him should reject these actions as well.

Columcille

04-17-2009, 07:42 AM

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

Now trying to get back to the question at hand. Firstly, Heart2Heart's question is contradictory. He does not believe it is a genetic defect, yet in the next phrase he states that he things the individual was born with it. To be born with it sounds more like a genetic quality and not a nurture quality. I would not consider it a "defect" either, since a healthy baby is a healthy baby. Babies that grow up to become ****sexuals are no different then babies that grow up heterosexual in terms of biological observation. Hence, I believe the behavior is nurtured, just in the very same manner that Ted Bundy, who happened to come from a decent family, nurtured himself into a dark spiral with pornography and then into murder. I have introduced the link earlier and I feel his statements are genuine. He does not blame pornography as though it forced him, but it encouraged it. I do believe that he or she can control their behavior when they allow God to work in them. God would not command us to be holy and then not provide a way.

As the Council of Trent says:

CHAPTER XI.
On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.
But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

ActRaiser

04-17-2009, 11:31 AM

Extreme examples are those who are demanding acceptance and tolerance while they parade through churches as rainbow haired, bearded nuns in drag demanding access to the Eucharist. These are blinded by their sin and are self condemned.

Self-condemned to what? Not hell. If they have been saved. The real issue, I think is that people don't understand that even though Heaven is for those accept Jesus as their sacrifice, they embarress Jesus and make him ashamed on the Cross all over again when they flaunt their sins like that.

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 12:25 PM

Self-condemned to what? Not hell. If they have been saved. The real issue, I think is that people don't understand that even though Heaven is for those accept Jesus as their sacrifice, they embarress Jesus and make him ashamed on the Cross all over again when they flaunt their sins like that.

If Jesus were real I am sure that most of his followers would be embar***ing to him. Most of the people I have ever known to claim themselves as followers of Jesus; have shown themselves to be anything but Christ like. Whatever happened to not judging, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (figuratively and literally)? Very few of these so-called "Christians" seem to use the ***le for anything more than cosmetic purposes, because they will be looked down upon if they aren't, and rarely practice what they preach.

Columcille

04-17-2009, 01:09 PM

If Jesus were real I am sure that most of his followers would be embar***ing to him. Most of the people I have ever known to claim themselves as followers of Jesus; have shown themselves to be anything but Christ like. Whatever happened to not judging, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (figuratively and literally)? Very few of these so-called "Christians" seem to use the ***le for anything more than cosmetic purposes, because they will be looked down upon if they aren't, and rarely practice what they preach.

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like." Just as "gentleman" is not an adjective descriptive of a "good" person and not a noun that defines a person of nobility. Christ came to save the wicked, and in so far as where they were before becoming a Christian to where they are now or heading towards is what is important. If you were hard-core racist, and God is changing you inside out, that Christian may still show tendencies of a racist... but the question is how far on his journey as a Christian has he/she become a better person? In their old life, such racist qualities would be unrepentent and even proud and haughty of it. I agree with you that there are many professing Christians that are bad Christians, I would agree with you regarding prison conversions in general as a means to an ends for inmates as they use it for the purpose of showing an attempt of reform and early release (although there are genuine inmates who do progress as Christians in the real world environment upon their release); but a Christian is one that ***ents to the teachings of Christ and acknowledge who he is accurately. Hence, I have come out and said regarding Asdf's comments regarding ****sexuality and Christianity being completely compatible as not representative of authentic Christianity. In regards to judgement, Christ and John the Baptist did this a lot with the Pharisees and Saducees even calling them names as white-washed tombs, brood of vipers, and hypocrites. In terms of judgement, Christians judge their own. Since Asdf claims to be Christian, I judge what he says in terms of Scripture and in context of historical Christian teaching. As far as you are concerned, you don't abide by Scripture, so my approach is different. Your authority of what you believe is what I would be pointing to since it defies natural revelation and is inconsistent in its own ability... since in most cases your morality is based on relativism. For you to try and convince me you are right, you must attack our Scriptures, our Traditions by your own standands of what you feel at the moment. You as the outsider looking in, you are just judgemental as you claim we are in your own perception.

Trinity

04-17-2009, 01:17 PM

asdf

04-17-2009, 01:40 PM

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing...

Quite the contrary, actually.

and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like."

Erm, do you know the etymology of the word "Christian"?

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 02:09 PM

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like."

No, not really. The first Christians were called so because they followed the teaching of Jesus Christ. It should be mentioned here that "Christ" is a ***le, meaning "annoited one" - not a surname. Many of the people today who call themselves Christians have no right to do so as they aren't really following the teachings of Jesus.

Just as "gentleman" is not an adjective descriptive of a "good" person and not a noun that defines a person of nobility.

Actually, that is exactly what a "gentleman" is. It is an adjective to describe a "good", or rather, polite chivalrous person, usually of the male gender. However, people rarely describe themselves as a "gentleman", that is usally something one would say about another person. Whereas Christian is a ***le that people give themselves.

For you to try and convince me you are right, you must attack our Scriptures, our Traditions by your own standands of what you feel at the moment.

Yes, I attack your scriptures. That is how argument works. I suppose if you prefer I could attack you personally - but I try and stay away from ad hominem tactics.

You as the outsider looking in, you are just judgemental as you claim we are in your own perception.

Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't. The difference is that I don't claim to be a follower of a belief system that is against being judgemental. Since "all have sinned and therefore fall short of the grace of God" none of you have any right to judge anyone.

Columcille

04-17-2009, 03:25 PM

[ad. L. ChrWstiQn-us, (in Gr. vq·rsi‰m¾|, Acts xi. 26), f. ChrWstus, vq·rs¾| Christ. Introduced with the Renascence in taking the place of the earlier cristen, christen a. (Cf. the Anglo-Fr. cristien, found from 12th c.)]

Acts 11.26:

and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

5 [26] Christians: "Christians" is first applied to the members of the community at Antioch because the Gentile members of the community enable it to stand out clearly from Judaism.

OED definitions:

A. adj.

1. a. Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ.

b. most Christian: a ***le of the kings of France.

c. In the names of various religious sects or ***ociations, as Christian Israelites, †Christian Royalists (see quot.), Christian Socialists (whence Christian Socialism, the principles of Christian Socialists; Christian-socialize v. (nonce-wd.), to imbue with Christian Socialism).

d. Politics. Christian Democrat (see quot. 1957); so Christian Democratic adj.

2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.

†b. Court Christian: an ecclesiastical court. Obs. exc. Hist.

†c. Christian ale: see quot. and ale 3. Obs.

3. Of persons and their qualities or actions: Showing character and conduct consistent with discipleship to Christ; marked by genuine piety; following the precepts and example of Christ; Christ-like.

4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.

5. a. Human as distinguished from brutal; now only colloq. or humorous. b. mod. colloq. or slang. Of things: Becoming a Christian; ‘civilized’, ‘decent’, ‘respectable’. Cf. B. 3.

6. Christian name: the name given at christening; the personal name, as distinguished from the family name or surname. (Also allusively = ‘proper name’.) Hence to Christian-name v. trans. (nonce-wd.), to call by one's Christian name; Christian-named ppl. a., having a Christian name.

7. Christian era: the era reckoned from the accepted date of the birth of Christ, and adopted in all Christian countries.

B. n.

1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

†b. even Christian: fellow-Christian; also collectively, fellow-Christians. Obs. See even-.

2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety.

3. a. colloq. and dial. A human being, as distinguished from a brute. [A common sense in the Romanic langs.] b. colloq. or slang. A ‘decent’, ‘respectable’, or ‘presentable’ person.

4. Used as a denominational or sectarian name.
Pronounced chrWstian, it was ***umed as a ***le by a sect which arose in America. Among the names of religious societies in England and Wales certified to the Registrar General occur ‘Bible Christians’, ‘Christians owning no name but the Lord Jesus’, and ‘Christians who object to be otherwise designated’.

†5. a. A variety of pear; ? = bon-chrétien; also a variety of plum. Obs.

b. Comb. (a) Parasynthetic, as Christian-minded a., and derivatives as Christian-mindedness n. (b) Christian-wise adv., in a Christian way.

When you state "Christ like," it is generally of the adjective #3 and #5because it is related to conduct and not belief. Even in the noun usage, it appears your usage resembles #2 and #3. However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;
"Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't."

When you quote scripture, you are not contextualizing it. When we do the contextualizing for you and point out errors of your interpretation, wether we go to the Greek language, point out other sources that explain its context, you will eventually just ignore it and move to another criticism. I have to wonder why you are here. Did some professing Christian hurt you? What is your ax that you are grinding? I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals, I see wolves attempting to clothe themselves in sheeps clothing and intermingling with the sheep and overpowering the shepherds on watch... the Episcopal Church USA being just one example. I am not tolerating such idiocy or putting my head in the sand hoping it will not infect the Catholic Church or the other "seperated brothers and sisters" whom I know love the Lord. The Church has let you down, but it is not our doctrinal positions nor our moral stances from which your attacking us. Your attacking us because you love your sin.

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 04:31 PM

However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;

Uh...... what does that even mean?

When you quote scripture, you are not contextualizing it. When we do the contextualizing for you and point out errors of your interpretation, wether we go to the Greek language, point out other sources that explain its context, you will eventually just ignore it and move to another criticism.

Please, by all means point out my errors of interpretation.

I have to wonder why you are here. Did some professing Christian hurt you? What is your ax that you are grinding?

The reason I am here I stated very clearly in my introduction post on this site.

I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals,

So then you are essentially condemning a whole group for what one did to you? What if I were to lump all Catholic priests in with child molestors because what a few of them have done?

The Church has let you down, but it is not our doctrinal positions nor our moral stances from which your attacking us. Your attacking us because you love your sin.

If being rational and having a working BS detector is sinful - then bring on the sin.:D

asdf

04-17-2009, 04:39 PM

I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals.

I'm very sorry that you were molested.

You do realize that not all gay and lesbian people molest?
And further, that some heterosexual people molest?

You don't take away the civil rights of a group based on the immoral actions of a couple bad apples - especially not when you have a couple bad apples in your own orchard...

Columcille

04-17-2009, 04:58 PM

The whole group, yes. There is no natural law against becoming a priest. I'll be the first to condemn a priest that is also a child molestor, because in such a position they are more responsible, the same goes for teachers, police officers, and any public official.
****sexuality may be legal in the United States and other countries, but it is spiritual decay.

In regards to judgement, your main text is found in Matthew 7.1-5. However, it does not stop at verse 5 but includes verse 6. "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you."

This verse demonstrates a discernment in judging. Also, verse 5 states, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."

So it is not, in the context given, saying absolutely not to judge... in fact, it encourages judgement to be moderated and controlled. You just stop with the phrase "Do not judge" and forget the rest of the p***age. Without judgement, both people with a speck and a log are still faced with the same problem. We as Christians are to perform a more intense self-examination. You do not have to hold yourself to such, because of your own authority. An authority from which only baby's know and some never grow out of it... the "me" complex. I don't think I ever want to live that way again. It is miserable living at the top of your own authority. I'd rather submit to God's standard.

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 06:30 PM

The whole group, yes.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.;)

I don't think I ever want to live that way again. It is miserable living at the top of your own authority. I'd rather submit to God's standard.

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

ActRaiser

04-17-2009, 07:36 PM

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

I hope that I can totally submit to God's authority one day. Coincidently, I have been raped by enough males as to number my sexual ***aults in the triple digits. I don't condemn the whole group but I certainly don't like NAMBLA. NAMBLA has a common theme to it, which is, gay, adult males attracted to children. "Sex before eight or its too late."

Think about it please. Sexual molestation/rape is always wrong no matter what your sexual preference, but contrary to popular belief, molestation and rape is sometimes correctly attributed to sexuality, as well as power. Sexuality is not some exalted, god-like quality. It is definitely spiritual and holy, but it isn't God or a god.

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 07:56 PM

I have been raped by enough males as to number my sexual ***aults in the triple digits.

No offense, but I think that is an exaggeration, if not a downright lie.

I don't condemn the whole group but I certainly don't like NAMBLA.

I don't think anyone here is trying to support NAMBLA. I personally would like to see those guys executed on national television.

Think about it please. Sexual molestation/rape is always wrong no matter what your sexual preference, but contrary to popular belief, molestation and rape is sometimes correctly attributed to sexuality, as well as power.

Sexual ***ault in any context, whether it be molestation or rape, is seldom about sex and more about power and control. Therefore a person's sexuality doesn't mean they are more or less likely to sexually ***ault someone. Just a little fyi most rapists are straight males.

ActRaiser

04-17-2009, 08:19 PM

Sexual ***ault in any context, whether it be molestation or rape, is seldom about sex and more about power and control. Therefore a person's sexuality doesn't mean they are more or less likely to sexually ***ault someone. Just a little fyi most rapists are straight males.

I'm not saying gays have a greater propensity to rape. I'm saying that the rapes that took place would not have.

IncitingRiots

04-17-2009, 08:21 PM

Would not have.....if?

ActRaiser

04-17-2009, 08:38 PM

Would not have... if they had another target. Which is a selfish thing to wish for, but it might be true (another if coming) if they of course, did things to gratify their paraphilias.

Columcille

04-17-2009, 08:47 PM

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.

Thank you for your comment.

It reminds me of the following:

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1.26-31, NRSV)

What can I say? Live and let live, who are you to judge my standards when your standards have no backbone. I've been in situations were I was kicked down for my beliefs in Tacoma, WA. I share my beliefs with people who have laid down their life for the Gospel. My belief system supports missionaries in places where your high life Satanists would never consider going because of the discomfort and hardships, what good is all your wisdom? What is it you hope to attain in this life? And when atrocities have been filmed, evidences have been obtained, what makes it so difficult to believe people have gone through trauma? If ActRaiser says it, you can reserve judgement because you haven't the facts--but I would not dismiss the possibility. Next thing you are going to say is that the holocaust never happened and it is a down right lie and exaggeration.

There is one more thing in regards to the p***age I quote. Jesus said love your enemies, you despise them; Jesus was crucified, and not Ceasar; Jesus was lowly, he was weak and he was despised. But why was he despised? He judged peoples' actions as sinful, and he calls us to share in his suffering. When we speak, he promised the world would despise us. You are of the world. It is only natural for you.

jade84116

06-01-2009, 02:31 PM

Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before. First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like. Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice. Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly. Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is. Just my thoughts on the issue.:)

Columcille

06-02-2009, 03:29 PM

Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before. 1) First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like. 2) Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice. 3) Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly. 4) Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is. Just my thoughts on the issue.:)

1) I really don't get your point about the sneering. My main thrust is what does biblical and historical Christianity have to say on the issue and how does the Church respond without watering down or cheapening the Gospel. Churches that affirm the ****sexual lifestyle do not have the biblical nor the history of the Church to demonstrate a consistent Gospel message from Christ to the present. Such churches have created a new gospel where they select what is convenient for their own doctrine rather than the other way around for Scripture and Tradition to define doctrine and morals.

2) You are going to hear that sexual preference is not a choice either. If you were born a male or a female, you could get an operation for a sex change, so while I would agree that such a perversion is a choice, all we are going to see from the left is junk science as a means of propoganda. You are not going to see from their studies any connection to family neglect, physical, sexual, or mental abuse, nor any bullying from peers. So we are going to go in circles with the opposition until there is competant scientific studies which can factor in such aspects. As is, we are in a Christian forum so the opposition we face is mainly within our own rank and file. Asdf is one person who I am trying to get to come out with a positive Scriptural and historical Christian affirmation of such a lifestyle, but he seems only to talk about experience in terms of emotion and secular wisdom. Any quotes you find from Scripture by him is actually a negation and he hasn't addressed the Levitical text where it shows ****sexual acts are condemned for not only rape, but also consentual act is condemned. I understand where you are coming from and I try to point to the natural order of parenting as evidence against ****sexuality to being an acceptable lifestyle. If two daddies and two mommies are parenting a child, the child could be adopted, but it does not mimic the natural occurance of copulation. We are in essence denying the child his rightful father or his rightful mother should gay or lesbians be the biological guardian. And in extention, we are causing even more problems for that child should they be adopted since it is natural in our society to talk about both mother and father as a parental unit.

3) Any society can set up laws that are unjust. Even if a vast majority of societies believe it to be ok, morality is not based on a majority opinion. For the Christian, it is based on Scripture and Tradition as verifying its consistency.

4) With modern medical advances, test-tube babies, and other such things... I do not think lesbians, or gay female supporters who would carry a baby to full term like a gay person's sister or female friend would make society to cease. Some gay and lesbians might also be bisexual. I think there are problems in raising such children because of my argument stated under #2.
Also, Islamic nations have laws that allow one man to marry up to five women. Since this law is acceptable, there does seem to be a high rate of ****sexual acts amongst the male population who are financially disadvantaged... even though Islam also condemns ****sexuality. Also you see in the prisons and detention camps such practices. I was in Iraq at one such detainee camp and while we joke about man-love Thursday, it actually happens.

asdf

06-02-2009, 09:58 PM

Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before.

I appreciate your entry into the conversation.

First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like.

I'm confused about what you're saying. What cons***utes this "sneer", and what is the sneer in response to? What do you mean by "wrong" - do you mean "is immoral", "should be frowned upon by society", or "should be illegal"? (Or something else altogether. Sorry, I just don't understand what you said.)

Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice.

All evidence points to sexual preference and gender iden***y being some combination of genetic predisposition and 'choice' - cultural, societal, environmental &c. factors.

There are factors that are civil rights that are:

purely innate - like race, ethnicity, gender, or inborn physical handicap;
purely environmental - like physical handicap due to loss of function (whether accidental or inflicted);
purely 'choice' - like religious and political expression;
or some amorphous combination of them all - like sexual preference or dexterity (right- vs. left-handedness).

Clearly, 'choice' is not the rubric which determines whether something is a civil right.

Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly.

Ooh, I like the UDHR. Thanks for bringing it up. I must say, though, that I find it odd that you seem to regard the UDHR as proving a point against equality for gay and lesbian people - considering that almost every Article begins with "Everyone..." "Everyone..." "No one..."

Anyway, I just re-read the Declaration (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/), and I think these points are particularly pertinent. All emphasis mine.

Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are en***led without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are en***led to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation."

Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..."

Article 29: "(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
Article 29 strikes me as particularly relevant in re same-sex sexual expression. In order to prove that gay and lesbian people are not deserving of equal protection and rights under the law, a government would have to compellingly prove that such actions interfere with the rights of others. In other words, if there is no harm in an action, it is protected, regardless of whether it is a majority.

Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is.

This is an odd argument. Why would you think that the proportion of gay people would increase over time?

Just my thoughts on the issue.:)

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate having another conversation partner :)

Shalom,
asdf

Columcille

06-02-2009, 10:59 PM

Notice Jade how Asdf's comments have no scriptural allusion? The only thing that might make you think he is a professing Christian is his signature from Simone Weil. I call this a front or a mask. How does a Christian reject scripture and the orthodoxy that it has maintained throughout history for some postmodern dribble?

asdf

06-02-2009, 11:06 PM

Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
-Isaiah 55

Columcille

06-03-2009, 06:19 AM

6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55

A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts. It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.

Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex. Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support. You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.

Austin Canes

09-26-2009, 10:27 AM

6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55

Possessing a ****sexual-orientation is not a sin (not anymore than possessing a heterosexual-orientation). People do not 'choose' to be ****sexual.

A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts.

Then it must really be cheap for scores of heterosexuals.

It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.

Even so, it isn't your place to enforce the morality you speak of, only to adhere to that which you believe is true. Many have their struggles before God to endure, even many who are heterosexual.

Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex.

Even so, there must be something for those who are ****sexual, that you cannot yourself address (even suing the Bible); let God handle it.

Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support.

That is what you believe, but from what I've read is not necessarily true.

You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.

And from what I've seen, some have interpreted Scripture so narrowly and selectively, that they're IN while believing those they determine are OUT. I think God has a lot more hopeful things to say, than most anti-****sexual Christians tend to.

johnd

02-12-2011, 10:56 PM

Threads as old as this one tend to change directions drastically enough to make the OP obsolete. Still I like to address the OP to refresh the original intent.

****sexuality clinically is an abomination to the intended function of human sexuality. The mistake Christians make is that it is not the ONLY abomination to the intended function of human sexuality.

The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.

I preached it six ways from Sunday only to find believers less and less willing to listen or be around me... for telling them the truth. At times I began to doubt myself and figured there was the ideal "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" and then there was the practical "let's be reasonable" here in the {{real}} world...

This led me to an interesting discovery in the Bible... the concessions God makes.

Before you bristle at the thought and bring up the "God does not change" verse... consider this may not apply to all things... for example... the monarchy in Israel (1 Samuel 8). And later the building of the Temple (2 Samuel 7:12-13 contrast with Zechariah 6:12-13, Matthew 16:18, 1 Peter 2:3-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

God did not intend there to be a monarchy in Israel. Or at least not until his prepared king from the line of Judah was ready. God told Moses to build the tent and gave specific designs (Hebrews 8:5). Solomon and David not... God conceded to deal with Israel according to these situations, but not without great cost and set backs.

The temple God wanted built is of the living members of the Body of Christ. So the builder would be the Messiah and 2 Samuel 7:12-13 was a messianic prophecy. Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, and Herods Temple had only brief periods of righteousness. Defilement, destruction, desolation are the ways of the temples. Solomon broke numerous Levitical sacrificial laws in the dedication of the thing and some say in the use of conscripted foreigners to build it. It was the millstone for Judaism thrown into the deepest sea...

So what about ****sexuality?

What about adultery? Divorce? Lust? Pandering to lust?

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

The truth we ought to be spreading gets suppressed by the unrighteousness of our thoughts and deeds.

Romans 1:

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

How much more does this verse apply to we who have the truth in God's word and in our faith and in our being indwelled by the Spirit of God himself...

We have to suppress him... to go a head and do what we know we ought not or to not do what we know we ought to... and he prompts us beyond that in our consciences... and we push it down and sin... and grieve the very person in the Godhead who loved us enough to indwell us as the deposit for eternal life to come.

Romans 1 is speaking about general humanity...

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading p***ions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...

My use of the word "normal" refers to the original intent of God the Creator and not the percentage of the "norms" of today.

****sexuality is not normal. Adultery is not normal. Lusting after other women or other men or preparing one's appearance or exposing one's self to gain the lust of others is not normal. These are sadly common, but they are not normal.

Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.

Judgment must BEGIN with the house of faith. Meaning we must get our own act together first before we go out to judge others with right judgments. Otherwise we end up with today's circumstances.

Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality. Like America has been doing progressively for the last 20 - 30 years now.

asdf

02-13-2011, 02:43 PM

****sexuality clinically is an abomination

Stop right there. This is utter nonsense. ****sexuality may be religiously an abomination, but clinical? Clinical research has no category of "abomination".

The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.

They might be surprised that they are daily eating "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of food, or wearing "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of fabric, too.

(...) all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (...)

****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...

I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness.

The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship.

Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.

I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea.

Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect.

Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality.

That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view.

BigJulie

04-07-2011, 05:40 PM

I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness. Agreed.

The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship. Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount), are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.

I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea. Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.

Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect. But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone. As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.

That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view. The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman. There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

asdf

04-07-2011, 06:27 PM

Agreed.

Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat. :)

Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount),

In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)?

Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit.

are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.

Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior.

Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.

Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately.

But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone.

There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation.

As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.

If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all!

But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral?

The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman.

Sometimes.

It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".

There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.

Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/unnatural-law).)

BigJulie

04-07-2011, 10:34 PM

Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat. :)

[QUOTE]In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)? Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.

Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit. Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.

Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior. It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.

Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately. They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.

There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation. And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.

If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all! If disease were the only problem, I would agree.

But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral? Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.

Sometimes.

It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war". I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me. But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.

Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.
Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/unnatural-law).) I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.

I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.

asdf

04-08-2011, 01:02 PM

Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.

I'd like to see the data you're referring to.

Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.

From a religious perspective, perhaps. From a scientific and/or social perspective, no. (Or at least, none that do not also apply to heterosexual relationships.)

It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.

There is no "****sexual lifestyle" any more than there is a heterosexual lifestyle. And if you're including oral sex as disease-ridden immoral behavior, you're fighting a losing battle, even among the religiously conservative.

They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.

If you have some information to support this, or links to better, more accurate scientific research, I'm all ears.

And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.

Sure. And I'd love to see gay people fully embraced and accepted by the church, then guided into healthy expressions of their sexuality within committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships.

If disease were the only problem, I would agree.

So far you've got "disease" (tenuously supported) and moral disapproval. What else do you have?

Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.

Exactly. I'd say the same thing for gay and lesbian people, to the extent that there is a problem of prevalent disease and unhealthy expressions of sexuality among them.

I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me.

Is there any Biblical guidance on the minimum age for marriage? Child marriage (particularly w/r/t girls) was prevalent throughout the Ancient Near East, and most scholars agree that this was true of ancient Israel as well.

But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.

Yes—it makes me think that they were a product of their time. And just as we in modern Western society have evolved beyond viewing this treatment of women as acceptable, I believe it is time to open our eyes to the reality and the normalcy of same-sex couples.

Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.

Okay. You're welcome to believe that. You're welcome to practice that, to teach it to your children, to shout it from the rooftop, preach it at your church, etc.

I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)

I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.

It's a pretty well-researched article, and makes extensive reference to the book on which it's based.

I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.

So your research corroborated what I told you.

Feel free to make your Biblical argument against oral sex, non-procreative sex, contraception, heterosexual **** sex, coitus interruptus, masturbation, and any other deviation from vanilla missionary-position procreative heterosexual sex you'd like to include as "a crime against nature".

I find this all pretty bizarre, to be honest. These things occur in nature, therefore they are by definition "natural".

BigJulie

04-08-2011, 03:42 PM

[QUOTE=asdf;82304]I'd like to see the data you're referring to. The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 ****sexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of ****sexual relationships, it does indicate that few ****sexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

· A study of ****sexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.

· In his study of male ****sexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few ****sexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

· In Male and Female ****sexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male ****sexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.

· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.

· The Dutch study of partnered ****sexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

· Bell and Weinberg, in their cl***ic study of male and female ****sexuality, found that 43 percent of white male ****sexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older ****sexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of ****sexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

· A survey conducted by the ****sexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

BigJulie

04-08-2011, 03:51 PM

I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

ErikErik

04-10-2011, 07:22 AM

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong. God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.

asdf

05-27-2011, 02:07 PM

Sorry for the delay in response, BigJulie.

As for the data you cited, in the future I'd appreciate it if you could cite your source. In poking around online, I found that it's often copy+pasted into arguments, and promulgated by groups like FRC and Exodus.

I'm not impressed.

For one, these studies have been criticized because of their lack of a representative sample. Recruiting people from gay bars or readers of a quasi-pornographic magazine is not likely to bring about the kind of diversity that would be representative of gay people as a whole.

Second, it quite simply does not square with the gay and lesbian people I know. Of the gay people who are my friends, almost all of them are in long-term committed relationships. I know of one guy out of the tens of gay people I know who has been rather promiscuous in the past.

Third—and this goes back to our discussion of disease rates across racial demographics—we simply don't discriminate against people even if they were demographically inclined to be promiscuous.

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Not really. It just puts a caveat on it. Just like:

– I understand that slavery is accepted within the Bible. But I think that's wrong, as do most Christians today.
– I understand that lending money at interest is condemned in the Bible. But most Christians don't regard that as binding today.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

There's no reason to believe that children need to be "protected" from having gay parents. You're projecting a very narrow religious view on society at large.

asdf

05-27-2011, 02:09 PM

The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong.

Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.

God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.

So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

Marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
Marriage as a political contract.
etc.?

Columcille

05-29-2011, 08:00 PM

Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.

So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

Marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
Marriage as a political contract.
etc.?

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law. Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies. In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible. In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob. As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this. It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.
2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it? (But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice. As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality. The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way. The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

asdf

05-30-2011, 12:34 AM

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law.

Sure, but that only serves to reinforce my point. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that "the definition of marriage" according to Biblical sources had a single monolithic meaning running throughout the disparate accounts, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Solomon to Jesus to Paul.

Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies.

In at least three cases (Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20), virgin spoils of war were given to men as wives. Deut 20 is presented as words directly from the mouth of God:

When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible.

I was thinking more of Deuteronomy 22.28-29:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. I'm not sure what I think of the "rape" of Dinah (Gen 34). That's a pretty weird story. It looks like it might have been consensual, but considered "defiling" because of not going through the proper protocol. (And by the way, if they demonstrated "genuineness to make things as right as possible", Jacob's family sure treated that honorably and respectfully, eh?)

Oh, there's also the account of Tamar, who is called "righteous" for impersonating a pros***ute and seducing her father-in-law in order to trick him into impregnating her.

In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob.

It's nice of you to read back your interpretation of modern history into the Bible, but Abraham's consorting with Hagar is not explicitly condemned by God. Certainly Jacob's consorting with two wives and two servants is not condemned—indeed that's the origin of the twelve tribes!

As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this.

That was my only point. That which is condemned by modern morality was not condemned by "biblical" morality. Just because a young girl has experienced menarche does not make her emotionally, mentally, and physically mature enough for marriage—that is, unless she's considered a piece of property transferred from one man (her father) to another (her husband) with or without her consent, and expected to begin bearing children immediately whether or not it kills her in the process.

It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

Sure.

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.

Yes, of course. Of course I'm prejudiced against ancient moralities that explicitly regard women as property, that forces women to marry their rapists, that execute women if they don't scream loud enough when they're being raped...

2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it?

I think that if the scriptures are anything like what some Christians regard it as, i.e., a rulebook dictating eternal and unchanging morality, God might have had a word of condemnation when a practice was committed that violated it.

But it's a moot point when some of these disgusting practices are ascribed to have come directly from the mouth of God (e.g., Deut 20, 22).

(But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

If I believe in a god, it is in a God who is good. If the writers of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures had experiences with a real and true and good deity, their experiences were necessarily (and by definition) partial and incomplete.

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity.

I think one completely glosses over (and thereby, does not understand) much of the Bible if one wishes to state that the concept of marriage "never changed".

Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice.

There was a lot of scholarly debate over the acceptability of usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury).

As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

And I'm saying that if God were providing some sort of unchanging morality, there could most easily have been a "thus sayeth the Lord" that outright condemned slavery. I mean really—God bothered to outright condemn shaving the sideburns and eating bacon, but didn't have a word of condemnation for the practice of owning other humans? That was an acceptable accommodation to the "ways and customs of surrounding cultures", but God had to put God's foot down on lobster and polyester?

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality.

:rolleyes:

The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way.

What kind of compromise or middle way are you offering?

As for me, I've already offered something as close to a middle way as I think I can get: full legal equality under civil law, with religious exemptions for those who do not want to participate. Your church will never be forced to hire a gay person or perform a same-sex commitment ceremony; your family will never be forced to watch Ellen or Glee—hell, you can even join Westboro in protesting All Things Gay with signs and slogans.

In short: don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

The church has enough sins to account for without me needing to project anything on it. For now, the mere fact of them wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people speaks for itself.

Columcille

05-30-2011, 05:07 AM

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there. They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom. There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

I offer no middle way. Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality. I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities. So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals. But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment). I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances.

asdf

05-30-2011, 02:36 PM

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there.

What do you suppose was done to adult women taken as "plunder"? Nevermind, you don't have to wonder; the Bible is pretty clear here:
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
– Dt 21.10f

They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom.Not servants who were taken, shall we say, "in the Biblical sense":
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (...) If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
– Ex 21.7, 10-11

There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy. I don't see those "boundaries" in any way precluding the acquisition of women as sex slaves through war or purchase.

I offer no middle way. I didn't think so. So why'd you grouse at me for not offering a compromise?

Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality. Sure, and that is not at all in most cases. You remain free to regard any marriage other than that between an never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman as invalid; but you don't expect civil law to follow in tow.

I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities. Of course not. Neither should you impose the teachings of the church on outsiders to the church.

So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals. The Catholic Church's "teaching authority" is limited to the Church and its members.

But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment). There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.I'll tell you what I find disgusting (though it's another rabbit-trail): Catholic bishops who move to deny communion to Catholic politicians who do not think outlawing abortion is the best way to prevent it (without, of course, advocating or endorsing abortion), but have nary a word to say about Catholics like Mark Thiessen and Rick Santorum openly embracing and advocating the "intrinsic evil (http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org)", the "***ault on human life and dignity", the practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person" which is torture.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Exactly! Once again, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But seeking to make a law respecting the establishment of your religion is plainly, flatly, and nakedly uncons***utional.

Columcille

05-30-2011, 08:54 PM

Actually, as far as moral teachings are concerned, democratic societies determine laws based on the will of competing values. Hence, while your idea of a compromise is to live and let live, the moral fabric of the family is threatened by lasciviousness and what the Church considers free license for all sorts of vices. Hence, there are some who want to impose taxes on soda drinks because they feel it increases gluttony and health problems ***ociated with it; there are some who want to restrict and put limits on how car companies are making vehicles and so hope to manipulate the behavior of citizens to reduce our reliance and dependence on oil. Granted, many of these things are considered noble--but it is the same thing in regards to a competing moral value. You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit. I think such allowances are dangerous to the fabric of society, our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction. I find your moral position to be part and parcel of all our human depravity and it is intrinsically disordered.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage. You have stated so much in the following quote:

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity), the basis of creating a desirable society rests in the moral boundaries set by the free will of its people and represented in kind. Hence, we see people like Confusius dictating the moral framework of its leaders in creating a more peaceful society. Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide? So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

asdf

05-30-2011, 10:03 PM

...the moral fabric of the family is threatened...

...dangerous to the fabric of society...

I suppose all I can say is that I disagree, and that I haven't seen any credible evidence that same-sex relationships are a threat to opposite-sex relationships.

You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit.

Indeed. Partial civil equality is not equality at all.

our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction.

I have no reason to believe that would stop being the case if same-sex marriages were given equal status under civil law.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage.

No, really, I don't. I think the Church is wrong, but I support its right to be as unwelcoming and hostile to gay and lesbian people as it chooses, within the purview of Church members—those who willingly submit to the Church's official teachings.

You have stated so much in the following quote:

The quote doesn't say what you say it says.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity)

Again—the Catholic Church does not sanction marriage between non-Catholics, or between divorcees. And yet there is no effort to restrict the civil marriage rights of non-Catholics (except when it comes to same-sex couples).

Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide?

That's not a moral law; that's a law governing public safety. Big difference.

So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

I guess I understand where you're coming from a little bit here. I regard the support and permissiveness of torture to be similar to being an accessory to the practice. But again, for me there's a big difference between a practice that harms another and undermines human dignity, and a practice that I dislike but ultimately doesn't affect anyone but the offender.

For example, I regard promiscuity to be unhealthy—but I would never support a law restricting people's private consensual sexual activity. I regard many movies and TV shows to be sexist and degrading—but I would not want to live in a society with an official government censor. I think most fast food is disgusting—but I wouldn't want the government to shut down McDonald's.

In short, I can tell the difference between a moral value and a regulation of the public safety. I understand that some people's understanding of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" differs from my own, and may even conflict with my deeply-held beliefs—and yet welcome them to pursue it.

Columcille

05-31-2011, 08:36 PM

It is not my contention to open the eyes of the blind; my only concern is what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you agree with me is not my concern. I rest my belief in the two-fold authority authority of the Church: namely Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible. The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice? Why should I want on judgement day before God tell him that I was an accessory to other's sinfulness? Why should I encourage the alcoholic to drink by giving him money? Why should I loan money to a gambler? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to use taxpayer money to kill innocent children in the womb? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to give the ****sexual an endorsement of an act that is morally disordered per the Scriptures and the Magesterium of the Church indicate?

All morals have consequences, and so in my eyes the moral issue is a safety issue. I will not ever support in good conscience for a candidate who takes your idea of a middle ground.

asdf

05-31-2011, 08:53 PM

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible.

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice? Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

Columcille

06-01-2011, 08:34 AM

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices. I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality. So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

asdf

06-01-2011, 12:01 PM

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices.

In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality.

I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

Columcille

06-01-2011, 01:35 PM

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality; very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics. Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it. However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment. YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there. I just don't support your agenda. I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory. You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

asdf

06-01-2011, 03:01 PM

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality;

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Perry_v._Brown)). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".

very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics.

Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.

Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it.

You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.

However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment.

Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.

YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there.

I do appreciate that. :)

I just don't support your agenda.

My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!

I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory.

Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.

You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there. :D

Columcille

06-01-2011, 04:24 PM

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Perry_v._Brown)). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".

Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.

You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.

Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.

I do appreciate that. :)

My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!

Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.

Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there. :D

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.
I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

asdf

06-01-2011, 04:39 PM

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck

I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

Columcille

06-01-2011, 08:26 PM

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck

Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

Columcille

06-01-2011, 09:19 PM

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck

Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals. I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church, you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it; I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain. That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth. Gays in the bible belt can try to address the local and state government for their interests, but I think it is a bad policy to force as a federal amendment to make all states accept gay marriages. I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time. I think right now the biggest issue is stop the lazy people from taking advantage of the en***lements, the spending of our government, and the political campaigning that seeks to mudsling while hoping the economy will recover so they can spend more.

asdf

06-01-2011, 11:04 PM

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

I'm afraid I don't understand most of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to make is that reality is not affected by your belief or disbelief therein. It's not reality because I believe in it; it's reality independent of my belief or otherwise.

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals.

Your earlier posts seem to contradict that, in which you implied that gay people are "city slickers" and don't exist in "small town America".

I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church,

So far I'm with you on all counts.

you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it;

No, rather I think that it's unfair that you may have the opportunity to vote on the matter at all.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
– U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain.

Feel free to do so. You will remain free to do so as long as that First Amendment remains intact.

That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth.

That's true, but the price of our living in a cons***utional republic (and not a democracy) is that the majority cannot vote to limit the fundamental rights of a minority.

I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time.

A very strange position, if you ask me. "I oppose this amendment, but would support it if I could." Doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that you believe this matter should be up to local municipalities to decide.

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

Columcille

07-19-2011, 09:30 PM

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.

I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

asdf

07-23-2011, 01:55 AM

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.

I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

One would think that "working for the good of the city to which you are exiled" should entail caring about the well-being of those who do not subscribe to your particular version of your particular faith.

You'll remain free (and I'll fight for you to retain this freedom, if necessary) to personally object to marriage equality on religious grounds—to speak out against it, to refrain from taking part, for your church to refrain from blessing such unions. But this isn't a matter of majority/minority. This is a matter of equal justice under the law. This is a matter of religious freedom, particularly for religious people who are gay & lesbian.