Self-Composed-Questionaire

[ActRaiser]

Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?

Note: I know the answer to this question, I just don't know it in very deep detail.

Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?

Note: I think a Christian can be ****sexual, I do however, believe in the Bema Seat.

Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

Note: While I believe that the answer is yes, I am unlucky enough to not find detail on it.

Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

Note: While I know this is a Walter Martin website, I want to see details for the answer to Question # 4.

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

[Columcille]

Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that 1849 "sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbo caused by a perverse attachent to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law'. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22; St Thomas Aquinas, SThI-II,71,6." To discuss further, ****sexuality is considered a "mortal sin;" there are three conditions from which we can distinguish mortal sin from venial sin--(1) it is a grave matter and (2) is committed with full knowledge and (3) deliberate consent. CCC1857.
So in matters related to "truth" which we collect from Sacred Scripture and in the consistency of Sacred Tradition, we know that God abhors ****sexuality in the Torah, and in several places in the N.T. as well. As a matter of reason, ****sexuality is not a product of itself, but a cancorous errosion of family values that has at its base the heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman. ****sexuality cannot produce children from a monogomous male on male or female on female relationship. As a matter of "right conscience," a ****sexual conscience is one that seers and goes against "rightness." The errosion of the conscience turns on them. The idea that it feels right makes it right is a non-sequitur; people make sacrifices, not for themselves, that does not feel right, yet their sacrifices are made for the right reasons. As Jesus, knowing what lay ahead of him in terms of the pain and subsequent death on the cross, made a conscience decision regardless of the "feeling." People feel good getting high, some people feel good being in control and murder people for their perverse need, or rape people, or whatever it may be. Feeling good, feeling loved, does not make it so. Real love is a producer and ****sexuality does not have that quality.


Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?

Such a "Christian" is only a professing one, the act itself without being repented off is an act of rebellion against God, so yes.


Note: I think a Christian can be ****sexual, I do however, believe in the Bema Seat.

Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

Probably in risk. HIV's biggest group is amongst the gay community.


Note: While I believe that the answer is yes, I am unlucky enough to not find detail on it.

Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

It is a sad situation that there is any sin in this world at all. It is bad enough that everyone has to feel pain and die and pay taxes. ****sexuality is a desease very much like obesity, alcoholism, and any behavioral addiction. The ****sexual believes, like all addicts, that they need it and justify their behavior around the addiction, it consumes them.


Note: While I know this is a Walter Martin website, I want to see details for the answer to Question # 4.

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

Q5, I think there are several reasons. First of all, there are a lot of non-Christians who are as much against it than there is with the abortion issue. The push for acceptance by the ****sexual community is receiving a backlash for the very reasons that Christianity is perceived out-of-vogue--namely, they are preaching it in the education curricullum, Hollywood dribble, and practically preaching it down our throats in every medium available at their disposal. One only has to see California vote against gay marriage over and over again only for them to try to subvert the people and attempt to put into the judicial seat judges whom agree with their liberal policies and make laws from the bench to subvert it. Of course, we have seen this elsewhere. Abortion was legislated from the bench in Roe v. Wade.

[ActRaiser]

Feeling good, feeling loved, does not make it so. Real love is a producer and ****sexuality does not have that quality.

Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a conseqence of being raped/sexually abused?

As a sex slave, I was forced to much that cannot be discussed on this board. However, please see where I am coming from. I think that personal experience does account for much evidence for firm convictions as long as our view point of experiences don't contradict The Bible.

[Trinity]

Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a conseqence of being raped/sexually abused?

As a sex slave, I was forced to much that cannot be discussed on this board. However, please see where I am coming from. I think that personal experience does account for much evidence for firm convictions as long as our view point of experiences don't contradict The Bible.

Ministry to ****sexual Persons.

’’ The Catholic Bishops of the United States have produced three documents regarding ministry to ****sexual persons: To Live in Christ Jesus (1978); Human Sexuality (1991); and Always Our Children (rev. 1998), a pastoral message to the parents of ****sexual children, with suggestions for pastoral ministers. All three documents emphasize that the ****sexual condition itself is not sinful; it is discovered, not chosen by the individual. All three documents state categorically that ****sexual persons are called to chas***y as are unmarried heterosexual persons. They point out that prejudice, demeaning behavior, or derogatory humor aimed at persons with same-sex attractions is definitely not Christian and is indeed totally unjustified, a sin against charity. The documents call for the inclusion of ****sexual persons in parish and other Church communities. The 1976 document states: ‘‘Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a ****sexual orientation. ****sexual persons like everyone else should not suffer from prejudice against basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian Community . . . . The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care.’’ Always Our Children continues: ‘‘We understand that having a ****sexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain, and issues related to self acceptance without society adding additional prejudicial treatment.’’

The pastoral minister, therefore, must be charitable, comp***ionate and sensitive. It is hard to realize adequately the anguish that an adolescent experiences, sometimes with thoughts of suicide, upon first realizing he or she is different from the greater society of which each desperately wants to be a participant. As ****sexual individuals grow older they hear, all too often, the mocking of peers and contemptuous, disparaging epithets. Thus it should be no surprise that persons with same-sex attractions are easily vulnerable to self-hatred, depression, and ultimately considerable anger against the society, mentality, and ins***utions which they see as demeaning and rejecting. The pastoral minister must be able to understand and cope with the negativism that they themselves will sometimes meet, to respond to it charitably and prudently, rather than react in ways that will only aggravate smoldering resentments. On the other hand, pastoral ministers must take care that comp***ion does not draw them into condoning or indirectly enabling sinful behaviors by a silence presumed to be consent. This approach can lead to the ****sexual person’s devastating physical and spiritual harm. Besides a firm conviction of Church teaching, the pastoral minister needs some appreciation of the psychology of persons with same-sex attractions. He or she needs an ability prudently to deal with opposition, both from the persons they seek to serve, and those who consider themselves supportive to the ****sexual community by rejecting Church teachings.’’

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition
Thompson and Gale,
2003, vol. 7, [pages 69-70]
http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/...pe=1&id=113827

I do not judge you. This is a heavy cross on your shoulders.

Trinity

[MacG]

Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a conseqence of being raped/sexually abused?

As a sex slave, I was forced to much that cannot be discussed on this board. However, please see where I am coming from. I think that personal experience does account for much evidence for firm convictions as long as our view point of experiences don't contradict The Bible.

Wow. Dude I don't know what to say except that nobody deserves the treatment that has befallen you. Celibacy seems the wise course. Iy also seems to me that temptation is not sin otherwise it could be said that Jesus sinned. I know a guy who struggled with this 20 years ago and got involved with, I think, Love In Action, or Exodus international but he's married now and has kids. The temptations still surface (like any other temptation) and recently he went on another retreat and he said it really blessed him. Now I know that some have tried these kind of groups and it was not for them (some groups are probably toxic) but it worked for this guy. I could imagine groups like this may be not for you given your history but if you'd like I can find out which group has helped him. If even mentioning this sat wrong with you, or brought up bad experiences with these groups my apologies.

May God bless you and heal you and hold you on his love as you renew your mind daily towards becomming more like His Son.

Blessings,

MacG

[asdf]

Question # 1: Why is ****sexuality a sin?

Define '****sexuality'. Many within modern Western conservative Christianity seem to define it exclusively based on sex acts, which makes it then easier to denounce '****sexuality' as morally depraved and degenerate.

However, the more common usage has to do with sexual iden***y and orientation, of which there seems to be some level of 'choice' and some level of genetics involved.

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.


Question # 2: Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?

No.


Question # 3: Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

All sexual behavior carries with it some level of physical risk. It's also true that **** sex (in both hetero- and ****sexual contexts) is particularly risky. However, if practiced within monogamy and using safe sex practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex), much of the risk is mitigated.

The detrimental environment of societal stigmatization is also a huge risk factor that should be discussed with regard to ****sexuality:

Gay and lesbian youth bear an increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, school problems, and isolation because of a "hostile and condemning environment, verbal and physical abuse, rejection and isolation from family and peers". (# (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****sexuality#Gay_and_lesbian_youth))

Question # 4: What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

See above, and also my answers in the other threads. Feel free to ask me for follow-up if you have more specific questions about my perspective.


Question # 5: Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

That's a fantastic question. I find it fascinating that in the most recent election, all the abortion ban initiatives failed, while all the bans on gay marriage (and other gay rights issues like adoption) p***ed.

Considering the vast sums of money thrown at California's Proposition 8 by churches - in particular, the Mormon and Catholic churches - I find it extremely hypocritical that they consider the prevention of gay and lesbian marriages more heinous and worthy of opposing than an issue they ostensibly consider to be one of "life and death".

[AllyManderson]

Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin? Because God says it is.

Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell? As shown above it is a sin. If the sinner says that it is NOT a sin then they are knowingly in rebellion to God. If they repent truly of their sins they will cease to engage in these practices.

Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health? I am not a Doctor. I cannot answer this. But spiritually yes.

Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality? I believe that it is a sin. I have no problems being friends with a ****sexual just as I have no quarrel being friends with a Jew or Muslim.
Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

Maybe your not looking for it?

[ActRaiser]

I don't understand your question for number 5.

[AllyManderson]

I don't understand your question for number 5.

Why does one sin (****sexuality) recieve more media and political attention than another (murder) ?

I can't answer that. Because people, just have their own distaste for particular sins?

I really don't know.

Maybe if you look for Pro-Life documents you will find them in abundance.

[asdf]

Why does one sin (****sexuality) recieve more media and political attention than another (murder) ?

I can't answer that. Because people, just have their own distaste for particular sins?

I really don't know.

Because everyone in society is in agreement that murder is harmful and destructive to the community.

Gay and lesbian people do no such harm, as same-sex relationships are between consenting adults, and there is no compelling non-religious reason to outlaw it.


Maybe if you look for Pro-Life documents you will find them in abundance.

In last November's US elections, 5 or 6 states (IIRC) had some sort of anti-abortion bill on the ballot, all supported by the "pro-life" movement. There were also one or two states with ballot initiatives removing/restricting rights for gay and lesbian people (most famously, Proposition 8 in California removing marriage rights, but I believe there was also an initiative about adoption rights).

Pro-life groups, religions, and charities - most significantly the Mormon and Catholic churches - spent a m***ively disproportionate amount of money opposing Proposition 8 as they did on any of the abortion bills.

I think the question is, for those groups who ostensibly see abortion as the unjust taking of a life, why should removing the rights of gay and lesbian people be seen as more important, more significant, more deserving of spending "pro-life" dollars?

[AllyManderson]

Because everyone in society is in agreement that murder is harmful and destructive to the community.

Gay and lesbian people do no such harm, as same-sex relationships are between consenting adults, and there is no compelling non-religious reason to outlaw it.



In last November's US elections, 5 or 6 states (IIRC) had some sort of anti-abortion bill on the ballot, all supported by the "pro-life" movement. There were also one or two states with ballot initiatives removing/restricting rights for gay and lesbian people (most famously, Proposition 8 in California removing marriage rights, but I believe there was also an initiative about adoption rights).

Pro-life groups, religions, and charities - most significantly the Mormon and Catholic churches - spent a m***ively disproportionate amount of money opposing Proposition 8 as they did on any of the abortion bills.

I think the question is, for those groups who ostensibly see abortion as the unjust taking of a life, why should removing the rights of gay and lesbian people be seen as more important, more significant, more deserving of spending "pro-life" dollars?

I am from the United Kingdom firend and I don't know what the North American papers are filled with.

We have allowed "Civil Partnership" which cannot be called marraige.

Abortion gets a lot more attention over here in the UK (particularly in Scotland). So I could not answer the question fairly.

[TRiG]

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

The churches know they won't win on abortion, so they don't bother trying.

Meanwhile, they can still take away rights from minority groups; their anti-equality were filled with fear-mongering nonsense, but it worked. They're trying the same tactics now in Maine, talking about what will be taught to kids in schools, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the question on the ballot.

Christians in the media tell a lot of lies. Always remember that.

TRiG.:)

[Columcille]

The churches know they won't win on abortion, so they don't bother trying.

Meanwhile, they can still take away rights from minority groups; their anti-equality were filled with fear-mongering nonsense, but it worked. They're trying the same tactics now in Maine, talking about what will be taught to kids in schools, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the question on the ballot.

Christians in the media tell a lot of lies. Always remember that.

TRiG.:)

Abortion will eventually become illegal, just as slavery ended. Roe V. Wade has only been around since the early 1970s, and slavery had an earlier start and longer history in America, from what 1619 to 1870? So what is that, almost 40 years with the ramped up abortion debate to the debate on slavery that lasted over 200 years?

To me though, while innocent life is being squelched by abortion pills and actual surgical removal, it is the supporters of abortion that are procuring the abortions mainly. To me, your just killing of your future cons***uency. At least God loves the little children, but sin always has a price to be paid, both spiritually and also temporally. Such sin can be forgiven, but the damage done cannot be in most cases undone. I'd like to see the statistic on women that recieved abortion and these same women percentages of miscarriages when they decided later on to have their own children.

It does not really matter at this point what the politicized atmosphere is favorable to the abortionist, it is a moral issue just as slavery was, and while Christians have to live in the political reality of such legally immoral ins***utions, these will eventually crumble because they are on the wrong side of the issue. May not win in my generation or lifetime, but it will be resolved eventually, as Christ is God, perhaps even he will end it abruptly on his Second Coming.

[Austin Canes]

Abortion will eventually become illegal, just as slavery ended...
That isn't as likely as human beings FINALLY getting the idea, that unwanted conceptions are what is to be avoided.

Why would people allow someone to become pregnant, when that isn't what was actually intended? Irresponsibility and recklessness come to mind, but I'd agree that abortion of a fetus is NOT actually a good solution to the problem.

Even so, I doubt that abortion will become illegal.

[Columcille]

If the innate problems of slavery is a matter of freedom, it is based on the sanc***y of the individual life. As such, the abolitionist was considered conservative wackos just as much as the pro-life cons***uency. It took the Civil War to end slavery, it will take a bloodless revolution to do the same with abortion. After all, the life that is being taken is the abortionist's own babies. As such, it is their future cons***uency that is being killed off. I remain as hopeful as the abolitionist in the moral cer***ude of abortion as an evil ins***ution. The fact that you recognize that "a fetus is NOT actually a good solution to the problem" means that the prochoice position does not have the moral cer***ude to convince you and many others of its favorability. So the seeds of its own demise are already in place, but slavery's history in the 1600s probably did not have this progression or erosion or "question" as to its "NOT actually a good solution to the problem." If you doubt its ability to become illegal someday, means you have no conviction of the moral cer***ude that it is innately wrong and evil.

[Austin Canes]

...If you doubt its ability to become illegal someday, means you have no conviction of the moral cer***ude that it is innately wrong and evil.

You ***ume too much. My 'list' of right/wrongs are far more extensive than I have shared here; be that as it may, I don't expect reality to somehow line up with MY view of right/wrong.

And there are things (including abortion) I have actually spoken and acted against (as I was led to); but it isn't as if I expect the world or reality itself to follow along with my sense of morality on various matters. That would just be a recipe for discontentment and ultimately madness.

[GiGi]

Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a conseqence of being raped/sexually abused?

As a sex slave, I was forced to much that cannot be discussed on this board. However, please see where I am coming from. I think that personal experience does account for much evidence for firm convictions as long as our view point of experiences don't contradict The Bible.

You were victimized, and that changes a person. Can it 'make' a person ****sexual? I doubt it, but it probably can cause confusion.
A person who would be ****sexual if unmolested becomes the victim of ****sexual sexual abuse is no different than a person who would be heterosexual and is the victim of heterosexual sexual abuse. Both might suffer with gender iden***y issues.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like you are still being mistreated. The physical abuse (I hope) is over, but your religion places you in a special catagory. It tells you that you must not persue a safe and loving sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. If you are to have a sexual relationship at all, it must be one that your religion approves of.
To your religion, to any religion, I say, stay out of my bedroom.
My advice, for what its worth, is to get professional counseling, if you haven't already, to help you deal with the trauma in your life. If you think that you should not be allowed to have a sexual partner, or be loved, simply because of who you are, then I think you (and your religion) have a twisted view of human sexuality and relationships.

[Columcille]

You were victimized, and that changes a person. Can it 'make' a person ****sexual? I doubt it, but it probably can cause confusion.
A person who would be ****sexual if unmolested becomes the victim of ****sexual sexual abuse is no different than a person who would be heterosexual and is the victim of heterosexual sexual abuse. Both might suffer with gender iden***y issues.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like you are still being mistreated. The physical abuse (I hope) is over, but your religion places you in a special catagory. It tells you that you must not persue a safe and loving sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. If you are to have a sexual relationship at all, it must be one that your religion approves of.
To your religion, to any religion, I say, stay out of my bedroom.
My advice, for what its worth, is to get professional counseling, if you haven't already, to help you deal with the trauma in your life. If you think that you should not be allowed to have a sexual partner, or be loved, simply because of who you are, then I think you (and your religion) have a twisted view of human sexuality and relationships.

This is what I call throwing out the bible for a postmodern worldview. Let's forget what the Scripture says, lets forget what Christendom's history is as a whole body views regarding ****sexuality. Religion's function is make people better people within the confines of its worldview. People who ascent to the worldview because they feel as though they recognize something genuine in it. Their are councilers who differ from one another in their advice and their approach. From what you said, it would appear that your advising council is going to mainly be from a non-Christian, or liberal Christian, counciler. Counciling is a good thing, but one must be selective about who they are going to trust to disclose such personal details. My recommendation for counciling is to get a referral from a Catholic/Orthodox priest and perhaps sit down and have a penatent talk with the priest. Even though you will not get absolution from them from not being a confirmed Catholic/Orthodox respectively, they can give you insites in dealing with temptation and other advise and their discussion with you is strictly confidential.

[GiGi]

This is what I call throwing out the bible for a postmodern worldview. Let's forget what the Scripture says, lets forget what Christendom's history is as a whole body views regarding ****sexuality. Religion's function is make people better people within the confines of its worldview. People who ascent to the worldview because they feel as though they recognize something genuine in it. Their are councilers who differ from one another in their advice and their approach. From what you said, it would appear that your advising council is going to mainly be from a non-Christian, or liberal Christian, counciler. Counciling is a good thing, but one must be selective about who they are going to trust to disclose such personal details. My recommendation for counciling is to get a referral from a Catholic/Orthodox priest and perhaps sit down and have a penatent talk with the priest. Even though you will not get absolution from them from not being a confirmed Catholic/Orthodox respectively, they can give you insites in dealing with temptation and other advise and their discussion with you is strictly confidential.
I don't know if the poster is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, if he's got brown or blue eyes, is left or right handed. I don't know the details of the ***aults against him. I only know what he has shared with us.
He was victimized. You know what that means, don't you? Few things negatively impact a person's mental health in the way sexual abuse does.
Counseling isn't for everyone, but if its going to be helpful, one must find a therapist, counselor, or physician that he/she is comfortable with. That person need not be religious (or not religious). If the counselor will further handicap the individual because he is not able to help his patient heal and accept who he is, its time to look for another professional.
I did not say to throw out the bible. I said don't let other people beat you over the head with it!

[TRiG]

I did not say to throw out the bible. I said don't let other people beat you over the head with it!Consider this a phantom rep point, since I can't give you a real one.

TRiG.:D

[GiGi]

Consider this a phantom rep point, since I can't give you a real one.

TRiG.:D
Thanks, Trig. Those are the best kind:). Love ya.

[Columcille]

Thanks, Trig. Those are the best kind:). Love ya.

It's not love, Trig, it is a firing of neurons in her brain that gives her a warm and fuzzy.

[GiGi]

It's not love, Trig, it is a firing of neurons in her brain that gives her a warm and fuzzy.
Its the firing of fuzzy neurons that keep the home fires burnin' :D

[TheWolfman99]

Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?

Because it is an unnatural act that goes against the way God intended things. Not to mention the Bible expressly condemns it.


Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?

Sins are an act against God. Although Christians will sin, knowingly and openly sinning, or defying God shows that a person is not saved. The unsaved will perish. A Christian will not continually sin against God. ****sexuality is a overt sin against God. Nowhere in the Bible are we told ****sexuality is fine or unsinful.


Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

****sexuality can have several negative effects on a person. Aids, hemmorhoids, etc.. to name but a few.


Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

I am sternly against ****sexuality as it is a sin against God. I do not, however, hate or even dislike ****sexuals themselves. I love them as Christ commanded me, but I will not ever waiver in that it's not okay.


Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

I'm not aware that it does.

[TheWolfman99]

Christians in the media tell a lot of lies. Always remember that.

TRiG.:)

I don't buy this. Can you give some examples? And I'm not talking about all the links you posted on that other thread. I looked through several of them and couldn't really see what you were talking about.

I'm talking about blatant lies by ACTUAL CHRISTIANS, not people, like Oprah, that claim to be one or something similar.

[Austin Canes]

Because it is an unnatural act that goes against the way God intended things. Not to mention the Bible expressly condemns it.

You do realize you are sharing a 'belief', and not that is an absolute for all to live by? I don't see where being ****sexual (possessing a ****sexual-orientation) is somehow "unnatural".

With all honor and respect to God, I can see where people have more than a few questions about human sexuality overall.


Sins are an act against God.

Right, "sins" (our very existence without grace), are against God... not ****sexual people in-particular.


Although Christians will sin, knowingly and openly sinning, or defying God shows that a person is not saved.

Yes, there are a LOT of unsaved "Christians" then.


The unsaved will perish.

So it seems.


A Christian will not continually sin against God.

I beg to differ with you, but I can sense the ideal you're after. People (not even "Christians") are THAT good.


****sexuality is a overt sin against God.

And DIVORCE wrecks families, like nothing else. :(


Nowhere in the Bible are we told ****sexuality is fine or unsinful.

Even so, the amount of vilification and focus upon that ONE human 'condition'... is simply ludicrous and leads many into HYPOCRISY.


****sexuality can have several negative effects on a person. Aids, hemmorhoids, etc.. to name but a few.

Heterosexuality has been ***ociated with the same; so what are you really saying here?


I am sternly against ****sexuality as it is a sin against God.

Ok, your conviction is noted.


I do not, however, hate or even dislike ****sexuals themselves.

Personally that might matter to you. Effectively, what matters are the human rights (by law) ****sexual people are afforded. The way you feel or handle it within yourself, isn't all there is to consider in reality.


I love them as Christ commanded me, but I will not ever waiver in that it's not okay.

And I can guarantee you that most ****sexual people who accept themselves... are waiting around to hear words of 'approval' from various "Christians".


I'm not aware that it does.

But ****sexuality gets FAR MORE ATTENTION THAN DIVORCE... why is that?

[Austin Canes]

...I'm talking about blatant lies by ACTUAL CHRISTIANS...

If you can show/prove what an "ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" is, and produce a foolproof method of detecting them... I'd be very interested.

[Columcille]

If you can show/prove what an "ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" is, and produce a foolproof method of detecting them... I'd be very interested.

Romans 10.9 "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Since we cannot see the heart, but only God. The first outward act upon seeing a person is their confession that Jesus is Lord. The moment that you dig deeper and find out which Jesus is he confessing, i.e. the LDS Jesus, the JW Jesus, or Jesus other than the one present in the Scriptures and consistently held by the Church throughout history, is only one divergence that the person is not a Christian. If they have the right Jesus, then what comes next is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as it was written in Sacred Scripture and maintained historically constant. I.e. a "Christian" professing that ****sexual acts are now acceptable when it has never been acceptable is a sure sign that they are apostate. The mere fact that a person struggles with temptation and falls is not necessarily a sign that negates him from being a Christian, but if he fails in his confession both the fact that he has the wrong Jesus or approves of a lifestyle inconsistent with the Lord's teachings is therefore not truly confessing Jesus as Lord in their life since he is not lording over their rebellious endorsement of such immoral lifestyles.

[Austin Canes]

Romans 10.9 "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."...

The reality is that people don't all interpret and believe the same things from the Bible.

This can all be argued in a virtually perpetual sense; I think that life is too short for that.

And certainly, ****sexual people need not and do not deserve being so singled-out as many Christian people have done to them; that needs to change, and likely will over time.

Peace and grace to you.

-Austin-

[Columcille]

The reality is that people don't all interpret and believe the same things from the Bible.

This can all be argued in a virtually perpetual sense; I think that life is too short for that.

And certainly, ****sexual people need not and do not deserve being so singled-out as many Christian people have done to them; that needs to change, and likely will over time.

Peace and grace to you.

-Austin-

Exactly, which is why Protestantism is considered a heresy due to its inclination to split because everyone wants to interpret without the continuity to the history nor the authority vested in the office of bishop of which Christ established to and through the apostles as Acts 1.20 can literally translate "office" as "bishopric" as also demonstrated by the KJV "bisho*****" and Strong's #1984 "episkope."

****sexuals deserve to be welcomed into the Church, but they would have to remain celibate and live a life of penance as does all the laity. One cannot support ****sexual acts and be in good standing with Christ. Just as any heterosexual Christian who may have fallen into adultery cannot support adultery as being acceptable and remain in good standing with Christ. If you want to support ****sexual unions approved of by God, you will have to scripturally demonstrate it and also show its consistency through Church history as acceptable. But you cannot, because the office of bishop as taught in the various councils, within the ECF writings, and all evidences do not substantiate your claim. Even if you are not a Christian, you have no distinct authority regarding Christianity, and if you are a professing Christian, you are apostate.

[Austin Canes]

...****sexuals deserve to be welcomed into the Church, but they would have to remain celibate and live a life of penance as does all the laity...

Sorry, but that will likely never be realistic.


...One cannot support ****sexual acts and be in good standing with Christ...

I disagree.

[Columcille]

Sorry, but that will likely never be realistic.



I disagree.

I haven't written for awhile on this forum topic, but disagreement does not put you as an authority for historical Christian teaching. Your disagreement with historic positioning of the Church throughout history is your drawback. If you could substantiate that ****sexuality has always been acceptable by God, that ****sexuals unions are approved, you would have come up with something more than just a mere statement of your disagreement.

[GiGi]

I haven't written for awhile on this forum topic, but disagreement does not put you as an authority for historical Christian teaching. Your disagreement with historic positioning of the Church throughout history is your drawback. If you could substantiate that ****sexuality has always been acceptable by God, that ****sexuals unions are approved, you would have come up with something more than just a mere statement of your disagreement.
The Church has the authority to interpret scripture for those who believe in the Church. There are other authorities and other interpretations.
It was only after much disagreement, editing, and probably some re-writing that the Church was able to settle on what Scripture is. What it means is still debated, even among authorities.
The problem for you is the failure of authorities to substantiate that ****sexuality is unacceptable.
Not that any of this has any bearing. Fortunately, the Church is no longer in charge. The issues of slavery, civil rights, abortion, and same-sex marriage are matters for secular courts to decide, and those decisions are made without consulting religious authorities.
We can not legally own slaves, no matter what the bible says. Civil rights are protected, even those of the decendents of Ham. Christians use birth control and abortion services. Soon same-sex marriage will recognized in every state. All of this is accomplished without religious sanction. That your god approves or disapproves is relevent only inside the walls of your church. When the service is over, members will return to a free society where they are protected by secular laws.

[Columcille]

The Church has the authority to interpret scripture for those who believe in the Church. There are other authorities and other interpretations.
It was only after much disagreement, editing, and probably some re-writing that the Church was able to settle on what Scripture is. What it means is still debated, even among authorities.
The problem for you is the failure of authorities to substantiate that ****sexuality is unacceptable.
Not that any of this has any bearing. Fortunately, the Church is no longer in charge. The issues of slavery, civil rights, abortion, and same-sex marriage are matters for secular courts to decide, and those decisions are made without consulting religious authorities.
We can not legally own slaves, no matter what the bible says. Civil rights are protected, even those of the decendents of Ham. Christians use birth control and abortion services. Soon same-sex marriage will recognized in every state. All of this is accomplished without religious sanction. That your god approves or disapproves is relevent only inside the walls of your church. When the service is over, members will return to a free society where they are protected by secular laws.

Unfortunately, I am not a Protestant. Your competing authorities are your problem, the Catholic and Orthodox Church has established positions, despite rogue priests who have to be corrected by canon law.

Secular authorities are not always in keeping with God's authority, and so it is not my concern to consult popular opinion since it is like a reed shaken every which way it ****s. It is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. While I am a citizen and vote my conscience, the realm I am focusing on is the orthodoxy of Christianity and not the secular governance. What the Church is in charge of, that is what is important to reflect on. A professing Christian who rationalizes their position as though God is alright with something with no precidence is a person whose claims are based on an idealization of the gospel being a social advancement of the secular society. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so the Gospel is not about social advancement of the kingdom of Man.

As such, I can give you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can quote the p***ages in Scripture as it was determined by Sacred Tradition from the influential council of Carthage that was reviewed at Trullo and ratified at an ecumenical council, and later restipulated at the Council of Trent. If you want to appeal to the number of Christians in the world, the Catholic faith is the largest and the Eastern Orthodox right behind it. However, I am not appealing to numbers... but to that which all Christians from every denomination rooted in historical continuity--as most Reformers would understand a continuation of its own "traditions" being consistent with Christian historicity. They would quote Augustine of Hippo to substantiate a continuity of Christian doctrine and morals because there was no other Church from which they started their reforms in their own time.

[GiGi]

Unfortunately, I am not a Protestant. Your competing authorities are your problem, the Catholic and Orthodox Church has established positions, despite rogue priests who have to be corrected by canon law.

Secular authorities are not always in keeping with God's authority, and so it is not my concern to consult popular opinion since it is like a reed shaken every which way it ****s. It is not consistent with the teachings of the Church. While I am a citizen and vote my conscience, the realm I am focusing on is the orthodoxy of Christianity and not the secular governance. What the Church is in charge of, that is what is important to reflect on. A professing Christian who rationalizes their position as though God is alright with something with no precidence is a person whose claims are based on an idealization of the gospel being a social advancement of the secular society. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so the Gospel is not about social advancement of the kingdom of Man.

As such, I can give you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can quote the p***ages in Scripture as it was determined by Sacred Tradition from the influential council of Carthage that was reviewed at Trullo and ratified at an ecumenical council, and later restipulated at the Council of Trent. If you want to appeal to the number of Christians in the world, the Catholic faith is the largest and the Eastern Orthodox right behind it. However, I am not appealing to numbers... but to that which all Christians from every denomination rooted in historical continuity--as most Reformers would understand a continuation of its own "traditions" being consistent with Christian historicity. They would quote Augustine of Hippo to substantiate a continuity of Christian doctrine and morals because there was no other Church from which they started their reforms in their own time.
Whether or not protestantism is fortuitous is hardly a problem for me. I will not be punished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed because I refused to submit the religious authorities.
These self-appointed interpreters of scripture regularly reinterpret the text (albeit slowly) to reinvent itself in a way that allows it to survive in a modern world. The text they interpret has been doctored, and they know it.
Christianity has a pretty ugly history. Nearly all of it, and it's morality, has been discarded.
You can thank secularity, not God or Church, for the freedoms you enjoy. These freedoms have been extended to all races, religions, creeds, both men and women. It will soon protect ****sexuals in the same way.
You say what's important to you are the things the Church is in charge of. Well, that ain't much anymore. It's a good thing, imho.

[Columcille]

Whether or not protestantism is fortuitous is hardly a problem for me. I will not be punished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed because I refused to submit the religious authorities.
These self-appointed interpreters of scripture regularly reinterpret the text (albeit slowly) to reinvent itself in a way that allows it to survive in a modern world. The text they interpret has been doctored, and they know it.
Christianity has a pretty ugly history. Nearly all of it, and it's morality, has been discarded.
You can thank secularity, not God or Church, for the freedoms you enjoy. These freedoms have been extended to all races, religions, creeds, both men and women. It will soon protect ****sexuals in the same way.
You say what's important to you are the things the Church is in charge of. Well, that ain't much anymore. It's a good thing, imho.

I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.

[GiGi]

I think we are talking on different planes. The Church ecclesiastic has seperate authorities. If a secular government wants to allign itself to the Christian Church because of the people's consent or the ruling cl***, that is upon them. Much of the supposed abuses you are alluding to are mostly from the secular government's fears of subversion. There are abuses by bad Catholics, and this only attests to the human condition that we need Christ. For all your ideals, there is not one person who is exempt from harming others in the name of progress. Since this is a Christian site, my focus should be on the Christian ethos as it is historically maintained in its teachings. Regardless of the errors of its members, it is the teaching authority that counts. If two athiests disagree with each other on any issue, it is based on a relative authority. If your own house is divided, it cannot stand; as the Church has split by Protestant denominationalism, those Churches' authority is based on a relativism that is inconsistent; when they adher to the fundamental and core teachings of the Catholic Church as the Trinity, Incarnation, the Resurrection and agree with its morals against ****sexual acts and against adultery... then it is because they understand the continuity of its teaching throughout history and essential to the Christian ethos.
This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.

[Columcille]

This is, indeed, a Christian site, and distinctly not Catholic. By comparison, you may have almost as many differences of opinion with its founder as with me. Yet here we are.
Many of the abuses I mentioned occured under theocratic rule, and later in tight religious communities. Only with the ever decreasing need for gods, and the religions they insire, has real freedom emerged.
That Jews were guilty of deicide, African slaves were decended from Ham, and marriage between people of different races and religions should be forbidden, has been taught continuously throughout history. The Church follows, rather than leads, but grudgingly.

If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.

[GiGi]

If you want to make a case that Christianity is compatible with ****sexual acts, it is best to lead with evidence of the nature that comes from the leaders of the Church through a historical continuity. There were several popes and patriarches of the Catholic and Orthodox Church from which you can look through their encylicals, from influential bishops from which the Churches look to as the highest examples and canonizes them with the ***le Saints.
****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.

[Columcille]

****sexuality may or may not be compatible. I've studied both sides of the arguement and I think it is. Not that it matters.
Christianity is as flexible as it needs to be. Interracial marriages are performed in Catholic churches following a change in perspective. Wait and see; the Church will be forced to reinterpret scripture in a way that allows inclusion of same-sex couples.

Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.

[GiGi]

Since almost two thousands years have past, I serously doubt it; but you are en***led to your opinion. I do not think "interracial marriages" is as big a problem, since there is precidence even with Mose marrying an Etheopian. Perhaps you are talking more about "interfaith marriages?" At any rate, I find it very difficult to make such equations where there is no equality between the two subjects as ****sexual unions and interracial marriages. There is no precidence for ****sexual marriages in the Church, only that we recognize that people struggle with the flesh... even heterosexuals lust and can lead them to fornication and adultery. ****sexual acts are prohibited in the Catholic Church and I find it very difficult for the Church to change its position when the Catechism is very direct on the matter.
I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.

[Columcille]

I know that you are very knowledgable about the Church. I certainly am not.
I simply felt I needed to remind you that same-sex marriage will be recognized by all states in the relatively near future. I believe the Church will adjust its position eventually, as it has done regarding other issues it previously, strongly opposed.

Well, the only real positions I think you are referring to are position of the Episcopalian, Lutheran, and other Churches.

Let me think this out for you a little better:
Catholic Church teaches:

****sexual acts are sinful and defective... in the Catechism, has not changed its opinion.

Woman ordination... is not allowable... code of canon law sets out proceedings of excommunication toward the priests who attempt to give holy orders to woman and also to the woman themselves... =Catholic Church is in the stone age by current en vogue secular opinion.

Birth Control, media still gives us a lot of trouble with this one. We have not come around yet. Also there is an automatic excommunication to Catholics who procure an abortion per Code of Canon Law.

Slavery? Catholic Church has existed and tolerated with its reality with Pagan Rome, but has been against the notion of ownership as can be seen by Paul's letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus being treated as a brother and not a slave and as the Church has maintained throughout history condemning it during its heights of ins***ution in Europe and America, again tolerating its reality when the secular governments support it. You will be hard pressed to find an encyclical by a pope or patriarch of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches that specifically endorses it. In fact, here is a papal encyclical notworthy in its universal address and condemnation of slavery by Pope Paul III en***led "Sublimus Dei"
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
Also by Pope Eugene IV en***led "Sicut Dudum" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm. Also "In Supremo Apostlatus" by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839 and read in Baltimore no less. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm

In matter unrelated to doctrine but of science, the Church's authority is not concerned. Its authority is on doctrine and morals, so I am sure you would probably make reference to Galileo or perhaps quote Aquinas' crackpot scientific notions about the movement of heavenly bodies in his Summa Theologia; of which there is nothing related to the formation of preexisting doctrine and morals.

[GiGi]

Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.

[Columcille]

Many argue that there is no ****ogy to be made between the practice of slave ownership and unequal treatment of ****sexuals. I beg to differ.
The Church supported slavery - and gradually changed its position. As I said before, the Church follows. It doesn't lead.
Throughout recorded history people have used others as slaves. It existed in Jesus time, and when the NT was being written.
In the 4th century C.E. The Council of Gangra wrote in support of slavery and it became part of the Church's Canon law.
A lot was written by Catholic and Protestant leaders, for and against, before the Emancipation Proclimation in 1865. Pope Gregory XVI condemned "unjust" slavery; whatever that means!
It was 1866 when the Vatican issued a statement "Slavery is NOT CONTRARY to natural or divine law".
Sure, the Church opposes slavery now. My point to you is, the Church may be the last to give legitimacy to ****sexuals, but it will do so.
Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?

[GiGi]

Just because slavery existed during Jesus time, does not mean Jesus endorsed it. You will have to back up your statements with support. I have given you the N.T. letter to Philemon by Paul, I have given you three papal encyclicals condemning slavery before the height slavery in America and in Europe. Did you not read it? The last Encyclical I gave you was outright condemning slavery in 1839 read in Boston. That is before 1866! You will have to support your statements with a work citation. Otherwise you are promoting prejudice of others who wish to character ***issinate with no regard to truthful information. If you don't understand Pope Gregory XVI, go to the encyclical I linked for context. But this is not related to ****sexuality, you don't seem to bring the comparisons around. How could you make a comparison when you don't even cite your sources?

Did I say Jesus endorsed slavery? The papal encycicals you gave were wishy-washy, vague, and worthless. I understand that Pope Gregory XVI opposed only slavery that he believed was unjust.
The Vatican finally issued a statement in 1965 - The Pastoral Cons***ution on the Church in the Modern World - that made its anti-slavery position more clear.
We can agree that was a good thing, however, it was too little, too late. It was also, in my own opinion, the begining of the end of Christianity. Rejection, by the Church, of p***ages in the bible that prescribe and regulate slavery cast doubt on the inerrant Word of God.
African slaves, and African Americans were enslaved, discriminated against, and marginalized while the Church endorsed, was silent, or failed to strongly oppose this - just like in the bible.
****sexuals are prosecuted, imprisoned, victimized, marginalized, and denied basic human rights - while the Church spouts scriptural support, is silent, or fails to strongly oppose it - just like in the bible.
There's your comparison. Take it or leave it. Only time will tell, and I expect you and I will be long gone before the Church re-writes history in its favor. Again.

[Columcille]

Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.

[GiGi]

Time is no justification against principles. Jesus is the righteous judge, and the scriptures are very clear on ****sexual acts and the Church has always maintained it. You have not yet produced any context or citations. You are very confused about the Catholic Church indeed. Until you start presenting your slander with citations so it can be checked in context and testing its reliability as a primary or secondary source material, you remain promoting falsehoods. I saw nothing in your last post to substantiate the claim, and nothing will be forthcoming because your ideas are not from Catholic sources or from any historical record coming from the Vatican. Let us try this from the top, please present your citations.
I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?

[Columcille]

I didn't said the church ever condoned or accepted ****sexuality. I said it will. Read my posts.
Now you want slander with citations! Oh puleeez!
Are you still telling me that the Vatican has always opposed slavery? Why didn't they just say so? Why couch the message in ambiguity?

I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?

[GiGi]

I have given you some very good material in regards to the Church's opposition to slavery. I have given you three encyclicals. You have given me NONE. In my book, it is your accusation against the Catholic Church on slavery that needs to be researched and cited. You make a comparison as though it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church did this or that, that is a logical fallacy to make ***umptions that "everyone knows such and such to be true" when it is a popular propoganda campaign that seeks to discredit what it fears or dislikes. How can you even make a comparison as though the Catholic Church changed its moral position if you cannot even produce relevant and accurate information to substantiate your claims?
First of all, this thread is about ****sexuality, not slavery, but since I compared the controversy around slavery, and the slow, but eventual change in the Church's position, I will make one last post on the subject. With any luck, we can simply agree that there's more than one way to view this.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/slavery.pdf
Lest we forget, Pope Gregory IX support for the slave trade was incorporated into cannon law and Pope Gregory XI ordered that the Florentines be enslaved if captured.
Pope Martin V sanctioned the trade in African slaves (Bull 1441). 1454 Nicolos V wrote:
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...[78]

Look. We can go on like this forever. Fact is some abhored slavery (Pius II), others approved, still more remained neutral.

Now for women, ****sexuals, and other yucky folk:
http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/

[Columcille]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

Pope Nicolas V states:
Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.

[GiGi]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
The article from the same that you give in the PDF. I have stated before that the Church tolerated slavery due to the secular governments support. I believe Fr. Pantzer does address the problem very clearly. It must be remember from St. Paul's letter to Philemon that the slave's treatment was to be like that of family and not as animal or possessions since we are all "slaves" to Christ. Those that remained neutral more than likely faced hostility by the governments, and I have no doubt that open war was considered a greater evil than a rogue nation that sought to enslave others. There is a real balance to consider when it comes to the politicing of the Vatican and what the Vatican actually teaches. I have already found one problem with your (1441) bull. The Pope at that time was Pope Eugene IV. If he was a pope, he was an antipope. Which makes him not capable of ex cathedra pronouncements. Pope Nicolos V on the other hand is not making a treaty on slavery, but giving King Alfonso whatever means is necessary to preserve the Catholic territories from pagan influence. This is therefore not a doctrinal statement of endorsement of slavery, this is for "perpetual rememberance."
If you read the above encyclical, you would see the context of King Alfonso's progress.

Pope Nicolas V states:
Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.
I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.

[Columcille]

I hope I've shown that documents expressing anti-slavery sentiments were not as clear as they might have been had they included some unambiguous language; Don't import or export slaves. Don't buy slaves. Don't sell slaves. Don't own slaves. Don't support the people who do. No exceptions.

I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.

[GiGi]

I think you haven't read it well enough what you did present. The father who wrote the article shows how the magesterium retained its authority on the matter on morality. This you overlooked trying to pin-point what you think were obvious objections, of which he answers.

This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.

[Columcille]

This ain't rocket science! If the Pope wants to say NO to slavery, just say it. Period. No B.S.

The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.

[GiGi]

The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.
You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!

[Columcille]

You say slavery is the fault of secular government, but I haven't attempted to blame anyone. That's beside the point.
We both know the Pope(s) couldn't make a clear anti-slavery statement, even if he wanted to. So, please stop pretending that he did!

You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.

[asdf]

The problem with your conception is that it does not portray reality. When slavery is ins***uted openly, it is the fault of the secular government. As such, there are uneasy political agreements made due to the nature of secular power. So when Paul, who was an apostle... and very much as authoritative as any other patriarch and pope, says to Philemon to treat Onisemus as a brother, he was dealing with a reality of its ins***ution as the Pagan Empire enforced. I am sure that Sparticus was still a strong reminder to the Roman Empire. Personally I think you should watch a few Nazi movies to see the bravery of people like Sophie Scholl. When the Pope speaks out on topics concerning slavery, especially very forcefully put, it could be seen as interfering or undermining a secular authority, and if that secular authority deems to wage war... I do not think the Pope would be willing to attempt to start it. Seems to me the B.S. comes from too many wrong ***umptions about how the Catholic should operate according to your biases and submit to your sentiments.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that it wants to have it both ways. When it wants to influence secular government, it has no problem attempting to put its moral authority to use. See JPII's condemnation of the Iraq war, or the modern church's opposition to condoms.

But then when it wants to escape responsibility for its failure to use its voice, it falls back on the old "We're just following along with cultural reality!"

[Columcille]

The problem with the Catholic Church is that it wants to have it both ways. When it wants to influence secular government, it has no problem attempting to put its moral authority to use. See JPII's condemnation of the Iraq war, or the modern church's opposition to condoms.

But then when it wants to escape responsibility for its failure to use its voice, it falls back on the old "We're just following along with cultural reality!"

JPII in generally condemns all wars. And the Church still opposes condoms. The question is in regards to the teaching authority on Doctrine and Morals and if the progression of doctrine and moral comp*** has changed significantly enough to contradict itself. Since the Church hasn't bowed to secular opinion on the matter of condoms is actually a sign of its consistency. The fact that JP condemns the Iraq war has nothing to discredit the Church's position on "just war." Was JPII's position on the Iraqi war somehow changed the doctrine? The same goes with ****sexuality, it will not change its moral stance because the stance has been quite clear over the ages.

[GiGi]

You should reread what you cited. What has changed for the secular governments is in some part the Catholic Church's teaching to its laity. You should think that the Catholic Church is not some sort of secular political en***y that can stop evil in the world, it cannot. Evil is something from which is close to every one of us, you and I are not immune; your ideals could be just as high as ours, but regardless it does nothing to the corrupt human nature. You should give up trying to bash the Catholic Church, especially since you still are not good at citing your sources. The Father you quoted demonstrated well enough how it did not affect the teaching on doctrine and morals.
You've got it backwards. The fact is, the church is willing to bend for secular government, and society in general, of which its members are a part.

Did I suggest the church could "stop evil"? I don't think I did! That's nonsense. It refused to stop pedophile preists!!! Just one more difficult situation the church didn't have enough backbone to stand up and face.
Moral teaching, my foot!

I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/pope-condoms-not-the-answ_n_175623.html
Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?

I'm not bashing the church. The Pope is already doing a fine ***.

[GiGi]

..... it will not change its moral stance because the stance has been quite clear over the ages. Clear as mud.

[Columcille]

I wanted to show that the language your leadership employed was vague and ambiguous. It was difficult to interpret then, and is still discussed today, because it wasn't perfectly clear. You have offered excuses and I understand them. Those were tough times.

On the use of condoms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/pope-condoms-not-the-answ_n_175623.html
Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Would you care to explain to me how the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS?

The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.

[GiGi]

The only real stop to the spread of AIDS is firstly, stop drug users from sharing needles; so perhaps abstinance of illegal drug use is better than handing out needles and telling people to go ahead and "shot up." The same goes for the other avenue of spreading AIDS by sexual impurity. Two virgins having a truly monogomous relationship is a sure way of not contacting AIDS, unless a person with AIDS rapes and victimizes one of them. Handing out condoms is the same as handing out needles... it only reinforces the behavior to continue in disrespecting the sanc***y of the body reducing the person's iden***y to a piece of meat or continuing in the enslavement of bad habits.

Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'. The groups that provide these things also provide educational and resourse information. The needles and bleach may help keep some alive while they, and society work on addiction issues.
Your Pope says the best way to avoid sexually transmitted HIV is to remain abstinent until you marry a partner who is (somehow) guarenteed to be faithful and disease free. Anything less and you die!
On the one hand, you want us to remember that Popes had to deal with slavery in a world were slavery existed. You want us to understand that they couldn't realistically make definative anti-slavery statements.
On the other hand, you seem to accept the unwavering (and public) Catholic position against condom use.
Seems to me, the Church is not as comfortable in the livingroom as it is in the bedroom.

[TRiG]

Giving clean needles and bleach to addicts is not the same as saying 'shoot up'.

It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

TRiG.:)

[GiGi]

It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

TRiG.:)
Yep. And I don't mind saying that the Pope's statement has, and will continue to contribute to countless unnecessary deaths and creates a countless number of orphans.

[Columcille]

It's a strategy called "harm reduction". It works. In the real world.

TRiG.:)

In the real world, we are corrupted. AIDS is only a symptom of where the real problems lies. Winning a few battles does not mean you win the war. Christ requires all of us to pick up our cross and follow him. We could list all the ways in which we all die, but it is how we live for God that matters. In this sense the ****sexual, the drug user, the adulterer, the compulsive liar, the gambler, and all grave sinners generate sacrilege... because instead of them allowing God to use them for good, they refuse. God operating within them, they fail to see they are His work.

[GiGi]

In today's real world we don't need a miracle to prevent or cure leprosy. We have psychiatric medications that treat mental illness instead of prayers to cast out demons. We use drugs to control epilepsy, not exorcism. We use antipyretics for fevers. We understand and cope with a variety of plagues head-on. We don't cower in caves as we await judgement!
Your Pope(s) seem afraid of the real world. Maybe they should just stay out of it!!!

[Columcille]

In today's real world we don't need a miracle to prevent or cure leprosy. We have psychiatric medications that treat mental illness instead of prayers to cast out demons. We use drugs to control epilepsy, not exorcism. We use antipyretics for fevers. We understand and cope with a variety of plagues head-on. We don't cower in caves as we await judgement!
Your Pope(s) seem afraid of the real world. Maybe they should just stay out of it!!!

There are new leprosies, ones not so easily cured by medication. Even if medications may treat some illnesses, nobody is immortal. The only immortality one can hope for is found in a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness. However, such ideals seem fantasy, and it is in Christ where the checks and balances are maintained. What is your gospel? Is it to create a political utopia? The Pope's role is to guide the sheep of Christ. Hence, he could no more "stay out of it" than to commit suicide just for your idealized new "reality." Is this your ultimate answer? That us Christians would be better off dead and out of your way from gaining your ideal utopia?

[GiGi]

There are new leprosies, ones not so easily cured by medication. Even if medications may treat some illnesses, nobody is immortal. The only immortality one can hope for is found in a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness. However, such ideals seem fantasy, and it is in Christ where the checks and balances are maintained. What is your gospel? Is it to create a political utopia? The Pope's role is to guide the sheep of Christ. Hence, he could no more "stay out of it" than to commit suicide just for your idealized new "reality." Is this your ultimate answer? That us Christians would be better off dead and out of your way from gaining your ideal utopia?

I looked and couldn't find a new leprosy. It's the same old leprosy. It's a bacterial infection and it's treated and cured with antibiotics. The disease has ceased to be a public health threat in all but 12 countries.
Pathogenic bacteria is not divine retribution. It is not the result of "sin". Jesus cured a leper, but modern medicine has cured many thousands of cases, and prevented many thousands more in the last century.
It is true that the victims are mortal, as are the professionals who research, and develop treatments. Even so, we research, develop, and impliment treatments.
I never understood the quest for immortality. To get it you have to look to the supernatural. We have to "affect a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness", which, according to the Pope means letting die anyone who doesn't manage his/her sex life the way your god and your church says they should.
Keep your definition of noble, your sex manual, your checks and balances, and your quest. I don't want it.
What is my gospel? What on Earth are you going on about?!?
I didn't say the Pope shold tell people to stay out of it. I said the church's involvement is HARMFUL, and he really should stay out of it!
Is increased health and wellness on a global scale too idealistic for the church? It might mean re-evaluating its position on the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, and that won't happen right now. The Pope won't let people live a little longer and maybe find their way to your christ. No way! It's all right now, or nothing!
You suggest I want you christians dead for some personal agenda? What's the matter with you?!?
I must say, you're starting to sound like one of those paranoid, extremist, fringe groups. All I can say is, DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

[Columcille]

I looked and couldn't find a new leprosy. It's the same old leprosy. It's a bacterial infection and it's treated and cured with antibiotics. The disease has ceased to be a public health threat in all but 12 countries.
Pathogenic bacteria is not divine retribution. It is not the result of "sin". Jesus cured a leper, but modern medicine has cured many thousands of cases, and prevented many thousands more in the last century.
It is true that the victims are mortal, as are the professionals who research, and develop treatments. Even so, we research, develop, and impliment treatments.
I never understood the quest for immortality. To get it you have to look to the supernatural. We have to "affect a noble character, in fulfilling as one is capable to affect goodness", which, according to the Pope means letting die anyone who doesn't manage his/her sex life the way your god and your church says they should.
Keep your definition of noble, your sex manual, your checks and balances, and your quest. I don't want it.
What is my gospel? What on Earth are you going on about?!?
I didn't say the Pope shold tell people to stay out of it. I said the church's involvement is HARMFUL, and he really should stay out of it!
Is increased health and wellness on a global scale too idealistic for the church? It might mean re-evaluating its position on the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, and that won't happen right now. The Pope won't let people live a little longer and maybe find their way to your christ. No way! It's all right now, or nothing!
You suggest I want you christians dead for some personal agenda? What's the matter with you?!?
I must say, you're starting to sound like one of those paranoid, extremist, fringe groups. All I can say is, DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically. We are all going to die, if not by AIDS, by cancer, by heart attack, by thousands of ways. You want to cure AIDS, you want to cure cancer, you want to cure heart attacks, you want to cure all the things which physically kill a person. This is all well and good, but it is the activities with which people engage in that really matter; are they a good husband and wife, are they a good sibling, a good child, a good friend, a good neighbor? You want to cure AIDS and say that giving out needles is a preventative, it may be... but the drugs can still overdose the addict, the drugs can still ruin families, the drugs of which their addiction puts them at risk to even get AIDS... since they are mind altering drugs and therefore they may share needles even if given clean ones when not under the supervision of those caring folks that hand out needles and talk so highly of education. People are ultimately dumb to engage in illegal drug activity, and no matter of education stops the behavioral damage upon friends and family. This is where Christ's gospel comes in and where you stay silent. You have no real gospel to give, all your solutions are vanities if there is no ultimate purpose to go with it. Your talk so far demonstrates that "health" is your gospel.

I am not being paranoid, but your private belief that Christians are damaging to society is ultimately annilistic. You desire all people of religions to abandon their "supers***ions" and live in a society free of religion. This is not a realistic ideal. The Christian ethos has existed for two thousand years and has faced the winds of change. Your ideals are going to shift eventually, for the world's philosophies are not progressive.... they are inconsistent. No matter how good a person's health is, it will fail. The ****sexual lifestyle is not consistent with wholesome family values. No matter how much one tries to promote in the media outlets or sway public opinion, the erotic love that exists between the same sex is not efficient.

[GiGi]

Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically. We are all going to die, if not by AIDS, by cancer, by heart attack, by thousands of ways. You want to cure AIDS, you want to cure cancer, you want to cure heart attacks, you want to cure all the things which physically kill a person. This is all well and good, but it is the activities with which people engage in that really matter; are they a good husband and wife, are they a good sibling, a good child, a good friend, a good neighbor? You want to cure AIDS and say that giving out needles is a preventative, it may be... but the drugs can still overdose the addict, the drugs can still ruin families, the drugs of which their addiction puts them at risk to even get AIDS... since they are mind altering drugs and therefore they may share needles even if given clean ones when not under the supervision of those caring folks that hand out needles and talk so highly of education. People are ultimately dumb to engage in illegal drug activity, and no matter of education stops the behavioral damage upon friends and family. This is where Christ's gospel comes in and where you stay silent. You have no real gospel to give, all your solutions are vanities if there is no ultimate purpose to go with it. Your talk so far demonstrates that "health" is your gospel.

I am not being paranoid, but your private belief that Christians are damaging to society is ultimately annilistic. You desire all people of religions to abandon their "supers***ions" and live in a society free of religion. This is not a realistic ideal. The Christian ethos has existed for two thousand years and has faced the winds of change. Your ideals are going to shift eventually, for the world's philosophies are not progressive.... they are inconsistent. No matter how good a person's health is, it will fail. The ****sexual lifestyle is not consistent with wholesome family values. No matter how much one tries to promote in the media outlets or sway public opinion, the erotic love that exists between the same sex is not efficient.
You will defend a Pope with real-world arguments when he doesn't decisively oppose slavery.
You will defend a Pope with other-worldly arguements when he does unambiguously oppose the use of condoms to prevent HIV.
Efforts to keep people alive and as healthy as possible may be why you and I are here today. Modern medicine is the reason infant mortality is relatively low. It's the reason more children survive to adulthood to have children of their own.
Call it vanity if you think so, but I support the efforts of people who dedicate their lives to helping others live to see another day. I support the efforts of people who use that additional time to improve the lives of at-risk populations.
OH THE IRONY! The church no longer cuts short the lives of heretics, blasphemers, and enemies of christ overtly. It can't use the death sentence it once imposed to coerce people into servitude. Today, a subtler approach is required.
You say I have a private belief that christians damage society. Not true! I have not made my beliefs a secret. I'll spell it out for you.
Religion, all of it, including christianity in all of its guises and disguises, are harmful to individuals and societies. Is that clear enough?
Do I want everyone to abandon religion? Sure I do. But by now you know I don't resort to wishful thinking as a solution to any problem.
The fact that people are becoming less religious as each generation is more educated, gives me hope.

[Columcille]

you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.

[GiGi]

you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.

Earth to Columcille. Are you there?
That "created being at birth" you celebrate might, not long ago, have died before it learned to walk if we left it up to your god. Instead the death my hope cannot escape happens 70, 80 years later.
You have a misty, magical hope for life after death. My hope lies in tangible solutions to real world problems.
I wouldn't trade my values, my morality for yours EVER.
I will try in some small way to love my neighbor right here, right now while the Pope makes ridiculous claims that injure or kill, and if I wake up again after I'm dead to find myself face to face with one of the gods, I may fare better than the Pope and his "sheep" who contributed to suffering and death as a means to "lift mankind above his moral circumstances".

[GiGi]

you hope is meaningless. It does nothing to stop immortality. It does not lift mankind above his mortal circumstances. A created being at birth, whence we are given joy at such innocence and wonder; in death, your hope cannot escape.
BTW. Your team hasn't stopped immorality, lifted mankind above blah, blah, blah.......

[TRiG]

Apparently you missed the whole point of my post. You were looking at the word "leprosy" and not getting beyond the deseases which kill physically.

That's because that's what the word leprosy means. If you want to use the word with some metaphorical meaning, you should make that clear, which you didn't.

You're spitting out a lot of words with no meaning, as far as I can work out.

TRiG.:)

[GiGi]

That's because that's what the word leprosy means. If you want to use the word with some metaphorical meaning, you should make that clear, which you didn't.

You're spitting out a lot of words with no meaning, as far as I can work out.

TRiG.:)
Sometimes we can justify our behavior by using literal, reality based examples, and at other times, we must resort to metaphor. It just depends on how desparate we are to avoid responsibility.

[Columcille]

Seems I hit a nerve.

Well GiGi, I'd have to say only thing in regard to your criticism of the Catholic Church. You certainly are not one to cite bibliographical information enough and you certainly haven't given much by way of contextual support to your claims. Primary sources of what the Church teaches is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with clear bibliographical sources to writings of past Popes, Saints, and Councils. You are one to try and cite secondary source materials or even outside sources. This to me demonstrates your inability to understand the teachings of the Church from its dealings as an ecclesiastical body to pressures from the World as well as false teachers who try to infiltrate from within.

If you want an educational dialogue, it is well to remember context and citing appropriate sources. As such, I find our current dialogue tiring and wasteful. I'll try and remember to put you in my prayers.

[GiGi]

Seems I hit a nerve.

Well GiGi, I'd have to say only thing in regard to your criticism of the Catholic Church. You certainly are not one to cite bibliographical information enough and you certainly haven't given much by way of contextual support to your claims. Primary sources of what the Church teaches is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with clear bibliographical sources to writings of past Popes, Saints, and Councils. You are one to try and cite secondary source materials or even outside sources. This to me demonstrates your inability to understand the teachings of the Church from its dealings as an ecclesiastical body to pressures from the World as well as false teachers who try to infiltrate from within.

If you want an educational dialogue, it is well to remember context and citing appropriate sources. As such, I find our current dialogue tiring and wasteful. I'll try and remember to put you in my prayers.
My nerves are untouched. Thanks for your concern.
You may take comfort in the church's propoganda, but I simply can not accept that the Pope is our best resource in matters of faith and morals. That's because the Vatican denied, concealed, paid off victims, and did anything else it could to avoid taking responsibilty for crimes commited by its clergy against children. Moral?
The Vatican wants to regulate your sex life, and mine. It wants to tell us not to use barrier protection in places where 1 in 4, or even 3 adults are infected with HIV.
The church and the Pope have proven unworthy of trust. These behaviors are simply unacceptable. Catholics must stand up to its leadership and demand it behave honestly, morally, and honorably. If they can't or won't...well, shame on them!
Actually, now that I think of it, this has touched a nerve. How dare he place dogma above the welfare of human beings, children? Do you honestly believe the decision to hide child abusers was a moral one? Do you honestly believe the births of babies infected with HIV serves some higher purpose?
My 7 year old knows it isn't. Do you?
Please do not pray for me. Get off your knees and tell all your friends, enough is enough, and stop enabling wrong-doers.

[Columcille]

Again, it is not "propoganda" that we are discussing, it is the teachings.

I will agree with you that priests and others commit sins, but this is not reflecting or touching on the consistency of the teaching. And you don't have to become Catholic, nobody is forcing you or twisting your arm. If a person wants to be a good Catholic, they must recognize what its teachings are; it is here where your criticism of my Church is most streneous, for a ****sexual who might happen to be a professing Catholic must remain celibate in order to be within the rubic of a good Catholic. The "regulation" is within the boundaries of what it means to be a Catholic. If you think it is unreasonable, so be it; but you are not Catholic, so it does not concern you.

[GiGi]

Again, it is not "propoganda" that we are discussing, it is the teachings.

I will agree with you that priests and others commit sins, but this is not reflecting or touching on the consistency of the teaching. And you don't have to become Catholic, nobody is forcing you or twisting your arm. If a person wants to be a good Catholic, they must recognize what its teachings are; it is here where your criticism of my Church is most streneous, for a ****sexual who might happen to be a professing Catholic must remain celibate in order to be within the rubic of a good Catholic. The "regulation" is within the boundaries of what it means to be a Catholic. If you think it is unreasonable, so be it; but you are not Catholic, so it does not concern you.

If the shoe fits....
You know better than most, certainly better than me, what the church teaches.
I'm less concerned about what it teaches than about what it does.

[Columcille]

If the shoe fits....
You know better than most, certainly better than me, what the church teaches.
I'm less concerned about what it teaches than about what it does.

Well, if you look at everyone's life, no person is above reproach. This is a teaching of whole Church, that we are all sinners. The problem is based on a threefold relationship between the interaction of the devil tempting our carnal natures with thoughts of pleasure and easiness and the ideas from which are promoted within society with "peer pressure." Ever get the thought about smoking a joint because a person is promoting the idea that "everyone does it" or it is fun and then provides you with the opportunity to test the drug? The person promoting it part of the World, the thoughts which at first tell you it is a bad idea comes from an inner conscienceness which is first a childhood conscienceness from parental punishment vs. reward mentality, but which behind it lies the God within all of us. The moment the idea comes to us is unpreventable, the ideas which attempt to persuade us though it appears in our minds as our own thoughts are not really our own, it becomes our own when we take pleasure in the thoughts, and in thought we proceed to action, of which action because habitual it leads to habit, then during such actions the person not only does it, but approves of others in doing the very same thing.

Considering the endorsements you give, the manner in which you find the teachings of a person unimportant, whereas you place the greatest on your own views despite any personal problems or sins you commit in the name of your rationale, I would not be surprised that you despise Christ's instruction to "judge not, lest you be judged."

I am grateful for the amount of forgiveness that Christ has granted me through the Church. I am grateful that I can look forward to the resurrection. What do you look forward to GiGi if an accident comes around the corner and your life as a breath is taken away? Or perhaps you live to be a 110 years old and death is knocking on your threshold? It does not matter if AIDS or cancer is cured unless it embodies a grace from which reconciliation and a new chance in life allows you to be the best of which God intended as a friend, as a mother, as a sister, and as all the things that define you as truly human. In some ways, death is a gift.

[GiGi]

Well, if you look at everyone's life, no person is above reproach. This is a teaching of whole Church, that we are all sinners. The problem is based on a threefold relationship between the interaction of the devil tempting our carnal natures with thoughts of pleasure and easiness and the ideas from which are promoted within society with "peer pressure." Ever get the thought about smoking a joint because a person is promoting the idea that "everyone does it" or it is fun and then provides you with the opportunity to test the drug? The person promoting it part of the World, the thoughts which at first tell you it is a bad idea comes from an inner conscienceness which is first a childhood conscienceness from parental punishment vs. reward mentality, but which behind it lies the God within all of us. The moment the idea comes to us is unpreventable, the ideas which attempt to persuade us though it appears in our minds as our own thoughts are not really our own, it becomes our own when we take pleasure in the thoughts, and in thought we proceed to action, of which action because habitual it leads to habit, then during such actions the person not only does it, but approves of others in doing the very same thing.

Considering the endorsements you give, the manner in which you find the teachings of a person unimportant, whereas you place the greatest on your own views despite any personal problems or sins you commit in the name of your rationale, I would not be surprised that you despise Christ's instruction to "judge not, lest you be judged."

I am grateful for the amount of forgiveness that Christ has granted me through the Church. I am grateful that I can look forward to the resurrection. What do you look forward to GiGi if an accident comes around the corner and your life as a breath is taken away? Or perhaps you live to be a 110 years old and death is knocking on your threshold? It does not matter if AIDS or cancer is cured unless it embodies a grace from which reconciliation and a new chance in life allows you to be the best of which God intended as a friend, as a mother, as a sister, and as all the things that define you as truly human. In some ways, death is a gift.
I thought the Pope's announcement regarding the spread of HIV by condoms was immune to any serious error. I stand corrected. :cool:
The enemy is a devil playing around with our nature, messing around with our thoughts, and peer preasure. :eek:
You've asked if I've ever been tempted to smoke a joint. Yes, but not as an adult. Of course I have known tons of people who do that. I've always been a pragmatist. The risk outweighs any potential benefit.
Believe it or not, I have heard or read many myths about post-mortem rewards and punishments. None are very convincing. We are natural creatures, animals, ****sapiens, great apes. There is no invisible piece in us that links us to an invisible supernatural being in some other-world.
We have evolved into creatures better able to manipulate our environment than most other animals. We have devised ways to improve our circumstances, and ways to mess things up.
When I die, I will be dead in the same way everything alive will be dead someday. That's about it. My hope is that I get from here to there without causing too much trouble, and that those I leave behind will remember me with some fondness.
BTW: If I "judge not", it's not because I'm concerned about divine judgement. It's because I have empathy. If I do judge (speak out) it's because I'm a person p***ionate and committed to particular ideals. So, I proclaim loudly my distain for any person who would use his authority to affect negative outcomes in our battle against HIV/AIDS.

[Columcille]

Your battle to end HIV/AIDS, is it not due to the fact that it kills?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is it not due to the their sons being killed or injured by drunk drivers?

The fact is you are fighting death. Death kills even your ideals. You treat the symptoms, but it does not take away death.

Now here is something I am learning... the Secular Franciscan fraternity that I am going to move from orientation to inquiry in a few months has an apostolate ministry to AIDS patients. They help pay for their housing, eat with them, help spread the word on how people cannot contact AIDS by normal interaction, and other such useful ***istance. We do not want to cure AIDS because it kills, we want to cure AIDS because it give them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth. While we say we are ministering to them, in reality they minister to the Franciscans. For all your philosophical banterings, it is the Franciscans that actually do something. This is why forums are starting to loose its luster for me. It is not inciting meaningful action. I have a fraternity, it is not just the Franciscans... it is the whole Catholic Church, it is even with seperated brothers and sisters in Christ.

[GiGi]

Your battle to end HIV/AIDS, is it not due to the fact that it kills?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is it not due to the their sons being killed or injured by drunk drivers?

The fact is you are fighting death. Death kills even your ideals. You treat the symptoms, but it does not take away death.

Now here is something I am learning... the Secular Franciscan fraternity that I am going to move from orientation to inquiry in a few months has an apostolate ministry to AIDS patients. They help pay for their housing, eat with them, help spread the word on how people cannot contact AIDS by normal interaction, and other such useful ***istance. We do not want to cure AIDS because it kills, we want to cure AIDS because it give them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth. While we say we are ministering to them, in reality they minister to the Franciscans. For all your philosophical banterings, it is the Franciscans that actually do something. This is why forums are starting to loose its luster for me. It is not inciting meaningful action. I have a fraternity, it is not just the Franciscans... it is the whole Catholic Church, it is even with seperated brothers and sisters in Christ.

We call it death because ---we die! Until then, we live. See how easy that is?
I think it's just fine that you and your group are making an effort to help. You may conclude, after working with these patients, prevention "because it gives them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth" is a better way to go.
Of course, in places where HIV affects a large percentage of the population, you will have plenty of work to do. Every time one dies prematurely from AIDS there will another to take his place because he didn't protect himself.
You say it's the Franciscans that are doing something, as if they are unique. The Pope said, the Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront of the battle against AIDS. He also said, "condoms increase the problem". Both statements are false.
In comparing me to these Franciscans, you suggest I'm all talk. I wonder what makes you think so.
Do you really think it's the Church, and not healthcare workers at the forefront? Do you believe professionals who volunteer their time to clinics are less effective? Do you think people in healthcare - people like me - should stop testing, stop educating, stop working, and just tell folks to go to church instead?

[Columcille]

We call it death because ---we die! Until then, we live. See how easy that is?
I think it's just fine that you and your group are making an effort to help. You may conclude, after working with these patients, prevention "because it gives them a chance at living life to its God given potential; and even in the face of death, their God given potential can yet shine forth" is a better way to go.
Of course, in places where HIV affects a large percentage of the population, you will have plenty of work to do. Every time one dies prematurely from AIDS there will another to take his place because he didn't protect himself.
You say it's the Franciscans that are doing something, as if they are unique. The Pope said, the Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront of the battle against AIDS. He also said, "condoms increase the problem". Both statements are false.
In comparing me to these Franciscans, you suggest I'm all talk. I wonder what makes you think so.
Do you really think it's the Church, and not healthcare workers at the forefront? Do you believe professionals who volunteer their time to clinics are less effective? Do you think people in healthcare - people like me - should stop testing, stop educating, stop working, and just tell folks to go to church instead?

I did not say say you are "all talk," but I do say that your message you deliver is inconsequential. You offer no meaning to death, no resurrection, no consistent moral comp*** but what is relative to your kind.

[GiGi]

I did not say say you are "all talk," but I do say that your message you deliver is inconsequential. You offer no meaning to death, no resurrection, no consistent moral comp*** but what is relative to your kind.

Oh my....
This is worse than I thought. It's one thing to have faith that your god will provide an afterlife for you. It's quite another to act on the belief that real world solutions to real world problems are "inconsequential". :(
I once spoke with a Catholic lady who invited me to her church. I worked most Sundays and declined, but in the course of conversation, she suggested I look into part-time work at a Catholic hospital.
One of my interests is end of life care, and the good work hospice does both in and outside of the hospital, and I mentioned it to her. She adopted the facial expression of a person who'd smelled something appauling.
When she relaxed a little, she said the medications given often cause the person to sleep more, and might make them less aware. Well, I patiently explained that the patient is given a good deal of control over how much is given. I also explained that the medication might be for pain, anxiety, or to ease breathing, and sleepiness is a common side effect.
She countered, the medicine can shorten life (which is sometimes true), and the patient must be allowed time and clarity to repent.
It seems like the long way around, but now I realize she was saying what you just plainly stated. Maybe that's the hidden message in the comments made by the Pope.
My message, to prevent and alleviate suffering and pain, in this world is inconsequential. INCONSEQUENTIAL.
That's the reason religion, all of it, is dangerous!!!

[Columcille]

What is that "Real World" cliche again? Sort of like a mantra, but it has no purpose for living except living. If you want to see a non-Christian movie that I think portrays what I am talking about, I would suggest you watch "Ikiru" (means in Japanese 'to live') by Akira Kurosawa.

[GiGi]

I prefer: It's not what if, it's what now. ~Author Unknown
and: No yesterdays are ever wasted for those who give themselves to today. ~Brendan Francis
I read the plot summary and it says, a guy who learned he was dying decided to spend the time he had left getting a park built. Sounds like his service to the community was his legacy.

[Columcille]

The summary does not give it much justice. Akira Kurosawa is Japan's greatest director. The tranformation of the protagonist is truly remarkable. You will have to realize that what he was building as his legacy up to the point of finding out he had stomach cancer was nothing. The park itself was only a prop to the real story. He is threatened by Yakuza, he is comforted by a novelist who acts as his "Mephistopheles" and attempt to comfort the protagonist with all the flamboyance of a life filled with women and enjoyment.

[GiGi]

The summary does not give it much justice. Akira Kurosawa is Japan's greatest director. The tranformation of the protagonist is truly remarkable. You will have to realize that what he was building as his legacy up to the point of finding out he had stomach cancer was nothing. The park itself was only a prop to the real story. He is threatened by Yakuza, he is comforted by a novelist who acts as his "Mephistopheles" and attempt to comfort the protagonist with all the flamboyance of a life filled with women and enjoyment.
Please take a moment to look at this list and the photos next to each item.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vpcd.htm
Do you have children?
If we start believing that the legacy of science medicine has no lasting value, then it won't.
We have enjoyed record low levels of these (and more) childhood diseases, but if vaccines become unimportant to us, they will return and children will die---lots of them.

[Columcille]

Please take a moment to look at this list and the photos next to each item.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vpcd.htm
Do you have children?
If we start believing that the legacy of science medicine has no lasting value, then it won't.
We have enjoyed record low levels of these (and more) childhood diseases, but if vaccines become unimportant to us, they will return and children will die---lots of them.

No, I do not have children.

I have not stated medical science is worthless. I have stated in so many words that the message is ultimately meaningless. An ancient Jewish philosophy work, if it can be called that, states it fairly explicitly that a man's work is meaningless. "Vanity of vanities" does Ecclesiastes state. The final conclusion although is "Fear God/And keep His commandments. For this is the whole man. For God will bring every work into judgement, Including everything that has been overlooked, Whether it be good or evil" (OSB).

Which is better, to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is no God; or to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is a God?

Now before I go further, I want to make one distinctive point. If you support governments to give the vaccinations to the Children in poverty, how much more should you praise the Christian Charities for doing the same? For if the governments are sponsoring it, then it is the burden of all taxpayers including Christians-- but of a Christian charity that operates on the volunteering of support and not mandated by a government en***y... is this not commendable since we are both paying our taxes and giving even further, yet we have a message of hopefulness that surp***es the same medical care that has no concern over a higher moral comp*** than "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."

[GiGi]

No, I do not have children.

I have not stated medical science is worthless. I have stated in so many words that the message is ultimately meaningless. An ancient Jewish philosophy work, if it can be called that, states it fairly explicitly that a man's work is meaningless. "Vanity of vanities" does Ecclesiastes state. The final conclusion although is "Fear God/And keep His commandments. For this is the whole man. For God will bring every work into judgement, Including everything that has been overlooked, Whether it be good or evil" (OSB).

Which is better, to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is no God; or to give Children vaccinations and tell them there is a God?

Now before I go further, I want to make one distinctive point. If you support governments to give the vaccinations to the Children in poverty, how much more should you praise the Christian Charities for doing the same? For if the governments are sponsoring it, then it is the burden of all taxpayers including Christians-- but of a Christian charity that operates on the volunteering of support and not mandated by a government en***y... is this not commendable since we are both paying our taxes and giving even further, yet we have a message of hopefulness that surp***es the same medical care that has no concern over a higher moral comp*** than "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die."
You have not used the word worthless, and I didn't say you did. You've used other adjectives; meaningless and inconsequentional were two, if memory serves. You also said it has no lasting value. I think I've addressed those.
Do you know a nurse or doctor, in a secular environment, that tells his/her patients there is no god? I certainly don't. On the other hand, Christian Charity workers do make god-statements, according to your post.
I don't know about religious colleges and universities, but we are taught cultural responsibility, and my employer insists on cultural competency.
About cost/benefit; your clinics have volunteers, our clinics have volunteers. They're non-profit and tax exempt. Whether it's a religious or secular wellness clinic, public money may be used to substidize its cost.
Facilities that recieve public money commit to certain conditions. For instance, they may not discriminate.
That can be a problem if a patient comes to a Catholic-run clinic with low ***er antibodies in need of a booster, but is admittedly atheist, ****sexual, or some other kind of "enemy", because employees and volunteers may not engage in religious activities.
If your Catholic hospital or clinic wants to promote its religious agenda, it can not do so with tax dollars, and I can't tell people there's no god. Under these circumstances - where tax money is involved, I'd say we're even.

[Columcille]

Considering the kinds of hospitals that Catholics do have, the kind of work that is done in Calcutta when Mother Teresa was there... We are not discriminatory in the least. In fact, it was when big government wants to force the Catholic Church to accept and endorse ****sexual marriage, does the real problem exist. What is interesting is you give empty generalizations with nothing to substantiate your biases. Here is one for the Christians to rally around-->government attempting to force Catholics to believe and support something contrary to our beliefs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html

[GiGi]

Considering the kinds of hospitals that Catholics do have, the kind of work that is done in Calcutta when Mother Teresa was there... We are not discriminatory in the least. In fact, it was when big government wants to force the Catholic Church to accept and endorse ****sexual marriage, does the real problem exist. What is interesting is you give empty generalizations with nothing to substantiate your biases. Here is one for the Christians to rally around-->government attempting to force Catholics to believe and support something contrary to our beliefs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html

I'm not a fan of Mother Teresa, but that's another story.
The government is not trying to force the Catholic Church to accept, endorse, or believe anything it doesn't want to.
The Church applies for government substidy and agrees to terms before it gets the money. It's choice to reduce benefits for everyone, rather than offer the same to all, is its choice to continue getting government checks.
The Church has decided what's most important to them. They knew they couldn't have it both ways.
What generalizations have I made? I think I simply showed that religious facilities are not better.

[Columcille]

The stipulations of the Government in the case I cited interfered with religious conviction. The Catholics had to reject giving employee's spouses insurance because it would be forced to accept the Government's definition of marriage allowing for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic charities giving aid to sick people, so the government's stipulations were politically motivated to attempt pressure on the Catholic Church to change their religious beliefs through government ***istance.
It is a good thing that the Catholic Church found a loop-hole, but it makes the near 100 employees who do cover their spouses' health insurance a crime at which the Washington D.C. officials are to blame.
Since you are for such underhanded tactics of the politicians, and even ungrateful for ALL taxpayer's money, not just your own, I think you should be a little more considerate at who is really paying more for the care of the sick and suffering. I see more Catholic hospitals around the country than I do see "Athiest" hospitals.

[GiGi]

The stipulations of the Government in the case I cited interfered with religious conviction. The Catholics had to reject giving employee's spouses insurance because it would be forced to accept the Government's definition of marriage allowing for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the Catholic charities giving aid to sick people, so the government's stipulations were politically motivated to attempt pressure on the Catholic Church to change their religious beliefs through government ***istance.
It is a good thing that the Catholic Church found a loop-hole, but it makes the near 100 employees who do cover their spouses' health insurance a crime at which the Washington D.C. officials are to blame.
Since you are for such underhanded tactics of the politicians, and even ungrateful for ALL taxpayer's money, not just your own, I think you should be a little more considerate at who is really paying more for the care of the sick and suffering. I see more Catholic hospitals around the country than I do see "Athiest" hospitals.
Applicants for public money are made aware of anti-discrimination laws, and must agree to abide or forfeit the money.
The law prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, *** ***ignments, promotions, and discipline. It also prohibits practices that seem neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people.
Race, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age......if the church discriminates-which is perfectly okay-it can do so and still keep its tax exemption, but it can't get additional funding from the government.
The same rules protect against religious discrimination.
Same-sex couples pay taxes just like everybody else.
If you still think this is "underhanded", explain why the Church agreed to the terms in the first place; terms clearly spelled out from the beginning. The "loop hole" is, the church chooses money over so-called religious conviction.
I've never seen a hospital run by bowlers, quilters, marathon runners, or atheists. Do you mean secular hospitals? In that case, the answer is pretty clear.

[Columcille]

Applicants for public money are made aware of anti-discrimination laws, and must agree to abide or forfeit the money.
The law prohibits discrimination in all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, *** ***ignments, promotions, and discipline. It also prohibits practices that seem neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people.
Race, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age......if the church discriminates-which is perfectly okay-it can do so and still keep its tax exemption, but it can't get additional funding from the government.
The same rules protect against religious discrimination.
Same-sex couples pay taxes just like everybody else.
If you still think this is "underhanded", explain why the Church agreed to the terms in the first place; terms clearly spelled out from the beginning. The "loop hole" is, the church chooses money over so-called religious conviction.
I've never seen a hospital run by bowlers, quilters, marathon runners, or atheists. Do you mean secular hospitals? In that case, the answer is pretty clear.

I see hospitals that are extentions of universities, Vanderbuilt in Nashville is an example. I see some built by Christian universities and organizations as St. Thomas in Nashville and there are a few Baptist ones also in Nashville. Secular hospitals, similiar to run of the mill country hospitals, tend to get a lot of support by secular means. Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government. You seem to be the one that wants to force out religion from hospitals and possibly you would want to see religion forced out of existence. Your ideals for a religionless country is simply not a realistic expectation. Our needs to attribute meaning to the universe, and to the existence of injustice that needs to be righted, and cooping with death (as a beginning of our journey--as people will by their psychological makeup tend to speak to a tombstone as though the deceased is listening) makes us naturally a religious/philosophical people. You cannot removed Church from State, since politicians may be Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, but State should not infringe on the Church--as though it endorces any one religion over the other. What Washington D.C. did with pushing the ****sexual agenda onto Church run hospitals is a violation of religious freedom.

[GiGi]

I see hospitals that are extentions of universities, Vanderbuilt in Nashville is an example. I see some built by Christian universities and organizations as St. Thomas in Nashville and there are a few Baptist ones also in Nashville. Secular hospitals, similiar to run of the mill country hospitals, tend to get a lot of support by secular means. Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government. You seem to be the one that wants to force out religion from hospitals and possibly you would want to see religion forced out of existence. Your ideals for a religionless country is simply not a realistic expectation. Our needs to attribute meaning to the universe, and to the existence of injustice that needs to be righted, and cooping with death (as a beginning of our journey--as people will by their psychological makeup tend to speak to a tombstone as though the deceased is listening) makes us naturally a religious/philosophical people. You cannot removed Church from State, since politicians may be Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, but State should not infringe on the Church--as though it endorces any one religion over the other. What Washington D.C. did with pushing the ****sexual agenda onto Church run hospitals is a violation of religious freedom.

You ***ume:
I want to force religion out of hospitals, and out of existence. Not true.
I want a religionless country. Not true.
The universe must be given some "meaning". Not true.
All injustices must eventually be addressed. Not true.
Death demands religion. Not true.

Corrections:
We can separate Church and State.
There is no such thing as "****sexual agenda".
The right to religious freedom is protected.

Facts:
The Church applied for public money.
The Church understood and agreed to terms and conditions.
The Church will abide by all terms and conditions, or forfiet the money.
The Church can keep its tax exemption either way.

[GiGi]

Please explain:
" Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government."

[Columcille]

Please explain:
" Since everyone pays taxes, it should be acceptable that all hospitals should get some ***istence from the government."

Self-explanatory. Government should not dictate to the Church to cover health insurance to ****sexual spouses, the Church defines the relationship of marriage to be between a man and a woman.

[GiGi]

Self-explanatory. Government should not dictate to the Church to cover health insurance to ****sexual spouses, the Church defines the relationship of marriage to be between a man and a woman.
The government does not dictate anything to the church. It allows organizations to apply for subsidy. Applicants agree to terms and conditions.
The church can define marriage any way it wants to, but it can not discriminate at tax payer expense.
The church knows this from the start. It agrees. It recieves money.
Why is this so hard to understand?

[Columcille]

The government does not dictate anything to the church. It allows organizations to apply for subsidy. Applicants agree to terms and conditions.
The church can define marriage any way it wants to, but it can not discriminate at tax payer expense.
The church knows this from the start. It agrees. It recieves money.
Why is this so hard to understand?

As a republic, our elected officials do not always speak on all issues equally.
The will of the government is not always consistent with the will of the people. It is not a perfect system, but the Catholic Church is a system which is well defined on doctrine and morals. What I think you have to understand is that "government" money is money that is taken from all taxpayers regardless of their religious affiliations or worldview. Hence, when it is making policy, it needs to exempt religious affiliations from redefining their stance on doctrine and morality. When government starts to enforce their idea of morality and belief (particularly secular humanism), they have crossed the boundaries into the Church. If you want full seperation of Church and State, then the State needs to know where to get off the bus.

[GiGi]

As a republic, our elected officials do not always speak on all issues equally.
The will of the government is not always consistent with the will of the people. It is not a perfect system, but the Catholic Church is a system which is well defined on doctrine and morals. What I think you have to understand is that "government" money is money that is taken from all taxpayers regardless of their religious affiliations or worldview. Hence, when it is making policy, it needs to exempt religious affiliations from redefining their stance on doctrine and morality. When government starts to enforce their idea of morality and belief (particularly secular humanism), they have crossed the boundaries into the Church. If you want full seperation of Church and State, then the State needs to know where to get off the bus.
One more time.
Church. State.
Church is free to do church stuff without government interference. It's right to do so is protected.
Government represents tax payers; White and Black, Catholic and Southern Baptist, Deaf and Blind, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, collectively.
They are separate.
Your Church asked the government to get involved.
Your Church asked for money to serve the needs of a community.
Your Church promised to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for the money.

What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
The church wants tax money and exemption from paying taxes. It wants to benefit from a government contract, yet has no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. It wants public support without oversight. Yeesh!
If your religious leadership wants full separation from State, then the Church needs to get off the bus----and stay off!!!!

[Columcille]

One more time.
Church. State.
Church is free to do church stuff without government interference. It's right to do so is protected.
Government represents tax payers; White and Black, Catholic and Southern Baptist, Deaf and Blind, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, collectively.
They are separate.
Your Church asked the government to get involved.
Your Church asked for money to serve the needs of a community.
Your Church promised to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for the money.

What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
The church wants tax money and exemption from paying taxes. It wants to benefit from a government contract, yet has no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. It wants public support without oversight. Yeesh!
If your religious leadership wants full separation from State, then the Church needs to get off the bus----and stay off!!!!

The state does not have to give anything to the Church, it mostly like does because it is providing a public service. Telling the Church to not establish hospitals just because you think it is the Government's *** to be the all benevolant with taxpayer money is not a solution. There are moral stances of the Church that are protected by religious freedom. A government body telling my Church they must accept the definition of ****sexual marriage is a violation of that right.

[GiGi]

The state does not have to give anything to the Church, it mostly like does because it is providing a public service. Telling the Church to not establish hospitals just because you think it is the Government's *** to be the all benevolant with taxpayer money is not a solution. There are moral stances of the Church that are protected by religious freedom. A government body telling my Church they must accept the definition of ****sexual marriage is a violation of that right.
Non-profits get public money to provide a public service. They apply for it.
Who is telling the Church not to establish hospitals?
No one can tell the Church to accept ****sexual marriage. No one should. No one will.
If the Church agrees to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for substidies, then the Church must refrain. It's no more complicated than that.
You should really take this up with the Church since they agreed to the terms you find unacceptable.

[Columcille]

Non-profits get public money to provide a public service. They apply for it.
Who is telling the Church not to establish hospitals?
No one can tell the Church to accept ****sexual marriage. No one should. No one will.
If the Church agrees to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for substidies, then the Church must refrain. It's no more complicated than that.
You should really take this up with the Church since they agreed to the terms you find unacceptable.

They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.

[GiGi]

They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.
They agreed to terms. They chose to keep the money.

[asdf]

...Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.

I read most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03590:@@@L&summ2=m&summary) before it was p***ed into law. You had every opportunity to do so, also—as did your elected representatives.

If a thorough, good-faith discussion and debate on the Act's merits was not forthcoming, presumably it may have had something to do with ****hards bloviating about "death panels" and other such nonsense.

[TRiG]

What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
Phantom rep point since I can't give you a real one.

TRiG.:)

[GiGi]

They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.
Just to clarify; they had to agree to certain terms to get subsidies.

[alanmolstad]

My answers in BLACK




Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?
A- The Bible says so, Case Closed!

Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
A - Yes, any sin not covered under the blood of Christ will cause the person to burn forever in Hell



Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?
A- it could be, but the objections against it are not based on health, but on scripture.

Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?
A - Its a sin

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?
A - because of so many gay and pro-gay people in the liberal media that seek to push their ideas onto the rest of us.

[asdf]

A- The Bible says so, Case Closed!


Yawn. :rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

answers in BLACK




Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?
Because God says so...


Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
Yes,


Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?
With the issue of HIV and AIDS known to all, do we even need to ask this question anymore?


Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?
"Personally?"......Personally the subject never much comes up so its a non-issue.

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?
The liberal media is filled with the GAYS.

[asdf]

My answers in BLACK



Yawn. :rolleyes:


answers in BLACK


Just as boring this time 'round.

[alanmolstad]

Just as boring this time 'round.
It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..



REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

[asdf]

It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..

No, fortunately I can tell the difference between "the Bible's views" and alanmolstad's views, so I'm not disheartened in the least.


REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

Wow, people still say that unironically? That was a tired pun twenty years ago.

[alanmolstad]

Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a consequence of being raped/sexually abused?

.

I was a guest on a Christian radio show back in the mid 90s and this topic came up.
There were 3 gays with me along with another Christian and myself on a panel.
There was a guy there that was from ACT UP, who did not want to even talk about the fact that being Gay might be the result of anything but their own free choice.

There was a Lesbo there who also believed she was **** from birth.

and there was a gay lawyer type guy who was there to push Gay Rights.

At first all 3 of them stated very flatly that they were gay from birth, and that it was their own natural way...

However later in the show we got off on some other topics, and suddenly the girl started to cry and confess that she had been ***aulted as a very young child.
The show then took a turn as the other two GAYS also confessed to having been a victim of rape and sexual abuse by family members.

Later they asked me if being GAY was natural?...or was it a choice?....I paused before I answered....

"Looking at the other members of this panel has shown me tonight that there is unspeakable damage that can be done to the psyche of a person should they be harmed to this extend as a child."....I went on.... "Do I believe any of these 3 people were born Gay?, no, not for a second. But what has become clear is that they have been messed up, and their being Gay is simply the after-effect of things they were beyond their control and understandings"

[alanmolstad]

No, fortunately I can tell the difference between "the Bible's views" and alanmolstad's views, so I'm not disheartened in the least.


.
So you think the bible does not support every word I have said?.....You think there is a difference between what Im saying about the eternal ****ation of the GAYs and what the bible says is their eternal fate?

[asdf]

So you think the bible does not support every word I have said?.....You think there is a difference between what Im saying about the eternal ****ation of the GAYs and what the bible says is their eternal fate?

Of course there's a difference. For starters, the words "gay", "****sexual", and "****sexuality" do not occur in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures (to say nothing of your all-caps versions or your use of the slurs "****" and "lesbo")—nor is there any straightforward statement equating attractional orientation with "sin" or with an "eternal fate".

But you'd know all this if you were using the Bible to form or influence your views, rather than using your culturally ***umed prejudices and projecting them back onto the scriptures.

[alanmolstad]

So you really think God has said that being a GAY is a good idea?...LOL...

Denial, not just a river in Egypt...LOL



God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!...case-closed!

[asdf]

Yes, bluster, mockery, and rote repetíton are always excellent options if you'd prefer not to deal in good faith with the actual words of my post. Congratulations.

[ActRaiser]

It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..



REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!


I was a guest on a Christian radio show back in the mid 90s and this topic came up.
There were 3 gays with me along with another Christian and myself on a panel.
There was a guy there that was from ACT UP, who did not want to even talk about the fact that being Gay might be the result of anything but their own free choice.

There was a Lesbo there who also believed she was **** from birth.

and there was a gay lawyer type guy who was there to push Gay Rights.

At first all 3 of them stated very flatly that they were gay from birth, and that it was their own natural way...

However later in the show we got off on some other topics, and suddenly the girl started to cry and confess that she had been ***aulted as a very young child.
The show then took a turn as the other two GAYS also confessed to having been a victim of rape and sexual abuse by family members.

Later they asked me if being GAY was natural?...or was it a choice?....I paused before I answered....

"Looking at the other members of this panel has shown me tonight that there is unspeakable damage that can be done to the psyche of a person should they be harmed to this extend as a child."....I went on.... "Do I believe any of these 3 people were born Gay?, no, not for a second. But what has become clear is that they have been messed up, and their being Gay is simply the after-effect of things they were beyond their control and understandings"

Interesting. I know this answer was months ago, but it's interesting that I still get answers to this everyonce in a while.

[Tom Boots]

Question # 1:
Why is ****sexuality a sin?
It is against God and his word seen in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans.

Question # 2:
Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
No, as true Christians are not ****sexuals, ****sexuals are sinners and someone not saved, because they aRe still sin if they are ****sexual.
Christians are not such, they are saved.

Note: I think a Christian can be ****sexual, I do however, believe in the Bema Seat.

I (Tom Boots ) reject both ideas.

Question # 3:
Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

Yes, mentally, they know they are sinning and against the word if they read it, even those who have never read it, feel insecure and against nature.
Physically they have in the ****sexual male community suffered terrible diseases, like aids and std's.
Spiritually they are a undercl***, they know they are not following the God given plan of male with female, that women cannot have babies without some giving in to their false idea (in past) and today using special insemination procedures.


Question # 4:
What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

It is sin and sin separates them from God and thus a ability to feel free and correct.
This is why ****sexuals have committed suicide, lived shorter lives, always seeking some fulfillment and not being able to marry legally.
Today we see laws changing by liberals and antichrists, but their marriages will not be accepted by God.
I don't like it, don't treat them hatefully, but believe they must repent what they do and stop and get right with God, I believe it can transcend generations in families because they rejected truth.
I don't generally ***ociate with any as they don't happen to be in my circles, one attends church now and then, when he is not in a backslider state on drugs and Sexual perversion.

Question # 5:
Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

Well I see both as sin, both are accepted or being accepted by communists, liberals, Democrats and some Fepublicans,but as far as my church the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal church....no, we reject it.
Tom
Tom Boots Apostolic

[alanmolstad]

Interesting. I know this answer was months ago, but it's interesting that I still get answers to this everyonce in a while.

I went over your questions, and the answers that had had for each, and I think they were some of my best works yet.

I read over the comments by the pro-gays poster, and I find his arguments lacking...
basically the guy is attempting to make the Bible say anything "but" what it actually says,,,,,LOL