Dilemma of Being Homosexual

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinity

No.

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

Trinity

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

That's another great example. Thanks, Trinity!

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

---

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

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinity

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

Trinity

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

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

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinity

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

Trinity

---

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


Asdf has stated the following:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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


Asdf has stated the following:


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

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

---

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

By the law of the State.

Trinity

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinity

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

Trinity

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinity

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

Trinity

---

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

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

What part of this do you not seem to understand?

2357 ****sexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---

There is a rule and there is a reality.

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

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

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

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

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

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

I hope my position is more clear and without ambiguity.

Trinity

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

I am in complete accord with you Collumcille.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heart2Heart

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

---

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

As the Council of Trent says:

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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

---

That was also the reproach that Gandhi had made on the Christians of his time. He had said that he has liked our Christ but not his Christians. The good thing is that some of us are perpetually changing ,and with time, grace, and knowledge we can become a better person, and a better citizen. A positive force in this world. I am today a different individual that I was twenty years ago, or even two years ago, and I am still in this process to become more educated about my inside man, each day.

I always try to be sincere, honest, and informed before judging any situation. I also acknowledge that I can be wrong because of a lack of knowledge or just because of a bad perception.

There is many similarities between the American Civil War and the Christendom. We are also brothers against brothers. And yes, we should be ashamed for what we had done in the past and for what we are doing even today. Rejecting Christ because of bad Christians is not in my opinion a sufficient reason.

Trinity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing...

---

Quite the contrary, actually.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

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

Acts 11.26:

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

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

OED definitions:

A. adj.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.

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

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

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

B. n.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



When you state "Christ like," it is generally of the adjective #3 and #5because it is related to conduct and not belief. Even in the noun usage, it appears your usage resembles #2 and #3. However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;

Quote:

---

"Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't."

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

I'm very sorry that you were molested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

The whole group, yes.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

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

---

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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

---

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

Would not have.....if?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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

---

Thank you for your comment.

It reminds me of the following:

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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jade84116

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

---

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

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

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

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