Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 120

Thread: Dilemma of Being ****sexual

  1. #51
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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

  3. #53
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default 2357

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    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.

  4. #54
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  5. #55
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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

  6. #56
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by Columcille; 04-16-2009 at 08:20 AM. Reason: added question regarding laity.

  8. #58
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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
    Last edited by Trinity; 04-16-2009 at 12:23 PM.

  9. #59
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Columcille; 04-16-2009 at 01:03 PM.

  10. #60
    GraftedIn73
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  11. #61
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heart2Heart View Post

    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

  12. #62
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  13. #63
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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.

  14. #64
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    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.

  15. #65
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    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

  16. #66
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing...
    Quite the contrary, actually.

    and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like."
    Erm, do you know the etymology of the word "Christian"?

  17. #67
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  18. #68
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Christian OED

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

    Acts 11.26:

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

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

    OED definitions:

    A. adj.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.

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

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

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

    B. n.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    When you state "Christ like," it is generally of the adjective #3 and #5because it is related to conduct and not belief. Even in the noun usage, it appears your usage resembles #2 and #3. However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;
    "Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't."
    When you quote scripture, you are not contextualizing it. When we do the contextualizing for you and point out errors of your interpretation, wether we go to the Greek language, point out other sources that explain its context, you will eventually just ignore it and move to another criticism. I have to wonder why you are here. Did some professing Christian hurt you? What is your ax that you are grinding? I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals, I see wolves attempting to clothe themselves in sheeps clothing and intermingling with the sheep and overpowering the shepherds on watch... the Episcopal Church USA being just one example. I am not tolerating such idiocy or putting my head in the sand hoping it will not infect the Catholic Church or the other "seperated brothers and sisters" whom I know love the Lord. The Church has let you down, but it is not our doctrinal positions nor our moral stances from which your attacking us. Your attacking us because you love your sin.

  19. #69
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  20. #70
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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...

  21. #71
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  22. #72
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The whole group, yes.
    CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  23. #73
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post

    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.

  24. #74
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  25. #75
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •