L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Does it have to?
- Status
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
LOL, did you read all the relevant sections? It completely states Church teaching. And I agree with all of it. Which is why we as Catholics can kill.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
If you want to call your opinion “Catholic” then yes.
I am wondering aside from your feelings, do you have any basis for your unorthodox opinions?
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Can you please be more specific?
What do you mean by basis?
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Only in self defense.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Deo
Melinda’s suggested rules seemed to me to be moving towards putting love at the heart of the debate. Others’ disagreements read, to me, as if they were saying, “No–when you encounter gays, above all you must correct or chastise them.” This seemed to miss the point entirely, and appeared to elevate correction or chastisement in themselves into greater values or imperatives than the love from which true correction and chastisement comes and from which Melinda’s list seemed to spring.
Melinda is off center in doing that. These forums are not about love. Nobody is debating the need to put love at the center. What we are trying to put at the center is truth. Love cannot exclude Truth, any more that Truth can exclude Love. They are both in God and they are to be in us. Sodomy is sick and evil. That is a truth, but you will never find a homosexual who will admit it. We don’t get back to the love of God if we are in love with evil and sickness. Only truth can liberate us from that evil. So long as men and women are blind to their perverse acts, they have lost both Truth and Love. This is a hard truth, and there is, for homosexuals, not way to soft soap it. Begin to tell them the truth and you hear yelling about lack of love and bigotry.
But it’s that attitude which, it seems to me, informs the comment that someone made that the elephant in the room was sodomy and how horrible it is, the inference being that anal sex was central to the sexual identity of male homosexuals. That was news to me.
Don’t be disingenuous.
Ask any prisoner.
Melinda’s suggested rules seemed to me to be moving towards putting love at the heart of the debate. Others’ disagreements read, to me, as if they were saying, “No–when you encounter gays, above all you must correct or chastise them.” This seemed to miss the point entirely, and appeared to elevate correction or chastisement in themselves into greater values or imperatives than the love from which true correction and chastisement comes and from which Melinda’s list seemed to spring.
Melinda is off center in doing that. These forums are not about love. Nobody is debating the need to put love at the center. What we are trying to put at the center is truth. Love cannot exclude Truth, any more that Truth can exclude Love. They are both in God and they are to be in us. Sodomy is sick and evil. That is a truth, but you will never find a homosexual who will admit it. We don’t get back to the love of God if we are in love with evil and sickness. Only truth can liberate us from that evil. So long as men and women are blind to their perverse acts, they have lost both Truth and Love. This is a hard truth, and there is, for homosexuals, not way to soft soap it. Begin to tell them the truth and you hear yelling about lack of love and bigotry.
But it’s that attitude which, it seems to me, informs the comment that someone made that the elephant in the room was sodomy and how horrible it is, the inference being that anal sex was central to the sexual identity of male homosexuals. That was news to me.
Don’t be disingenuous.
Ask any prisoner.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
2261
2263
2265
2267
and many others
It might also be noted that in the hebrew, greek, latin (the "original’ languages… that the word is “Murder” in the Bible.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
No, not only in SELF defense. Read it again. This is a great example of how you can twist something into your own view rather than what is True. You stated it was always wrong. You are wrong.
When I am wrong, (which is often) I then graciously accept it with the humble attitude that each and every one of us has something to learn.
perhaps we should leave this and get back to the subject at hand.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Dakota
I’m not saying the Old Testament is invalid I’m saying that the laws in it are no longer in force.**
The Ten Commandments are no longer in force?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.”
I’m not saying the Old Testament is invalid I’m saying that the laws in it are no longer in force.**
The Ten Commandments are no longer in force?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.”
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Also the Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II condemns the use of the death penalty 
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelium_VitaeNo, not only in SELF defense. Read it again. This is a great example of how you can twist something into your own view rather than what is True. You stated it was always wrong. You are wrong.
When I am wrong, (which is often) I then graciously accept it with the humble attitude that each and every one of us has something to learn.
perhaps we should leave this and get back to the subject at hand.
But ok i will stop.
I think i have restated my opinions on this matter enough times.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
And if that had anything to do with what we are talking about it would be a nice addition. Although I’ll bet you are overlooking some valuable qualifiers in the document…Also the Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II condemns the use of the death penalty
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
ohh wikipedia…
How about the original document:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
From the wikipedia article…
Nice to bring the topic back around!
Again, if you read it it does not agree with your position.
J
John21652
Guest
You said, in post #347 “…all killing is wrong not just murder.”
Now you are saying some killing is not wrong.
Bit mixed up, aren’t we?
And on a lot of things.
And you’ve derailed the thread with your own personal version of religion.
Why don’t you go start your own thread topics and tell the whole world how the Church has got it all wrong?
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Wikipedia sucks that i can agree on.ohh wikipedia…
How about the original document:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
From the wikipedia article…
Nice to bring the topic back around!
Again, if you read it it does not agree with your position.
Now lets just get back on topic…
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
You are clearly overreacting.
Just because i disagree on one issue does not mean i disagree on all issues.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
:banghead::banghead:
Your “one issue” is the authority of the Church and the validity of her Bible…
J
John21652
Guest
You are clearly very mixed up.
In one post you say all killing is wrong.
In another post you are saying not all killing is wrong.
You are mixed up about a lot of things because you think your opinion is more important than anyone else’s. That’s wrong too.
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
No it is the interpretation of the bible.
And i am not saying i am right per definition.
I could be wrong, but i doubt it.
No offense intended.
D
damian_clarke
Guest
I do not think I was referring to mental illness although I would suspect that may well be higher. I was referring to physical illness and the risk of interpersonal violence.
Anal sex puts one at risk for Human Papilloma Virus infection which puts one at risk for anal warts and squamous carcinoma of the anal canal. This is true of all who engage in anal sex as the receptive partner. In Sweden there is epidemiological work to link the increased risk of squamous carcinoma of the anus with anal sex and exposure to HPV. I agree with you that HPV also puts women at risk for cancer of the cervix. Cancer of the cervix is associated with early onset of sexual intercourse and with multiple sexual partners.
The lifestyle of the bathhouses of Castro Street can be accessed on wikipaedia but is better documented in the source I referenced. In the hagiographical movie “Milk” starring Shaun Pennn this aspect of the gay lifestyle was conspicuosly absent.
- Status