10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I guess it’s a tad presumptuous of you (pardon the chastisement) to chastise me and others who never said they believed in “a God who smites us all the time and who invites us to smite each other” as if it were a full time occupation. D

No need to guess, Charlemagne, you’re absolutely right. My apologies.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy. Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No offense but this whole topic seems filled with hypocrisy…

 

[John21652]

Either way, though, I cannot affirm that Jesus’ and Paul’s acts of correction indicate that we have an obligation to chastise. As St. Augustine points out, our one law, our one obligation is to love.

This is the paragraph you think I’ve misread.
So, Ok, lets have a closer look…

1. “I cannot affirm that Jesus’ and Paul’s acts of correction indicate that we have an obligation to chastise.”

Now that sentence is a little ambiguous. Do you mean “…an obligation to chastise” just sometimes, all the time, or never?

We do know that both Paul and Jesus gave us a context within which chastisement took place. We also know that other examples are non-existent. Consequently, we can logically infer that chastisement of the type Jesus used in the Temple is not something to be used freely, in all circumstances. To do so would not be very Christlike, would it. However, in terms of being obliged to chastise, the obvious lesson is that if some sets of behaviours are bad enough and it is obvious that softer methods of modifying the behaviours of others are not working, then, yes, by all means, chastise. If the softer forms of trying to get others to change their behaviours are obviously not working, then we are obliged to chastise.

1. “As St. Augustine points out, our one law, our one obligation is to love.”

Now a literal reading of this sentence, juxtaposed against your first sentence, leads one to conclude that the chastisement displayed by Jesus and Paul does not fall on us as an obligation. Paul wrote that certain defilements are not to be tolerated and Jesus displayed that certain defilements are not to be tolerated. Yet, a reading of your sentence is telling us that we are not ‘obliged’ to chastise, even in the face of certain defilements of the type that Jesus and Paul reacted against.

So, what you have done is not affirm Jesus and Paul on chastisement and you have affirmed Augustine on love and juxtaposed that against chastisement.

Subtle, but false.

Chastisement and love are not mutually exclusive. Ask any parent.

 

[michelleds]

I would say that the habitual desires to abuse ourselves and others are the things that buy and sell our affections and of which we must be cleansed, and that the RCC (which, let’s be clear, does not identify homosexual affection in itself with such abusive desires) teaches that homosexual acts are outgrowths of those abusive desires. I will be honest in saying that I, personally, can only affirm that homosexual acts can be outgrowths of those abusive desires, but I cannot affirm that they must be. Moreover it’s clear that anyone who wishes to be faithful to the RCC position on this should affirm what the RCC affirms. I understand and further think it entirely legitimate that people who do so affirm the RCC position will necessarily believe that my own position does not go far enough.

[added bolded emphasis mine]

please note that in my question, I specifically asked about actions, not inclinations (or affection).

That aside, can you see where your admitted personal view, which is contrary to the Roman Catholic Church, is causing you to see “cruelty” and “harshness” where none is intended? It chafes, does it not, to come on here and repeatedly read that your actions are not only not accepted or lauded but in fact called sinful? Quite frankly, I would find that chafing to be an unbearable irritant if I were in your position, no matter how loving and gentle is was phrased.

I have no doubt that you love God and that you are well read and erudite. However, you have this one piece of yourself that you refuse to give to God. In so doing, you are rejecting God’s gift, even though you are so poetic in your articulation concerning God’s love and Jesus’ sacrifice and passion.

To come here, to read time and time again, the same posters adamantly saying the same thing–that must twist your innards.

I’m sorry for your pain, Mark. I don’t think, however, that chastising faithful Catholics about their Apologetics skills is going to make it go away.

I would like to add something that is so frequently overlooked and ignored–every single person has a personality and a style and maybe even a mission. What is important as an area of apologetics to person A won’t be the same priority for person B. While person A has a gruff style, person B is sweetness and light. it doesn’t mean that that one is better than the other or one is wrong. I think it’s silly to expect us all to deal with the same situtation in the same way or to have the same effects.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No offense but this whole topic seems filled with hypocrisy…

Agreed. There should be no rules. Political correctness is done, finis, caput!

 

[Nate13]

I would like to add something that is so frequently overlooked and ignored–every single person has a personality and a style and maybe even a mission. What is important as an area of apologetics to person A won’t be the same priority for person B. While person A has a gruff style, person B is sweetness and light. it doesn’t mean that that one is better than the other or one is wrong. I think it’s silly to expect us all to deal with the same situtation in the same way or to have the same effects.

Amen. Thank you for putting this into words.

 

[michelleds]

re chastisement and correction

2 Tim 3:16

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness

and re Charity

CCC #1822 and 1824

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: "Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The best thing to say is that homosexuality cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. That is true and I think gay people actually understand this.

homosexual acts cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No offense but this whole topic seems filled with hypocrisy…

Agreed. There should be no rules. Political correctness is done, finis, caput!

That is not an argument that is a statement or a rant.
It seems you cant face up to the fact that you might be wrong…

 

[John21652]

That is not an argument that is a statement or a rant.
It seems you cant face up to the fact that you might be wrong…

I thought Chalemagne II was being quite punny!

Obviously you don’t have a sense of humour.

What you do seem to have is an absolute certainty that someone very learned in their Religion is wrong and you see it as a fact. You are so certain that you can state it wihout even referring to any examples of the wrongness you see.

Wow, but that just reeks of hubris.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
InSearch, I don’t recall when I expressed an “individual reading” which stated that “unrepented homosexual acts are …] exempted from consequences.” I’ve tried to stay far away from a discussion of homosexual acts because I’m well aware, in these forums, that that dog won’t hunt. I understand, though, that you think that all I’ve been saying has been one long sad justification of homosexual acts. But that’s not what I’ve been arguing. At all.

It would take some effort to call up a cluster of your posts and paste it in this thread. Anyway, that is the subliminal message that a reader arrives at in following your many many posts in not a few threads in this forum often expressed in a long about way.

I’m unaware of where I might have given you the impression that I denied the real existence of hell.

… as in your reply to Michelle, as well. What I’m saying is I also had to ask the question because that seemed to be the implication of your post where you mentioned that it is in our sin that we build for ourselves a hell. Do you see that there is a commonality on what readers take away or question from your postings?

Read what I’ve written, InSearch. I’ve not been speaking categorically when I’ve been speaking of cruelty. I’ve not even been accusing anyone here of cruelty. My impression has been that when someone questions chastisement as valuable always and everywhere and with everyone–particularly when it’s pointed out that, on account of our own sin, chastisement so often becomes more valuable to the self-conception of the one chastising than to the one being chastised–many folks here seem to feel like their right to chastise with impunity is being threatened (as if such a thing even existed in the first place), and that Christianity is being emasculated. I find such reactions puzzling, if not downright troubling, for the reasons I’ve written.

Okay, it’s a narrow but not an unreasonable reading on my part then of this statement from you

But more often than not, that’s just an excuse to be cruel to those we claim to love, justifying our behavior with the idea that it’s okay to be cruel to be kind.

Let’s stick to the terms I’ve used so that we make sure I’m saying what I’ve actually said. I’ve never said anything against fraternal correction. Indeed, what I’ve called “loving correction” in previous posts would probably be better called “fraternal correction.”

I think you will discover that I have simply emphasized the “charity” part of “chastisement in charity.” You’ll also discover that I never said that loving correction/fraternal correction/chastisement in charity should be skipped.

On this part of your quote as above, you are right, Mark. I went back to the post and re-read it. My apologies.

Good! I hope that the light of that candle is a bit more generous, though, and allows us to see all of our sins.

Indeed. This is part of my prayer as Advent comes to a close. The grace of self-examination to see my own sins and how I can show more understanding and love towards my homosexual brothers. And that my homosexual brothers don’t receive any chastisement or fraternal correction from me as harsh and unloving.

Blessings to you, Mark, on this wondrous season of remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ’s birth.
,

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I thought Chalemagne II was being quite punny!

Obviously you don’t have a sense of humour.

What you do seem to have is an absolute certainty that someone very learned in their Religion is wrong and you see it as a fact. You are so certain that you can stste it wihout even referring to any examples of the wrongness you see.

Wow, but that just reeks of hubris.

I am not saying our religion is wrong i am saying your interpretation of it is wrong…
Lighten up.

 

[michelleds]

I am not saying our religion is wrong i am saying your interpretation of it is wrong…
Lighten up.

Since you’ve got less than 10 posts, perhaps you haven’t quite caught on to the mechanics of forum posting. if you want to point out an error or argue/debate a point, you have to actually quote what you are referring to in your post. otherwise, no one knows what you are blathering on about.

For instance, i don’t know whose hypocrisy, what was said that made you think it was hypocrisy, what your grounds are for calling it hypocrisy or which/what interpretation you are saying is wrong. several people are posting currently with different views, so your jumping off point is invisible and nonsensical.

 

[Nate13]

I am not saying our religion is wrong i am saying your interpretation of it is wrong…
Lighten up.

Nope, your wrong. :ehh:

(arguments are so much easier when you don’t have to provide evidence to back your opinion…)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Nope, your wrong. :ehh:

(arguments are so much easier when you don’t have to provide proof for your opinion…)

No u!

What are we, 12?

 

[Nate13]

No u!

What are we, 12?

Nope, just trying to make a point.

 

[John21652]

I am not saying our religion is wrong i am saying your interpretation of it is wrong…
Lighten up.

At this point you have 7 posts to your name.

3 of your posts are on this page. Oops, the previous page!!

You say this thread is full of hypocrisy; you say Charlemagne II is wrong and now you tell me my interpretation of my religion is wrong; all with no evidence.

All three posts are critical and condemnatory.
That means that, at this point, nearly half of all you have written is critical and condemnatory.

Then you tell me to lighten up!

Oh man, you are just too funny.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Since you’ve got less than 10 posts, perhaps you haven’t quite caught on to the mechanics of forum posting. if you want to point out an error or argue/debate a point, you have to actually quote what you are referring to in your post. otherwise, no one knows what you are blathering on about.

For instance, i don’t know whose hypocrisy, what was said that made you think it was hypocrisy, what your grounds are for calling it hypocrisy or which/what interpretation you are saying is wrong. several people are posting currently with different views, so your jumping off point is invisible and nonsensical.

I mean i think its hypocritical to be so opposed to homosexuality in a nation that has the death penalty and runs prison camps where they torture people .

These are my views:
Sola Verbum Dei:
Only the literal spoken word of our Lord Jesus Christ, the literal spoken word of the Lord, and the ten commandments are truly infallible.
Texts such as Leviticus (although inspired by divine revelation), are still the interpretation of fallible human beings, and thus more the product of their era than a direct commandment of the Lord.
Moreover, given the abundance of contradiction that occurs in the bible it is simply impossible for all passages of Scripture to be be infallible.
If the word of a men contradicts the word of Christ the word of Christ supersedes the word of men.
After all the word of Christ is spoken with the voice of the living God, infallible and complete in all facets.

 

[michelleds]

I mean i think its hypocritical to be so opposed to homosexuality in a nation that has the death penalty and runs prison camps where they torture people .

These are my views:
Sola Verbum Dei:
Only the literal spoken word of our Lord Jesus Christ, the literal spoken word of the Lord, and the ten commandments are truly infallible.
Texts such as Leviticus (although inspired by divine revelation), are still the interpretation of fallible human beings, and thus more the product of their era than a direct commandment of the Lord.
Moreover, given the abundance of contradiction that occurs in the bible it is simply impossible for all passages of Scripture to be be infallible.
If the word of a men contradicts the word of Christ the word of Christ supersedes the word of men.
After all the word of Christ is spoken with the voice of the living God, infallible and complete in all facets.

sigh.

well, that’s quite a mouthful there. since that’s completely off-topic, however, might i advise that you (1) use the search feature to find all of the other hundreds of threads dealing with homosexuality; or, in the event that fails to enlighten you or address your concerns, and you feel really, totally driven and compelled to do so (2) start a new thread.

 

[Nate13]

I mean i think its hypocritical to be so opposed to homosexuality in a nation that has the death penalty and runs prison camps where they torture people .

These are my views:
Sola Verbum Dei:
Only the literal spoken word of our Lord Jesus Christ, the literal spoken word of the Lord, and the ten commandments are truly infallible.
Texts such as Leviticus (although inspired by divine revelation), are still the interpretation of fallible human beings, and thus more the product of their era than a direct commandment of the Lord.
Moreover, given the abundance of contradiction that occurs in the bible it is simply impossible for all passages of Scripture to be be infallible.
If the word of a men contradicts the word of Christ the word of Christ supersedes the word of men.
After all the word of Christ is spoken with the voice of the living God, infallible and complete in all facets.

Go to the Sacred Scripture forum, post this view, and lets start a discussion.