Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Zatzat]

ha ha! You’re certainly free to believe that. But you’ll even have quite a number of liberal feminists thinking your a pig for allowing such male sexism.

Women should be free to have 10 husbands. Feminists are free to think I’m a pig.

Perhaps 14 is the appropriate age to allow a person to sleep with others. After all, we don’t want to be “unfair” to those 14 year olds.

16 sounds about right to me.

ha ha! That’s repulsive. Talk about inbreeding and wholesale family dysfunction!

Yeah I agree……I’m taking that one back. I like the way it is now, immediate family members shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Why not? Becuase a God said so?

No, for the protection of society ( inbreeding weakens the gene pool, increased odds of genetic abnormalities leading to illness) in line with the reasonable limits clause of the constitution.

Morever, isn’t a dog consenting to have sexual relations with you when it “romps” your leg? What’s the difference here?

The human would be doing the romping or choosing to be romped. The human is the higher ordered species, knowing full well that to engage in sexual relations with an animal, is an abuse of the animal.

So Koko the Chimpanzee wants to marry you, and you want to marry Koko the Chimpanzee. The principle of “Fairness and informed consent” says you should allow i

Koko can’t consent to the human construct of marriage.

 

[Syntax]

Loads of Catholics take a pro choice / pro artificial contraception / pro euthanasia stance, especially in the Western world.

Right. And it is any wonder that they call themselves “Catholic” at all. It’s stupid, moronic, and inconsistent. Why are they not Unitarian, or some other more liberal protestant denomination??

On another note, as an outsider, I’m curious to know how you seemingly get to decide who is a Catholic and who isn’t a Catholic?

This is a dumb question. Why would anyone give themselves the label of group whose doctrines and principles he or she outright disagreed with from the start?

So, baptized and confirmed Catholics who choose to masturbate or married Catholics who engage in fellatio ( without trying to conceive as a conclusive act) or use artificial birth control…they’re not Catholics either?!

It depends on the extent to which they actually defy Church Teachings. If a person denies important Catholic Doctrine outright, then they are very arguably not Catholic. But if they genuinely struggle with, say, an addiction to pornography that they are trying to overcome, they are still very much Catholic because they don’t deny the teachings but are striving to better themselves.

What ever happened to that thing Jesus said, about someone condemning a man for having a splinter in their eye, all while the person holding judgement has a giant log stuck in their eye?

Christ was right. Don’t condemn anyone. But Christ didn’t mean we should tolerate wholescale sin when we see it. Christ also taught repentence, forgiveness, and a return to God when we do sin:shrug:

 

[Syntax]

16 sounds about right to me.

Why? On what ground, and for what reason?

Yeah I agree……I’m taking that one back. I like the way it is now, immediate family members shouldn’t be allowed to marry…for the protection of society ( inbreeding weakens the gene pool, increased odds of genetic abnormalities leading to illness) in line with the reasonable limits clause of the constitution.

Ahhh…so you think immedate family members should **not **be allowed to marry because it has a detrimental effect on the rest of the society’s “gene pool.” (It sounds like you are proposing some kind of Hitlerian eugenics here…lol) But what about immediate family members who decide to stay within their immedate clan? They aren’t hurting anyone. Should they be allowed to marry? Besides, they are presumably already sleeping with eachother anyways, so how will it hurt society further by allowing them to marry? Seems kind of discriminatory to me:shrug: Doesn’t every person have the right to do what he or she wants so long as it doesn’t endanger society at large?

The human would be doing the romping or choosing to be romped. The human is the higher ordered species, knowing full well that to engage in sexual relations with an animal, is an abuse of the animal.

But what if the animal consents to these relations? Why would that be abuse to the animal? After all, the animal is choosing to do it quite naturally.

Koko can’t consent to the human construct of marriage.

Why not? Koko has a language, can do arithmetic, and can agree to certain contractual relationships with other human beings. Chimpanzees do this all the time. It is this **fairness and consent principle **that any Chimpanzee can understand. So of course Koko understands the terms of a contract between herself and another. In fact, there are rival jealousies concerning the sharing of a mate in their natural habitats all the time. So this is huge evidence that they can understand this principle of fairness and consent you are advocating.

 

[Syntax]

At present, a marriage can only exist between- (1) Two (2) consenting (3) human (4) adults (5) of the opposite gender (6) who are not closely related (7) that are not currently married.

Each of those 6 conditions preclude some potential marriages- certainly it is possible for a man to love two women, a woman who doesn’t love him, his dog, a child, another man, or his sister, or somebody who is already married. Yet, for some reason, we as a society have decided that condition (5), and only condition (5), is discriminatory. I fail to see why.

Nice summary of necessary conditions of an actual marriage. It is very difficult to exclude condition (5) without also exculding one or more of the other conditions, hence making a plausible and non-question-begging argument for *why *we should be rejecting (5) very diffcult to construct:thumbsup:.

 

[rossum]

Nice summary of necessary conditions of an actual marriage. It is very difficult to exclude condition (5) without also exculding one or more of the other conditions, hence making a plausible and non-question-begging argument for *why *we should be rejecting (5) very diffcult to construct:thumbsup:.

Moslems and some Mormons already reject (1). Such marriages are valid in those religious communities, and legally valid in Moslem countries up to four wives.

There are already different religious definitions of marriage present in the US.

rossum

 

[jdnation]

The argument will go nowhere, because those dissenting to Catholic teachings DO NOT BELIEVE at a fundamental level that:

a) God Exists and is the creator of all things and therefore knows better than we do about His creation, its intended order and its natural ends. God demands this PERFECTION because He is PERFECT!!!

b) God has revealed to us in His own Words, how He created the world as outlined in the Book of Genesis, which is HISTORICAL TRUTH! (Sadly many Catholics undermine their faith by rejecting the clear Words of God about His creation, opting for secular scientific philosophies married to atheistic naturalism then wonder why nobody takes their faith seriously, because they see the logical inconsistencies this leads to!)

c) God created man and woman for each other, as faithful partners in all thigns which includes SEXUAL RELATIONS for the purpose of both physical and pschological union and procreation. You cannot divorce these from each other. The fact that procreation is possible and that the man and woman are allowing for that possibility many times over means they desire each other enough to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being with each other intimately. It is an act of total giving! This CANNOT EXIST in any other relationship! And God commands our relations to meet these PERFECT expectations! Not to do so, does not only make you sin against God, but sadly you will also deny yourselves the abundant JOY and REWARDS of experiencing such a perfect union!

d) The Fall and Original sin of Adam and Eve have cut us from God’s grace and thus we are attacked by all kinds of sinful inclinations to go against our nature. Sin has brought into the world death, all kinds of suffering, and all kinds of temptations that will lead us to further suffering and death, but like our original parents we will gaze upon these wicked fruits and casting aside God’s clear instruction, decide for ourselves that it is ‘good’ and thus pay the price!

e) God has demonstrated the truthfulness of His Word, and His Law and His Church through countless miracles and demonstrations of His power since ancient times, to the incarnation of His Son who died for us and ROSE FROM THE DEAD. Many martyrs bears witness to this truth. Scientists, scholars and apologetics have overwhelmingly argued and proven everything in favor of the truths of Christianity, the Resurrection, 6 Day Creation, the reliability of the factual accuracy and faithful preservation of the Old and New Testaments. Miracles continue to occur today through Jesus and the intercession of saints and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary through her apparitions and messages!

f) The history and testimonies and knowledgable writings of the Catholic Church will properly demonstrate to you why it can be trusted in its teachings and morals! The Holy Spirit guides it and has preserved the truth for al who care to do the research and seek to find! Despite the some of the actions, wrong opinions and failings of her falliable human clergy! You are guaranteed to know what God has revealed and taughts through her infalliable prononcements! And the Church has no power to change the morality that God has Himself clearly revealed!

g) Those who willingly remain ignorant and dismiss the Truths of Christianity without bothering to do the hard work of verifying it for themselves are gambling with their souls. You WILL DIE on day! And you will have to face what happens after you die! To not conform yourselves to God’s Law is to invite death and damnation on yourself. You will regret it! And not because of the pains and tortures of hell, but because before you fall there, you will glimpse for yourselves the Beatific Vision of God who will clearly confront you with the knowledge you chose to ignore of your own stubborn accord; that will entirely refute your false perceptions of proper morality and reveal to you the unimaginable joy and happiness you decided to miss out on because you thought you knew better than God Himself about what is best for you and what will bring you ultimate happiness! You will weep knowing you would gladly suffer 10,000 years in hell just to catch a glimpse of that happiness for another moment, but alas it will never be!

Catholics must understand that they are arguing with a generation of people who do not acknowledge these truths! They have no foundation on which to realize why they should believe in God! They do not know why Christianity is true! They do not know why the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation! They are ignorant and you are arguing with them from a place that they have no basic understanding of!

Furthermore, it is hypocritical of Catholics or any Christians to only concern themselves with homosexuals, whe heterosexuals have by and large been abusing their own sexuality for thousands of years through arguing for the right to masturbate, to pornography, to infedility, to sex and children outside of marriage, to divorce, to abort, and countless other things!

Homosexuals are the least of our worries! 2 billion Catholics??? HA! I can guarantee you that at least 1.5 billion of those are not practicing Catholicism and hold to all sorts of liberal ideas and lifestyles without thinking twice whether in full rebellion or ignorance! From Laity even to the clergy!

Homosexuals would have no argumentative powers were it not for the depressing state that heterosexuals have already been living in for decades! The problems start at the top! Heterosexuals should fix themselves before approaching the homosexual problem. Once they do, then homosexuals will fall in line. They are at the whim of the society they live in, but so far that society broke with regards to moral sexuality a long time ago! If heterosexuals didn’t behave like hypocrites then homosexuals would take our claims to fidelity, compatabile union and procreation seriously.

 

[Syntax]

Moslems and some Mormons already reject (1). Such marriages are valid in those religious communities, and legally valid in Moslem countries up to four wives.

There are already different religious definitions of marriage present in the US.

So? That doesn’t mean polygamy is morally permissible.

And just so you know, polygamy is no longer acceptable in mainstream Mormonism.

 

[tjm190]

Moslems and some Mormons already reject (1). Such marriages are valid in those religious communities, and legally valid in Moslem countries up to four wives.

There are already different religious definitions of marriage present in the US.

rossum

Regardless claim that (5) is discriminatory because it precludes some possible marriages from occurring, while no objection is raised to the others is a position that needs justification.

 

[Zatzat]

Right. And it is any wonder that they call themselves “Catholic” at all. It’s stupid, moronic, and inconsistent. Why are they not Unitarian, or some other more liberal protestant denomination??

These Catholics exist, why are you asking me?

This is a dumb question. Why would anyone give themselves the label of group whose doctrines and principles he or she outright disagreed with from the start?

Why is it a dumb question? These Catholics actually exist.

It depends on the extent to which they actually defy Church Teachings. If a person denies important Catholic Doctrine outright, then they are very arguably not Catholic. But if they genuinely struggle with, say, an addiction to pornography that they are trying to overcome, they are still very much Catholic because they don’t deny the teachings but are striving to better themselves.

That’s all fine and good…but what of the life long, un-repentant Catholics who masturbate from time to time?

Are they Catholics?

If you don’t think a Catholic is** really** a Catholic, but another Catholic believes that they are Catholic…how on earth do you decide?

Is there a panel of some kind where an elder, or a Church panel will adjudicate over the disparity?

 

[Zatzat]

Homosexuals are the least of our worries! 2 billion Catholics??? HA! I can guarantee you that at least 1.5 billion of those are not practicing Catholicism and hold to all sorts of liberal ideas and lifestyles without thinking twice whether in full rebellion or ignorance! From Laity even to the clergy!
.

As an outsider, I’m surprised to have to correct you.

There’s actually about 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. The OP was referring to the 2 billion or so Christians in the world.

On another note, wasn’t Jesus a Liberal?

 

[Syntax]

Are they Catholics?

I’ve already answered your question.

If you don’t think a Catholic is** really** a Catholic, but another Catholic believes that they are Catholic…how on earth do you decide?

Is there a panel of some kind where an elder, or a Church panel will adjudicate over the disparity?

I’ve already answered your question:

So long as a person defiantly believes contrary to Church Teaching, that person does not have the liberty of callling him or herself a Cathlolic.

**Genuine struggling **homosexuals, and other sinful Catholics, are actual Catholics.

It’s strange this isn’t obvious to you.

 

[Zatzat]

So long as a person defiantly believes contrary to Church Teaching, that person does not have the liberty of callling him or herself a Cathlolic.

Educate me, cite your source proving this claim true.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Syntax]

Educate me, cite your source proving this claim true.

Thanks in advance.

There is no source to cite except for the entire Catholic Dogma, pal. What do you think taking a vow to accept and follow Catholic Teaching upon baptism entails?? What do you think Catholics are doing every sunday when the cite the Apostles Creed??

“I believe in the Father the Son the Holy Spirit…and I believe in the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…”…

The Church’s official position on different levels of heresy can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

The Church’s official position on what one’s baptism entails can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

When a person takes his or her vow at baptism, or agrees to live within the Church community calling him or herself a “Catholic,” by those acts alone a person is agreeing to do his or her best to abide by what Christ Teaches through the fulness His Church. If you choose to defiantly **reject **these teachings, you have thereby rejected the Grace that comes by means of the Sacraments offered by the Church. So one cannot receive God’s grace through the Sacraments without accepting all the Dogma.

What I am saying would be true of just about any religion: Mormons, Lutherans, Muslims, etc., etc. If you don’t get this, that’ your own fault. Get a grip.

 

[rossum]

So? That doesn’t mean polygamy is morally permissible.

It is morally permissible to some people in the US under the rules of their religion. I agree that polygamy is not allowed by the Catholic Church, but other religious organisations do allow it.

And just so you know, polygamy is no longer acceptable in mainstream Mormonism.

I am aware of that, which is why I said “some” Mormons. Thank you for clarifying the point.

rossum

 

[Syntax]

It is morally permissible to some people in the US under the rules of their religion. I agree that polygamy is not allowed by the Catholic Church, but other religious organisations do allow it.

I am aware of that, which is why I said “some” Mormons. Thank you for clarifying the point.

But what does this have to do with what I posted? As tjm190 posted to you,

“Regardless claim that (5) [banning polygamy] is discriminatory because it precludes some possible marriages from occurring, while no objection is raised to the others is a position that needs justification.”

This is the point.

 

[Zatzat]

There is no source to cite except for the entire Catholic Dogma, pal. What do you think taking a vow to accept and follow Catholic Teaching upon baptism entails?? What do you think Catholics are doing every sunday when the cite the Apostles Creed??

“I believe in the Father the Son the Holy Spirit…and I believe in the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…”…

The Church’s official position on different levels of heresy can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

The Church’s official position on what one’s baptism entails can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

When a person takes his or her vow at baptism, or agrees to live within the Church community calling him or herself a “Catholic,” by those acts alone a person is agreeing to do his or her best to abide by what Christ Teaches through the fulness His Church. If you choose to defiantly **reject **these teachings, you have thereby rejected the Grace that comes by means of the Sacraments offered by the Church. So one cannot receive God’s grace through the Sacraments without accepting all the Dogma.

What I am saying would be true of just about any religion: Mormons, Lutherans, Muslims, etc., etc. If you don’t get this, that’ your own fault. Get a grip.

I’m not convinced by your post that a baptized and confirmed Catholic can so easily cease being a Catholic.

The good news, is that this isn’t really a concern of mine. I was just curious, as your very quick to declare a Catholic, as not being a Catholic.

On another note, from the tone of your post, you seem a little on edge.

 

[Syntax]

I’m not convinced by your post that a baptized and confirmed Catholic can so easily cease being a Catholic.

Your refusal to actually become familiar with Catholic Dogma is not my fault.

The good news, is that this isn’t really a concern of mine.

then why did you ask?

I was just curious, as your very quick to declare a Catholic, as not being a Catholic.

Someone who doesn’t teach is not a teacher. Someone who doesn’t believe Joseph Smith was divinely inspired is not a Mormon. And someone who defiantly rejects Catholic teachings is not a Catholic.

On another note, from the tone of your post, you seem a little on edge.

maybe a little frustrated for having to put up with your thick-headedness. But I am certainly not upset that I lack the power to make you smarter.

 

[Realist]

Let me remind you these passages that Jesus said to his disciples and I urge you to read carefully.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of the two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose of heaven.” (Dialogue between Jesus and his Apostles, the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 18 verse 15-18, St. Ignatius Bible RSV 2nd Ed.)

Commentary: Matthew’s Gospel that we Christians have to right to correct the sinful acts they have committed. That include living the life of homosexual behavior We have a right to tell him his fault. If he doesn’t listen to us, we tell it to the Church! Well, apparently, we Christians have departed away from this teaching. Do you not know that you yourself will be held accountible for failing to correct someone from stop sinning? In your final judgement day, you will stand before Jesus Christ and he will judge you! I cannot say what will happen, but I am very sure it won’t be pretty.

No, you’re wrong in your interpretation of this passage. Jesus is not saying that you have the right to correct anyone’s behavior. What he’s saying is that you have the right to confront the person about his life, which you disagree with, and then, if he brushes you off, to bully him with a few more people who agree with you. Then, when he brushes you off a second time, you’re supposed to leave him alone.

 

[Newbie2]

No, you’re wrong in your interpretation of this passage. Jesus is not saying that you have the right to correct anyone’s behavior. What he’s saying is that you have the right to confront the person about his life, which you disagree with, and then, if he brushes you off, to bully him with a few more people who agree with you. Then, when he brushes you off a second time, you’re supposed to leave him alone.

Yeah, that’s what he meant.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It depends on the extent to which they actually defy Church Teachings. If a person denies important Catholic Doctrine outright, then they are very arguably not Catholic. But if they genuinely struggle with, say, an addiction to pornography that they are trying to overcome, they are still very much Catholic because they don’t deny the teachings but are striving to better themselves.

No, they are Catholics – but they are not in communion with the Church due to their sin. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. As Michelle Arnold states (emphasis mine),

If someone is a baptized member of the Catholic Church, he is a Catholic, no matter how well or how poorly he lives out his Catholic faith. While we may be rightfully angered that a Catholic who advocates for moral evils such as abortion is presenting himself as a “good Catholic,” we should not deny that he indeed is a Catholic (although we can deny that he is a “good” Catholic).

Peace,
Dante