Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[colmcille1]

Abu and Colmcille1, You decide. I’m, for my part, certainly not attracted to your methods or your manner.

See my other post.

You, sir, are “not attracted to (my) methods or (my) manner”. I, on the other hand, and I mean this honestly, am very philosophical about all of this. And the reason I am philosophical? As stated in my other post, nothing I have read here comes ANYWHERE close to the heinous poison I read elsewhere. I felt physically sick. It crept into my brain like a cancerous worm. But I prayed in my usual clumsy manner. And, little by little, the sickness lifted but the memory is there and I wince when I recall as I am doing now.
I truly do not know where these repugnant thoughts of some humans come from.
Perhaps this played on my mind subconsciously as I wrote my posts here. I don’t know.
And I know this isn’t the place for self-analysis so apologies.

 

[antroji]

At the heart of each one of us is an aspect that recognizes that one way or another we are in that same boat. No one gets out alive, at lest in the physical sense. I am moved by your statement, Colmcille1, and regret that you have had to experience such vitriol as you have. That saddens me, because our antagonisms come from a lack of self awareness and communion which is affordable to all of us.

I am of a philosophical bent that attempts to see an underlying unity of condition and resource amongst all humans, whatever their beliefs or circumstance. And I see that our differences most often seem to stem from the insecurity of not feeling love or Love to the degree that it gives us a foundation to be impersonal, though invested, in our observations both about ourselves and others. So I have no particular value attached to the point that someone is of our Faith or not. That is their business.

I also have, by the circumstances of my life, had much occasion to be and work with people not of my own heterosexual orientation. I was at first emotionally uncomfortable with this, but it was a fact of my life. I had to deal with it. I had to get over my reactivity and simply cease from being critical and choose simply to be present and do good, as I hope I am and do in any situation, according to my best lights. It does not, I found, help communication, community, nor interest to antagonize someone I disagree with in logic or taste. But if I can put that aside, I find I can learn something. Sometimes that has put me somewhat in the position, in my opinion, of a pathologist.

So we can have absolute pitch as a musician, but have to deal with relative pitch to get along and make music with others. Even the piano is tempered, and no one objects to it not being in absolute tune. But we tune it that way so we can move from octave to octave and use the inherent relationships found there to elevate our experience to higher levels of feeling.

I am glad for you that you are in a healing situation. I hope *** well that you understand that I am less syncretic than tempered. I feel I have earned my tempering, being rather well versed in catachetical things, at least in my youth, and having had exposure to and interacting with proponents of many systems outside the usual Abrahamic ones of our ordinary experience. Speaking philosophically, I found more at root the same than different, save one critical consideration, in all of them. And that consideration wasn’t relative to Jesus, necessarily.

So I am, despite many single phrases from dogma or scripture that might make me feel otherwise, more universal, dare I say Catholic, in my perspective. I also have had a rather life changing spiritual experience that put intellection about fine points of “law” into a rather different mode of understanding. So I’m not too keen on intolerance, while I do stand up both for what I understand to be Good and for the kind of turn around that can allow one to see from another perspective while not necessarily adopting it or even agreeing with it.

I recounted somewhere else about a genius I was acquainted with who, in order to join a book discussion was repeatedly asked to read the material before taking part. Long story short, this brilliant person read the book 26 times before he clearly saw that he was imposing his own interpretation over what the author was actually saying. Our lives are replete with this kind of misunderstanding. I am at fault this way, too. But I hope I’m somewhat less inclined to be inflamed and contradictory at a first reading, and am able to converse with folks not of my exact beliefs. Maybe that ability in us is some proof of a commonality which leads to deeper understandings of ourselves and each other regardless of belief or orientation.

So, nice to make your acquaintance, Colmcille1.

 

[colmcille1]

At the heart of each one of us is an aspect that recognizes that one way or another we are in that same boat. No one gets out alive, at lest in the physical sense. I am moved by your statement, Colmcille1, and regret that you have had to experience such vitriol as you have. That saddens me, because our antagonisms come from a lack of self awareness and communion which is affordable to all of us.

I am of a philosophical bent that attempts to see an underlying unity of condition and resource amongst all humans, whatever their beliefs or circumstance. And I see that our differences most often seem to stem from the insecurity of not feeling love or Love to the degree that it gives us a foundation to be impersonal, though invested, in our observations both about ourselves and others. So I have no particular value attached to the point that someone is of our Faith or not. That is their business.

I also have, by the circumstances of my life, had much occasion to be and work with people not of my own heterosexual orientation. I was at first emotionally uncomfortable with this, but it was a fact of my life. I had to deal with it. I had to get over my reactivity and simply cease from being critical and choose simply to be present and do good, as I hope I am and do in any situation, according to my best lights. It does not, I found, help communication, community, nor interest to antagonize someone I disagree with in logic or taste. But if I can put that aside, I find I can learn something. Sometimes that has put me somewhat in the position, in my opinion, of a pathologist.

So we can have absolute pitch as a musician, but have to deal with relative pitch to get along and make music with others. Even the piano is tempered, and no one objects to it not being in absolute tune. But we tune it that way so we can move from octave to octave and use the inherent relationships found there to elevate our experience to higher levels of feeling.

I am glad for you that you are in a healing situation. I hope *** well that you understand that I am less syncretic than tempered. I feel I have earned my tempering, being rather well versed in catachetical things, at least in my youth, and having had exposure to and interacting with proponents of many systems outside the usual Abrahamic ones of our ordinary experience. Speaking philosophically, I found more at root the same than different, save one critical consideration, in all of them. And that consideration wasn’t relative to Jesus, necessarily.

So I am, despite many single phrases from dogma or scripture that might make me feel otherwise, more universal, dare I say Catholic, in my perspective. I also have had a rather life changing spiritual experience that put intellection about fine points of “law” into a rather different mode of understanding. So I’m not too keen on intolerance, while I do stand up both for what I understand to be Good and for the kind of turn around that can allow one to see from another perspective while not necessarily adopting it or even agreeing with it.

I recounted somewhere else about a genius I was acquainted with who, in order to join a book discussion was repeatedly asked to read the material before taking part. Long story short, this brilliant person read the book 26 times before he clearly saw that he was imposing his own interpretation over what the author was actually saying. Our lives are replete with this kind of misunderstanding. I am at fault this way, too. But I hope I’m somewhat less inclined to be inflamed and contradictory at a first reading, and am able to converse with folks not of my exact beliefs. Maybe that ability in us is some proof of a commonality which leads to deeper understandings of ourselves and each other regardless of belief or orientation.

So, nice to make your acquaintance, Colmcille1.

Thank you for your finely-measured and wise post.

Life for me is a Gift of Healing.

God Bless you, antroj, and its a pleasure to converse with you(and all on this site),

Colmcille1.

 

[Abu]

antroji
Yet we have set ourselves up in this example as judge, jury, and doctor prescriber! ….fallen prey to the propensity of the human mind to make itself right whatever its position is.

Very true statements concerning all who continue to rail against Christ and His Church – the same malady throughout history – “I know best, I will not serve.”!

Leela
Did you ever notice that while Jesus was at his most tender in dealing with those guilty of sexual sin, he reserved his scorn for the self-righteous, for those with all kinds of ideas about how other people can improve at no cost to themselves? Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, aren’t we all sinners? Jesus said that we will know a Christian by his love. That is one prophesy that has certainly not yet come true.

The warped idea that Jesus tolerated sin (sexual or otherwise), and the insinuation that those who follow Him in proclaiming His truth are “self-righteous”, exposes the further lie that somehow the faithful think “homosexuality is a sin.” We don’t, as has been emphasised ad infinitum. He that hath ears to hear let him/her hear. A great evil for a faithful Catholic is to permit anyone to distort Christ’s teaching and to, prostitute “love” to mean licence through tolerance of evil and to lead astray those who seek to do good and avoid evil.

So, for those seeking the truth who might be confused by the false lament of the intransigent, Christ teaches through His Church in the authoritative teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC #2357 teaches: …“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared the ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’…Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

CCC #2358 teaches: …“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

CCC #2359 teaches: Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

 

[Abu]

The false ideas that many have about Jesus of Nazareth, prevalent among those who distort His teaching and His Church, may be corrected by looking at His life and teaching.

The basic rule that Christ gives is for obedience and love – the obedience of faith as St Paul emphasises (Rom 1:5; 16.26). “Loving kindness” is perhaps most often cited. Where do we find that idea?

From Christ In Eclipse, Frank Sheed, Sheed & Ward, 1978:
“Certainly, some people who knew Christ in His lifetime would have been startled to find so much made of His loving kindness, indeed might have wondered if you were talking of the same person.”

He refers us to the Gentile woman who “must have felt His ‘Do you want Me to take the bread of the children and give it to dogs?’ as an assertion of her inferiority as a Gentile:…did she feel Him loving?” (Mk 7:25)

To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51). Apologist Frank Sheed remarks of Christ: “He seems not to have spread Himself to win affection.” (Christ In Eclipse, p 42).

“With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure the realized it. On the multitude, however, ‘He had compassion, for they were helpless and harassed like sheep without a shepherd.’ Yet one wonders how He showed it: for they too had to have the truth. His settled habit was terseness of speech.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

To quote Dr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture:
“…universal tolerance means the acceptance (and therefore tacit approval) of all behaviors, irrespective of their impact on the common good and on human flourishing. To put the matter simply, tolerance perceived as a virtue always rewards vice….The invocation of tolerance as a virtue will always undermine prudence, the real and necessary virtue that enables us to match proper solutions to particular problems.”

 

[Leela]

Very true statements concerning all who continue to rail against Christ and His Church – the same malady throughout history – “I know best, I will not serve.”!

The warped idea that Jesus tolerated sin (sexual or otherwise), and the insinuation that those who follow Him in proclaiming His truth are “self-righteous”, exposes the further lie that somehow the faithful think “homosexuality is a sin.” We don’t, as has been emphasised ad infinitum. He that hath ears to hear let him/her hear. A great evil for a faithful Catholic is to permit anyone to distort Christ’s teaching and to, prostitute “love” to mean licence through tolerance of evil and to lead astray those who seek to do good and avoid evil.

The issue is not about identifying sin as sin. I’m sure we all think Jesus could do that. OI wish you would reread antroji’s post. If I were a Catholic I would be embarrassed by your portrayal of Catholicism, not because it isn’t orthodox, but because there is a time and place to say certain things and a time and place to remain quite about certain things. What makes you think that what you are offering is what someone needs at this very moment? What makes you think that you are less of a sinner than someone you just met who just “confessed” to being a homosexual?

You have little idea of what Jesus was about. That much is clear. How do you think it is that Jesus became known for associating with sinners? If Jesus demanded that sinners conform with Mosaic Law before he would associate with them or continually chided them for disobedience to Mosaic Law, do you think such tax collectors and prostitutes would have wanted to be around him? And if everyone who associated with Jesus instantly conformed to Mosaic Law upon meeting him, do you think the Jewish establishment would have had him crucified??? Of course not, they would have bowed down to him. He wasn’t the messiah they were looking for.

I don’t think you understand Jesus at all. He wasn’t the messiah you are looking for either. Please look differently.

To quote Dr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture:
“…universal tolerance means the acceptance (and therefore tacit approval) of all behaviors, irrespective of their impact on the common good and on human flourishing. To put the matter simply, tolerance perceived as a virtue always rewards vice….The invocation of tolerance as a virtue will always undermine prudence, the real and necessary virtue that enables us to match proper solutions to particular problems.”

Jesus was not universally tolerant, but he was only ever intolerant of intolerance. he was only ever self-righteous about self-righteousness.

 

[Abu]

Leela
If Jesus demanded that sinners conform with Mosaic Law before he would associate with them or continually chided them for disobedience to Mosaic Law, do you think such tax collectors and prostitutes would have wanted to be around him?
there is a time and place to say certain things and a time and place to remain quite about certain things. Jesus….was only ever intolerant of intolerance. he was only ever self-righteous about self-righteousness.

The makers of the selfist “religions” even try to remake Christ to their own image and likeness, and condemn Him for warning and for offering a new way of life! They can’t understand why Catholics on a Catholic DB would tirelessly offer His wisdom.
Paul makes it clear that to follow Jesus we must put away the things of a child and grow up (1 Cor 13:11), and love rejoices in truth (v 6).

His compassion for the multitude who were like sheep without a shepherd is ignored – they don’t like being shown His Way. As the great Frank Sheed surmised: he drew people to Him – “something in His personality must have given the bluntness of His words a different feel.”

Some seem to think that the two Commandments of love somehow enable us to reject or wink at the other Commandments. A false idea of “legalism” is easily dispelled as Christ told the woman taken in adultery to “sin no more” as she had breached the sixth commandment – which ensured that she paid more attention to the law. (Jn 8:3-11).

To “What must I do to have eternal life?”, Christ’s answer is “Keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17).
It is easy to ignore the Master’s examples on how we fail to love God or neighbour in His warnings of sins which defile or befoul (Mk 7:21-23), in addition to ignoring His guarantees against error in transmitting His truths.

Jesus taught a parable ending with “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
On Peter asking for an explanation of the parable, Jesus warned: “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Mt 15: 8 -20). “From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity(fornication), theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.” (Mk 7:21-23)

Why do they wish for tolerance of evil? To the succinct exposure of false tolerance by Dr Jeff Mirus (post # 1081), we have Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M., who affirms that “the New Testament is remarkably intolerant of people entertaining private views regarding doctrine and morality contrary to the teaching of the ekklesia’s leaders.” (Authenticity, Ignatius 1997, p 189).

 

[inocente]

The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2: 14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible.

Pope Benedict XVI

On Peter asking for an explanation of the parable, Jesus warned: “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Mt 15: 8 -20). “From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity(fornication), theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.” (Mk 7:21-23)

Someone help me out with this please.

Romans 2 says that the Jews know the law from scripture (2:17-24), while the Gentiles have the requirements of the law written on their hearts (2:14-15). Since the Jewish scripture is the Tanakh/OT, it must then be that the OT contains all the requirements written on the hearts of the Gentiles.

(The Gentiles obviously don’t know the Jewish laws about ritual cleanliness and these are excluded - Matthew 15:20, Romans 14).

This implies that no NT verse can possibly be written on the Gentiles hearts unless it directly quotes or paraphrases an OT verse. All requirements of natural law must then be argued from the OT alone.

Is this correct?

 

[Portrait]

Someone help me out with this please.

Romans 2 says that the Jews know the law from scripture (2:17-24), while the Gentiles have the requirements of the law written on their hearts (2:14-15). Since the Jewish scripture is the Tanakh/OT, it must then be that the OT contains all the requirements written on the hearts of the Gentiles.

(The Gentiles obviously don’t know the Jewish laws about ritual cleanliness and these are excluded - Matthew 15:20, Romans 14).

This implies that no NT verse can possibly be written on the Gentiles hearts unless it directly quotes or paraphrases an OT verse. All requirements of natural law must then be argued from the OT alone.

Is this correct?

Dear Inocente,

Cordial greetings.

Whilst the Gentiles were not in possession of the written law (Rom. 1: 12), notwithstanding, their own judgements and actions were an acknowledgement that the moral law had in fact been stamped upon their constituition by the Creator. For whenever they attempted to follow the dictates of conscience, they were confronted with this law that was revealed in them. The same is true today in a much broader sense with respect to those who are, for whatever reason, ignorant of the Christian revelation in the Gospel, since all men are endowed with a conscience and thus intuitively know right from wrong.

Now conscience is that innate facullty that enables a man to distinguish right from wrong and which passes independent judgement upon his conduct. In point of fact it can be regarded as an evidence of our indestructable moral nature and is proof that God bears testimony to Himself in our hearts.

Unfortunately, owing to the fact that man is a fallen sinner, the conscience of the natural man is blurred, though not entirely extinguished, by sin; man can and indeed often does have a radically defective conscience whereby he is sometimes unable to clearly see the difference between right and wrong. this why there will always be found those who will seek to rationalize or normalize homosexual liasons and aberrant acts, even though they themselves may not be inverts. Their objective is to achieve recognition for homosexulality as a normal and natural way of life for some men. Having said that most men, in their heart of hearts, know fully well that homosexual genital acts are both unnatural and wrong; they percieve intuitively that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman and vice-versa. Men have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural. Thus, for examle, they percieve intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human and not an animal. Similarly they also percieve that sexual desire directed towards children is both wrong and unnatural.

What is important to note Inocente is that whilst the O.T. ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are; God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but His moral requirements are perpetually binding upon all cultures.

It is hardly surprising that sexual ethics, along with many other disciplines, have ended up in the melting pot of reinterpretation, revisionism and pluralism, which in turn encourages selfism and vehement opposition to the moral law. Objective truth and absolute standards for moral behaviour have become for many just a smile on the face of the Cheshire cat in the tree. ‘Anything goes’ expresses the profound selfishness that lies at the heart of all human sin. Indeed, it is this tide of freethinking that has encouraged homosexual activists to fanatically press forward with their incessant demands for equality and acceptance, while so many others have looked on and remained silent.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality in Truth
The great wisdom of G.K. Chesterton is found here:
“I could never at any time understand why there is supposed to be something insolent or intolerant about a man asserting that he has the Truth, and therefore proposes to persuade as many people as possible that it is the Truth.” (The Menace of Spiritualism)

From the Statement from Bishop Thomas Olmsted (Phoenix) on the Prop 8 Court Decision“We have great need to rediscover the good news of God’s plan for marriage; and we need to resist in the public square all efforts to label this plan as a “hang up” of the past. Labelling homosexual “marriage” as “a right” is not an enlightened idea of the 21st century. It is a novel form of a resurrected falsehood from more than 2000 years ago. It will not stand the test of time, just as it cannot withstand popular opinion now.

“The Lord calls us to love our enemies and to pray for their conversion. Let us do that. He calls us to affirm the human dignity of every human person, including those who struggle with homosexual tendencies. We gladly do that. He also gives us the grace and responsibility to stand up for the truth in the public square, especially the truth about the fundamental institution of society, marriage. Let us do this with courage and compassion, while speaking the truth in love. Let us keep in mind the words of our Savior: Do not be afraid; I am with you always.”

 

[Leela]

Facing Reality in Truth
The great wisdom of G.K. Chesterton is found here:
“I could never at any time understand why there is supposed to be something insolent or intolerant about a man asserting that he has the Truth, and therefore proposes to persuade as many people as possible that it is the Truth.” …

You continue to miss antroji’s important point. Whether or not what you are saying is true is a separate question from whether not you have found the right time to say it or the right person to say it to. I could say all kinds of true things that are completely irrelevant to this conversation. On the other hand, I could say true things that are healing. Or, I could follow your path and say true things (in your view) that drive someone away from healing truths because it isn’t the right time to be saying them.

I could tell you that you are in fact wrong, your wife is not particularly attractive, your children are not unusually talented. But first I should ask myself, is this the particular truth that this person needs to hear at this particular time?

If I were like many atheists, I would encourage you to keep quoting authorities and keep citing scriptures in exactly the way you are doing it, because there is no better way that what you are doing to further the secularists cause of driving people away from religion, but my interest is not to get people to stop being religious, I am rather hoping for better religion. I hope you can do it.

 

[larkin31]

…Some seem to think that the two Commandments of love somehow enable us to reject or wink at the other Commandments…

Do Catholics follow the commandment on making no graven images? I have always wondered about this one.

 

[antroji]

Abu, I agree with Leela. She correctly understands my point. If it helps, may I refer you to a chapter in a book about the miracles and parables of Christ wherein the author devotes a great deal of attention to this point? And yes, Leela is accurate as well in the results you likely have, are, and will get by using your adversarial approach. Basically you have set yourself in the position of being right and refuting all comers. That makes you the opposition, psychologically speaking. You can, you know, have all that Scripture and your convictions and make a much better case without “third partying” your conversant. What if you could be the authority on you own grounds, grounds you have earned by experience. Having had experience, then you may see more clealry how a passage might fit as a feel, not a weapon. Passages from scripture for someone who doesn’t believe them are so much wasted air, anyway.

I tried for years using your current way of condemnation by scripture. Maybe you are a lawyer??? I don’t know. but being legalistic, as I see it, in a situation loaded with emotional depth charges, bonking people on the head with scripture they may not even know about or believe in could be very counterproductive.

Yes, Abu, no matter what, our Faith is a belief. As well founded as we believe it to be, we weren’t there. And love it as we might, and whatever we say about the infallibility of Popes, etc, to people especially not of our Faith, those mean nothing. Less than nothing, even. So it just comes off as “blah,blah, blah…” ad nauseam. And that is a very difficult thing for us to get through our habituated noggins. Because we are right?

But so what?. We are right for us, for whatever reason. We are not necessarily right to others* just *because of our convictions. We are to them, just other people with convictions. Just like the other people in the world from bombers to philanthropists. Because we believe what we do, that doesn’t’ make us right in the eyes of others, no matter how much we quote or claim. Sorry, no washee.

On the other hand, if “they shall know that we are Christians by our Love,” than they might be more inclined to listen because we have a relationship with them that precedes the differences in our faiths or non-faiths. And what would they listen to? Maybe it is the more that 75% of non verbal, non-dictionary tone of voice and manner that actually carries our meaning. IOW, if the other person doesn’t feel that you are at least attempting to wear their shoes, there can be no real communication.

Words are just a general indicator of where to look. Love itself is the cement that binds, and like Music can cross lines impenetrable to logic and reason. Think much about that. And you might ask yourself if your way so far has been any better than pushing string? It works much better to pull it. That means we have to be an attractive force of our way, and know that neither we nor anyone else is completely right, wrong, or mediocre.

 

[Abu]

larkin31
Do Catholics follow the commandment on making no graven images?

Yes.

 

[Abu]

What is promoted under “better religion” (Leela) is the deception of accommodating our desires and feelings – it has been going on since the world began, the hackneyed theme here being that homosexual activity is right and should be promoted – homomania.

There is nothing “narrow” about truth, and the teaching of Christ is not essential to realise the existence of the natural moral law. Morality and the power of reason from cause to effect has been so bludgeoned that no wonder some are unable now to see the wood for the trees. Morality is not new or limited to Christians. It has been extant since ancient times because it is part of human nature created by God.

Bishop Fulton Sheen was not backward in coming forward:
“Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics…the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant of their relations to God.

“Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad-mindedness is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.” (Broad-Mindedness).

 

[Portrait]

You continue to miss antroji’s important point. Whether or not what you are saying is true is a separate question from whether not you have found the right time to say it or the right person to say it to. I could say all kinds of true things that are completely irrelevant to this conversation. On the other hand, I could say true things that are healing. Or, I could follow your path and say true things (in your view) that drive someone away from healing truths because it isn’t the right time to be saying them.

I could tell you that you are in fact wrong, your wife is not particularly attractive, your children are not unusually talented. But first I should ask myself, is this the particular truth that this person needs to hear at this particular time?

If I were like many atheists, I would encourage you to keep quoting authorities and keep citing scriptures in exactly the way you are doing it, because there is no better way that what you are doing to further the secularists cause of driving people away from religion, but my interest is not to get people to stop being religious, I am rather hoping for better religion. I hope you can do it.

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings. Please pardon me for butting in here, but I feel that I must respond to what you have said above.

By way of reply let me say that the Christian is called to not only comfort the afflicted but also to afflict the comfortable, and most certainly the erring and sinful. Of course he must do so in such manner so as to ensure that Christian charity is not violated. Neverttheless, he must call a spade a spade when it comes to moral absolutes and sin and resist the temptation to be some boneless nerveless jelly fish that is ever ready to trim his sails to whatever is the popular opinion of the day on any given matter.

The “better religion” of which you speak is to be found in an honest denunciation of sin and not in a feeble tergiversating that cannot bring itself to speak plainly and sometimes even very bluntly about sin. The latter sort of wishy-washy religion will never really be respected by the masses and will do very little to impact the post-Christian Western world in which the Church now finds itself.

Just a personal footnote, my wife and I converted to the Catholic Church after being Anglicans (Church of England) for many years, for among other reasons, because Rome did not give an uncertain sound on the trumpet when it came to key issues of morality, including this whole homosexuality issue which is currently under review in this thread. After breathing in an atmosphere of moral relativism and doctrinal and moral chaos, the clear and unequivocal teaching of Rome on faith and morals was a very welcome and refreshing change. The alternative to this was a subjective quagmire of competing opinions where every man does that which is right in his own eyes and where the only sin is the sin of intolerance of differing viewpoints. In the eyes of most thinking people this is not only risible but very pitiful, since a church is supposed to know with certainty what are its doctrinal and moral limits and its non-negotiable truths.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Abu, I agree with Leela. She correctly understands my point. If it helps, may I refer you to a chapter in a book about the miracles and parables of Christ wherein the author devotes a great deal of attention to this point? And yes, Leela is accurate as well in the results you likely have, are, and will get by using your adversarial approach. Basically you have set yourself in the position of being right and refuting all comers. That makes you the opposition, psychologically speaking. You can, you know, have all that Scripture and your convictions and make a much better case without “third partying” your conversant. What if you could be the authority on you own grounds, grounds you have earned by experience. Having had experience, then you may see more clealry how a passage might fit as a feel, not a weapon. Passages from scripture for someone who doesn’t believe them are so much wasted air, anyway.

I tried for years using your current way of condemnation by scripture. Maybe you are a lawyer??? I don’t know. but being legalistic, as I see it, in a situation loaded with emotional depth charges, bonking people on the head with scripture they may not even know about or believe in could be very counterproductive.

Yes, Abu, no matter what, our Faith is a belief. As well founded as we believe it to be, we weren’t there. And love it as we might, and whatever we say about the infallibility of Popes, etc, to people especially not of our Faith, those mean nothing. Less than nothing, even. So it just comes off as “blah,blah, blah…” ad nauseam. And that is a very difficult thing for us to get through our habituated noggins. Because we are right?

But so what?. We are right for us, for whatever reason. We are not necessarily right to others* just *because of our convictions. We are to them, just other people with convictions. Just like the other people in the world from bombers to philanthropists. Because we believe what we do, that doesn’t’ make us right in the eyes of others, no matter how much we quote or claim. Sorry, no washee.

On the other hand, if “they shall know that we are Christians by our Love,” than they might be more inclined to listen because we have a relationship with them that precedes the differences in our faiths or non-faiths. And what would they listen to? Maybe it is the more that 75% of non verbal, non-dictionary tone of voice and manner that actually carries our meaning. IOW, if the other person doesn’t feel that you are at least attempting to wear their shoes, there can be no real communication.

Words are just a general indicator of where to look. Love itself is the cement that binds, and like Music can cross lines impenetrable to logic and reason. Think much about that. And you might ask yourself if your way so far has been any better than pushing string? It works much better to pull it. That means we have to be an attractive force of our way, and know that neither we nor anyone else is completely right, wrong, or mediocre.

Dear antroji,

Cordial greetings.

Have you ever undertaken extensive study and painstaking research of the claims of the Catholic Church? Were you to do so you would, I think, find that they were both compelling and entirely reasonable. After some 20 years examining these claims I am now a Catholic and have no doubts that I made the correct choice.

If the Church is to be a truly “attractive force” then it must promulgate moral absolutes and declare that there are non-negotiable truths. Whilst it may be unpopular for doing this at a superficial level, in time it will be deeply respected for not giving an uncertain sound on the trumpet and descending into doctrinal and moral laxity.

Abu has been and indeed is doing a sterling job defending the Catholic position on the matter of homosexual conduct and is doing so in a most charitable and courteous manner.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[inocente]

It is hardly surprising that sexual ethics, along with many other disciplines, have ended up in the melting pot of reinterpretation, revisionism and pluralism, which in turn encourages selfism and vehement opposition to the moral law.

Portrait - Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not here arguing for or against the teaching of the Church, but rather about the foundation of that teaching in the natural law (in this one case only).

We have all found it hard to separate our own belief in what is right in Christ from the logic of this natural law case. What I am trying to do is determine purely what can be argued rationally from scripture without letting our own feelings or the traditions of our churches get in the way.

The issue is that the OT does not appear to ban lesbian sex, only gay sex. If the argument in post #1084 is correct, this implies the OT line is part of the Jewish cleanliness laws only, and so cannot be written on the Gentiles hearts.

The natural law could not then be used against the homosexual act, for it would be trying to extend a Jewish position that is not written on the Gentiles hearts. Hence, if we want to argue against the act, we must do so from the NT only.

This in turn is not without its problems. Paul Rimmer is an honest and knowledgeable guy, and in this reply to me on another thread he says that the Church fathers were divided on Romans 1:26-27 “St. Athanasius and Augustine thinking that this talks about heterosexual activity, and St. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria thinking it does refer to homosexual activity”.

 

[colmcille1]

Dear antroji,

Cordial greetings.

Have you ever undertaken extensive study and painstaking research of the claims of the Catholic Church? Were you to do so you would, I think, find that they were both compelling and entirely reasonable. After some 20 years examining these claims I am now a Catholic and have no doubts that I made the correct choice.

If the Church is to be a truly “attractive force” then it must promulgate moral absolutes and declare that there are non-negotiable truths. Whilst it may be unpopular for doing this at a superficial level, in time it will be deeply respected for not giving an uncertain sound on the trumpet and descending into doctrinal and moral laxity.

Abu has been and indeed is doing a sterling job defending the Catholic position on the matter of homosexual conduct and is doing so in a most charitable and courteous manner.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Portrait,

I agree with you entirely. Alas, I do not yet possess the level of written articulation to be as
succinct.
Also, on a procedural point, I did not want to defend others as I prefer to let people speak for themselves.
Antroji’s wise post directed to myself has provided me with great and deep reflection and I see where he is coming from. So, antroji, thank you again.
I think where I may slightly differ is that subjective experience, in my book, only goes so far in a true formation and celebration of my faith. Not that I am dismissing others experience of this beautiful world. I suppose I am selfish in the sense that I want more. I wish to go beyond my own ego and I’m prepared to pay the price for that desire.
If I came across as nasty or unfeeling in my previous posts on this thread it certainly was not my intention and I’m sorry if anyone was hurt in the rough and tumble of debate.

God Bless,

Colmcille1

 

[larkin31]

Yes.

Accompanied with a heavy dose of apologetics.