Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Larkin31, try Gérald Messadié, Histoire Générale du Diable. translated into English as A History of the Devil by Marc Romano. New York : Kodansha International, 1996.

"Messadie’s book is the finest of the legion of recent books released about the archfiend and his cohorts. Using a comparative and phenomenological approach, the author traces the idea of the Devil from ancient Greece and India to contemporary Western culture. What emerges from Messadie’s explorations is that the Devil is a very recent concept, arising primarily out of Zoroastrianism in Persia in the sixth century B.C. In that religion, a personified evil being is coexistent and coeval with a personification of the good, and Messadie examines how that dualism has slipped into Christianity, in particular. Thus the author concludes, on the basis of careful historical study, that the Devil does not exist in societies where the need for a force opposing the good is absent. Finally, Messadie aptly demonstrates how people in contemporary culture, in the absence of the personification of evil, use the Devil to vilify their enemies and to promote hatred. "
Click to expand...
The ugly head of dualism once again rearing itself in western cultural history…
 
StAnastasia said:
Can you tease out that typology for us? Show us which verses in particular contain the hidden typological meaning.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I have heard similar argument (and similarly unpersuasive) that the “seed” of Adam referred to Jesus, specifically.
 
“However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.”

What does ‘civil union’, mean, then, if not a marriage? We have it here in the UK. The entire thrust of this movement is to place perversion on a par with that which is beneficial to society.

It’s not enough that perverts be tolerated. Their perversion must not be disparaged either directly or by implication. It must even be promoted as ‘normal’, to the point of being taught that it is so, in schools.

We are being mean if we don’t let perverts enter into a cod version of an institution which is fundamental to social stability. As if the rot caused by divorce, fornication and serial marriage wasn’t enough.

I have a sense of the ‘Last Days Of The Roman Empire’ about this.
 
What does ‘civil union’, mean, then, if not a marriage?
Click to expand...
Marriage is for breeding. Civil union protection would be for people in non-breeding relationships.
The entire thrust of this movement is to place perversion on a par with that which is beneficial to society.
Click to expand...
Raising children – including adopted ones – is beneficial to society.
It’s not enough that perverts be tolerated.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what a “pervert” is. In the 1660’s a pervert was originally defined as “one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true, apostate.” If it refers to an action, I suppose licking stamps is a perversion because it perverts what the tongue was designed for.

Their perversion must not be disparaged either directly or by implication. It must even be promoted as ‘normal’, to the point of being taught that it is so, in schools.
As if the rot caused by divorce, fornication and serial marriage wasn’t enough.
Click to expand...
You’re right about that! Divorce is the greatest threat to marriage.
I have a sense of the ‘Last Days Of The Roman Empire’ about this.
Click to expand...
Minus the lead pipes; I suppose Nascar and the NFL fill the role of the Roman Colosseum fights.
 
Layman said:
“However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.”

What does ‘civil union’, mean, then, if not a marriage? We have it here in the UK. The entire thrust of this movement is to place perversion on a par with that which is beneficial to society.

It’s not enough that perverts be tolerated. Their perversion must not be disparaged either directly or by implication. It must even be promoted as ‘normal’, to the point of being taught that it is so, in schools.

We are being mean if we don’t let perverts enter into a cod version of an institution which is fundamental to social stability. As if the rot caused by divorce, fornication and serial marriage wasn’t enough.

I have a sense of the ‘Last Days Of The Roman Empire’ about this.
Click to expand...
You are quite right. The only antidote is to promote the truth and expose falsehoods. And we must watch the words being used.

Anti-Abortion was changed to Anti-Choice.
Pro-Abortion was changed to Pro-Choice.

See how it works?

Pro-Gay Marriage was changed to Marriage Equality.

These changes do affect people’s thinking. We should be on our guard.

And where are these Catholics who overwhelmingly support homosexual unions? Apparently not in California, where voters turned it down twice, or anywhere else in the country for that matter. Instead, judges and politicians made the change. This will not occur by the will of the people. So take heart. The general population does understand this issue.

The social engineers in the White House got a bit of a wake up call as well. The people - the average person - fully understand. Don’t let a few distract you when they run around yelling theocracy! as if their porn and dope will be ripped from their hands tomorrow. Tell people to reject those in power who want to rearrange our lives and make the world safe for sexual perverts and potheads.

Finally, be careful with the term “homosexual unions” and “civil unions.” Gays don’t want that. Using a false civil rights analogy, they tell us that would amount to separate but equal. Ellen Degeneres made it clear to then candidate John McCain that gay people don’t want contracts, they want marriage. However, this radical redefinition will not remain.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, after Rome fell, what now sits there? The Vatican. God will continue to guide as long as we truly rely on Him.

God bless,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Marriage is for breeding. Civil union protection would be for people in non-breeding relationships.
Click to expand...
Breeding is what animals do.

In a human marriage between a man and a woman a human soul, authored by God, is incarnated and given the best chance to be raised in a loving environment with a role model from both sexes, who, given that the child is “flesh of their fesh and blood of their blood”, will be well disposed to love them.

Be careful that in playing with words and concepts you don’t reason yourself into accepting evil.

I read an account by written by a child raised by active homosexuals. It was sad and disgusting in equal parts.
 
Sorry, no. Let’s just say the child was not shielded from the ‘lifestyle’.

I think there’s a failure of imagination in those that promote ‘equality’ for homosexuals, etc.
 
Breeding is what animals do.
Click to expand...
Some humans do too – they whelp without having the slightest interest in parenting.
Be careful that in playing with words and concepts you don’t reason yourself into accepting evil.
Click to expand...
Correct – we must be very careful with language.
I read an account by written by a child raised by active homosexuals. It was sad and disgusting in equal parts
Click to expand...
Can you refer us to this account?
 
StAnastasia said:
Larkin31, try Gérald Messadié, Histoire Générale du Diable. translated into English as A History of the Devil by Marc Romano. New York : Kodansha International, 1996.

"Messadie’s book is the finest of the legion of recent books released about the archfiend and his cohorts. Using a comparative and phenomenological approach, the author traces the idea of the Devil from ancient Greece and India to contemporary Western culture. What emerges from Messadie’s explorations is that the Devil is a very recent concept, arising primarily out of Zoroastrianism in Persia in the sixth century B.C. In that religion, a personified evil being is coexistent and coeval with a personification of the good, and Messadie examines how that dualism has slipped into Christianity, in particular. Thus the author concludes, on the basis of careful historical study, that the Devil does not exist in societies where the need for a force opposing the good is absent. Finally, Messadie aptly demonstrates how people in contemporary culture, in the absence of the personification of evil, use the Devil to vilify their enemies and to promote hatred. "
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I read some other reviews of his book & decided it wasn’t worth reading. Here’s one:
A History of the Devil (Paperback)
"I considered giving this review one star, but have given it two for the simple reality that Messadie attempted to work on a field given too little attention. For that, I acknowledge his contribution. Yet, I certainly hope this is far from the final say on the topic.

The book is somewhat sarcastic, with overtones of political agendas mixed with theological history–not exactly conducive to genuine history. The translation is–at times–downright horrific, and all other times, mediocre. This is the first attempt at academic scholarship I’ve seen in a long time in English that makes frequent use of contractions.

As for his actual scholarship, I find it highly lacking. His attempts to encapsulate world history’s entire understanding of demons, the Devil and evil–or lack thereof–within a mere chapter per civilization seem to deviate from a clear path. At times, I am left wondering what his actual thesis is anyway, **whether he seeks to actually lay out an honest history of the development of Satan, or attack fundamentalists by attempting to show their limited support in the context of world history. **

Beyond this structural issue, his scholarship is, as I have already noted, melded with sarcasm, dismissal, and dramatic misunderstandings of nearly every religion he touches upon. Simple sarcastic quips like commenting on the ugliness of Byzantine iconography–without even a hint of understanding what they actually seek to portray–add nothing to his scholarship, and, in fact, detract from his credibility. As I am not an expert on much of the chapters he has done, I cannot comment freely.** However, in the fields of Zoroastrianism–which I have read widely upon–I must say his citations are old, outdated, and often questionable.** I do not seek to gleam my entire understanding of such a pivotal faith from the Encyclopedia Britannica, as Messadie seems to do occasionally, without even a single citation of Mary Boyce’s widely acclaimed works.

All in all, I again affirm that his attempt was valiant and I do hope that others in the fields of history and theology attempt to put together a work to this effect.** Yet, for Messadie, the holes in his argument, his lack of logical flow and structure, his outdated and often sparse citations, his dismissive and sarcastic tone, and the actual poor translation of this book make it a rather lowly reading.**

St. Anastasia, Your patron saint is so important to the history of the Roman/Eastern Catholic Church that her name is included in the Roman Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass. It’s a shame that you found this mediocre, slanted book to be so impressive".
 
StAnastasia said:
Can you tease out that typology for us? Show us which verses in particular contain the hidden typological meaning.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, as a grad student with deadlines looming, as well as trying to keep up with my blogs, at present I do not have the time to do a detailed exegesis. Perhaps next semester when I may have the opportunity to do an exegesis for my class on the Prophets…
 
=CradleCath;7250218]Hmmm. I read some other reviews of his book & decided it wasn’t worth reading.
Click to expand...
You are a selective reader. You find one Amazon review by a fundamentalist type, and ignore what professional scholars have to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top