Gay friends

[mikew262]

I hope that you feel better now after that misdirected cathartic release …

Again, I take Jesus as my example and role model.

Misdirected? I think I was right on the mark. If you take Jesus as your role model, then you certainly wouldn’t behave as you indicated.

Show me an instance where Jesus openly chastised a sinner who had invited him into their house?

 

[mlchance]

Jesus never went to a sinners house and openly condemned their lifestyle. No, he appreciated their invite.

Interesting take. When Jesus was asked why he dined with sinners, he said, “I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but the sinners.” When he dined with a Pharisee, Jesus accused him of being “filled with plunder and evil,” called the Pharisees “You fools!,” et cetera. He specifically sought out Zacchaeus, a notorious public sinner, to effect that man’s very public repentance. He rebuked his relative Martha for bad-mouthing her sister Mary.

I guess by your own reckoning, Jesus was horribly rude, and you’d have had to have kicked him out your house.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[setter]

Misdirected? I think I was right on the mark. If you take Jesus as your role model, then you certainly wouldn’t behave as you indicated.

Show me an instance where Jesus openly chastised a sinner who had invited him into their house?

Please do not misconstrue and misrepresent my post with your projections …I never suggested “chastise a sinner”.

 

[setter]

I repeat: Truth is what it is. Sometimes it’s not pleasant.

I suggest that you spend some time in the gospel accounts of Jesus encountering sinners and see the wide range and variety of approaches that he used to present the truth to sinners …otherwise your skipping record will end up pushing away more sinners than giving the Holy Spirit the opportunity to eventually win them over to Christ, IMHO.

 

[mikew262]

Interesting take. When Jesus was asked why he dined with sinners, he said, “I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but the sinners.” When he dined with a Pharisee, Jesus accused him of being “filled with plunder and evil,” called the Pharisees “You fools!,” et cetera. He specifically sought out Zacchaeus, a notorious public sinner, to effect that man’s very public repentance. He rebuked his relative Martha for bad-mouthing her sister Mary.

I guess by your own reckoning, Jesus was horribly rude, and you’d have had to have kicked him out your house.

– Mark L. Chance.

He was not rebuking any of these folks for sinning.

Pharisee: He rebuking them for saying 1 thing and doing another. He was correcting their mindset.

Zacchaeus: Reread Luke. It says nothing about Jesus rebuking him for sinning.

Mary and Martha: No real sin here either. He was just simply scolding Martha for complaining that she was busy working, while Mary was sitting there listening to him.

 

[mikew262]

Please do not misconstrue and misrepresent my post with your projections …I never suggested “chastise a sinner”.

Ok, passing judgement. More accurate?

 

[setter]

Ok, passing judgement. More accurate?

You are still projecting …hint: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

 

[Other_Eric]

I suggest that you spend some time in the gospel accounts of Jesus encountering sinners and see the wide range and variety of approaches that he used to present the truth to sinners …otherwise your skipping record will end up pushing away more sinners than giving the Holy Spirit the opportunity to eventually win them over to Christ, IMHO.

I do not see in any of the Gospel accounts Jesus watering down the Truth in order to make it more marketable. In each instance, Christ presented the raw, unvarnished truth, either in the form of a parable or direct admonishment. He was not even above referring to Peter, the rock, as Satan. Our approach to those with same-sex attractions should be no different. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the Jesus of the Gospels rather than the Hallmark version you seem to endorse.

 

[mlchance]

He was not rebuking any of these folks for sinning.

Pharisee: He rebuking them for saying 1 thing and doing another. He was correcting their mindset.

Let’s focus on just the first one to emphasize the amount of spinning you’re doing to avoid admitting the obvious.

Jesus did a great deal more than just correct “their mindset” (whatever that bit of psychobabble is supposed to mean). He ripped into them most righteously, even going so far as to comparing his Pharisee host to an open grave into which people unwittingly fall.

We can also move out of domestic settings into the various public arenas in which Jesus, in no uncertain terms, condemned various people for their sins.

Back to the OP: Yes, a Catholic can be a homosexual person’s friend. This is very nearly self-evident. At the same time, the Catholic can never give appearance to approving of the gravely, instrinically disordered genital activity which pro-homosexual propaganda attempts to paint as the moral equivalent of heterosexual genital activity.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

Let’s focus on just the first one to emphasize the amount of spinning you’re doing to avoid admitting the obvious.

Jesus did a great deal more than just correct “their mindset” (whatever that bit of psychobabble is supposed to mean). He ripped into them most righteously, even going so far as to comparing his Pharisee host to an open grave into which people unwittingly fall.

We can also move out of domestic settings into the various public arenas in which Jesus, in no uncertain terms, condemned various people for their sins.

Back to the OP: Yes, a Catholic can be a homosexual person’s friend. This is very nearly self-evident. At the same time, the Catholic can never give appearance to approving of the gravely, instrinically disordered genital activity which pro-homosexual propaganda attempts to paint as the moral equivalent of heterosexual genital activity.

– Mark L. Chance.

However, was the Pharisee actually sinning? If so, what was the sin? Jesus was actually just forcefully correcting the Pharisee that the way they used to do business is over.

Anyway, we’re off track here on why I originally posted. I objected to how Setter was going to handle himself if he was ever invited to someone’s house that was living in a “sinful” lifestyle. If invited out of friendship, you keep your judgmental opinions to yourself unless you are openly asked to express them. If you can’t stand to be there, either don’t attend in the 1st place or just leave.

BTW, see if you can respond w/o sarcasm next time.

 

[mlchance]

However, was the Pharisee actually sinning? If so, what was the sin?

I’m pretty sure leading people down the garden path toward Hell is a sin.

Anyway, we’re off track here on why I originally posted. I objected to how Setter was going to handle himself if he was ever invited to someone’s house that was living in a “sinful” lifestyle.

You did more than that. You expressed your mere opinion regarding manners as if it had divine sanction, calling on Jesus Christ himself as the proof.

BTW, see if you can respond w/o sarcasm next time.

Or you could make an effort to stop being so thin-skinned and imputing bad motives and behavior to others.

Just a thought.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

I’m pretty sure leading people down the garden path toward Hell is a sin.

You did more than that. You expressed your mere opinion regarding manners as if it had divine sanction, calling on Jesus Christ himself as the proof.

Or you could make an effort to stop being so thin-skinned and imputing bad motives and behavior to others.

Just a thought.

– Mark L. Chance.

Concerning your 3 bullets:

Jesus was teaching the Pharisee, sternly, not rebuking a sin.

Huh? I was only telling Setter he was being rude in his approach. He stated he was following Christ’s example and I called him on it. What are you talking about?

Not being thin skinned. I try (sometimes I fail) to provide clear answers w/o resorting to sarcasm. I was asking you to attempt the same. If you have your ducks lined up, then sarcasm and rudeness is unnecessary.

 

[mlchance]

Concerning your 3 bullets:

Jesus was teaching the Pharisee, sternly, not rebuking a sin.

Hmm. Makes me wonder what it takes for something to be a sin. Even those present realized Jesus was insulting them. They whined about it. Jesus accused those present of having no love for God. (Last time I checked, that was a sin.) Being filled “with plunder and evil” isn’t a sin? Bearing witness and giving consent to the murder of prophets isn’t evil?

Not being thin skinned. I try (sometimes I fail) to provide clear answers w/o resorting to sarcasm. I was asking you to attempt the same. If you have your ducks lined up, then sarcasm and rudeness is unnecessary.

But I’m not being rude or sarcastic; therefore, your request is, from my perspective, meaningless at best.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[setter]

I do not see in any of the Gospel accounts Jesus watering down the Truth in order to make it more marketable. In each instance, Christ presented the raw, unvarnished truth, either in the form of a parable or direct admonishment. He was not even above referring to Peter, the rock, as Satan. Our approach to those with same-sex attractions should be no different. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the Jesus of the Gospels rather than the Hallmark version you seem to endorse.

Your right, …Jesus did knock Levi the tax collector out of the tree, pushed the samaritan woman with several husband’s down the well, clobbered the woman caught in adultery over the head with a boulder, … the gospel according to who?

Like I suggested, you would do well to go read and prayerfully meditate over the gospel accounts of how Jesus allowed himself a wide range and variety of approaches to reach the sinner in need with his saving message of love; otherwise our human zeal can out run the love of Christ.

 

[Other_Eric]

Your right, …Jesus did knock Levi the tax collector out of the tree, pushed the samaritan woman with several husband’s down the well, clobbered the woman caught in adultery over the head with a boulder, … the gospel according to who?

Like I suggested, you would do well to go read and prayerfully meditate over the gospel accounts of how Jesus allowed himself a wide range and variety of approaches to reach the sinner in need with his saving message of love; otherwise our human zeal can out run the love of Christ.

Spinning as violently as you are, it’s a wonder that the dizziness allows you to still type. You present a false dichotomy, as if telling people the Truth was akin to assault and battery. Nowhere here have I suggested any such example. Rather, I maintain, exactly as you have here, that the primary mode of evangelization will be one of admonishment. Remaining silent out of some malformed conception of politeness is to effectively assist in the sins of those with same-sex attractions.

 

[blessedtoo]

I do not see in any of the Gospel accounts Jesus watering down the Truth in order to make it more marketable. In each instance, Christ presented the raw, unvarnished truth, either in the form of a parable or direct admonishment.

Yes, but never in the form of a “business card for the proper reparative therapist”. Are you for real?

I asked you this before on another thread and you never replied. I wonder: how effective have you been with your approach in converting those active homosexuals back to the truth? I’m very interested in how that’s working for you.

 

[Imagine23]

There is a difference between being friends with someone and supporting their lifestyle.

If a friend of yours happens to be addicted to hard core drugs you still hang out with him. If he starts snorting while you’re there you leave. You don’t invite him over with his drugs.

Likewise if something goes on that makes you uncomfortable its not impolite to leave. And you don’t invite them over to your house as a couple.

Great advice! If your gay friend starts having sex in front of you with her partner while you’re there, you should leave. Although if one of my heterosexual friends started having sex with their significant other in front of me I’d probably leave also.

So, I guess I don’t get your point.

 

[Imagine23]

My best friend is Gay.

I do not agree with the lifestyle but I am not friends with him because of his lifestyle but because he has a good heart and is a good person.

Just like you are not friends with straight people just because they are straight.

Great comment. You are an example of someone who uses real morality and empathy, rather than blind recitation of scripture.

 

[Imagine23]

Good point. Glad you thought to bring that up

Actually that point makes no sense whatsoever. I’m trying to put myself within the confines of your twisted logic. I guess you’re saying that if she were lesbian, going over to her friend’s house would open herself up to temptation? If that’s so I guess you see the logic in the Muslim tradition of covering their women from head to toe.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

It is quite a bold person who would undertake to correct St. Thomas Aquinas and the Tradition of the Church. The homosexual act has always been looked upon as worse than pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, masturbation, incest, or rape. (1)

(1) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2006. Available online at: newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#12

I am nothing if not bold but it’s not like my thoughts are that original. I have my opinion and St. Thomas has his.

People typically condemn the thing they are least likely to do (so they won’t be called a hyopcrite) OR will condemn it louder than anyone (like a closet case).

And one should not compare my ideas to those of saints, etc. it really goes to my head