Gays May Be Prosecuted at 2014 Olympics

[MasterWooten]

I said nothing about their love being disordered. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is objectively disordered - always has been always will be. That doesn’t make it sinful but it isn’t the way humans were designed.

There are many disorders that are accepted and accommodated in our society. For example, disordered vision, disordered hearing or disordered growth progress. They are called disabilities. Homosexuality is no different. It is a disorder, a variation from the norm for a healthy human, in the ability to form sexual relations. Biologically, by definition, sexual organisms survive by heterosexuality. A person who is unable to do that has a disorder.

Corki, its different with homosexuality when you are talking about homosexual conduct. The Catechism clearly states that while homosexual attraction is not sin, homosexual sexual relations (the action) is disordered and sinful. You must understand that we as Catholics are being extremely liberal and tolerant on this subject given that we’re people who like to say that we take the scriptures seriously. Compared to other genuine bible believing churches you might not find a more generous policy statement on the subject.

Mathew 5:27-28 says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So by that standard even contemplating homosexual sex is the same as doing it as far as the bible is concerned and make no mistake the bible says that homosexual sex is sin. It really doesn’t matter what our fallen society has “accommodated” to the true person of faith. If you’re gonna talk morality, the world in 2013 especially the western world isn’t exactly living the way God would like us to live and I’m not talking about greed or intolerance only. Some of the most tolerant and selfless people are well off the Christian radar screen.

So sure, there are many “disorders” that are ambiguous or benign as far as biblical morality goes, but when you’re talking about actual behavior like sexual conduct, the level of ambiguity becomes less and less so as the scriptures are clear to the point of excruciating detail as to how we’re to live our lives.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

So, you consider the sex act between a man and a woman to whom he is married “bleak”??? One can only think your lived experience has been less than optimal.

No, that’s not what I think. But I think making the procreation the entire focus of it is bleak.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, that’s not what I think. But I think making the procreation the entire focus of it is bleak.

I don’t know that anyone here thinks that. Certainly, the Church doesn’t.

One absolutely must eat to stay alive, and staying alive is the fundamental and primary purpose of eating, because we obtain necessary nutrients by doing it. And yet, few would deny that eating can be, and usually is, enjoyable. Just because one might say one must eat to live, it does not imply that such a person excludes the enjoyment part of it.

But on the other hand, we can physically eat dirt or sand or filth, and some people who have the disorder called Pika do exactly that. But just because we’re physically capable of eating those things, they do not serve the fundamental purpose of the act of eating and, in fact, defeat it at least as far as the eater is concerned. And if, as with the person suffering from Pika, one feels compelled to eat dirt or sand or filth and finds some satisfaction in doing it, one would never endorse the practice, precisely because it does not serve the primary purpose of providing nutrients. One would certainly consider Pika disordered, and one should never celebrate it.

And when it comes to sexual activity, there is really no fundamental difference. One might feel compelled to turn it to some activity like homosexual activity that defeats its fundamental purpose and one might even enjoy it. But nevertheless, homosexual activity does defeat the quite obvious and fundamental purpose of sexuality. As such, it is disordered and should not be celebrated any more than one ought to celebrate Pika.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

But if one is a gnostic, and if gnostic writings are unfriendly to homosexuality, why on earth do you promote the latter? Is it possible to be a gnostic agnostic?

Because unlike the exoteric Church, we don’t take scripture to be the authoritative, infallible word of God. All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself.

 

[estesbob]

Because unlike the exoteric Church, we don’t take scripture to be the authoritative, infallible word of God. All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself.

So you’re making it up as you go along?

 

[Jeffrey_David]

In other words… not a the real Church.

Because unlike the exoteric Church, we don’t take scripture to be the authoritative, infallible word of God. All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself.

 

[MasterWooten]

Because unlike the exoteric Church, we don’t take scripture to be the authoritative, infallible word of God. All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself.

" All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself"

Sorry mate, but I don’t know of any true Christian who’d take that position. The bible is the word of God as He drafted it through man, so it wasn’t man who wrote scripture but the Lord Himself. Failure to see that is failure to adhere to true Christian faith and hence constitutes failure in following God, The Holy Ghost and His Son Jesus Christ.

Is there no wonder you have so called Christians endorsing homosexuality when the scriptures clearly refer to it as sin or saying that there “many ways” to salvation? I’ve even heard of some lost pretending souls who don’t believe in even basic concepts such as the virgin birth. Without scripture any claim to Christianity is a lost cause.

 

[ManOnFire]

Whoa whoa whoa. Not ALL of us Americans are unknowing participants in the progressive agenda. Some of us CAN see. But, overall, it has been very effective, especially for those who didn’t live through the 70s and 80s.

 

[ManOnFire]

Precisely. Human biology tells us the truth. Distorting that truth and trying to distort society, as the Russians understand clearly, is not the right thing to do.

Peace,
Ed

But, but, but the progressive athiests will sleep easier if they can create male and female gender roles within the same gender so there will be less kids, and less likelihood to “over”-populate the world…

 

[gnosisofthomas]

But, but, but the progressive athiests will sleep easier if they can create male and female gender roles within the same gender

That’s not quite how it works.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because unlike the exoteric Church, we don’t take scripture to be the authoritative, infallible word of God. All scripture, Biblical or otherwise, is written by human beings. As a product of an imperfect world, it can never be perfect itself.

If one is truly a gnostic, generically, one seeks and oftentimes purports to be privy to “knowledge”, usually revealed by writings, prophets, apparitions, and so on, that others do not have, and to which others largely do not have access.

Your use of the term “exoteric” implies that the Catholic Church (presumably also those within it) lack that “gnosis” or knowledge that a true gnostic would have.

But you are also saying the source of that “gnosis” is unreliable. So, in reality, there really is no “exoteric” and no “gnosis” at all. The “Pistis Sophia” is, then, no greater guide to anything than is “Mein Kampf”. In like manner, too, if the “Pistis Sophia” quotes Jesus as condemning homosexuality, yet a gnostic is free to dismiss His words as just one more set of unreliable human utterances, then there’s really nothing to “know” in “gnosticism”, despite the terminology.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

If one is truly a gnostic, generically, one seeks and oftentimes purports to be privy to “knowledge”, usually revealed by writings, prophets, apparitions, and so on, that others do not have, and to which others largely do not have access.

Your use of the term “exoteric” implies that the Catholic Church (presumably also those within it) lack that “gnosis” or knowledge that a true gnostic would have.

But you are also saying the source of that “gnosis” is unreliable. So, in reality, there really is no “exoteric” and no “gnosis” at all. The “Pistis Sophia” is, then, no greater guide to anything than is “Mein Kampf”. In like manner, too, if the “Pistis Sophia” quotes Jesus as condemning homosexuality, yet a gnostic is free to dismiss His words as just one more set of unreliable human utterances, then there’s really nothing to “know” in “gnosticism”, despite the terminology.

This has gotten incredibly off topic, but I’m going to respond anyway, haha! The Greek word for knowledge based on writings is “episteme”. It differs from Gnosis, which is knowledge gained from experience. Experiential knowledge is a very personal thing, it’s something that cannot be taught. The exoteric Church is full of episteme, but reading about something is a lot different from experiencing it for yourself.

 

[Darryl1958]

I have read the Bible, and while spiritually edifying, it was still written by human beings. It also forbids eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of two different kinds of fabric.

Christ gave us the Great Commandment, and to break those is the true sin. If a worldly law does not foster love for one’s neighbor, then that law is sinful.

Atheists have the same habit of reading the Bible without any attempt of understanding.

Biblical law is multi-sourced. There is first and foremost moral law appicable to the whole of humanity. Then there is the ceremonial law particular to this or that covenant that is specific to the people chosen by God to bring mankind to the next step in salvation. These point the way to moral law in one way or another, however tangentially or obscurely it may see 3000 years after the fact. An example of this would be the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. It is hardly a moral imperative for Christians since the time of St Paul, but deep study of the issue help clarify the lesson involved in this kind of covenant in the first place.
Finally there is judicial law, specific to a given nation at a given point of time, Moses in particular in order to help govern the new state of Israel. This is the law relative to the needs of a people in a given place at a given time.

Atheists and other superficial readings of the Bible invariably confuse the ceremonial and he judicial with the moral principles, which alone are absolute. That is what you appear to be doing here.

 

[J_Peterson]

This has gotten incredibly off topic, but I’m going to respond anyway, haha! The Greek word for knowledge based on writings is “episteme”. It differs from Gnosis, which is knowledge gained from experience. Experiential knowledge is a very personal thing, it’s something that cannot be taught. The exoteric Church is full of episteme, but reading about something is a lot different from experiencing it for yourself.

Haha, this is way off topic since last I checked.

I’m sure you already know this but the Church does have an esoteric side as well, you just have to dig a bit deeper or simply look a bit closer. Sometimes I think I’m a bit of a gnostic myself though.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Haha, this is way off topic since last I checked.

I’m sure you already know this but the Church does have an esoteric side as well, you just have to dig a bit deeper or simply look a bit closer. Sometimes I think I’m a bit of a gnostic myself though.

That’s true! I love reading some of the Catholic and Orthodox mystics.

 

[SeannyM]

Yes.

And I’d still like to know why none of these people who are so agitated about Russia’s new law haven’t taken on all the countries with Sharia law who actually are killing gays.

I complain about our support of those countries routinely, but they weren’t the topic of this thread. I abhor the idea of Sharia law… In fact I abhor the idea of any religiously based laws.

 

[SeannyM]

Thank you, yes. Nobody has any phobia. Disagreement is not fear or hatred. It’s disagreement. This is the most ridiculous word that has ever been dreamed up and it’s PR, not reality.

While I agree that most people who disagree with us aren’t phobic, I think there are definitely some out there. When I hear things about how the nation is going to be destroyed because of gay marriage, or when I hear natural disasters being blamed on the gays, or when i hear people say that one day they will be stripped of all religious liberties, or churches will be forced to marry gay people in the US… I sense at least a hint of irrational fear.

 

[SeannyM]

True! It is difficult for a homosexual practitioner to accept that the practice to which he is attracted is mis-use of the sexual faculty, and will therefore use the argument that celibacy would also be a disorder, as the poster did. Mis-use is different from non-use, which in the Christian context is celibacy offered for the kingdom of heaven.

I think those lost in their spiritual quest sometimes look to justification, offered by the false teaching of gnostics, gnostics of so called several lost gospels. We have been warned about false teachers and agenda by those who call themselves Catholic but live or believe differently from tenets of the faith.

The homosexual insisting that homosexual genital expression is right or feels right is a classic gnostic. He refuses to understand that gender is intrinsic to the design in mating, that maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary categories. Disregard of the category leads to the incorrect conclusion that same sex mating is equal to the real thing when it is mere approximation, a simulation, no matter the love and physical attraction the same sex partners have for each other.
,

Not to get into specifics, but the anatomy is perfectly complimentary, and arranged for both partners to experience intense pleasure. While it doesn’t result in procreation, I think that most people can agree that that is not the only purpose of intercourse, and is not a required prerequisite to engage in it.

 

[SeannyM]

Comparing

God’s chosen people, who lived to serve God, followed God’s laws and commandments…being hauled off and gassed… simply for being Jewish

to

People trying to propagandize deviant behavior to other people’s children being charged with breaking a law for actually engaging in a specific behavior which is known to be against the law

is disgusting.

By this logic, we ought to just protest any laws. Or any country with any laws. If you really believe that all things are so inherently equal that being Jewish is really no different than propagandizing to other people’s kids about your sexual proclivities.

First, if I’m not mistaken, the homosexuals in Nazi held territories were thrown in the same ovens as the Jewish victims. I’m not saying its a perfect analogy, I’m saying that there are situational similarities.

Just because they were different groups being attacked, doesn’t mean that it’s out of the realm of possibilities for history to repeat itself, and for the antagonist’s target to be a different group.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Not to get into specifics, but the anatomy is perfectly complimentary, and arranged for both partners to experience intense pleasure. While it doesn’t result in procreation, I think that most people can agree that that is not the only purpose of intercourse, and is not a required prerequisite to engage in it.

Did you mean two men having sex have complementary anatomy? There is no way the bodies of two men or two women can achieve complementarity in the sex act. Whatever supposed sexual act between two of the same gender is performed, it can only be an approximation or simulation of intercourse between a man and a woman. A certain orifice is meant to expel waste, certainly not designed to serve as the receptive sex organ, regardless that some in the population are engaging in said practice.

You are a medical provider, a doctor? I can tell you that my two brothers and sister-in-law who are physicians will laugh at your assertion that “the anatomy is perfectly complementary” with two men (or two women) engaging in sex. Clearly, the intent of such act is to attain sexual release / pleasure, the same end of someone engaging in masturbation. Both are sterile acts, with zero potential of producing the next crop of citizens. Not good for Russia as the government is reportedly earnest in growing its population, one reason the Duma wishes to discourage homosexual propaganda in its shores during the Olympics.

As for the procreative end of sexual intercourse, a natural physical union between a man and a woman, the act is meant to be unitive as well. It involves the total giving of self to the other, two opposite sexed people truly becoming one flesh outwardly and interiorly. The unitive act may not always produce a child secondary to possible existing pathology of one partner or advanced age of the woman, but the act is certainly complementary and so ordered that when the bases are loaded so to speak as in a baseball game (i.e., no fertility issues, the female is ovulating), the chance of the man’s sperm fertilizing the woman’s ovum leads to conception. It is complementary to the gamete level!
,