"homosexual person" myth or Truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjr9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ShanPO said:
If the word “exclusive” were removed, would you still have issue with this?
Click to expand...
To claim people who have OSA and SSA are a “homosexual person” makes no logical sense
I believe the Magisterium should make sense in it’s claims. However renouncing the false claim
of exclusive SSA would be a step in the right direction.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
To claim people who have OSA and SSA are a “homosexual person” makes no logical sense
I believe the Magisterium should make sense in it’s claims.
Click to expand...
Again you are reading into the text.

The claim exists only in your mind.

Your PUTTING a meaning into the text that is not there.

Please let it go …it is a phantom.

The Church is not Teaching about questions or matters of the empirical sciences here.

The Church is teaching about - what? Moral life.

About the 6th Commandment. About LIFE IN CHRIST (title of the whole section).

The Catechism is covering all the possibilities.

If person D does not *experience *any other attraction that to their same gender - what are they do do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.

If person A *experiences *some attraction to their own gender and some attraction to the opposite gender - what are they to do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.

Or to put it differently - either person “says” they do not or do…it does not matter here.

A key word there in the CCC is “experience”.
*
No one can say “hey it does not apply to me cause I only experience SSA” or “I experience both…” The teachings regarding such apply to all those who experience such.*

One cannot debate with a person about what he personally “experiences”.

The point of the discussion in the Catechism is* the morality and the call to virtue*. That applies to them all (and to us all too) no matter what a person may say they experience.

The Church is not mistaken. Your difficulty is that your taking your personal subjective framing of things and investing meaning in the use of a phrase -one that has been used now for many years by the Church that is mistaken here. That is not being asserted.

Like taking Sacred Scripture where Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin -pluck it out and protesting that he is telling others to mutilate themselves…

One must disabuse oneself of that view by referring to the Church and finding that is not what is meant.

The Teachings of the Church - like those of Scripture must be understood in the way they are intended. What is actually being asserted. Or not.

Your difficulty is your importing something into the text that is not there. Reading into it.

The Church is teaching there about morality - not questions of empirical science…about this or that evidence or theory.

Persons stated experience -does not change the morality and the call to virtue.
 
Elf01 said:
How is it not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith
Click to expand...
For exclusive SSA to be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith there should be
something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith to be in harmony with. I know of nothing in the
Sacred Deposit of Faith in harmony with exclusive SSA. Do you?

God bless
 
(lets switch it out…with other matters that also yes use like terms…somethings doing this sort of thing can help one to see better what has been missed in a discussion for one steps back from it and can re approach it.)
Problem: What I don’t understand is why the Magisterium has accepted the concept of
a “handicapped person”…
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the Magisterium claims that the “handicapped person” is real
Click to expand...
Answer:

They are yes persons and yes handicaps are present.

However your concern here shows that your *over reading *that phrase to mean that the Church holds that a person with a handicap is defined by his handicap in some metaphysical way - as if there were persons and then there are “handicapped persons” as if the presence of their handicap was who they were. Giving it a meaning that is not intended by the Church.

Well no worries here. The phrase there is simply a qualifier to be able to talk about persons with handicaps. Similar to when the Church refers to divorced persons or homosexual persons. The Church is simply using a word added to the term ‘person’ to be able do discuss the matters involved. Thats all.
 
jjr9 said:
To claim people who have OSA and SSA are a “homosexual person” makes no logical sense
I believe the Magisterium should make sense in it’s claims. However renouncing the false claim
of exclusive SSA would be a step in the right direction.

God bless
Click to expand...
Let me ask another question, if you are the only person who believes this, is it possible that you could be wrong?
 
jjr9 said:
For exclusive SSA to be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith there should be
something in the Sacred Deposit of Faith to be in harmony with. I know of nothing in the
Sacred Deposit of Faith in harmony with exclusive SSA. Do you?

God bless
Click to expand...
You say it is not “in harmony”, but really mean is “it is not explicitly mentioned”. To which I say, “so what”?
 
For interest, here is a talk on SSA from a Christian biblical scholar.
thegospelcoalition.org.au/podcasts/bibletalks/WesHill_1Cor6.mp3.
Here is the web page:
australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/wes-hill-bssa

The speaker description is:

"Wesley Hill is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry (Pittsburgh). He offers a biblical and orthodox position on the issue with credibility and personal integrity (Wesley is exclusively same-sex attracted and celibate). His undergraduate studies were at Wheaton, and his PhD from Durham University. His speaking topics and research interests are Pauline theology, Trinitarian theology, and Christian sexual ethics."http://thegospelcoalition.org.au/podcasts/bibletalks/WesHill_1Cor6.mp3

The speaker states himself (toward the end) he experiences only attraction to the same sex.
 
jjr9 said:
Can you share?

God bless
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ve personally known gay men who were very clear about their SSA. They were not romantically or sexually attracted to women. It had an “ick” factor for them.
 
ShanPO said:
Let me ask another question, if you are the only person who believes this, is it possible that you could be wrong?
Click to expand...
The truth is the truth whether anyone believes it or not. I am wrong often and happy to learn that I
am so I can correct my thinking.

No one can prove that God exists yet I seldom have doubt thanks to the Faith of my fathers and
the gift of the Church from the Lord. I believe the Magisterium has no authority to present what is
false as true in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has in claiming some experience an exclusive
SSA. I believe this only serves the evil one and hurts the Lord’s Church.

God bless
 
It’s kind-of relatively true in certain contexts but is not a fundamental enough category as misdefined, for the purposes it has been put to.
 
jjr9 said:
The truth is the truth whether anyone believes it or not. I am wrong often and happy to learn that I
am so I can correct my thinking.

No one can prove that God exists yet I seldom have doubt thanks to the Faith of my fathers and
the gift of the Church from the Lord. I believe the Magisterium has no authority to present what is
false as true in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has in claiming some experience an exclusive
SSA. I believe this only serves the evil one and hurts the Lord’s Church.

God bless
Click to expand...
So if someone were to point blank tell you that they experience only SSA, and have absolutely no attraction in any way to the opposite sex, would you believe them?
 
Shan 224 and Penitent Son 221, and Jjr9, please see my 223, in case it will help!

I keep trying to help these threads along! Here’s my latest go!
 
ShanPO said:
So if someone were to point blank tell you that they experience only SSA, and have absolutely no attraction in any way to the opposite sex, would you believe them?
Click to expand...
If they wanted to discuss it I would tell them I believe no one is incapable of OSA and I would ask them
what brought them to their belief and would tell them I believe the Lord did not bring them to their belief.
They have freewill and are not required to pursue OSA; if they believe them-self to have an exclusive
SSA that is their choice.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
If they wanted to discuss it I would tell them I believe no one is incapable of OSA and I would ask them
what brought them to their belief and would tell them I believe the Lord did not bring them to their belief.
They have freewill and are not required to pursue OSA; if they believe them-self to have an exclusive
SSA that is their choice.

God bless
Click to expand...
I’m going to ask you a very serious question here, and I need you to answer it.

Do you like Chocolate Milk?
 
jjr9 said:
The truth is the truth whether anyone believes it or not. I am wrong often and happy to learn that I
am so I can correct my thinking.

No one can prove that God exists yet** I seldom have doubt thanks to the Faith of my fathers and
the gift of the Church from the Lord.** I believe the Magisterium has no authority to present what is
false as true in the name of the Lord’s Church as it has in claiming some experience an exclusive
SSA. I believe this only serves the evil one and hurts the Lord’s Church.

God bless
Click to expand...
Do you see your circular logic here?

You have doubts precisely because you do not have the “faith of your fathers and the gift of the Church”, which the Magisterium expresses.
If you don’t accept the integrity of the Magisterium, you don’t accept the faith of your fathers or the Catholic Church. You accept what you want to accept.
**Period, end of story. **
 
Penitent_Son said:
Why should I tell you?
Click to expand...
You would be the first to have have a truly right and just reason to believe the mythical “homosexual
person” real. It is up to you if you want to share.
Penitent_Son said:
Why are you referring to people as “it” and why is it important for you that they not exist?
Click to expand...
In context I said:

If someone has a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real I would like to hear
it. I do not believe it exists.

The it refers to “truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real”. I believe it is
important that the Magisterium not present what is false as true. Don’t you?

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
…] For me the predominant
“homosexual person” is a bit irrational as this person would have SSA and OSA.

I have no idea what the Magisterium has in mind by accepting the myth of the “homosexual person” as real…]

If someone has a truly right and just reason to believe the “homosexual person” real I would like to hear it. I do not believe it exists. …]
Click to expand...
We are required to accept with docility the teaching of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals. With respect to the human condition, the matter of morals would include to a certain extent the scholastic principles of human psychology.

But as to modern psychology, the Church remains antipathetic to its bogus ideas. However, modern psychology has identified the “homosexual person” and given the phrase currency in the modern world. Going further, modern psychology claims an exceptional status for the “homosexual person.” This lie has given rise to not only the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as normative of human nature but one to be celebrated.

If the Church did not respond to this lie about the nature of man then the faithful may be led into this and other falsehoods of modern psychology. When the Church rebuts a heresy, she does so using the same words, phrases and terms that the heresy uses to promote its lies.

If the Magisterium proposes opinions on matters other than faith or morals, the faithful’s obligation is to listen attentively but the faithful do not have an obligation to accept with docility these opinions.

What remains as the constant and unwavering teaching of our Tradition is that illicit sexual acts are immoral.
 
jjr9 said:
. I believe it is
important that the Magisterium not present what is false as true. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
Why are you seeking to argue that about something that is not actually in question?

Your argument is* no*t about anything that is be taught by the Magisterium.

See the above.

The Church is discussing the MORAL realities involved with persons - NOT teaching about some empircal science question…or even some statistics question - that is your mistake you think the Church is doing that…the Magisterium is not.

What is the Magisterium teaching?

The MORAL TRUTH that is to be lived by any who experience such attractions.

It is the moral section of the Catechism…about how to live in Christ Morally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top