Homosexual programs in Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter PetersKeys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I am sure that you will be offering some credible evidence of all these amazing facts ? Sounds like the sort of nonsnesne you find on homosexual apologist’s web sites.
Click to expand...
And where else are we to find information on homosexual unions in the Church? It’s not like the Vatican advocates them.
 
No, but I’m not going to provide proof if you’re just going to look at it and say “oh, this is from a homosexual supporter, therefore it must be false”.
 
v3orb said:
No, but I’m not going to provide proof if you’re just going to look at it and say “oh, this is from a homosexual supporter, therefore it must be false”.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether they provide cites.
 
Bob and v3orb,
I poked around a little on the web, and found a professor at Spring Hill College (a Jesuit school) who says that early Christian attitudes toward homosexuality were influenced by Plato, but that this made Christians less accepting of it.
A roomful of people, asked to draw a triangle, will very probably all draw different triangles, but all of them can be correlated with the “Idea” of “triangle.” In other words, while Plato obviously never located such “Ideas” in the mind of the God of Israel and of Jesus Christ, still Plato understood that we actually could know things certainly because of our ability to compare mentally whatever it was that we were trying to understand with the ideal of that reality.
Click to expand...
Relevance: Because of an ideal “humanity” in God’s mind, Christianity developed the philosophical insight that homosexuality is “unnatural,” even though it occurs frequently in nature. This obviously bolstered the apparent condemnations of homosexuality in Scripture.

Homosexuality is understood to be “unnatural” because we presume that there is some transcendent criterion/Idea (in the mind of God) against which we understand “nature,” and that “Idea” of “nature” must dictate what is “normal,” and therefore moral or immoral.

So Plato’s “Ideas” have become a fixture of the Christian mind, especially since they have been understood to be “the way God sees things.” This is more or less the way Plato understood his Ideas or Forms.
Click to expand...
religionandspirituality.com/christianity/view.php?StoryID=20080319-072652-4233r
 
i read that article about the nun supporting homosexuals. she said that what is natural for most people is not what is natural for everyone. well there is what is natural to someone and what is nature. homosexual acts are natural to homosexuals but that dosn’t mean that their natural. i find it very hard to agrue that homosexual acts are natural. sodomy has no procreative objective . the act does not lead to reproduction.

another thing is that homosexuals who want to remain catholic and want the church to permit gay marriage but are sexually active are kind of hypocrites. i’m just saying that heterosexual people are to abstain from sex before marriage, so for those people’s sake i hope they realize this. if they’re waiting for the church to permit gay marriage i would hope that they don’t try to exempt and seperate themselves from what straight people must do. if a straight person can abstain until they’re married than a gay person must wait.(if gay marriage were somehow allowed)
 
East_and_West said:
[blah blah blah] without lying about whether or [blah blah blah]
Click to expand...
Clearly you have no clue what the word “lying” means. To lie, a person must make a statement they **know **to be false. That is different that making a mistake or disagreeing with a person.

When you use such pejorative and insulting terms, when you accuse me or other people of knowingly making false statements, you utterly disqualify yourself from making any meaningful contribution.

If you cannot post without insulating and attacking people, do not post.
 
rpp said:
Clearly you have no clue what the word “lying” means. To lie, a person must make a statement they **know **to be false. That is different that making a mistake or disagreeing with a person.

When you use such pejorative and insulting terms, when you accuse me or other people of knowingly making false statements, you utterly disqualify yourself from making any meaningful contribution.

If you cannot post without insulating and attacking people, do not post.
Click to expand...
You continue to insist that the charism of infallibility has been invoked on this matter when it clearly has not. I have no intention of offending you but I wish you would stop.
 
I am gonna start eating rocks instead of food. I am going to do this for several reason. First, I prefer the dust taste of rocks and the the salty taste after they have been in your mouth for a while. Second, I have always like the taste of rocks. I am sure I was born this way. Third, I am not hurting anyone else by eating rocks. Fourth, It is quite “natural” for me to eat rocks. Some animals do it. Birds, for example sometimes swallow pebbles to aid in the process of digestion, so it must be natural. Fifth, no one has the right to tell me how to my life and so if anyone tries to stop me from eating rocks they are violating my rights and I will protest as loud as possible!!! They are just displaying their ignorant phobia of those who prefer to eat rocks!!! I am a rock eater. I am here; I eat queer (queer meaning “weird” in the orignal sense of the word), get over it. 😉 😃
 
estesbob said:
I am at a loss as to the point you are making-are you claming that the Church teaching on Homosexuality can be changed?
Click to expand...
All I am calling for is intellectual honesty. Of course the Church is NOT going to change its postion on the matter because the Church’s position is the one that is consonant with reality. What I am saying is that the Church has never invoked the charism of infallibility with regard to this matter and we should not claim that it has.
 
rpp said:
Clearly you have no clue what the word “lying” means. To lie, a person must make a statement they **know **to be false. That is different that making a mistake or disagreeing with a person.
.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if i offended you.
 
East_and_West said:
I am gonna start eating rocks instead of food. I am going to do this for several reason. First, I prefer the dust taste of rocks and the the salty taste after they have been in your mouth for a while. Second, I have always like the taste of rocks. I am sure I was born this way. Third, I am not hurting anyone else by eating rocks. Fourth, It is quite “natural” for me to eat rocks. Some animals do it. Birds, for example sometimes swallow pebbles to aid in the process of digestion, so it must be natural. Fifth, no one has the right to tell me how to my life and so if anyone tries to stop me from eating rocks they are violating my rights and I will protest as loud as possible!!! They are just displaying their ignorant phobia of those who prefer to eat rocks!!! I am a rock eater. I am here; I eat queer (queer meaning “weird” in the orignal sense of the word), get over it. 😉 😃
Click to expand...
:whacky:
East_and_West said:
All I am calling for is intellectual honesty. Of course the Church is NOT going to change its postion on the matter because the Church’s position is the one that is consonant with reality. What I am saying is that the Church has never invoked the charism of infallibility with regard to this matter and we should not claim that it has.
Click to expand...
Based on these last two posts, the fact that you have refused to cite any sources to back up your assertion and your immediate recourse to insult a person with a false accusation who disagrees with you, why should we give anything you say on this subject any credence.

The point you are trying to make, whether you are correct or not, is frankly meaningless; a distinction without a difference.

As a side note, consider writing your posts win Microsoft Word and using the spelling and grammar checker. Then you can copy and post it into the posting window. Also, the current version of FireFox web browser has a built-in spell checker that works right in the posting window.
 
🤷
East_and_West said:
All I am calling for is intellectual honesty. Of course the Church is NOT going to change its postion on the matter because the Church’s position is the one that is consonant with reality. What I am saying is that the Church has never invoked the charism of infallibility with regard to this matter and we should not claim that it has.
Click to expand...
Then you are making a distinction without a difference.
 
rpp said:
Based on these last two posts, the fact that you have refused to cite any sources to back up your assertion and your immediate recourse to insult a person with a false accusation who disagrees with you, why should we give anything you say on this subject any credence.

The point you are trying to make, whether you are correct or not, is frankly meaningless; a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
I am sorry. I assumed you could understand my point but clearly you need further instruction.
First, how can I cite something to show that the Church has never invoked infallility on this particular teaching? Since the Church has never invoked it on this matter, there is simply no documentation.
Second, It is important because people like to through around that claim that its an infallible teaching when infallibility is not invoked on this matter. This is creating a weak case for what believe based on something that is untrue.
Third, the other post I created was just poking fun at the absurdity of the pro-Gay agenda.
 
estesbob said:
I refuse to use the term. it is a euphanism (like “choice”) that is used to minimize the behavior it describes./Q

I also refuse to recognize the term “gay” as legitimate. It only lends legitimacy to the homosexual agenda of which in it’s final conclusion is atheistic and total chaos as it the dishonest and deceptive term pro-choice. People who u8se “gay” are carrying watter for the homosexual activists.I am very indebted to Firefoxe’s spell checker.
Click to expand...
 
East_and_West said:
I am sorry. I assumed you could understand my point but clearly you need further instruction.
First, how can I cite something to show that the Church has never invoked infallility on this particular teaching? Since the Church has never invoked it on this matter, there is simply no documentation.
Second, It is important because people like to through around that claim that its an infallible teaching when infallibility is not invoked on this matter. This is creating a weak case for what believe based on something that is untrue.
Third, the other post I created was just poking fun at the absurdity of the pro-Gay agenda.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to show this thread to you Dominican spiritual director as you work through your discernment process. Perhaps he will be able to show you both how uncharitable you have been in this thread and how your comments appear to undermine the infallible teachings of the Church. First you call me a liar for no good reason, then you make that crack at the beginning of this post. You appear to have a serious lack of humility; a pressing need to be “right” at all costs; a compulsion to always “win”.

Your uncharitable attitude and your apparent desire to undercut the the moral teachings of the Church by claiming they are not infallible seems to disqualify you serious consideration by people on this thread. It also calls into question whether you belong in a group whose identifying chrism is preaching Truth with Charity.

No one insulted you and no one called you names. Even if they did, that does not mean that you should respond in such a manner.

Go ahead, show this thread to your spiritual director and your vocations director. Impress them with your charity and humility. I regularly show my threads to my spiritual director.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top