Homosexuality as sexist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaber said:
npr.org/2012/05/21/153213796/spitzers-apology-changes-ex-gay-debate
Click to expand...
What does this prove? We were talking about Scripture not illigetimate aspects of psychology. I am using illigetimate to describe the political forces that want to normalize tthat behavior.
What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.
Click to expand...
…, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual…
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
What does this prove? We were talking about Scripture not illigetimate aspects of psychology. I am using illigetimate to describe the political forces that want to normalize tthat behavior.
Click to expand...
It is normal behavior. Just not for you. And you don’t like that, so you lash out using what you think is God as your weapon. How demeaning o do that to support a personal opinion.
 
Gaber said:
It is normal behavior. Just not for you.
Click to expand...
It is not normal by any authentic definition of that word.
And you don’t like that, so you lash out using what you think is God as your weapon. How demeaning o do that to support a personal opinion.
Click to expand...
What nonsense. Those who lash out are those who demand everyone accept deviant behavior as virtuous.
 
fix said:
It is not normal by any authentic definition of that word.

What nonsense. Those who lash out are those who demand everyone accept deviant behavior as virtuous.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that someone with such an adamantine stance will “authenticate” accordiing to their inculcation and emotions. But no one is asking you to accept for yourself; all that is being asked is that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s. And is it “lash out” or “lash back?” in defense?
 
Gaber said:
I can appreciate that someone with such an adamantine stance will “authenticate” accordiing to their inculcation and emotions. But no one is asking you to accept for yourself; all that is being asked is that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s. And is it “lash out” or “lash back?” in defense?
Click to expand...
Relativism leads to tyranny. That is what you preach here.
 
fix said:
The truth will be received to the degree one is open to the truth.** Or, as they say all heresy begins below the belt**.
Click to expand...
Then this mysterious they are dumb.
There are plenty of intellectual reasons to disagree with the Church.

Do you think the Rome Question was about sex?:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Then this mysterious they are dumb.
There are plenty of intellectual reasons to disagree with the Church.

Do you think the Rome Question was about sex?
fix said:
As I said one cannot convince someone that refuses to
Be convinced .
Click to expand...
Don’t assume that everybody shares your characteristics.
 
“Your characteristics”. . . ? . . . Or would they perhaps be more aptly attributable to St. Thomas Aquinas, who said :

" For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible. "
 
NeedImprovement said:
“Your characteristics”. . . ? . . . Or would they perhaps be more aptly attributable to St. Thomas Aquinas, who said :

" For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible. "
Click to expand...
Has it possibly occured to you that you, as many others do, you use “faith” as an out from the responsibility of actual critical thinking? When I hear such piety about “The Word of God” taken to be literalism in piety, I am again reminded of the woman who had good useful occasion to learn a foreign language. She refused on the grounds that “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me.” Is it possible that you can’t see beyond your own thought process to a larger, more inclusive picture, instead of userping the prerogative of God?
 
Gaber said:
Has it possibly occured to you that you, as many others do, you use “faith” as an out from the responsibility of actual critical thinking? When I hear such piety about “The Word of God” taken to be literalism in piety, I am again reminded of the woman who had good useful occasion to learn a foreign language. She refused on the grounds that “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me.” Is it possible that you can’t see beyond your own thought process to a larger, more inclusive picture, instead of userping the prerogative of God?
Click to expand...
I thought I was responding to Angry Atheist’s comment(s) in that post - not yours -🤷 However,seeing as you take exception to a quote from one of the greatest “critically thinking” minds of all time - St. Thomas Aquinas , what exactly is your actual beef ? Do you have one ? You appear somewhat confused and angry.

Are you able to express it in concrete terms, or shall we simply be subjected to more abstract rant ?

Because I choose to quote an appropriate maxim from St. Thomas Aquinas as my first post on this thread, you automatically think my perspective is coming solely from my faith-based views . . . :dts: That demonstrates a marked prejudice on your behalf . Gay militants would have us believe that any heterosexual tendency at all has to be bible-based . . . so that they can call us religious fanatics, instead of heterosexual.What an absolutely frivilous notion.

Maybe you would prefer a quote from the American father of Modern psychology William James instead…

"There is nothing so absurd that it cannot be believed as truth if repeated often enough."

Some people may recognize that bolded line above more as the contemporary mantra of homosexual activists, rather than as a quote from William James…

Please Gaber, if you’re intent on continuing to make these giant presumptions while maintaining your insulting tone , why don’t you at least try to say it concretely, instead of flitting around in the abstract - that kind of arguing doesn’t take much skill at all because it never deals with the real issues. It never commits.
 
NeedImprovement said:
I thought I was responding to Angry Atheist’s comment(s) in that post - not yours -🤷 However,seeing as you take exception to a quote from one of the greatest “critically thinking” minds of all time - St. Thomas Aquinas , what exactly is your actual beef ? Do you have one ? You appear somewhat confused and angry.

Are you able to express it in concrete terms, or shall we simply be subjected to more abstract rant ?

Because I choose to quote an appropriate maxim from St. Thomas Aquinas as my first post on this thread, you automatically think my perspective is coming solely from my faith-based views . . . :dts: That demonstrates a marked prejudice on your behalf . Gay militants would have us believe that any heterosexual tendency at all has to be bible-based . . . so that they can call us religious fanatics, instead of heterosexual.What an absolutely frivilous notion.

Maybe you would prefer a quote from the American father of Modern psychology William James instead…

"There is nothing so absurd that it cannot be believed as truth if repeated often enough."

Some people may recognize that bolded line above more as the contemporary mantra of homosexual activists, rather than as a quote from William James…

Please Gaber, if you’re intent on continuing to make these giant presumptions while maintaining your insulting tone , why don’t you at least try to say it concretely, instead of flitting around in the abstract - that kind of arguing doesn’t take much skill at all because it never deals with the real issues. It never commits.
Click to expand...
Well, you are right, I was in fact addressing Fix through that quote from the good Saint. I have no excuse for not inserting …, Fix, … in the first sentence. Should have had my coffee first.

And I don’t have exception to the quote, which could have two interpretations at least, but to how people use that or other quotes. or ideas. or anything that gets into their head, as having a 1/1 correspondence with absolute reality. Including the quote from William James. And many moght apply that quote to the process of religious inculcation. And in many cases with good reason, if we llok at some of the “outlying’” denominations. Others, not so much. But where there is so much emotionalism as there is in this issue for so many, it appears to me that there is a lot of use of Biblical sources to authenticate a stand that is both unnecessary and unwarented even on the claimed scriptural basis.

So, sorry for making a mistake in presentation. That is so rare on here, mine must really stick out. Thanks for landing so promptly and vigorously on it! 🙂
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Don’t assume that everybody shares your characteristics.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. If you show a Catholic how their understanding conflicts with objective truth they will change their position to align with truth.

That is not true of relativists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top