How can people say homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

[cena]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

That still doesn’t change the fact that the Bible says that God proclaimed that slavery was OK at one time. If it was OK then, why not now? I thought that God doesn’t change.

Back then in war if you did not capture the enemy as prisoners you killed them

God does not change, but we do

 

[Rau]

She is very frequently arguing against the Catholics here. She said on another thread that the homosexuality in Sodom was one of the minor sins. Homosexuality is not a minor sin. When I ask her about a questionable comment she made …she never responds.

That is not my experience. Perhaps examine the style of your posts?

 

[SMGS127]

She is very frequently arguing against the Catholics here. She said on another thread that the homosexuality in Sodom was one of the minor sins. Homosexuality is not a minor sin. When I ask her about a questionable comment she made …she never responds.

What I said was that same-sex sexual activity was a minor sin relative to the entirety of the sin of Sodom. Sodom was pretty much the epitome of every single possible sin you can think of, and their sexual sins also included things like violent rape.

I don’t know why you continue to suggest I consider same-sex sexual sins a “minor sin” in an absolute sense .

(Also hey I responded! Guess that part of your paragraph isn’t true too!)

 

[Rau]

I didn’t say he had an evil motive, you did.

.
No, I said that you said that. Do you see the difference?

What you said was: “He is trying to confuse and lead Catholics away from their faith”.

If that is not evil, do you judge it proper?

Until proven otherwise, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, which is what the Catechism says we are to do.

 

[Rau]

The main statements of Lutheran belief are in the Book of Concord which was published on June 25, 1580 in Dresden, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg. It contains:

Preface (1579)
The Three Ecumenical creeds.
The Apostles’ Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Athanasian Creed
The Augsburg Confession of 1530
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)
The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537)
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)
The Small Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)
Luther’s Marriage Booklet (1529) and Baptism Booklet (1526) were included as part of the Small Catechism in a few of the 1580 editions of the German Book of Concord[13]
The Large Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)
Epitome of the Formula of Concord (1577)
The Solid or Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord (1577).
The Catalog of Testimonies was added as an appendix in most of the 1580 editions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord

Can you tell me what it says about:

• masturbation;
• IVF

 

[Catholic13]

What I said was that same-sex sexual activity was a minor sin relative to the entirety of the sin of Sodom. Sodom was pretty much the epitome of every single possible sin you can think of, and their sexual sins also included things like violent rape.

I don’t know why you continue to suggest I consider same-sex sexual sins a “minor sin” in an absolute sense .

(Also hey I responded! Guess that part of your paragraph isn’t true too!)

Even compared to the other sin in Sodom it’s still a mortal sin.

My statement was true when I said it.

 

[Catholic13]

.
No, I said that you said that. Do you see the difference?

.

I never used the word evil, you did. You called it evil, not me.

 

[Ositokc]

How is this thread even still up?

But let’s revisit a great post that once again decimates this thread’s whole premise:

"Good Evening Catholic13: To this larger question at the head of the thread, I would suggest that homosexuality primarily hurts heterosexual people who spend what little time they have on this earth worrying about the sexuality of other people. Worrying about who else gets married. Things like that. I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’m pretty certain that I’m not being hurt by other people’s sexuality. As to what hurts people sexually, I think it’s ignorance about risks and ignorance about managing ones sexual activities in a safe manner. Also certain cultural and religious ideas that prevent people from talking openly and honestly and from taking practical preventative measures.

All the best,
Gary "

 

[Rau]

I never used the word evil, you did. You called it evil, not me.

Then I accept your view that his actions are indeed not evil.

 

[Catholic13]

How is this thread even still up?

But let’s revisit a great post that once again decimates this thread’s whole premise:

"Good Evening Catholic13: To this larger question at the head of the thread, I would suggest that homosexuality primarily hurts heterosexual people who spend what little time they have on this earth worrying about the sexuality of other people. Worrying about who else gets married. Things like that. I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’m pretty certain that I’m not being hurt by other people’s sexuality. As to what hurts people sexually, I think it’s ignorance about risks and ignorance about managing ones sexual activities in a safe manner. Also certain cultural and religious ideas that prevent people from talking openly and honestly and from taking practical preventative measures.

All the best,
Gary "

Do you know what decimate means? If so, then please explain how his question does so to this thread. Then, please explain how his question negates the harm done by homosexual activity.

In other words you would have to prove that his question stops the extreme harm done by homosexual activity. Now, unless you are David Copperfield that would be virtually impossible.

 

[Catholic13]

Then I accept your view that his actions are indeed not evil.

But you said his actions were evil. You can keep ignoring that fact if you’d like.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I believe I’ve only pointed out facts about homosexual behavior. I may have said something snotty to an individual person but only because they were doing the same with me. I have no hard feelings toward homosexuals. I know they have a cross to bear but so do each one of us. I don’t support or promote my sins as something natural and normal. Is pointing out the truth of homosexual behavior wrong? Am I going against Catholic teaching on this matter? The Church says homosexual **behavior **is evil. We can not accept their sin as something normal, good or beneficial.

You have practicing homosexuals on this thread actively trying to undermine Catholic teaching and promote their sin as something normal. Yet you come after me like I’m doing something wrong? Have you said anything at all to Thorolfr? He is attacking Church teaching, the word of God and the accuracy of the bible and you say nothing to him about this matter? Or have I missed it?

Let me respond by asking Thorofl…

Thor, what have you heard me telling you about your sexuality, and about your actions? Have I approved of your actions, or told you that they are wrong? What say you?

I suspect Thor is quite clear on my beliefs. I have argued with him many times – but rarely about the same particular issue. I don’t think perpetually criticizing people for the same error is the way of Christian evangelism. I don’t remember reading any story like that in the gospels.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s not a debating contest, each with an assigned “case” to put and win. SMGS made a perfectly valid point - it you think she erred, then point out the error as you see it.

You, I and SMGS are all Catholics. Must we parrot each other and supply at everything the other says? Or can we just have a logical discussion?

(Ironically).

 

[Thorolfr]

Let me respond by asking Thorofl…

Thor, what have you heard me telling you about your sexuality, and about your actions? Have I approved of your actions, or told you that they are wrong? What say you?

I suspect Thor is quite clear on my beliefs. I have argued with him many times – but rarely about the same particular issue. I don’t think perpetually criticizing people for the same error is the way of Christian evangelism. I don’t remember reading any story like that in the gospels.

No, you’ve never said that you approve of homosexual activity and have made it clear that you think that it is wrong. On the other hand, unlike you, there are some people here in CAF who act as if homosexual activity is the worst disaster that has ever befallen the human race and the worst sin that anyone could engage in.

 

[Rau]

But you said his actions were evil. You can keep ignoring that fact if you’d like.

Do you enjoy circular debates?

When you said that “He is trying to confuse and lead Catholics away from their faith” - you attributed a motivation to his posting activity. Is this a good motive, or an evil motive? Or entirely neutral?

Now, as I understand it, it is wrong to set out to confuse a person, so this seems to be an evil motive to me. But I am more than happy to accept a different meaning, if you would only care to say whether you were ascribing a proper or improper motive to him. If you would care to say that you don’t consider his motive evil, that is fine by me and I’ll accept your position.

Or you can keep going in circles.

 

[Catholic13]

Now, so this seems to be an evil motive to me. .

:

Thanks for backing up my argument, that what he’s doing, is wrong. It’s also clear you’re aware of who the enemy is.

So why not stop trying to engage me in pointless, petty exchanges?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That still doesn’t change the fact that the Bible says that God proclaimed that slavery was OK at one time. If it was OK then, why not now? I thought that God doesn’t change.

The Bible says you are not supposed to eat shellfish…had a lobster lately? How about a crab?

Christ changed a lot of things…read the New Testament.

 

[Rau]

Thanks for backing up my argument, that what he’s doing, is wrong. It’s also clear you’re aware of who the enemy is.

It seems you do in fact attribute an evil motive to his posts - which is what I had understood. I asked you originally - WHY do you attribute an evil motive to his posts? Why do you reject the idea that, rather than wishing to confuse anyone (as you alleged), he simply wishes to argue his case? To attribute an evil motive would appear to be an ad hominen.

The Catechism states:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

 

[Rau]

Can you tell me what it says about:

• masturbation;
• IVF

Thor - can you advise?

 

[Thorolfr]

The Bible says you are not supposed to eat shellfish…had a lobster lately? How about a crab?

Christ changed a lot of things…read the New Testament.

Well he didn’t seem to have changed anything about slavery:

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.