How can people say homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

[Catholic13]

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.

Again, I never called his motives evil, you did. I said what he was doing was wrong. I never went so far as to say it was evil. The fact that you identified it as evil, lets me know that you not only agreed with my assessment of his actions [being wrong] but you identify him as the enemy.

If you’re saying my judgment was rash you’re also guilty of the same? Wouldn’t that make sense.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thor - can you advise?

Are you referring to the Bible? The Bible says nothing about masturbation or IVF.

 

[cena]

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.

Firstly, Jesus coming would not fully eradicate slavery because not everyone became Christian.

Also he could have been talking metaphorically. Like we might say someone is a"slave to their passions," this is not to be taken literally.

 

[Thorolfr]

Firstly, Jesus coming would not fully eradicate slavery because not everyone became Christian.

Also he could have been talking metaphorically. Like we might say someone is a"slave to their passions," this is not to be taken literally.

What about 1 Timothy 6:1-2 which specifically mentions Christian masters with Christian slaves:

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved

There’s also Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

 

[Rau]

Are you referring to the Bible? The Bible says nothing about masturbation or IVF.

No, to the Lutheran book you mentioned. I assume it is intended to guide those of the Lutheran faith.

 

[cena]

What about 1 Timothy 6:1-2 which specifically mentions Christian masters with Christian slaves:

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved

1 - Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honour; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed.
2 - But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Doauy Rheims bible translated from the latin version of the original Greek writing

 

[cena]

Firstly, Jesus coming would not fully eradicate slavery because not everyone became Christian.

Also he could have been talking metaphorically. Like we might say someone is a"slave to their passions," this is not to be taken literally.

I checked in the Douay Rheims bible and it says “servants” not slaves

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What about 1 Timothy 6:1-2 which specifically mentions Christian masters with Christian slaves:

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved

There’s also Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

Thorolfr,

You need to understand the Roman world better, to understand these passages. Slavery in the Roman world was temporary; slaves could buy their freedom. Slavery was also a step up from poverty – if a master had released a slave BEFORE the slave could attain the status of a freedman, the slave would have no chance for success in society. Freedmen were very successful, sometimes even political heavyweights.

Encouraging a slave to rebel would just make the slave get killed or arrested. It is a recipe for disaster. So – given that they are not to rebel – should you tell them to be disobedient? Of course not!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I checked in the Douay Rheims bible and it says “servants” not slaves

The word in Greek is more often translated “slave”.

 

[Rau]

Again, I never called his motives evil…I said what he was doing was wrong. I never went so far as to say it was evil.

You said "He is trying to confuse and lead Catholics away from their faith"

So, in the interests of understanding you, you now assert that such an act is “wrong”, but it is not “evil”. Is that your assertion?

If you’re saying my judgment was rash you’re also guilty of the same? Wouldn’t that make sense.

In attributing a motivation to his posts - you clearly made a judgement. Since it is without any foundation, I think it’s reasonably to view it as rash. I guess you’re not denying that.

Was I “rash” to ask WHY you attribute such a motivation? No, it’s just a question.

Was I rash to re-phrase the motivation **YOU **attributed as “evil”? You tell me - by withdrawing the statement that his motivation is to “confuse Catholics” - for that is evidently an evil.

As the Catechism says:

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

If one sets out: “…to confuse and lead Catholics away from their faith”, do you identify this as a good or evil thing? “Wrong” you say Hmmm. Does that make it good or evil??

 

[Rin]

the enemy.

Once we start seeing people, human beings, as “the enemy”, we’re on a very dangerous path.

From reading parts of this extremely long, circular thread, I get the impression that you see any and all kinds of disagreement as an attack on the Catholic faith. Think again. Your original post had nothing to do with the Catholic faith, and everything to do with fallacious argumentation often seen from the theoconservative camp.

The arguments against your position have been well phrased, repeatedly, by everything from orthodox Catholics to non-Catholics. I severely doubt that any of them are of ill will, evil intent or anything of the like. It is quite possible to have honest disagreements, especially on subjects such as this, and this does not in itself imply malicious intent.

I would recommend that you stop seeing people as “the enemy”, and instead see them as God’s creation, His children, who are all equally loved by Him.

I also recommend re-reading the Catechism. To several of you. It is worrisome when non-Catholics have a better understanding of what the Church teaches, than some who identify as orthodox Catholics.

 

[Ositokc]

Once we start seeing people, human beings, as “the enemy”, we’re on a very dangerous path.

From reading parts of this extremely long, circular thread, I get the impression that you see any and all kinds of disagreement as an attack on the Catholic faith. Think again. Your original post had nothing to do with the Catholic faith, and everything to do with fallacious argumentation often seen from the theoconservative camp.

The arguments against your position have been well phrased, repeatedly, by everything from orthodox Catholics to non-Catholics. I severely doubt that any of them are of ill will, evil intent or anything of the like. It is quite possible to have honest disagreements, especially on subjects such as this, and this does not in itself imply malicious intent.

I would recommend that you stop seeing people as “the enemy”, and instead see them as God’s creation, His children, who are all equally loved by Him.

I also recommend re-reading the Catechism. To several of you. It is worrisome when non-Catholics have a better understanding of what the Church teaches, than some who identify as orthodox Catholics.

This ^^^^

Very well said.

 

[Thorolfr]

This ^^^^

Very well said.

I agree

 

[Catholic13]

Once we start seeing people, human beings, as “the enemy”, we’re on a very dangerous path.

From reading parts of this extremely long, circular thread, I get the impression that you see any and all kinds of disagreement as an attack on the Catholic faith. Think again. Your original post had nothing to do with the Catholic faith, and everything to do with fallacious argumentation often seen from the theoconservative camp.

The arguments against your position have been well phrased, repeatedly, by everything from orthodox Catholics to non-Catholics. I severely doubt that any of them are of ill will, evil intent or anything of the like. It is quite possible to have honest disagreements, especially on subjects such as this, and this does not in itself imply malicious intent.

I would recommend that you stop seeing people as “the enemy”, and instead see them as God’s creation, His children, who are all equally loved by Him.

I also recommend re-reading the Catechism. To several of you. It is worrisome when non-Catholics have a better understanding of what the Church teaches, than some who identify as orthodox Catholics.

You are quoting me out of context. Why do I find that happening frequently in this thread? I never said I saw anyone as the enemy.

 

[Rin]

You are quoting me out of context. Why do I find that happening frequently in this thread?

Catholic13, you described Thorolfr as “the enemy” twice today. You know where, and you know when.

You’ve been playing this game with other posters for days now, and I’m sorry, I won’t bite.

 

[Catholic13]

Catholic13, you described Thorolfr as “the enemy” twice today. You know where, and you know when.

You’ve been playing this game with other posters for days now, and I’m sorry, I won’t bite.

Quote me. I said Rau saw him as the enemy.

 

[Catholic13]

Catholic13, you described Thorolfr as “the enemy” twice today. You know where, and you know when.

You’ve been playing this game with other posters for days now, and I’m sorry, I won’t bite.

Oh and what game am I playing?

 

[BrassAnkles]

Once we start seeing people, human beings, as “the enemy”, we’re on a very dangerous path.

Equally dangerous as seeing people as enemy is seeing any criticism of sin as an example of seeing people as an enemy. This thread is full of said individuals who will defend any criticism of homosexual desires as normal.

On the other hand some of us criticize sin because Christ tells us to because He wants us to warn unrepentant persons that promoting evil has consequences, such as people going to hell and millions of confused young adults suffering because of lies they have been told about what God has made in them.

 

[Rau]

Quote me. I said Rau saw him as the enemy.

What you said (to me) was in Post 670:

"It’s also clear you’re aware of who the enemy is."

Now, I’m sorry Catholic13 but this says you identify “him” as the enemy, and you believe I know it too.

In fact, I know no such thing.

 

[Rau]

Oh and what game am I playing?

The same one I put to you in our Private Messages…