I don't think homosexuality is a sin

[John21652]

Nonsense?

This account of Urban II’s speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban’s visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the pope’s arguments

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8062163:

Nonsense?

Yes, nonsense and I’ll show you why.

In post #35

Joe 5859 asked for a citation of a “…magisterial document that promoted/encouraged military conquest and/or torture-for-conversion tactics.”. In post #36 you linked to some vague and non-authoritive web site and made the comment that Urban II was “…rather ruthless”. To further support your claim you then, in the post to which I am responding, quote what even you yourself state is “hearsay”. So what we have is a request for a magisterial document authorising military action and torture for conversion, and there isn’t one and then, based upon dubious historical commentary and hearsay evidence you label Urban II as “rather ruthless”.

The evidence that Urban II was “rather ruthless” does not stack up.

Further, there is historical evidence that Urban II was pious, conciliatory and courteous.

Furthermore, you also mentioned Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, who was the legate of Urban II and leader of that first crusade. He is also cited as being wise and conciliatory, which attests to the mindset of Urban II. Adhemar died of plague in Antioch in July 1098. Upon his death the vainglorious Princes of Europe, whom Urban II had wished to unite against a common enemy, rather than have them fighting each other at home while Christendom gradually succumbed to the Mohommadens, took control and rapaciously and fervently set about their conquest of the Holy Land.

Why do some of you think you can re-write history to taste?

historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

Is it the GOP in you, or the traditionalist Catholic, intent on man’s fallibility somehow not applying to you, despite your objective history proving you no exception, or even remotely close to an exception, much less divinely guided?

Objective historical facts can’t be wished away or changed, by either political parties or popes. Truth trumps them all my friend.

jomoco

 

[John21652]

John21652;8062335:

Why do some of you think you can re-write history to taste?

historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

Is it the GOP in you, or the traditionalist Catholic, intent on man’s fallibility somehow not applying to you, despite your objective history proving you no exception, or even remotely close to an exception, much less divinely guided?

Objective historical facts can’t be wished away or changed, by either political parties or popes. Truth trumps them all my friend.

jomoco
Are, isn’t it interesting when someone’s true colours surface!

It was you who was asked for a magisterial document citing Urban II’s authorisation of force and torture for conversion. There is no such document.

It was you who labelled Urban II as being “rather ruthless” and yet the historical evidence is to the contrary.

You admitted to using hearsay evidence to support your argument. All the evidence regarding what Urban II said at Clermont is from chroniclers and you even quoted from one written some 25 years after Urban II was in France.

You now link to a web site which quotes Urban II as pointing out that the Mohommedans have "… depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire…". Urban talking about the violence of others does not make him “…rather ruthless…”

It was you who was asked for a magisterial document citing Urban II’s authorisation of force and torture for conversion. There is no such document. You gave a subjective opinion of Urban II’s character, using a dubious web site in support.

Having been caught out on your intellectual dishonesty, you now do a dummy spit and tell me I am not “devinely guided”, that I am under the influence of GOP and you also accuse me of re-writing history. Well, that I should be so lucky to be “devinely guided”. I wish!! I have no idea why you brought that up. Secondly, I take it by GOP you are referring to the Republican Party of the United States? Well, that’s a weird thing to say to someone who doesn’t even live in the United States. I also take it that you must dislike the GOP and are pro-Democrat. True? Then, lastly, your third claim, that I am re-writing history, contradicts even you because you acknowledge that I’m using “an objective history”.

You really need to tighten up your thinking, be more intellectually honest and then control yourself when you are found to have done neither.

 

[jomoco]

jomoco;8062468:

Are, isn’t it interesting when someone’s true colours surface!

It was you who was asked for a magisterial document citing Urban II’s authorisation of force and torture for conversion. There is no such document.

It was you who labelled Urban II as being “rather ruthless”

and yet the historical evidence is to the contrary.

You admitted to using hearsay evidence to support your argument. All the evidence regarding what Urban II said at Clermont is from chroniclers and you even quoted from one written some 25 years after Urban II was in France.

You now link to a web site which quotes Urban II as pointing out that the Mohommedans have "… depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire…". Urban talking about the violence of others does not make him “…rather ruthless…”

It was you who was asked for a magisterial document citing Urban II’s authorisation of force and torture for conversion. There is no such document. You gave a subjective opinion of Urban II’s character, using a dubious web site in support.

Having been caught out on your intellectual dishonesty, you now do a dummy spit and tell me I am not “devinely guided”, that I am under the influence of GOP and you also accuse me of re-writing history. Well, that I should be so lucky to be “devinely guided”. I wish!! I have no idea why you brought that up. Secondly, I take it by GOP you are referring to the Republican Party of the United States? Well, that’s a weird thing to say to someone who doesn’t even live in the United States. I also take it that you must dislike the GOP and are pro-Democrat. True? Then, lastly, your third claim, that I am re-writing history, contradicts even you because you acknowledge that I’m using “an objective history”.

You really need to tighten up your thinking, be more intellectually honest and then control yourself when you are found to have done neither.

Are…it is that matey…devine.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of dumb!

jomoco

 

[SwizzleStick]

Okay, an apparent change, the Vatican no longer supports wars of foreign conquest by force of arms that kill Moslems in their own countries. No more crusades, no more torture till you convert or die.

Not that it doesn’t happen anymore by any means, but the Vatican’s catching on, ever so slowly changing, letting objective truth encompass and shape the body of the Church, changing its traditions for the betterment of its parishoners, thereby increasing the numbers of its flock greatly.

Funny how just the opposite, wars of armed conquest, and loss of parishoners in vast numbers, were both leading co-stars of the 21st century’s opening chapter!

Gives me this strong sense of deja-vu, oh no not again surely?

jomoco

jomoco

You brought up war and the Church and the right to kill on the abortion thread. Now you bring it up again on this thread about homosexuality. Again, it is against forum rules to hijack threads. Why not create your own thread if that is what you want to discuss instead of derailing other threads? You obviously want to have your say. You should do so by following forum rules.

 

[jomoco]

You brought up war and the Church and the right to kill on the abortion thread. Now you bring it up again on this thread about homosexuality. Again, it is against forum rules to hijack threads. Why not create your own thread if that is what you want to discuss instead of derailing other threads? You obviously want to have your say. You should do so by following forum rules.

I gather you don’t think the CC has a glaring problem relating directly to their treatment of homosexuals both past and present?

What do you think medieval Popes did with homosexuals, benignly forgive them and politely suggest they sin no more?

jomoco

 

[SwizzleStick]

I gather you don’t think the CC has a glaring problem relating directly to their treatment of homosexuals …

No, I do not. The Church’s treatment is the same for all of us. We are all called to be chaste.

 

[jomoco]

No, I do not. The Church’s treatment is the same for all of us. We are all called to be chaste.

The serious coin shelled out recently to the victims and families of the CC’s parishoners, for abuses perpetrated by their priests, inside their churches, is in reality their coin, being redistributed to them, by an infallible leadership?

Denial of either history or reality, eventually leads to big expensive objective problems, for lots of people. Some of them innocent, others not so innocent by any measure.

jomoco

 

[John21652]

The serious coin shelled out recently to the victims and families of the CC’s parishoners, for abuses perpetrated by their priests, inside their churches, is in reality their coin, being redistributed to them, by an infallible leadership?

Such grand sweeping statements and so obviously anti-Catholic. Doesn’t take much to show up the little bleating cub dressedb up in sheeps clothing, does it!? What “infallibile leadership” are you referring to anyway? Why don’t you tell us all about the horrendous sexuals abuse cases in other churches and in other professions? Oh yeah, you are just here to undermine the Catholic Church, aren’t you. .

Denial of either history or reality, eventually leads to big expensive objective problems, for lots of people. Some of them innocent, others not so innocent by any measure.
jomoco

Denial of history or reality!!? Well, don’t we have a glaring example spread all over page three of this thread. This is how you deny the reality of your own disgrace when caught out over intellectual dishonesty and disengenuousness -

John21652;8062562:

Are…it is that matey…devine.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of dumb!

jomocohttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Here’s where your disengenuousness shines forth like a beacon -

Okay, an apparent change, the Vatican no longer supports wars of foreign conquest by force of arms that kill Moslems in their own countries. No more crusades, no more torture till you convert or die.

Not that it doesn’t happen anymore by any means, but the Vatican’s catching on, ever so slowly changing, letting objective truth encompass and shape the body of the Church, changing its traditions for the betterment of its parishoners, thereby increasing the numbers of its flock greatly.

Funny how just the opposite, wars of armed conquest, and loss of parishoners in vast numbers, were both leading co-stars of the 21st century’s opening chapter!

Gives me this strong sense of deja-vu, oh no not again surely?

jomoco

jomoco

You see, the links you gave when you tried to prove that Pope Urban II was *"…rather ruthless…" *actually talk about how the Moslems first took the Holy Land from the Catholics. Worse, when you talk of Catholic conquest you even forgot to mention the Moslem conquest of Spain, which the Catholics had to win back. You also forgot to mention the raids on Rome itself by the Moslims, resulting in many Catholics being put to the sword and that was before the Crusades.

Then, however, your disgrace deepens, for you somehow think the Church is changing and allowing objective truths to shape it. That’s weird, seeing how the objectivity of Natural Law has underpinned the catholic Church for over two thousand years. Your ‘wrongness’ is deepening.

However, I think I see the problem.

In post #46 Swizzlestick challenged you over your propensity to hijack threads and to derail them with off topic subjects. However, your response was to go off topic even more and to totally avoid answering his query.

I think you have a basic reading and comprehension problem. Never mind, help is out there.

 

[jomoco]

Such grand sweeping statements and so obviously anti-Catholic. Doesn’t take much to show up the little bleating cub dressedb up in sheeps clothing, does it!? What “infallibile leadership” are you referring to anyway? Why don’t you tell us all about the horrendous sexuals abuse cases in other churches and in other professions? Oh yeah, you are just here to undermine the Catholic Church, aren’t you. .

Denial of history or reality!!? Well, don’t we have a glaring example spread all over page three of this thread. This is how you deny the reality of your own disgrace when caught out over intellectual dishonesty and disengenuousness -
jomoco;8062596:

Here’s where your disengenuousness shines forth like a beacon -

Speaking of beacons shining forth…did you mean disingenuous…ness?

jomoco

 

[jomoco]

To make things clearly objective, I am not anti-catholic. I am merely pointing out, rather facetiously, that we are all fallible, and with the exception of Christ Himself, there are no exceptions, regardless of traditions that state otherwise, for centuries, in error.

The mystery of God, His hidden truths, His divinity, have been graciously supplied to every one of us literate enough to read the Bible itself. And though battered, misinterpretated, and sexually abused as it may be, it has still been the basis of knowledge and truth, overcoming man’s inherent evil tendencies, and objectively winning the battle between good and evil, in today’s reality, I pray.

jomoco

 

[jomoco]

To answer the original poster’s question of whether being homosexual is acceptable, or forbidden by God? My opinionated answer is that they (homosexuals) are integral to God’s plan for redemption of mankind, and their services (homosexuals) are but a divine means to an end/ beginning of a new chapter of life on this planet, today July 1st, in the year of our Lord 2011, after Christ’s resurrection!

Respectfully yours,

jomoco

 

[thistle]

I agree that it is NOT a choice.

If it was a choice, why would someone choose to be gay in a country where you can be killed for it?

I do think you are born with it. It can’t be culture, as not every culture is the same, and there is SSA in every culture/continent/country you go. So if its not nurture, it must be nature.

There is no gay gene and there is no scientific evidence to support any such claim. People are not born gay. They become gay through one or more of upbringing/environment/choice.
Anyway none of that is the point. The point is that however a person becomes gay it is a sin of grave matter for same sexes to have sexual relationships.