D
- Status
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
What I find odd is that you home in on references to ‘pederasty’ in the writings of the early Church fathers and skip references to the banishment of sins of mad lust exceeding the laws of nature, of sodomy (referring here to anal sex between pederasts and younger males, and same between two male adults), the practice of ‘monstrosities’ in general between women and women and between men and men.
The early Church fathers could not have glossed over the exploitation of young males (who were mostly slaves) by adult homosexuals during the 2nd to the 8th centuries, in the society then that may have tolerated pederasty. The ECFs must have deemed the practice spiritually impoverishing for young males who sought a way out of slavery. The fact that there was historical development of laws in place during the time of Augustine and Justin punishing homosexuality as practiced between equals / free male adults should tell you that homosexuality was indeed condemned, enshrined in law.
It is interesting that homosexualist viewpoint propagate the notion that pederasty did not or does not equal homosexuality. The two are not unrelated. Pederasty was simply intergenerational homosexuality (young man/older man, not child / adult in the current sense of child abuse).
It is way more than odd that you maintain that homosexuality was not condemned in Scripture and by the ECFS as with the two authors whose documentation you find sound and whose exegesis you deem as best, in a Catholic forum, in particular, in threads like this opened by a young Catholic seeking help in grappling with homosexuality. It is opportunistic, a mining exploration, to get more conflicted Catholics to abandon the teaching based on re-interpreted Scripture and slanting of instructions by the early Christian fathers.
You indicated you do not consider yourself Catholic anymore. It should not be a surprise that the faith you left behind has been unchanged in a core teaching and that the faithful are not pleased in the face of brothers and sisters being converted to anti-Catholic beliefs in a Catholic site at that.
You would find the same reaction if you were to go to other Christian sites and post the same way you do here. Try RealApologetics.org, Ray Stedman.org (Mr. Stedman had a sermon relating 2 Timothy 4:1-4 to the subject) and orderofsaintpatrick.org. I could provide Jewish sites, as well, but you get the drift. As for Muslim sites, well … that would be unnecessary, right?
,
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Oh wait: In DGs mind, it is not possible that there would actually be agreement, a convergence between independent scriptural scholarship (not just mine – having studied it for several years, in academia – but dozens of other independent scholars from a variety of faith traditions) and:
~natural law
and
~Christian Tradition after the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
Question. Answered.
Independently, my conclusion is the same as the Roman Church’s, the same as the vast majority of non-Catholic biblical scholars: Homosexual behavior was condemned by the Jewish people before, during, and after the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, called The Christ. Further, if it had not been, there would be multiple references to that culture-shattering and morally iconoclastic news throughout the NT, and there would be abundant indicators of internal conflict about arriving at such a 180 about it – just as there was recorded the conflict about Gentile circumcision, and the defense: Jesus as the New Covenant.
Give it up, DG. You’ve lost the battle against the abundant scripture scholars who know their trade, versus the 3 of you who have invented an eisegetical brand of scripture “scholarship.”
J
John21652
Guest
Having read through most of DeeGee’s postings, I suspect there is a consistency there that needs exposing.
His "invented…eisegetical brand of scripture “scholarship” reeks of deconstruction theory and what some refer to as “queer theory”. I posit that the latter depends upon the former. I further posit that Dee Gee is a proponent of both. I further posit that both have Marxism as their most basic analytical tool.
Let me expalin…
Deconstruction theory rests on the assumption that writing is different to speech and is in fact, inferior. because speech is the primary mode of communicating meaning, writing is therefore inferior because it involves interpretation. Interpretation by the writer when he transforms his/her thoughts ino writing and then interpretation by the reader who must then re-interpret the writing back into the thoughts/speech of his own persona. Thus, someone who reads a text cannot enquire to the writer as to meanings. Signifiers present in the writing must have there meanings inferred. The act of translation between reader and writer enshrines contradictions, dogmatic statements and denials. Deconstruction supposedly unmasks these problems in text. Thus, the Deconstructionist is given licence to examine a text and to expose what he/she sees as contradictions.
Deconstructionists assert that because language, and writing, are representations of signs, that we use to communicate and to guide us through life in a cultural context, that the written word does not exactly represent what the writer was signifying. To a point, it is true that signs and symbols are a major tool for our shared cultural meaning. In many respects, signs and symbols are ‘shortcuts’ to a wider meaning and much more information that is being shared. Take a traffic sign as an example. If you were to write down all the things a simple traffic sign was telling you, it would take paragraphs to describe the full meaning. The traffic sign, however, instantly conveys to us a whole raft of meanings and signals. If you go to another culture, a traffic sign might be confusing, because you are culturally conditioned to know the meanings conveyed by your country’s traffic sign. However, despite minor cultural differences, the sign has the same function. Deconstructuonists would have us believe that contradictions are inherent in writing because of the similar loos of information, or the confusion about what the information is, similar to the example I gave with the culturally different traffic sign.
The Deconstrctionists forget, however, that most cultures who use traffic signs are signifying the same ‘types’ of information, which are not contradictory and which are identifiable because humans essentially communicate the same way, no matter where they come from. And that also holds with regard to when they come from.
What should have been a linguistic tool has become a tool for dissembling language to the point of absurdity and to infer contradictions and wrong interpretations. The Marxists who practice dialectical analysis are experts at it. Essentially, they use it to re-write history.
Now to “Queer theory”.
If you read this article you will see the connection between ‘queer theory’ and deconstruction. Queer theory originally rejected identity politics. However, in doing so it very unconveniently reinvented identity back into the anti-identity debate. That’s because identity is really another form of communication symbolism we humans are good at! Queer Theorists and Radical Feminism both adopted this form of social critique and it was towards overturning accepted societal norms that their efforts were directed. Didn’t work, though, because humans can’t communicate without categorising things. Even old Plato realised that! Queer theory insists on the centrality of sexuality to all aspects of life and to all of human history and the ensuing of what they call “heteronormativity”! Marxism shares this ‘totality’ in its critique of capitalism and the role of gender in shaping culture, particularly in western capitalist society. According to both, there is no ‘abnormal’, or ‘normal’, but just society as a whole.
Dee Gee uses deconstruction methods to attempt to tell us the Bible has been interpreted wrongly. He uses it to attempt at normalising homosexuality. He is marrying the two approaches and further asserting that the catholic Church is wrong in its Biblical Scholarship and therefore is wrong in its moral absolutes.
Dee Gee, however, needs to realise that the one, very important tool that he is abandoning is objectivity. Without it, what he tells us is meaningless and invalid in a logical sense. Both Deconstruction theory and Queer Theory abandon the objective study of human societies and of what it is to be human in an attempt at bringing into the mainstream that which can never be considered as mainstream. That’s because humans communicate by signs and symbols and they differentiate one thing from another in the process, whether it be traffic instructions, or people. Queer Theory and deconstruction give licence to an extreme form of subjectivity. Sola Scriptura is a classic example. It regresses into moral and cultural relativism and connot give a coherent theory about anything. Not even traffic signs.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
From the website of this no-longer-active-priest-not-in-communiion-with-the Roman church
:He “remains a Catholic priest” because he carries the permanent mark, like other priests. His “resignation” may not have gone through proper canonical channels, and therefore may not have been granted because of that. (It is deceptive for him merely to state that “it was the Vatican’s choice” not to release him.)
And here is just a snippet of his so-called “theology,” courtesy of the PBS interview:
By the way, that is precisely the way The Evil One operates when he convinces us that our sins are perfectly fine with God.
(Yeah, you’re not trying to proselytize.)
Anyone encouraging another impressionable Catholic on CAF to indulge morally forbidden behavior, and using such an inauthentic role model as Daniel Helminiak to do so, is in fact proselytizing such an impressionable Catholic away from the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, the vast majority of Protestant interpretation of scripture, and the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is no other way to spin this.
Oh, and by the way? It’s so comforting to learn that Helminiak’s take on scripture is that “only” anal male sex is prohibited, not any other male-male variety of sexual activity.
This conversation is hardly worth “dignifying” with a response. (And Helminiak is active in Dignity – a group in opposition to Rome. Which is why your continuing to promote Helminiak is in opposition to the OP’s Faith tradition – something forbidden under CAF Forum Rules.)
D
Dear_God
Guest
Whether you consider responding or not I am still seeking an understanding of Catholic’s interpretation of the Bible. This forum is beginning to parallel another forum where they too cannot dignify there condemnation of homosexuality except with repeated statements that, the Bible condemns homosexuality, that Jesus condemned homosexuality because he upheld the OT laws.From the website of this no-longer-active-priest-not-in-communiion-with-the Roman church
He “remains a Catholic priest” because he carries the permanent mark, like other priests. His “resignation” may not have gone through proper canonical channels, and therefore may not have been granted because of that. (It is deceptive for him merely to state that “it was the Vatican’s choice” not to release him.)
And here is just a snippet of his so-called “theology,” courtesy of the PBS interview:
By the way, that is precisely the way The Evil One operates when he convinces us that our sins are perfectly fine with God.
(Yeah, you’re not trying to proselytize.)
Anyone encouraging another impressionable Catholic on CAF to indulge morally forbidden behavior, and using such an inauthentic role model as Daniel Helminiak to do so, is in fact proselytizing such an impressionable Catholic away from the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, the vast majority of Protestant interpretation of scripture, and the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is no other way to spin this.
Oh, and by the way? It’s so comforting to learn that Helminiak’s take on scripture is that “only” anal male sex is prohibited, not any other male-male variety of sexual activity.
This conversation is hardly worth “dignifying” with a response. (And Helminiak is active in Dignity – a group in opposition to Rome. Which is why your continuing to promote Helminiak is in opposition to the OP’s Faith tradition – something forbidden under CAF Forum Rules.)
I am not concerned with Helminiak’s having left the priesthood. I care not what he has said about leaving the priesthood. His walk with God is his and not my business. Nor is your walk with God.
What I’m interested in is your interpretation of the Bible’s supposedly condemnation of the Bible. If what I’ve posted is in error, please point out what my error is. Am I in error to state that the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality as a sin? Do you not accept the JBC, ed., 1968 or, NAB, ed., 1970? Does Thomas Aquinas differentiate between faith and belief? According to Aquinas does man have the ability to know God? Sorry, theology does enter into the condemnation of homosexuality. One cannot begin to interpret the Bible without knowing Church tradition. But, I still will try to avoid speaking of theology because it is not my intention to proselytize or put into question Catholicism.
If you can, please interpret the passages I have already posted.
D
Dear_God
Guest
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
NAB
2 3Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God’s church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.
3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6#54006009-2
D
Dear_God
Guest
1 Corinthians 6: 9;
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6
Correct me if I am wrong but, the above references given to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 do not mention anything in regards to homosexuality where “sodomites” is being defined by “c. [6:9] 15:50; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:5.” Again, point out where my interpretation of 1 Corinthian 6:9,10 is wrong; 6:9,10 does not refer to homosexuality. Does the passage not refer to idolatry?
- Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc
- This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption* inherit incorruption.y
- Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,o 20idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions,p
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6
Correct me if I am wrong but, the above references given to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 do not mention anything in regards to homosexuality where “sodomites” is being defined by “c. [6:9] 15:50; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:5.” Again, point out where my interpretation of 1 Corinthian 6:9,10 is wrong; 6:9,10 does not refer to homosexuality. Does the passage not refer to idolatry?
M
michelleds
Guest
YES, and so many fall prey to that line of thinking…it’s so easy, so simple to rub the stone of sin against the sharp edge of your conscience until your conscience is no longer capable of discernment.
D
Dear_God
Guest
Originally Posted by TrueLight View Post
Leviticus 18:22: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
New American Standard Translation
Some more verses here
and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she
22
Thou shalt not lie with
mankind,
as
with
womankind:
it
[is]
abomination.
Westminster Leningrad Codex scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea …
dictionary.reference.com/browse/abhorr …
Note that the Westminster Leningrad Codex is legitimate and is used to fill in ancient Hebrew manuscripts that have missing passages, pages, etc.
Note that the mechanical translation uses “abhorrence” and is translated “abomination.” Look up the dictionary definition of “abhorrence.”
Legitimate translation: Leviticus 20:25,26.
and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she
and·you(p)-cseparate between
the·beast the·clean to·the·unclean and·between
the·flyer
the·unclean to·the·clean and·not
you(p)-shall-make-abominable »
souls-of·you(p) in·the·beast
and·in·the·flyer and·in·anything which she-is-moving the·ground which
I-cseparated for·you(p)
and·you(p)-become to·me holy-ones that holy
I
Yahweh and·I-am-cseparating »·you(p)
from
the·peoples to·to-become-of for·me
25
Ye shall therefore put
difference between clean
beasts and unclean, and
between unclean fowls and
clean: and ye shall not make
your souls abominable by
beast, or by fowl, or by any
manner of living thing that
creepeth on the ground,
which I have separated
from you as unclean.
26
And ye shall be holy
unto me: for I the LORD
[am] holy, and have severed
you from [other] people,
that ye should be mine.
Leviticus 20:25,26 defines abomination.
No reference to sin.
Leviticus 18:22; abomination=abhorrent(Westminster Leningrad Codex)=disgusting(Mechanical Translation); dictionary definition of abhorrent, disgusting; no translation uses the word sin, what makes you think that abomination means sin?
Any other interpretation is pure speculation. False, unless you can document that it says sin.
I take it that this verse has really nothing to do with condemning homosexuality as a sin. Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. I contend that the Bible neither condemns nor supports homosexuality. Every passage used can be explained without reference to condemnation of homosexuality.
This passage is a simple one but pay close attention to the words in bold print especially, the word “lies.” What is the implied meaning of the plural word “lies?” From this word one begins to understand that the passage has a far different meaning condemning male-male intercourse. And so, what is the real emphasis of this passage?
Leviticus 18:22: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
New American Standard Translation
Some more verses here
and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she
22
Thou shalt not lie with
mankind,
as
with
womankind:
it
[is]
abomination.
Westminster Leningrad Codex scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea …
dictionary.reference.com/browse/abhorr …
Note that the Westminster Leningrad Codex is legitimate and is used to fill in ancient Hebrew manuscripts that have missing passages, pages, etc.
Note that the mechanical translation uses “abhorrence” and is translated “abomination.” Look up the dictionary definition of “abhorrence.”
Legitimate translation: Leviticus 20:25,26.
and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she
and·you(p)-cseparate between
the·beast the·clean to·the·unclean and·between
the·flyer
the·unclean to·the·clean and·not
you(p)-shall-make-abominable »
souls-of·you(p) in·the·beast
and·in·the·flyer and·in·anything which she-is-moving the·ground which
I-cseparated for·you(p)
and·you(p)-become to·me holy-ones that holy
I
Yahweh and·I-am-cseparating »·you(p)
from
the·peoples to·to-become-of for·me
25
Ye shall therefore put
difference between clean
beasts and unclean, and
between unclean fowls and
clean: and ye shall not make
your souls abominable by
beast, or by fowl, or by any
manner of living thing that
creepeth on the ground,
which I have separated
from you as unclean.
26
And ye shall be holy
unto me: for I the LORD
[am] holy, and have severed
you from [other] people,
that ye should be mine.
Leviticus 20:25,26 defines abomination.
No reference to sin.
Leviticus 18:22; abomination=abhorrent(Westminster Leningrad Codex)=disgusting(Mechanical Translation); dictionary definition of abhorrent, disgusting; no translation uses the word sin, what makes you think that abomination means sin?
Any other interpretation is pure speculation. False, unless you can document that it says sin.
I take it that this verse has really nothing to do with condemning homosexuality as a sin. Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. I contend that the Bible neither condemns nor supports homosexuality. Every passage used can be explained without reference to condemnation of homosexuality.
This passage is a simple one but pay close attention to the words in bold print especially, the word “lies.” What is the implied meaning of the plural word “lies?” From this word one begins to understand that the passage has a far different meaning condemning male-male intercourse. And so, what is the real emphasis of this passage?
D
Dear_God
Guest
This is very interesting and I’d like your documentation of th ECFs stating your position above. As I stated, homosexuality does not equal pederasty. To state that the ECF’s stated that homosexuality was indeed what they were referring to rather than pederasty, is so far undocumented by your saying it is so. I would appreciate your documentation.
D
Dear_God
Guest
Elizabeth, I find it odd that what you accuse me of, eisegetical interpretation, you answer my questions regarding the condemnation of homosexuality with full blown eisegetical interpretation. Granted, your Catholic faith demands your unconditional acceptance of Church teaching, but there are hermeneutics to follow here, rather they be Catholic of the World Council of Church’s hermeneutic tools. You post links to support your opinions and I post what is stated in, for instance, the NAB online with footnotes. I post, quoting from the Westminster Leningrad Codex the mechanical translation along with the modern translation and you still reply with your opinion. This site, orderofsaintpatrick.org/teachings/homosexuality.htm , is as eisegetical as your replies but makes an attempt at true to form exegesis. Really, can you not respond to my interpretations of scripture?
Please tell me what is wrong with my interpretations. Is what I say personal or sound exegesis? If I am wrong, please post a rebuttal using sound exegesis.
Please tell me what is wrong with my interpretations. Is what I say personal or sound exegesis? If I am wrong, please post a rebuttal using sound exegesis.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Did you not indicate you read the Catholic Answers tract on Early Teachings on Homosexuality? The first paragraph ended with this sentence: The early christian fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men. Pederasty is therefore a form, a subset of homosexuality. Get it?
St. Paul against whom the ridiculous pederasty theory has also been leveled by pro-gay apologists had a strong influence on the early Church fathers such as fourth-century theologians St. John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, and his contemporary, St. Augustine of Hippo, a father of the Latin church. St. Paul and at least these two early Church leaders and Justin the Martyr (second century) before them condemned all homosexuality. Read their respective writings.
It is a wrong conclusion to make that these Church leaders only condemned the sexual and emotional exploitation of young boys by men, that they were only products of pagan Greek culture. To understand their worldview, one should not look at pagan Greece or Rome but the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus Christ and the other apostles, including Paul. Paul wrote under the supernatural direction of the Holy Spirit (2Peter 3:15-16). His condemnation of homosexuality is fully consistent with, and a continuation of, God’s law revealed to Moses. There is no reason to believe that the Church leaders who came after would have qualified condemnation, no to pederasty but yes to homosexuality!
Pederasty is wrong and is condemned by God because it is a form, or subset of homosexuality. It is also sinful and evil because it is a form of sex outside the bonds of lawful, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality is wicked, no matter what the age of the participants. The idea that once two males reach the age of 18, God approves of them having oral and anal sex is absurd. Source:Homosexuality: A Biblical Analysis
Paul in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 1:8-10) centuries before Chrysostom and Augustine wrote: “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10).
Now, would you do please cease the contortions of Scripture which you with Boswell and Helminiak as your sources of inspiration are maintaining? Your theories have been refuted here and elsewhere. Your repetition lends more proof of your mining effort in this forum to lead young impressionable Catholics seeking answers in this site away from the faith, to your anti-Catholic view. It is really bad form.
,
B
BobObob
Guest
My thoughts…
If you like men and do not find women attractive at the age of 24, you’re gay. Don’t expect that to change.
About faith, I recommend that you determine whether or not your beliefs are sufficiently supported by evidence. If you determine they are, keep those beliefs, but get rid of the beliefs that aren’t.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The OP identifies as Catholic. Catholics do not assess their beliefs mostly from “evidence.” Nor do we “get rid of” beliefs which do not have sufficient “evidence.” Therefore, your “recommendation” to this poster is not appropriate.
B
BobObob
Guest
To be clear, by “evidence” I mean data that supports a claim.
In my book, if you don’t have evidence for a certain truth claim, such as a claim that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago and is a god, then it shouldn’t be believed. That is what people do for all other truth claims. The Catholic Church claims that there is evidence for many things it teaches about, such as the existence of a god or homosexual acts being ‘wrong’ (see ‘natural law’). I recommend that the OP looks into those things.
Of course, if you want to believe something regardless of whether or not there is evidence, you have the right to do so. I respect that right.
J
John21652
Guest
My thoughts…
You don’t need to stick your head in a gas oven to know that doing so is not good for you.
Similarly, is there a need to have actually been there to witness the Ressurection of Jesus to know it really happened? To answer “yes” to that question means, firstly, that you discount the accounts of all those who witnessed and wrote about it and secondly, it reinforces what you have down as your “signature” regarding scepticism being a virtue. There is philosophical scepticism, which would make someone like the OP go off and do some homework regarding religious truths and if it is that you are advocating to him, then there is no reason for you to tell him not to beleive it. If you are, however, advocating extreme scepticism, which is suggested by the tenor of your posts, then you are virtually telling the OP that his research would be pointless any way, because such degrees of scepticism exist on the premise that no dogmatic truths exist. Contrary to what you think, “most people” don’t go around being sceptical of “all other truth claims”. “Most people” neither have the time, nor the inclination and so they trust others who have done the research and the homework. It is that sort of trust that allows us to decide to get on-board an aeroplane.
The OP has come here for help, so why is it that you would suggest that the claims regarding objective truths he will undoubtedly come across here should be investigated further? Is it because your own scepticism makes you not only deny Catholic dogma, but want to denigrate it also?
Lots of non-Catholics also beleive in God, but you only mentioned the Catholic Church. Why is that?The Catholic Church does indeed have evidence of the existence of God. The trouble is, your own scepticism clouds your ability to see, hear and beleive it. The catholic Church also states that there is a Natural Law that tells us homosexuality is wrong and disordered. Lots of non-Catholics also know the Natural Law and follow it. Why do you not make a statement about that fact?
F
fred_conty
Guest
Any advice would be great??? ok
All forms of sex outside of valid marriage is wrong.
Bad habits are not excuses.
Being difficult is not an excuse.
“Everybody is doing it” is not an excuse.
Prayer will overcome. Here is a good one.
Here is some important info about the Miraculous Medal, one of Mother Theresa’s
favorites.
“Have a medal struck… All who wear it will receive GREAT graces; they should wear it
around the neck. GRACES will ABOUND for persons who wear it with CONFIDENCE.”
From the mother of Jesus spoken to sister Catherine Laboure 1830.
“Great graces are often attached to what seems trifling.” St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
“The devotions we practice in honor of the glorious Virgin Mary, however trifling they be,
are very pleasing to her divine Son, …” St. Teresa of Jesus
During this apparition, Mary’s hands had 3 rings on each finger. Each ring gave off
rays of colored light. A few rings did not. Mary said that the lights radiating from
the rings are graces that people ASK for. The rings that didn’t radiate she said
were graces not given because they were NOT asked for.
It is blessed. The devil hates blessed objects. Keep it on all all times.
Wear her medal in her honor because the devil can’t stand her either.
Then say, “Mary I am asking now for great graces which
you promised to those who ask and believe you.”
Trust her, it works. She is the mother of God. Would she lie?
She wants you to wear it. It is her gift. She promised and she will diliver.
“Great graces are often attached to what seems trifling.” St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
Code:
legionofmary.org/miracmedal.html“Yes, blessed is she who BELIEVED that the PROMISE made her by the Lord would be FULFILLED.”
(Lk. 1;45) St. Elizabeth
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
B
BobObob
Guest
I don’t intend to steer this thread in another direction, but there are numerous problems in this silly post:
Even if we had eyewitness testimony for an alleged resurrection, there are plenty of thing for which we have numerous eyewitness for regarding events few people believe happened. We have numerous eyewitness for alleged alien abductions.
Even if the truth claims asserted here aren’t wrong and dangerous, dogmatically accepting them as true without any evidence can be dangerous.
That’s because you have evidence that doing so will cause undesirable results.
You don’t necessarily need to have witnessed it yourself, but you do need evidence.
I didn’t say yes, but I wanted to mention that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses as you assert. They are anonymous texts that have been edited.
Even if we had eyewitness testimony for an alleged resurrection, there are plenty of thing for which we have numerous eyewitness for regarding events few people believe happened. We have numerous eyewitness for alleged alien abductions.
Skepticism entails not believing something until it is demonstrated to be true. Thus, I can recommend him to withhold belief it until he has found confirming evidence.
I said that people don’t believe things without evidence. People can walk onto an airplane without doing exhaustive research themselves because there is plenty of evidence available to them that the odds of them making it to their destination safely are extremely high. After all, there are thousands of flights per day that get to their destination safely.
Because they could be wrong and dangerous. The OP said that he had been repressing feelings (for religious reasons) and that he is in turmoil. Surely that cannot be for conflicting religious reasons, can it?
Even if the truth claims asserted here aren’t wrong and dangerous, dogmatically accepting them as true without any evidence can be dangerous.
If you want to discuss whether or not there is evidence that a god exists, I would be willing to discus that with you on a new thread if you want to.
I didn’t see any reason to mention that some non-Catholics agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter. My point was to demand evidence for such beliefs that are propagated by the Catholic Church.
- Status