Is being anti homosexual anti christian?

[feetxxxl]

It is senseless to converse with you Feet, as you refuse to converse, and simply self-verse. You are talking to yourself,and it’s gotten very very boring.

You also appear to have a problem using some rather important keys on the keyboard. I’m terribly sorry for your incapacity in this area, as it tends to have deleterious effects on one’s ability to communicate, which may well be your general problem.

Since you won’t clarify, in english, your terms such that they are “respondable to”, I’ll have to pass on whatever it was that that meant, as I can’t tease out what it did mean given the actual letters, spaces and punctuation provided.

OK. That’s a BIT cleearer. Thank you.

Sometimes, rather often actually, when I’ve been with “homosexuals” I do indeed experience in them a “shame based lust”, but that “feeling” of mine is entirely my subjective interpretation of the situation.

then your witness confirms what romans 1 says. my only point is that 1john1 says that true witness requires fellowship in christ, in other words, sharing his spirit in an act of worship, intercession, sharing, ministry etc…1john1 also says if you walk in the light you have fellowship with one another.
But this is neither confirmation nor negation of whether they really have a “shame based lust”. It is merely my interpretation, which is worthless in this regard because it’s utterly unreliable.

its important that you own what you witness. “romans 1 says and in my heart my witness agrees” believe me in prayer the validity of tthis will be either confirmed or challlenged. you have start somewhere.

Therefore, to use your terms (as far as I understand them), my “witness” is meaningless because it is unreliable.
no witness in the fellowship of the spirit of 1john1 is meaningless.
But my OTHER witness, to use your term again, is of a source of information that is reliable, which is the Magisterium, which informs me of the correct way to see the dynamics of this situation.

that’s not your witness that is your belief.

It is “not of God” that same sex sexual acts exist. They exist through the “unGodly selfishness” of man.

that is your belief ? what is your witness?

Peter didn’t REQUIRE that he SAW ANYTHING to do what God wanted. It was simply God’s GRACE that confirmed for (poor weak human) Peter, by the actual events that he saw, what God wanted.
anything good comes from heaven and we receive it thru the holy spirit
When God says JUMP, you don’t wait around for some REASON to JUMP…!!

Now,… if you have anything new to say, please do so, otherwise we’re done here.
the only other thing i have to say is romans1:20 which says that god has given us the capacity to know what is of god…what is sin and not sin ,whether believer or nonbeliever. no one has an excuse to sin…which validates everyone being subjected to a final judgement. god also says he has replaced our heart of stone, with a heart of flesh and written his laws on our hearts. to me that means each man’s understanding deserves our attention.

the thing about fellowship, is whatever is witnessed, is witnessed by both, together, not thru your belief systems, but thru your shared relationship in christ.

Have a fantastic day 'ol bud…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[feetxxxl]

People with SSA do not have a copyright on lust.

Agreed.

People with and without SSA.

No. See above. Also, I remind you that I know men with SSA who are celibate.

You have just written an excellent definition of a relationship in which sexual expression is, either in its essence [e.g. same sex] or by willful action [contraception], not open to life. Sexual gratification is the governing principle of that relationship.

everything you say you have witnessed … to me says that romans 1:26-27 is not speaking out against homosexuality. homosexual relationships not having anymore shame or lust than those of heterosexuals.

 

[feetxxxl]

everything you say you have witnessed … to me says that romans 1:26-27 is not speaking out against homosexuality. homosexual relationships not having anymore shame or lust than those of heterosexuals.

 

[hosemonkey]

feetxxxl:
You are talking in circles and making no sense. Homosexuality is condemned by Scripture and by the Church. Your attempts to justify homosexuality are boring and nonsensical. If you are a non-celibate homosexual, you are in mortal sin. Full stop. You are on my ignore list.

 

[mercygate]

everything you say you have witnessed … to me says that romans 1:26-27 is not speaking out against homosexuality. homosexual relationships not having anymore shame or lust than those of heterosexuals.

Heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are as “shame based” as homosexual acts.

Let’s look at what we are citing here. I find the RSV generally to be the translation closest to the Greek, so that is what I quote. Rom 1:26-27:

**. . . God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. **

• In what translation does the term “shame based lust” appear? Did I miss that somewhere earlier in this thread? If so, I apologize for going over old territory.
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that if those who engage in homosexual acts do not experience feejlings of shame in those acts, then those acts cannot come under the disapprobation of these verses?
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are “shame based” but same sex engagements are not?
  Just trying to organize the playing field here.

 

[mercygate]

everything you say you have witnessed … to me says that romans 1:26-27 is not speaking out against homosexuality. homosexual relationships not having anymore shame or lust than those of heterosexuals.

Just for the record: heterosexual sex outside of marriage is just as much off the menu for Christians as are same sex encounters. Stop pointing the finger at heterosexual sins as if they were somehow considered OK. They’re not. Even within marriage, many sexual entertainments and practices are unacceptable: coitus interruptus, mutual masturbation, plain ol’ do-it-yourself solitary masturbation, and contraception are all on that list.

It wears me out that homosexuals think they’re being picked on. The significant difference with homosexuals (and granted: it is significant) is that they are called to continence for their whole lives. But then, so are monks, nuns, people called to the single state, and Latin Rite priests. Many people in marriage find that circumstances call them to years and years of continence.

 

[goofyjim]

Personally, the only reason I stay celibate is that I choose God and my Church over my sexuality. Yet I still feel that if God were to suddenly come down tomorrow and say it is ok I would enter a homosexual relationship because I do feel alot of it is love and not just lust.

 

[mercygate]

Personally, the only reason I stay celibate is that I choose God and my Church over my sexuality. Yet I still feel that if God were to suddenly come down tomorrow and say it is ok I would enter a homosexual relationship because I do feel alot of it is love and not just lust.

Of COURSE love is involved – or at least the things we associate with love: acceptance (perhaps mainly that), mutual affirmation, companionship, . . . But a lot of that can be built in chaste relationships, as you undoubtedly know very well.

Many married people fill in the blanks with relationships outside the marriage: not sexual relationships, not fantasy relationships that cover the personhood of the spouse, but real friendship/companionship needs that both men and women need: men with men and women with women as well as friends of the opposite sex . . .

I am sure that, except for the most deviant lower-village types who swan around in high heels and play their sexuality as a card in their overall pathology, attributing all their troubles to being gay, most homosexuals enjoy friendships with people of the opposite sex.

Good grief: except for people on the extreme fringes, most people with SSA have a range of wholesome interactions and good social/professional function across the board.

 

[feetxxxl]

Just for the record: heterosexual sex outside of marriage is just as much off the menu for Christians as are same sex encounters. Stop pointing the finger at heterosexual sins as if they were somehow considered OK. They’re not. Even within marriage, many sexual entertainments and practices are unacceptable: coitus interruptus, mutual masturbation, plain ol’ do-it-yourself solitary masturbation, and contraception are all on that list.

It wears me out that homosexuals think they’re being picked on. The significant difference with homosexuals (and granted: it is significant) is that they are called to continence for their whole lives. But then, so are monks, nuns, people called to the single state, and Latin Rite priests. Many people in marriage find that circumstances call them to years and years of continence.

how in the name of fellowship , can you tell another that he must lead a life of abstinance. were you there, when at the age of 4 he may have been interested in wearing his mothers clothes, rather than in territorial games. were you there when the smell of someone of the same sex made his knees weak. were you there when in puberty, he had dreams of touching someone of the same sex in an intimate way. do you know the thousands of feelings it must involve for someone to be attracted to the same sex emotionally, mentally, and physically, so that you are able to say these cant be from god because…

two people of the same sex can bond and have a relationship that exude all the fruits of the spirt, and if sex is involved it suddenly becomes a sin, even when the sexual intimacy strengthens the bonds of the relationship? arent you dismissing the parables of the good tree. bearing good fruit, cleaning the outside of the cup…for the sake of a written code.

because of romans 1:20, the gift of a heart of flesh, god’s writing his laws on our hearts, and because we are created thru the spirit of christ, each has been given the understanding of what is of god and what is not…what is a sin and what is not a sin.(this validates a judgement for all,none having an excuse to sin)

. that’s why 1john1: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin.

fellowship being, listening to each others hearts(and for those given the grace to believe where jesus lives)

because we are destined for judgement, as believers we are compelled in the spirit of christ to, in spite of what we are led to believe( because of cultural influence, our own mindset etc) to ask what i belive in my heart, where my lord and savior lives. because it is our hearts that will be judged.

that’s what the martyrs did. that’s why at the point of death they didnt rail at their executors( the ones who were relying on their written code), but were concerned only that their hearts were acceptable to christ.
.**

 

[goofyjim]

I think the average woman, Catholic or otherwise, believes that men are born homosexual. When the man mentions having been same gender attracted at any point they immediately call off the relationship assuming it will go nowhere. If there is so much possibility of change as some here say why are there not more women being taught that instead of being scared away by the male who honestly admits his past?

 

[feetxxxl]

Heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are as “shame based” as homosexual acts.

Let’s look at what we are citing here. I find the RSV generally to be the translation closest to the Greek, so that is what I quote. Rom 1:26-27:

**. . . God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. **

• In what translation does the term “shame based lust” appear? Did I miss that somewhere earlier in this thread? If so, I apologize for going over old territory.
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that if those who engage in homosexual acts do not experience feejlings of shame in those acts, then those acts cannot come under the disapprobation of these verses?
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are “shame based” but same sex engagements are not?
  Just trying to organize the playing field here.

(niv)romans 1: 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

dishonorable passions…any thing dishonorable brings shame. the only passions that i know of that bring shame involve a lust …devotion to something…sexual gratification. in all cases, things of this nature would come against the fruit of the spirit…kindness, gentleness, faithfulness,… either they would diminish them, or supplant them or both.

this does not bring into the abandonment issue. that you have to have something in your heart before you can abandon it.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate:

*Heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are as “shame based” as homosexual acts. *

Let’s look at what we are citing here. I find the RSV generally to be the translation closest to the Greek, so that is what I quote. Rom 1:26-27:

***. . . God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ***

• In what translation does the term “shame based lust” appear? Did I miss that somewhere earlier in this thread? If so, I apologize for going over old territory.
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that if those who engage in homosexual acts do not experience feejlings of shame in those acts, then those acts cannot come under the disapprobation of these verses?
• Do feetxxxl and feebood contend that heterosexual engagements outside of marriage are “shame based” but same sex engagements are not?
  Just trying to organize the playing field here.

(niv)romans 1: 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

THANKS! NIV. Ah. No “shame based” lusts. Just “shameful” lusts. Does this nuance change anything in your understanding? It would for me, though maybe we don’t need to go down that path considering that it is not in Scripture.
feebood:

dishonorable passions…any thing dishonorable brings shame. the only passions that i know of that bring shame involve a lust …devotion to something…sexual gratification. in all cases, things of this nature would come against the fruit of the spirit…kindness, gentleness, faithfulness,… either they would diminish them, or supplant them or both.

Take off your “gay” hat here for a second, and look at this dispassionately. How would “sexual gratification in all cases” be against the fruit of the spirit? From the natural law perspective, sexual gratification is part of the marital embrace and entails no shame or any conflict with the fruit of the spirit. Only sexual gratification at the expense of another (even a spouse), outside marriage, or by yourself enters the realm of “shame” – which is not essentially a feeling but an adjective. People are notorious for feeling no “shame” when in fact, shame would be entriely appropriate. Or am I wandering too far away from what you meant?

this does not bring into the abandonment issue. that you have to have something in your heart before you can abandon it.

I do not understand this sentence as a sentence. Are you saying that not feeling shame in your heart means it is OK to

 

[mercygate]

how in the name of fellowship , can you tell another that he must lead a life of abstinance.

"I" am not making this up. Have you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? or anything on the broad picture of human sexuality (not just gay sex) by Christopher West? Your view is very narrow.

were you there, when at the age of 4 he may have been interested in wearing his mothers clothes, rather than in territorial games. were you there when the smell of someone of the same sex made his knees weak. were you there when in puberty, he had dreams of touching someone of the same sex in an intimate way. do you know the thousands of feelings it must involve for someone to be attracted to the same sex emotionally, mentally, and physically, so that you are able to say these cant be from god because…

Oh come on! These kinds of things are experienced by almost everybody on earth! Whether these feelings are directed towards the opposite sex or one’s same sex, these feelings are universal.

two people of the same sex can bond and have a relationship that exude all the fruits of the spirt, and if sex is involved it suddenly becomes a sin, even when the sexual intimacy strengthens the bonds of the relationship?

See above.

arent you dismissing the parables of the good tree. bearing good fruit, cleaning the outside of the cup…for the sake of a written code.

No. I am not.

My view of the issue is wider than yours. You are having your own personal tantrum over this based on what you here describe very clearly as a primordial hormone storm, and failing to engage the essential issues, such as biological complementarity and procreative fruitfulness, as valid aspects of sexuality. You leave all that out in favor of ONLY the emotional relationship. Fruit? Children are fruit.

Who does not have compassion for people who struggle with SSA? Who does not admire the courage of those who embrace Our Lord’s mercy by manfully shouldering this cross? God bless them!

because of romans 1:20, the gift of a heart of flesh, god’s writing his laws on our hearts, and because we are created thru the spirit of christ, each has been given the understanding of what is of god and what is not…what is a sin and what is not a sin.(this validates a judgement for all,none having an excuse to sin)

No. Many who have access to this knowledge reject it.

. that’s why 1john1: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin.

fellowship being, listening to each others hearts(and for those given the grace to believe where jesus lives)**Do you believe it is “fellowship” to confirm someone in his sin?

because we are destined for judgement, as believers we are compelled in the spirit of christ to, in spite of what we are led to believe( because of cultural influence, our own mindset etc) to ask what i belive in my heart, where my lord and savior lives. because it is our hearts that will be judged.

Ah. cultural influence, our own mindset, what I believe in my heart . . .IOW: there is no such thing as objective truth outside my own heart. Sorry: that won’t fly.

that’s what the martyrs did. that’s why at the point of death they didnt rail at their executors( the ones who were relying on their written code), but were concerned only that their hearts were acceptable to christ.
.

Good luck to you and Godspeed. We’ll keep the door open and the light on for you.

 

[DLC]

All sin is missing the mark of God’s perfect Holiness. Homosexuality is no different and any other sin except that those who practice it flaunt their sin publically, and so do other with other types of sin. God views all sinners as condemned before Him and in need of a perfect Savior. Through faith alone in Christ we can be saved and then have God’s help to live lives pleasing to Him. Homosexulas can have hope and that hope is found in a personal realtionship with Christ through faith. Homosexuals can change as 1 Cor, states.
1 Cor 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
NASU

No person is born a homosexual. That is a fact. There is no such thing as a homosexual gene and no one has ever found one to prove that there is one. We are all born hetrosexual as God intended. Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal sexual orientation we are born with. We love the sinner but hate their sin. We tell them that through Christ they can change and be pleasing to God. No Christian is to be anti another person. Sin yes but people who are created in the image of God, no.

 

[Keikiolu]

how in the name of fellowship , can you tell another that he must lead a life of abstinance. were you there, when at the age of 4 he may have been interested in wearing his mothers clothes, rather than in territorial games. were you there when the smell of someone of the same sex made his knees weak. were you there when in puberty, he had dreams of touching someone of the same sex in an intimate way. do you know the thousands of feelings it must involve for someone to be attracted to the same sex emotionally, mentally, and physically, so that you are able to say these cant be from god because…

Those feelings were from God.

But they were misinterpreted by the “feeler” as a need to “have sex with” a person as opposed to “being repectfully intimate and loving” with them.

The fact that both parties may have been amenable to “having sex” is irrelevant as to the acts “correctness”.

two people of the same sex can bond and have a relationship that exude all the fruits of the spirt, and if sex is involved it suddenly becomes a sin, even when the sexual intimacy strengthens the bonds of the relationship? arent you dismissing the parables of the good tree. bearing good fruit, cleaning the outside of the cup…for the sake of a written code.

You can use scripture as like, if your not Catholic, as you wish, but your usage of it means nothing to a Catholic to convince them of anything, unless the Magisterium agrees with your interpretation.

because of romans 1:20, the gift of a heart of flesh, god’s writing his laws on our hearts, and because we are created thru the spirit of christ, each has been given the understanding of what is of god and what is not…what is a sin and what is not a sin.(this validates a judgement for all,none having an excuse to sin

. that’s why 1john1: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin. **

This is just once-saved-always-saved with a new face, used to justify same-sex sexual acts.

You “profess” Jesus, and you “know” you are saved, therefore nothing you do, which you “feel” is unsinful while “believing in Jesus”, is sinful.

Some could call that simply “self justification”.

fellowship being, listening to each others hearts(and for those given the grace to believe where jesus lives)

because we are destined for judgement, as believers we are compelled in the spirit of christ to, in spite of what we are led to believe( because of cultural influence, our own mindset etc) to ask what i belive in my heart, where my lord and savior lives. because it is our hearts that will be judged.

that’s what the martyrs did. that’s why at the point of death they didnt rail at their executors( the ones who were relying on their written code), but were concerned only that their hearts were acceptable to christ.
.

You may martyr yourself to affirm your beliefs, but even abject heretics can, and have, been martyred for their faith in their heretical beliefs.

Does that make them righteous? No.

We actually agree that it’s a good thing to submit to the rightful authority upon which our beliefs rest, but we disagree as to what that authority is.

You (your conscience as informed by whatever it is that you inform it with) are your authority, and the Church’s Magisterium is my authority.

We can agree on that, and agree to disagree on those things that derive from that agreement.

Love 'ya, buckeroo.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[goofyjim]

All sin is missing the mark of God’s perfect Holiness. Homosexuality is no different and any other sin except that those who practice it flaunt their sin publically, and so do other with other types of sin. God views all sinners as condemned before Him and in need of a perfect Savior. Through faith alone in Christ we can be saved and then have God’s help to live lives pleasing to Him. Homosexulas can have hope and that hope is found in a personal realtionship with Christ through faith. Homosexuals can change as 1 Cor, states.
1 Cor 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
NASU

No person is born a homosexual. That is a fact. There is no such thing as a homosexual gene and no one has ever found one to prove that there is one. We are all born hetrosexual as God intended. Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal sexual orientation we are born with. We love the sinner but hate their sin. We tell them that through Christ they can change and be pleasing to God. No Christian is to be anti another person. Sin yes but people who are created in the image of God, no.

I really wish people would stop saying that they can change their orientation. It is possible to change behavior but as I have said several times already there is mounting evidence of prenatal factors disposing one towards same sex attraction just like alcoholism. To make a blanket statement that a non-practicing homosexual is going to hell is just plain wrong.

 

[Keikiolu]

I really wish people would stop saying that they can change their orientation. …etc…

Hear hear.

 

[mercygate]

I really wish people would stop saying that they can change their orientation. It is possible to change behavior but as I have said several times already there is mounting evidence of prenatal factors disposing one towards same sex attraction just like alcoholism. To make a blanket statement that a non-practicing homosexual is going to hell is just plain wrong.

Preach it, Brother!

The fact that no genetic link has been discovered does not exclude other factors from contributing to the condition, even from before birth.

Some people can change their orientation. Some cannot. The contributing factors are many and complex. As with many other syndromes, there is no one single profile.

 

[goofyjim]

Preach it, Brother!

The fact that no genetic link has been discovered does not exclude other factors from contributing to the condition, even from before birth.

Some people can change their orientation. Some cannot. The contributing factors are many and complex. As with many other syndromes, there is no one single profile.

I will preach it. I knew probably from the age of four or five that there was something different about me. Yet occasionally I did have crushes on girlfriends. This probably makes me a little bisexual in nature but I have stayed chaste with the desire to still get married someday. I have a someone I’m presently dating. How much am I obligated to reveal to her w/o being “too honest”?

 

[mercygate]

I will preach it. I knew probably from the age of four or five that there was something different about me. Yet occasionally I did have crushes on girlfriends. This probably makes me a little bisexual in nature but I have stayed chaste with the desire to still get married someday. I have a someone I’m presently dating. How much am I obligated to reveal to her w/o being “too honest”?

Another topic altogether.

This is something for discussion with professionals: your spiritual director, maybe people involved in Courage, a good Catholic counselor who knows *all *the angles and possibilities . . .

Chances are this woman is attracted to you partly because you’re “different” – but she needs to know the scope of the issue well before the relationship gets deeply serious.

God love ya! You sound like a quite a man! I admire your care in looking at this both broadly and closely, seriously discerning your situation in the light of the cross. That alone would put you on the good husband list.

But by the time you approach marriage, you will need to have confidence that this is, indeed, what the Lord is calling you to.