Is being anti homosexual anti christian?

[feetxxxl]

“Homosexuality,” “essence”, and “oreintation” cannot/do not “embrace.”

The same is true if you substitute the noun “humans,” because humans cannot/do not “embrace” the fruit of the spirit.

When we predicate logically rather than illogically (make sure the noun can, does, and will perform a verb’s action), we then actually discuss a matter at hand.

Precise literal language is best when talking about important things. Makes it so much easier to see things for what they are.

As far as humans demonstrating love, behaving lovingly, or flat-out loving (just one fruit of the spirit), either we do or we do not.

I cannot be said to “love” another if my actions and/or motives do not match Saint Paul’s description in 1 Cor 13.

Mine do not from time to time.

Either we want to worship God or we want to worship man or some idol we’ve created. I’m thinking of Romans 1.

From my view in the cheap seats, the Church’s teaching is clear on homosexuality.

When we respond to all this as if it really does exist as the Church says it exists, the folderol ceases. Or at least much of it.

Most of what I’ve done, had done to me, witnessed 1st hand, and read about or see 2nd hand that others use to evidence “love” is merely self-love. Not all, but most.

It goes something like this, “love me so I can feel good.” Let me love you so I can feel good." Which runs afoul of Commandments, Beatitudes, and Church teachings.

Love is about self-sacrifice and the destruction of self-centeredness. All the fruit is. And it’s not self-aborbed as to if one be “fruitful” spiritually either.

Like the Good Samaritan, Matthew 25 and other examples.

Not only do we get “it” backwards. We’re in the dark as to what “it” is. Saint Paul in Romans, right out of the chute, tells us why. The Psalmists often tell us why. God flat out tells us why in some of the Books of Moses.

Thankfully, the Church tells us the truth. Saints demonstrate and teach. The Holy Spirit leads us away from our selfishness to selflessness: true devotion to God and love of our neighbour.

Sloppy writing, thinking, and concluding make it easier for lies to take on the hue of truth because folks are pitching “what can be sold and what is popular” rather than what is true.

I’m pretty gassed about beginning a study of St. Thomas Aquinas.

See, figurative languge supports well and amongst a friendly audience the unimportant (in the big scheme of things: that the prospect of studying the Divine Doctor thrills little 'ole me.)

For important issues, literal language suits better.

yes, the body of christ, his bride, the members of which, are given an anointing of the spiritual gifts. but does that remove from us, from our responsibility of knowing what we believe in our hearts and why we believe it.

romans 12:1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

surely our intimate relationship with christ takes precedence over our relationship with the church…doesnt the willingness of the martyrs to allow their execution, give evidence of this?

is it your understanding that at the final judgement, we will be judged by how well we followed the teachings of the church?

where in this does the holy spirit fit in?

is it your understanding that the teachings of the church are not to be tested?

 

[richardwy]

is it your understanding that the teachings of the church are not to be tested?

You raised so many important points by posing your questions. I don’t do right by quoting just one.

The short response is I tested the Church’s teachings, and my hammer wore out.

 

[AndyF]

I repeat we will never know the definitive cause of homosexual orientation.

It is a class of temptation, albeit not the easiest to be rid of once accepted. But God relieves us from the burden of questioning the cause by simply telling us not to go there.

AndyF

 

[mercygate]

yes, the body of christ, his bride, the members of which, are given an anointing of the spiritual gifts. but does that remove from us, from our responsibility of knowing what we believe in our hearts and why we believe it.

In my experience, any “spiritual gift” that runs contrary to both Scripture and the teaching of the Church is not a “gift” but a temptation. More below in response to your other questions.

As for the goodness you find among your friends, and the goodness you find in an individual, personal, homosexual relationship with another man, I would observe that God has made our gift of sexuality so abundant and so good, that much goodness remains, even in the abuse of the gift. This applies to heterosexual relations as well.

feetxxxl:

romans 12:1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

WOW! Now THAT’s a text I would use to encourge someone to live in chastity! The boss is drawing you into his heart, feetxxxl!

feetxxxl:

surely our intimate relationship with christ takes precedence over our relationship with the church…doesnt the willingness of the martyrs to allow their execution, give evidence of this?

Responding only to the bold text. Feet, the Catholic position is that the Church, by the promise of Christ himself to be “with you always” (those words were addressed to the eleven) and to send the comforter to “guide you into all the truth” (again, addressed only to the eleven) is in a very real way Christ himself. Our relationship with Christ cannot be “real” without the Church: bride and bridegoom are one flesh. In their martyrdom, the martyrs were not separated from the teachings of the Church and joined to Christ; they were totally united to Christ in his Church.

is it your understanding that at the final judgement, we will be judged by how well we followed the teachings of the church?

Yes. because . . .

feetxxxl:

where in this does the holy spirit fit in?

the Holy Spirit is foremost the guide of the Church, as Christ has promised, and comes to guide us into the fullness of truth. The spiritual unity of the Church as witnessed on Pentecost was a unity that included Apostles and disciples. The Holy Spirit did not send one “truth” to the Apostles and another “truth” to individual believers.

feetxxxl:

is it your understanding that the teachings of the church are not to be tested?

You think the teachings of the Church are NOT tested before they are taught? Holy Cow! Nothing in this world is MORE tested than the promulgation of teaching in faith and morals. Whenever a teaching is labeled “official” it has been tested up one side and down the other. That’s one reason I was able to become Catholic even before I fully believed every detail of Catholic dogma.

My Presbyterian grandmother used to rail that if the Catholic Church said what you saw as white was black, then as a Catholic, you had to believe the Church and not your own eyes.

As an adult, fairly far along the road to conversion to Catholicism, I came across that actual quotation in The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Instead of resenting it, I recognized its truth. So much of what I had formerly seen as “black” or “white” in the past had changed color because of what I had learned about Catholic teaching: contraception, abortion, homosexual acts, the Assumption, Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . I realized that if I had got it wrong and the Church had got it right on so many issues, then I should trust her for the rest.

 

[feetxxxl]

In my experience, any “spiritual gift” that runs contrary to both Scripture and the teaching of the Church is not a “gift” but a temptation. More below in response to your other questions.

As for the goodness you find among your friends, and the goodness you find in an individual, personal, homosexual relationship with another man, I would observe that God has made our gift of sexuality so abundant and so good, that much goodness remains, even in the abuse of the gift. This applies to heterosexual relations as well.

WOW! Now THAT’s a text I would use to encourge someone to live in chastity! The boss is drawing you into his heart, feetxxxl!

Responding only to the bold text. Feet, the Catholic position is that the Church, by the promise of Christ himself to be “with you always” (those words were addressed to the eleven) and to send the comforter to “guide you into all the truth” (again, addressed only to the eleven) is in a very real way Christ himself. Our relationship with Christ cannot be “real” without the Church: bride and bridegoom are one flesh. In their martyrdom, the martyrs were not separated from the teachings of the Church and joined to Christ; they were totally united to Christ in his Church.

Yes. because . . .

the Holy Spirit is foremost the guide of the Church, as Christ has promised, and comes to guide us into the fullness of truth. The spiritual unity of the Church as witnessed on Pentecost was a unity that included Apostles and disciples. The Holy Spirit did not send one “truth” to the Apostles and another “truth” to individual believers.

You think the teachings of the Church are NOT tested before they are taught? Holy Cow! Nothing in this world is MORE tested than the promulgation of teaching in faith and morals. Whenever a teaching is labeled “official” it has been tested up one side and down the other. That’s one reason I was able to become Catholic even before I fully believed every detail of Catholic dogma.

My Presbyterian grandmother used to rail that if the Catholic Church said what you saw as white was black, then as a Catholic, you had to believe the Church and not your own eyes.

As an adult, fairly far along the road to conversion to Catholicism, I came across that actual quotation in The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Instead of resenting it, I recognized its truth. So much of what I had formerly seen as “black” or “white” in the past had changed color because of what I had learned about Catholic teaching: contraception, abortion, homosexual acts, the Assumption, Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . I realized that if I had got it wrong and the Church had got it right on so many issues, then I should trust her for the rest.

.are you saying, that if i was to ask you…“what is the essence of the spirit of sin, of two people of the same sex, when they chose to express their mutual love,respect,devotion,and attraction to each other thru sexual intimacy”…your response would be, what the church tells your understanding is, but you yourself would have no understanding of your own.

 

[estesbob]

.are you saying, that if i was to ask you…“what is the essence of the spirit of sin, of two people of the same sex, when they chose to express their mutual love,respect,devotion,and attraction to each other thru sexual intimacy”…your response would be, what the church tells your understanding is, but you yourself would have no understanding of your own.

I would say there is nothing enobleing, spiritual or romantic in sodomy.

 

[mercygate]

.are you saying, that if i was to ask you…“what is the essence of the spirit of sin, of two people of the same sex, when they chose to express their mutual love,respect,devotion,and attraction to each other thru sexual intimacy”…

. . . the “essence of the spirit of sin” – all sin, not just sexual sin – is when I place my personal experience and judgment above “the essence of the spirit” of truth.
feebood:

. . . your response would be, what the church tells your understanding is, but you yourself would have no understanding of your own.

The Church does not expect people to swallow elephants. The Church clearly and carefully delineates her teaching and the reasons for her teaching, with all the dots connected so that her reasoning can be followed. Have you ever read a papal encyclical? They are awesome in their clarity.

Because of the loving care with which the Church teaches, I have learned that when my understanding has run counter to Church teaching, it has been my understanding that has been lacking. This would be true even if I did not believe that the Church holds the privilege of teaching authoritatively in matters of faith and morals.

I have experienced first hand how “sin darkens the mind” to block the understanding of divine truth – as Paul says in Romans 1:21. Fr. John Corapi says [from personal experience], “Sin makes you stupid!” Been there/done that: “If it feels so good, how can it be bad?” So-called “theology” based entirely in personal experience, and lacking rational and scriptural support, is adolescent. We are called to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength (Mk 12:30). Loving God with all of our strength often means governing the flesh according to the rule of right reason. In fact, that is what the strength of love is for.

Again: the divine gift of sexuality is so abundant and rich that even in its abuse much good remains – even when it is leading us on the merry road to hell.

 

[feetxxxl]

I would say there is nothing enobleing, spiritual or romantic in sodomy.

you do understand that 20%-30% of married couples use some form of anal stimulation in the expressiom of sexual intimacy.

the church has never preached against this. my understanding is that the church considers the marriage bed sacred.

also that the anus is an errogenous zone. that the body is capable of anal orgasms.

does this mean that lesbianism is not included in your comment?

but overall wouldn’t you agree that your response is directed to “outside the cup?”

 

[estesbob]

you do understand that 20%-30% of married couples use some form of anal stimulation in the expressiom of sexual intimacy.

the church has never preached against this. my understanding is that the church considers the marriage bed sacred.

also that the anus is an errogenous zone. that the body is capable of anal orgasms.

does this mean that lesbianism is not included in your comment?

but overall wouldn’t you agree that your response is directed to outside the cup?

The basic fallacy of all your arguments is that since, in your opinion, homosexual behavior is an expression of love, it must be OK. Thats nonsense. By its very nature it is can NEVER be anythng but an act of sexual perversion.

BTW-your left an improtant point out of heterosexuals and anal sex-it is true that a large number of them engage in it-the overwhelming majority do it ONCE. There is nothing erogenous about having your privates covered in feces. The idea that it is another example of the how homosexualtiy is disordered.

 

[feetxxxl]

The basic fallacy of all your arguments is that since, in your opinion, homosexual behavior is an expression of love, it must be OK. Thats nonsense. By its very nature it is can NEVER be anythng but an act of sexual perversion.

BTW-your left an improtant point out of heterosexuals and anla sex-it is true that a large number of them engage in it-the overwhelming majority do it ONCE. There is nothing erogenous about having your privates covered in feces. The idea that it is another example of the how homosexualtiy is disordered.

here again you are addressing “outside the cup”

you would agree that the expression of sexual intimacy in marriage is approved, because iin addition to being an expression of eros it is also an expression of phillia and agape, that is why it exudes the fruit of the spirit.

the essence of the spirit of this relationship, and the spirit of the act in this relationship has to with “inside the cup”… the intentions of the heart.

marriage is a sacrament in the catholic church, because christ enters in the relationship with the couple.

is your contention, that the only way christ can only enter in pardnership with a relationship is thru a service of expressed vows.

god is love…how can you know what love is expressed thru sexual intimacy without first hand witness. does your belief certify the existence of the truth. isnt it possible that belief can be an expression of culture conditioning, bias, and mindset… hence the need for testing thru witness.

the essence of the spirit of a relationship, and the spirit of the act in this relationship has to with “inside the cup” the intentions of the heart.

isnt the 50% divorce rate among believers as well as non believers indicative of this. half of all marriages said in a service of vows ended in divorce.

a belief without witness remains an unsubstantiated belief.

 

[fix]

the essence of the spirit of this relationship, and the spirit of the act in this relationship has to with “inside the cup”… the intentions of the heart.

One’s intentions do not make bad actions good.

how can you know what love is expressed thru sexual intimacy without first hand witness.

A witness is not always correct. The testimony of the witness should be tested against the teaching of the Church.

does your belief certify the existence of the truth. isnt it possible that belief can be an expression of culture conditioning, bias, and mindset… hence the need for testing thru witness.

Moral truth is objective and absolute.

 

[estesbob]

here again you are addressing “outside the cup”

What does that mean?

you would agree that the expression of sexual intimacy in marriage is approved, because iin addition to being an expression of eros it is also an expression of phillia and agape, that is why it exudes the fruit of the spirit.

What does that have to do with homosexual behavior?

the essence of the spirit of this relationship, and the spirit of the act in this relationship has to with “inside the cup”… the intentions of the heart.

So there is no sin as long as you , in your heart, beleive it is OK?

marriage is a sacrament in the catholic church, because christ enters in the relationship with the couple.

is your contention, that the only way christ can only enter in pardnership with a relationship is thru a service of expressed vows.

Why would Christ enter a realtionship based on deviant sexual bahavior? This of course is not my contention-it is the contstant teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ

god is love…how can you know what love is expressed thru sexual intimacy without first hand witness. does your belief certify the existence of the truth. isnt it possible that belief can be an expression of culture conditioning, bias, and mindset… hence the need for testing thru witness.

So i have to enage in sex with another man to know how “wonderful” and "enobleing sexual deviancy is? Are you hiting on me?

the essence of the spirit of a relationship, and the spirit of the act in this relationship has to with “inside the cup” the intentions of the heart.

That is the essence of a marriage-it is not the essence of those drawn together to engage in deviant sex.

isnt the 50% divorce rate among believers as well as non believers indicative of this. half of all marriages said in a service of vows ended in divorce.

No.

a belief without witness remains an unsubstantiated belief

And you base that on what?

 

[mercygate]

What does that mean?

What does that have to do with homosexual behavior?

So there is no sin as long as you , in your heart, beleive it is OK?

Why would Christ enter a realtionship based on deviant sexual bahavior? This of course is not my contention-it is the contstant teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ

So i have to enage in sex with another man to know how “wonderful” and "enobleing sexual deviancy is? Are you hiting on me?

That is the essence of a marriage-it is not the essence of those drawn together to engage in deviant sex.

No.

And you base that on what?

estesbob, if I were on the other side of this question, your statements would not only fail to convince me of the correctness of the Church’s teaching but would further alienate me from it. Calling people and their behavior “deviant” or “perverted” is hardly conducive to opening their hearts.

I have yet to meet a homosexual who experiences his feelings as deviant. I believe that is why feetxxxl and feebood are so persistent in their argument that feelings should be the sole determining factor in the valuation of homosexual relations. They just cannot see it as anything beyond feelings and for them, those feelings are “good.”

 

[estesbob]

estesbob, if I were on the other side of this question, your statements would not only fail to convince me of the correctness of the Church’s teaching but would further alienate me from it. Calling people and their behavior “deviant” or “perverted” is hardly conducive to opening their hearts.

 

[goofyjim]

mercygate;2314186:

It is always interesting me to me that anytime there is a discussion of homosexuality no one wants to talk about what exactly it is homosexual behavior entails. “Feet” wants to descibe it as romantinc and enobling and an expression of love. Do you agree with that?

I

So since they dont feel its deviant it must be OK? Do you agree woth feet that as long as you feel in you heart its OK no sin is involved?

We are 313 posts into this thread and FEET is sticking to what he said in his first post. Is that evidence that your approach is better than mine?

I agree that homosexual acts are sin because sin is determined by a Judeo-Christian societal structure. But I do not agree that the orientation is deviant. It happens in nature and while we are called to transcend the physical realm we are still natural creatures. If one wants to continue to call the way I have felt since the age of 4 or 5 deviant then I don’t really care.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob;2314216:

I agree that homosexual acts are sin because sin is determined by a Judeo-Christian societal structure. But I do not agree that the orientation is deviant. It happens in nature and while we are called to transcend the physical realm we are still natural creatures. If one wants to continue to call the way I have felt since the age of 4 or 5 deviant then I don’t really care.

Jim:I have never said that SSA is deviant.

 

[feetxxxl]

goofyjim;2314308:

Jim:I have never said that SSA is deviant.

how can you seperate the spirit that inspires the act from the act itself?

how can you seperate the attraction, the desire to bond with another of the same sex from the expression of that thru the act of sexual intimacy.

matt 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

of course you have never defereniated acts of lust and acceptable acts of sexual expression, like you have with heterosexuals. to you all homosexual acts are as if they were acts of lust.

the test isnt just the intent alone. but what is the fruit the intent bears. does it bear good fruit. does the relationship embrace, enhance, exude the fruit of the spirit. or instead does against it… what is your witness. do you have any first hand witness?

matt7:17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

do those homosexuals in committed relationships that engage in sexual intimacy… is the fruit of that relationship less loving ,less, kind,patient, good… than homosexual couples who dont engage in sexual intimacy or committed married heterosexuals. the testimony on this websight is that in some cases they are more so.

are homosexuals who engaged in sexual intimacy found lacking in any sector of society, compared to heterosexuals ,who do the same. surely we have seen how sexual addictions and obsessions have created absent parents, and broken families, and in some cases derelict performances on the job. show me a home where the parents relationship is lust based or sexually deviant and i will show you a broken home.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob;2314319:

how can you seperate the spirit that inspires the act from the act itself?

So you are claiming that the Spirit inspires sinful behavior? Can you show us in Scripture where it says this?

how can you seperate the attraction, the desire to bond with another of the same sex from the expression of that thru the act of sexual intimacy.

So if I am attracted to my neighbors 12 year old daughter it is perfectly Ok for me to express that thorugh sexual intimacy?

matt 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Nice qoute but it has Zilch relevance to the discussion at hand

of course you have never defereniated acts of lust and acceptable acts of sexual expression, like you have with heterosexuals. to you all homosexual acts are as if they were acts of lust.

Actually they are all acts of grevious sin-whether generated by lust or not.

the test isnt just the intent alone. but what is the fruit the intent bears. does it bear good fruit. does the relationship embrace, enhance, exude the fruit of the spirit. or instead does against it… what is your witness. do you have any first hand witness?

Ah so we have progressed from situation ehtics to the “end jusities the means”. so its ok to sin as long as you “feel good” after you have done it?

matt7:17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Exactly-which of course totaly rejects the point you tried to make in the paragraph above…

do those homosexuals in committed relationships that engage in sexual intimacy… is the fruit of that relationship less loving ,less, kind,patient, good… than homosexual couples who dont engage in sexual intimacy or committed married heterosexuals. the testimony on this websight is that in some cases they are more so.

Homosexual beahavior is disordered and sinful by its very nature. Trying to dress up sin as loving , patient , good… does not make it so.

are homosexuals who engaged in sexual intimacy found lacking in any sector of society, compared to heterosexuals ,who do the same. surely we have seen how sexual addictions and obsessions have created absent parents, and broken families, and in some cases derelict performances on the job. show me a home where the parents relationship is lust based or sexually deviant and i will show you a broken home.

So it is OK to sin because you think others sin worse than you do?

 

[feetxxxl]

feetxxxl;2315658:

So you are claiming that the Spirit inspires sinful behavior? Can you show us in Scripture where it says this?

So if I am attracted to my neighbors 12 year old daughter it is perfectly Ok for me to express that thorugh sexual intimacy?

Nice qoute but it has Zilch relevance to the discussion at hand

Actually they are all acts of grevious sin-whether generated by lust or not.

Ah so we have progressed from situation ehtics to the “end jusities the means”. so its ok to sin as long as you “feel good” after you have done it?

Exactly-which of course totaly rejects the point you tried to make in the paragraph above…

Homosexual beahavior is disordered and sinful by its very nature. Trying to dress up sin as loving , patient , good… does not make it so.

So it is OK to sin because you think others sin worse than you do?

god sent an evil spirit into saul that made him want to kill david…satan entered judas as he left the upper room when he was about to betrayed christ.

your definition of deviancy comes from an outside the cup perception., not from the motivations and the resulting fruit of those motivations.

pederasty and pedophilia do not involve mutual respect, attraction, love, and devotion.

 

[mercygate]

estesbob;2317876:

god sent an evil spirit into saul that made him want to kill david…satan entered judas as he left the upper room when he was about to betrayed christ.

Could you please connect the dots for us on this statement? How does it relate to the subject. Not challenging here? I just don’t get it.

feetxxxl:

your definition of deviancy comes from an outside the cup perception., not from the motivations and the resulting fruit of those motivations.

I know somebody asked you before to explain what “outside the cup” means. Did I miss the answer. I don’t know what this means. Are you trying to say that unless I have SSA I cannot understand what you are talking about?