Is being anti homosexual anti christian?

[estesbob]

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.

And the point is?

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

What does outside the cup mean? Can anythnig that makes you feel good be a sin?

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

Once more trying to make a “silk purse out of a sows ear” Can one have sex with their adult sister if they are mutually attracted to each other and do it in the spririt if love and devotion? How about with their Mother? How about with anothers mans wife??

 

[feetxxxl]

And the point is?

What does outside the cup mean? Can anythnig that makes you feel good be a sin?

Once more trying to make a “silk purse out of a sows ear” Can one have sex with their adult sister if they are mutually attracted to each other and do it in the spririt if love and devotion? How about with their Mother? How about with anothers mans wife??

good questions, got to go work, get back to you later.

 

[feetxxxl]

good questions, got to go work, get back to you later.

FOR MERCYGATE AND ESTESBOB

when i said good questions i was addressing both yoour questionsabout outside the cup. as far as the the other questions go. the jerry springer show deals with that specifically…a picture is worth a thousand words

matt23: 25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the CUP and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the CUP and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.

its what is inside that counts the most. whatever is on the inside that is what also will be on the outside.

if homosexual unions are about mutual love, respect, devotion, and attraction then their outer lives will be the same. this will be the fruit of their union.

when i said you are using outside the cup perception. its because, what you see on the outside is repugnant to you , you are saying because of this there can be nothing good on the inside.

instead of looking at the inside FIRST and seeing what is good and acknowledging because what is on the inside is good what is outside is good also. in spite of one’s personnal feelings

in regards to the issue of spirits…jesus said our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. that is why we put on daily, the armor of god (ephesians6)

the word spirit is used 569 times in the bible…101 times in the gospels…178 times in the epistles,89 times in revelation

 

[estesbob]

FOR MERCYGATE AND ESTESBOB

matt23: 25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the CUP and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the CUP and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.

And what does this have to do with homosexual behavior?

its what is inside that counts the most. whatever is on the inside that is what also will be on the outside.

Agreed -sinful behavior(such as homosexual behavior) will taint both the inside and outside of the cup

if homosexual unions are about mutual love, respect, devotion, and attraction then their outer lives will be the same. this will be the fruit of their union.

But by their very nature they can not be. Trying to pass this sinful behavior off as love, respect and devotion is contradictory by its very nature. Sin can be based in NONE of these.

when i said you are using outside the cup perception. its because, what you see on the outside is repugnant to you , you are saying because of this there can be nothing good on the inside.

Excatly-since the “inside” consists of inherently sinful behavior no matter what platitudes you try and package it with, what we see on the outside accuratley reflects what is on the inside.

instead of looking at the inside FIRST and seeing what is good and acknowledging because what is on the inside is good what is outside is good also. in spite of one’s personnal feelings

But what is on the inside is not good. Saying it is doesnt make it so.

in regards to the issue of spirits…jesus said our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. that is why we put on daily, the armor of god (ephesians6)

And the point is?

the word spirit is used 569 times in the bible…101 times in the gospels…178 times in the epistles,89 times in revelation

How many times does the Bible endorse homosexual behavior?

 

[feetxxxl]

And what does this have to do with homosexual behavior?

Agreed -sinful behavior(such as homosexual behavior) will taint both the inside and outside of the cup

But by their very nature they can not be. Trying to pass this sinful behavior off as love, respect and devotion is contradictory by its very nature. Sin can be based in NONE of these.

Excatly-since the “inside” consists of inherently sinful behavior no matter what platitudes you try and package it with, what we see on the outside accuratley reflects what is on the inside.

But what is on the inside is not good. Saying it is doesnt make it so.

And the point is?

How many times does the Bible endorse homosexual behavior?

you are saying is inside homosexuals there is a spirit of sexual deviancy. sexual deviancy is obsessed with sexual gratification and sexual obsession. its fruit is self loathing, self hatred, and it brings about personal shame. and it transposes and diminishes the fruit of the spirit…patience. kindness, faithfiulness, love… that has not been my witness ,is it yours?

 

[mercygate]

you are saying is inside homosexuals there is a spirit of sexual deviancy. sexual deviancy is obsessed with sexual gratification and sexual obsession. its fruit is self loathing, self hatred, and it brings about personal shame. and it transposes and diminishes the fruit of the spirit…patience. kindness, faithfiulness, love… that has not been my witness ,is it yours?

feet, my beloved brother: homosexuals do not have a corner on the market of love, respect, affection . . . I have homosexual friends and acquaintances who are really neat people: Talented, kind, thoughtful, funny, charitable, and giving. But they are not any more talented, kind, thoughtful, funny, charitable, spiritual, and giving than anybody else.

Let me be a Pharisee here: why should gay sex have privileges that I cannot enjoy because I am heterosexual? Answer: it’s not about sexual orientation, it’s about orientation to Jesus Christ, and whether we are willing to hand our bodies over to him.

The part of this discussion that you have not engaged is whether homosexual behavior, by its fundamental biological nature – which cannot be divorced from the physical activity, no matter how you wish it could be – is consistent with divine and natural moral law, with the traditions of Scripture, with life.

Outside the cup? That comment says that I do not live what I affirm in my statements here. Are you saying that if I had SSA I would not say what I say?

Serious question: is homosexual attraction more compelling, more “spiritual,” more irresistable than heterosexual attraction? (I have gay acquaintances who claim that.) And if it is, does that privilege the behavior – exempt it from the encompassing charity of the divine and natural moral law?

 

[feetxxxl]

feet, my beloved brother: homosexuals do not have a corner on the market of love, respect, affection . . . I have homosexual friends and acquaintances who are really neat people: Talented, kind, thoughtful, funny, charitable, and giving. But they are not any more talented, kind, thoughtful, funny, charitable, spiritual, and giving than anybody else.

Let me be a Pharisee here: why should gay sex have privileges that I cannot enjoy because I am heterosexual? Answer: it’s not about sexual orientation, it’s about orientation to Jesus Christ, and whether we are willing to hand our bodies over to him.

The part of this discussion that you have not engaged is whether homosexual behavior, by its fundamental biological nature – which cannot be divorced from the physical activity, no matter how you wish it could be – is consistent with divine and natural moral law, with the traditions of Scripture, with life.

Outside the cup? That comment says that I do not live what I affirm in my statements here. Are you saying that if I had SSA I would not say what I say?

Serious question: is homosexual attraction more compelling, more “spiritual,” more irresistable than heterosexual attraction? (I have gay acquaintances who claim that.) And if it is, does that privilege the behavior – exempt it from the encompassing charity of the divine and natural moral law?

im not sure i understand what you mean by privileges?. i look at homosexuality as merely a form of human bonding. no more or less than heterosexuality. the desire to be connected and have a shared life with another person. in an age with so many possibilities of having children, where there are so many unwanted children. why cant this be looked on as a blessing. im sure the adopted see it that way.

in the spirit of being so concerned for children, and the procreation of them, why aren’t the benefits of the adopted taken into consideration?

 

[feetxxxl]

im not sure i understand what you mean by privileges?. i look at homosexuality as merely a form of human bonding. no more or less than heterosexuality. the desire to be connected and have a shared life with another person. in an age with so many possibilities of having children, where there are so many unwanted children. why cant this be looked on as a blessing. im sure the adopted see it that way.

in the spirit of being so concerned for children, and the procreation of them, why aren’t the benefits of the adopted taken into consideration?

its interesting that you would require procreation to give full validation to sex. if you were to take a poll of married couples and asked them…What would the change in your marriage if sex suddenly became non existent ? i wonder what the response would be?

if i remember correctly, some time ago one of your popes was leading or instituting classes on sex…because he believed the world had diminished its value so much.

if the embodiment of life is the fruit of the spirit how powerful a unifying effect sex can have if it is expressed thru a spirit of joy, love, peace, kindness, gentleness…

can there be a possibility of “one flesh” without sex

 

[mercygate]

im not sure i understand what you mean by privileges?.

I mean that in my life, I must remain chaste until marriage, engage in sexual intercourse only with my spouse, not contracept, not use IVF, not masturbate, not look at pornography, and live in perfect continence for the rest of my life if anything should disable my spouse’s ability to have sexual relations. You seem to be advocating for sexual relations that do not participate in the exclusivity we heterosexuals must embrace . . .

i look at homosexuality as merely a form of human bonding. no more or less than heterosexuality.

Ah ha. Not speaking as an advocate for one thing or the other here but in the purely objective order – purely objectively speaking – sexuality involves a LOT more than human bonding. It entails the mutual biological, psychological, and emotional complementarity of male and female. It engages procreative potential and reality, it presupposes the nuturing environment of a home for children, for broadening the education of children for their participation in the social structure. Humanity, in its fulness – again, purely in the objective order – is male and female. Reducing our sexuality to mere “bonding” ignores much of what makes it what it IS.

the desire to be connected and have a shared life with another person.

Ah. Now you are touching a key point. Nearly EVERYBODY wants (needs) to be connected and to share life with another. We all seek affirmation, understanding, mutual support, acceptance. These desires are so fundamental that people who have missed them in childhood often find it difficult to impossible to find them in adulthood. For people with predisposing biological factors to SSA, the impetus to find a fulfilled relationship with someone of the opposite sex can be permanently derailed. Groups like Courage try to address these important needs in a constructive way.

in an age with so many possibilities of having children, where there are so many unwanted children. why cant this be looked on as a blessing. im sure the adopted see it that way.

in the spirit of being so concerned for children, and the procreation of them, why aren’t the benefits of the adopted taken into consideration?

Huh? You’ve gone off the platform again, my dear brother.

 

[mercygate]

its interesting that you would require procreation to give full validation to sex. if you were to take a poll of married couples and asked them…What would the change in your marriage be if you had to contiue it obstaining from sex? i wonder what the response would be?

if i remember correctly, some time ago one of your popes was leading or instituting classes on sex…because he believed the world had diminished its value so much.

if the embodiment of life is the fruit of the spirit how powerful a unifying effect sex can have if it is expressed thru a spirit of joy, love, peace, kindness, gentleness…

can there be a possibility of “one flesh” without sex

I am not sure I follow you. This isn’t about “our Pope” except insofar as he has drawn attention to the need to redeem the full significance of human sexuality from its profound degradation in our culture, which places a low value on procreation and a high value on self-satisfaction, comfort and convenience: if it feels good: do it!

You have a way of expressing yourself that is “unique.” “The embodiment of life is the fruit of the spirit”? Human life in its fulness, as intended by God, does “embody” – that is, display in the body – spiritual fruits. But one of the chief ways we do that in this life is by “embodying” our love in our children.

When we, at the call of our Lord, forego procreation for the sake of the Kingdom, we forego the immediate good of marriage in witness to the Resurrection where we neither marry nor are given in marriage (and no: that does not mean gay sex is OK because it doesn’t involve marriage. ) We offer our bodily fertility in order to produce fertility in the spiritual order.

 

[feetxxxl]

I mean that in my life, I must remain chaste until marriage, engage in sexual intercourse only with my spouse, not contracept, not use IVF, not masturbate, not look at pornography, and live in perfect continence for the rest of my life if anything should disable my spouse’s ability to have sexual relations. You seem to be advocating for sexual relations that do not participate in the exclusivity we heterosexuals must embrace . . . Ah ha. Not speaking as an advocate for one thing or the other here but in the purely objective order – purely objectively speaking – sexuality involves a LOT more than human bonding. It entails the mutual biological, psychological, and emotional complementarity of male and female. It engages procreative potential and reality, it presupposes the nuturing environment of a home for children, for broadening the education of children for their participation in the social structure. Humanity, in its fulness – again, purely in the objective order – is male and female. Reducing our sexuality to mere “bonding” ignores much of what makes it what it IS. Ah. Now you are touching a key point. Nearly EVERYBODY wants (needs) to be connected and to share life with another. We all seek affirmation, understanding, mutual support, acceptance. These desires are so fundamental that people who have missed them in childhood often find it difficult to impossible to find them in adulthood. For people with predisposing biological factors to SSA, the impetus to find a fulfilled relationship with someone of the opposite sex can be permanently derailed. Groups like Courage try to address these important needs in a constructive way. Huh? You’ve gone off the platform again, my dear brother.

the regulation we put on ourselves, is because it embraces the life , the abundant life that we get thru christ, the life he died for. for non believers, it is embracing “god’s eternal power and divine presence” thru observing and understanding what is created. this is regardless of orientation.

you are saying that all the positive things you mentioned can only be achieved by male and female pardnership.

yet you would agree that children have received nurturing and loving parenting from a single grandparent, a single parent, the other parent being non existent…etc how much greater is that environment if there is another adult who is devoted to the adult and children in the household.

procreation basically evolves out of the mind of those in the relationship. how it is achieved depends on the circumstances. one method is not greater than another.

a greater importance might be the loving nurturing home that is provided.

read my message again, see if the edited form makes it any clearer.

 

[mercygate]

the regulation we put on ourselves, is because it embraces the life , the abundant life that we get thru christ, the life he died for. for non believers, it is embracing “god’s eternal power and divine presence” thru observing and understanding what is created. this is regardless of orientation.

“Understanding what is created” definitely involves understanding the fundamental reality of the flesh and its procreative capacity, in other words: orientation plays a big part in “what is created.” I don’t know what you mean by “the regulation we put on ourselves.”

you are saying that all the positive things you mentioned can only be achieved by male and female pardnership.

More accurately, I would say that the positive things I mentioned can be achieved fully only in a male-female partnership (one man, one woman, open to life, for life) and in an intact two-parent family.

yet you would agree that children have received nurturing and loving parenting from a single grandparent, a single parent, the other parent being non existent…etc

No, I would not agree. A one-parent household is a deprived household. It is incomplete. It may achieve successful rearing of children, but it is very far from ideal.

how much greater is that environment if there is another adult who is devoted to the adult and children in the household.

I would observe that insofar as the adults in the household are living in open defiance of the divine and natural moral law, they are subjecting those children to a toxic environment. This goes for heterosexual couples also. Our whole society is toxic to children, not just the gay world.

procreation basically evolves out of the mind of those in the relationship. how it is achieved depends on the circumstances. one method is not greater than another.

Here we part company in a big way. Procreation does not evolve “out of the mind” separated from the bodies of the two people who come together in a procreative embrace. Good grief: “one method is not greater than another?” The method ordained by the loving Creator is to my mind absolutely “greater” than any other – even if it would be more convenient for me personally if that were not true…

 

[feetxxxl]

read my message again, see if the edited form makes it any clearer.

 

[mercygate]

read my message again, see if the edited form makes it any clearer.

Are you talking to me? What message # please? Thanks

 

[feetxxxl]

…What would the change in your marriage if sex suddenly became non existent ? i wonder what the response would be?

gotta go!

 

[estesbob]

…What would the change in your marriage if sex suddenly became non existent ? i wonder what the response would be?

gotta go!

I guess that somes it up-you beleive that Love = sex. My marriage is not now or ever was centered on sex. If one of us became unable to have sex neither ur marriage or our love for each other would lessen

 

[estesbob]

you are saying is inside homosexuals there is a spirit of sexual deviancy. sexual deviancy is obsessed with sexual gratification and sexual obsession. its fruit is self loathing, self hatred, and it brings about personal shame. and it transposes and diminishes the fruit of the spirit…patience. kindness, faithfiulness, love… that has not been my witness ,is it yours?

I made no comment on homosexuals-i stated that homosexual behavior is a grevious sijn and can never be considered the “fruit of the spirit” no matter how much you enjoy it.

 

[mercygate]

…What would the change in your marriage if sex suddenly became non existent ? i wonder what the response would be?

gotta go!

When married couples lose the ability to engage in sexual relations, usually through illness, the test of the relationship is in how well it sustains the loss.

Good marriages triumph over the loss and embrace what remains, often discovering a rebirth of those “fruits” you mention so often in your posts. Granted, when the relationship is based in Christ, this is a lot easier.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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”.

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.

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”.

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.*

was the church justified for everyone(heretics and martyrs) they burned at the stake,

Are you suprprised that sinful people who were members of the Church have done bad things in the past, and will do so again in the future?

Does the Church have to be composed entirely of non-sinners who never do evil to make the Church “valid”?

Those facts neither surprise me, nor invalidate the Church.

when did the spirit of christ deem it unacceptable.

The Holy Spirit never deems evil acceptable. The Holy Spirit never deems good unacceptable.

what is the difference betwen a stoning and being burned at the stake?

One uses stones and the other uses rapid oxidation. What is your point?

jesus came to fulfill the law, honored some of the jewish traditions, so does that mean he attended a stoning. if not why not?

I have no idea if He attended a stoning. I seriously doubt that He would have thrown any rocks AT a stoning, though. I have no proof for that, but it seems highly unlikely.

on another subject what does the magisterium say about testing (thess) and fellowship (1john1)

What are the verses of Thessalonians that you’re interested in the Magisterium’s views on?

As for 1John1,…

“(1) That which was from the begining, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life, (2) the life was made manifest and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us”

…speaks about the reality of Jesus Christ.

What do you think it means?

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

 

[Keikiolu]

the regulation we put on ourselves, is because it embraces the life , the abundant life that we get thru christ, the life he died for. for non believers, it is embracing “god’s eternal power and divine presence” thru observing and understanding what is created. this is regardless of orientation.

you are saying that all the positive things you mentioned can only be achieved by male and female pardnership.

yet you would agree that children have received nurturing and loving parenting from a single grandparent, a single parent, the other parent being non existent…etc how much greater is that environment if there is another adult who is devoted to the adult and children in the household.

If a child’s Grandfather and that same child’s Aunt, the Grandfather’s daughter, were cohabitating (for economic reasons, let’s say) and raising the aforementioned child because the child was orphaned from his/her parents,… would it be OK for the Grandfather and the Aunt (father and daughter) to be “devoted to each other” (aka perform sex acts with each other) because that would “deepen their loving bond” and make a “better environment” for the child?

You can justify anything with the logic you’re using,… but that is a very human tendency.

procreation basically evolves out of the mind of those in the relationship. how it is achieved depends on the circumstances. one method is not greater than another.

The mind and the body are one thing. I believe it’s actually a heresy, though I’m not sure which heresy, to “split” the human being into compartments so as to justify that which is otherwise unjustifiable.

a greater importance might be the loving nurturing home that is provided.

So, what you’re saying is that any activity which you FEEL makes for a “loving” and “nurturing” home, is acceptable.

Is the FEELING that homosexual sex acts between the guardians of children really valid? For you apparently they are. Are they to me? No. We disagree on that.

read my message again, see if the edited form makes it any clearer.

Clarity? Where…?

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