C
CopticChristian
Guest
Daddy,
This is rediculous…Paul was not gay and any suggestion that this is true is nonsense. I have read Scripture Scholars that say he was Vegan.
- Status
This is rediculous…Paul was not gay and any suggestion that this is true is nonsense. I have read Scripture Scholars that say he was Vegan.
F
fix
Guest
You mean gay activists claim that. Propaganda is propaganda.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Check your own posts for your own history. They are on countless threads to which you contribute, using utterly non-expert “sources” to make claims opposing Catholic doctrine…
The two links you posted were written by superficial, non-intellectual sources. Whether you include them as “thinkers” or not is immaterial. They are not experts in scripture study, not experts in Catholicism (understanding of doctrine) nor even scholars.
And I am discussing and debating with you by correcting your odd understanding of Catholicism, which persists in being as provocative as possible. Just a heads up on that.
Second “heads up”: The “opinions” I expressed above were not “my own.” They are opinions of EXPERTS. Not opinions from those ignorant about the Catholic faith. Not opinions from those ignorant about the methodology (discipline) of scripture study. Not opinions from popular, superficial websites. Not opinions from those who spent a brief, superficial foray into Catholicism at some point in their lives, then drifted on and now prefer to use secular “sources” to question hundreds of years of respected scripture scholarship. (Whether such people are on various websites, various discussion boards, etc.)
Third “heads up”: What is “new” does not necessarily (because it is “new”) have value. That’s what discerning and educated people are supposed to figure out, before assuming that “sourcing” what is new does in fact have any merit whatsoever. Not every idea is “worth exploring.” To borrow a phrase from the early years of software development: GIGO, standing for “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
Fourth “heads up”: Catholic doctrine is not altered because some secular person somewhere came up with some “new” theory. Catholic doctrine does not change with time.
(Crescentinus, thank you.)
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Using your own argument, I would say that it is those Catholics who support the oxymoron that is gay “marriage” who have blindly submitted- not to the teachings of the Church, but to the pressure of conforming to secularist values- which are often no values at all since they are grounded in a culture of moral relativism.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Elizabeth, I am really starting to appreciate the entertainment value provided by the unbelievers who come onto these forums and try to teach the Catholic faith to highly formed and informed Catholics. I guess we can declare total victory at the point when they abandon their usual atheistic straw men and circular arguments in favor of something even more futile- attempting to educate Catholics about their own faith, or about Scripture, or even theology in general.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
DaddyGirl, you didn’t really just cite two articles referencing the same isolated heretic Episcopalian “bishop” on a Catholic forum and use the words “most scholars”, did you?
I
interestedman
Guest
lol, yeah, that is pretty bad. That is like saying most scholars don’t believe Jesus was a historical figure. Paul being gay is a position held by only fringe scholars.DaddyGirl, you didn’t really just cite two articles referencing the same isolated heretic Episcopalian “bishop” on a Catholic forum and use the words “most scholars”, did you?
F
fpt
Guest
The fact of supporting gay " marriage " is not in link with the natural philosophy and in natural theology. That is an ideology that is going against the natural moral law. Two men or two women cannot form a couple: the word “couple” is, only, for one man and one female. Thus, a lay person does not have to use the term “couple”, that is absurd, illogic and very wrong. The same thing, for the term marriage, Marriage is only for human persons of different genders (male and female). Therefore, we have not the moral right to use the words “couple and marriage” for this type of “union”.
Couple should be replaced by “Tadem”, or “Duo”, “Duet”
Marriage should be replaced by " unnatural speudo-marriage" “so-called marriage”, “union for sodomists”…etc.
In addition, this type of “stuff” is false, wrong, unnatural, awful, terrible, monstruous, scandalous, bad…etc.
Yes, the support to this “union for sodomists” is immoral and is very sinful.
P
PJM
Guest
NOT ONLY IS IT A “SIN” IT IS A GRAVE SIN.
Here’ s whyOne can neither deny or forget that God has a DIRECT and personal role in the Creation of each human person.
Christ birth was foretold many hundreds of years before it happened. Micah, chapter 5: 1* But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathaha least among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient
times"
**Genesis 4:1 **The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,’ she said.
Birth is Controlled by God
John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “
Isa.43 Verses 7and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”
The Book of Genesis alone speaks at least 6 times about Gods desire and Powers to multiply humanity. **1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 16:10, 17:2, and 17:20 Genesis 17:2 “**And I will make my covenant between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly”
Christ raised Marriage to the Level of a SACRAMENT at and with His First Miracle at the Wedding in Cana.
Matt. 5:31 "31-32 “And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”
Mt.19: 3-9 “And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”
God forbids divorce because it VOIDS His very purpose for creating male and females. The Procreation of the species that ALONE can emulate God. And therefore are GRAVELY Obligated to do just that. The fact that females have a fertile -period and a time when they are NOT “fertile” is indicative of God’s understanding on human nature and providing a REASONABLE alternative to contraception [it TOO A MORTAL SIN and the leading cause for today‘s Abortion laws].
MARRIAGE even in the Old Testament was God’s plan and God’s COMMAND to those to whom HE calls to Marriage.
ANY VOTE THAT PLACES PERSONAL WILL, POLITICAL POLITICS, ABOVE GOD’S COMMAND THAT “THOU SHALL NOT KILL”…THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT IS TOO GRAVELY SINFUL AS PREVENTING A LIFE BY INTENTION IS THE SAME AS TAKING A LIFE BY INTENTION; AND IS TOO A MORTAL SIN.
ALL CHRISTIANS MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF GOD’S LAWS AND DEFEAT HUMANITIES ATTEMPT TO USURP IT.
God Bless,
Pat /PJM
B
Bradski
Guest
I should point out that I’m not offering an argument. That a majority of Catholics support gay marriage would be difficult to refute. The Catholics who haven’t gone through any process of questioning the teachings of the church I would assume accept the Church’s position on gay marriage. That a majority do accept gay marriage obviously means that at least that many have thought about whether the Church is correct or not.
Whether they have reached this decision honestly and after much thought or whether they have ‘blindly submitted…etc’ is a matter for conjecture. I’d suggest that questioning one’s faith, where you could be questioning the possibility of your own salvation, would entail some serious thought. I can’t image someone doing it ‘blindly’.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Bradski,
You say your name is not Brad…I would ask this…where do these personal beliefs come from?
Next I would say that there are many Catholics born and raised Catholic that have never read the Catechism and yet are practicing Catholics…Today I just picked up a copy of the Catechism…I could not find the one I thought I had and plan to read it cover to cover including the companion…because I discovered that it has been a while since I had…
I suggest that all Catholics do the same and any personal beliefs anyone may have I would ask…where did those come from?
B
Bradski
Guest
You believe that the Catholic Church has the correct teachings in regard to spiritual matters. I’m going to assume that you weren’t told that you must believe that the Church is right, but that you came to this decision yourself. I’m going to assume that you would have talked to people, read about it, discussed it and would have had an internal debate before you came to your decision.
I do the same in regard to what I believe. I just reach different conclusions in some things.
I’m sure that you’re correct. I’m pretty sure that I know more about the Catholic faith than at least three Catholic friends that I have. That’s not being derogatory to them in any sense, or to any Catholic who simply attends mass and doesn’t spend a great deal of time studying the faith. It’s simply a fact of life.
I’d agree with you again that if you are a practicing Catholic (as opposed to what might be describes as a ‘cultural’ Catholic) then you should be very familiar with the Catechism. As to their personal beliefs…again, if they contradict the teachings of the Church then I’d like to think that they’d have thought quite seriously about them before making a decision.
O
OCRT
Guest
It makes sense to me that for a Catholic to support same-sex sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church would be a sin because the Church has spoken so clearly against it.
However, as marriage equality gradually becomes that law of the land, one state at a time, and the U.S. approaches what has already been fully implemented in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Canada, South Africa, and four other countries, we should remember that it is civil marriage that is being promoted, not sacramental marriage within the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that civil marriage is a civil right for all loving, committed couple who are sufficiently mature. So should not the question asked by whether it is a sin for a Catholic to advocate for same-sex civil marriage?
However, as marriage equality gradually becomes that law of the land, one state at a time, and the U.S. approaches what has already been fully implemented in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Canada, South Africa, and four other countries, we should remember that it is civil marriage that is being promoted, not sacramental marriage within the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that civil marriage is a civil right for all loving, committed couple who are sufficiently mature. So should not the question asked by whether it is a sin for a Catholic to advocate for same-sex civil marriage?
F
fpt
Guest
When the Roman Catholic Church is talking about conjugal moral, She is teaching the **natural moral order of state of marriage for catholics and the others. **Each human beings catholics or not has the moral obligation to respect the natural moral law. The same for the legislators, for the judges, for voters, for presidents, the senators, the representatives, the doctors. No State, no power has the right to go against the natural moral law of human beings wanted by God. The Civil power has the moral obligation to respect the hard core of the humanity (natural moral order wanted by God). The catholic church has the power of teaching on, of explaining the constitutive elements of this natural moral order.
The civil marriage has to respect the natural marriage; It is not negotiable.
F
fpt
Guest
According to the natural theology (theodicy), according to the realistic and objective philosophy and according to the catholic theology the term “couple” has to be used only for one male with one female. Couple means sexed and sexual alterity, and sexed and sexual complementarity, otherwise it is a ideology (the refusal of state of the human nature, thus that is negationism, relativism and absurdism). The same reasoning for the word “marriage”.
As human being, and more like catholic, we have the moral obligation to state this natural situation. We cannot reform the hard core of the human nature, only, for pleasing to a wrong ideology (gender theory and her friends). The concept of natural law is inside of each human being because we are a creature at the image of God, male and female (couple and marriage only for male and female, that is not negotiable).
And if we agree with them to debate on the way of equality how do you want to compare one male with a female and two females or two males. That is not the same thing. The concept of egality is not applicale except if like them, we agree with the negation of the complementarity and alterity of the human nature. That is absurd, wrong, illogic, bad, and a sign of the simplistic approach of definition of humanity in his essence. The legislator has to be smart, not stupid.
As human being, and more like catholic, we have the moral obligation to state this natural situation. We cannot reform the hard core of the human nature, only, for pleasing to a wrong ideology (gender theory and her friends). The concept of natural law is inside of each human being because we are a creature at the image of God, male and female (couple and marriage only for male and female, that is not negotiable).
And if we agree with them to debate on the way of equality how do you want to compare one male with a female and two females or two males. That is not the same thing. The concept of egality is not applicale except if like them, we agree with the negation of the complementarity and alterity of the human nature. That is absurd, wrong, illogic, bad, and a sign of the simplistic approach of definition of humanity in his essence. The legislator has to be smart, not stupid.
F
fpt
Guest
In my opinion, the catholic teaching in an implicit manner and indirectly explains that this type of " physical love" is not a true love, it is a unnatural love, it is a false love, it is a denaturation of physical love. It is, only, a falsification of physical love.
Physical love is for one male with one female, It is like that, it is not negotiable.
Physical love is for one male with one female, It is like that, it is not negotiable.
- Status