Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rhys_Sutherland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
I don’t think any sinner should be told about their sin right away, so I’m consistent there. We have to first accept the person, and then – only after this person knows that we accept them and grant them profound dignity – then we can talk to them about what particular sins they are cherishing. This could take six months, or it could take five minutes. It depends on how open the person being evangelized is.

I don’t see how you could read Paul’s letters and not realize that he was vitally concerned with the feelings of those he wrote to. The same with the speeches in Acts. When Paul spoke in Athens, he could have said that the Athenians were a bunch of arrogant sodomites interested in witchcraft – for this was true! But instead, Paul said that he came to reveal to them the unknown God which they already worshipped.

Paul was disarming. He was a clever witness. He did not pound you over the head with Christianity, like it was a brick.

.

I think we are too *quiet *about these things from the pulpit. We ought to speak loudly about the sin of sodomy, and why it is a sin – of course, clarifying that we love those who are trapped in this sin. I have no problem with public proclamations. I have a problem with walking up to a person and accusing them, without having a prior, reasonably close, relationship.

It’s called “playing the long game”. A straightforward accusation will make people turn around and go back to their sin. A nuanced approach will be much more likely to save souls.

The context in which I brought this up was not to tout my own credentials. My views about ethics and evangelism are not somehow better than anyone else’s, simply because I teach college. :dts:

This is rather insulting. The nature of philosophy and ethics to forgo Truth? Was it the nature of Thomas Aquinas to forgo truth? Was it the nature of Thomas More? You’re painting with a really broad brush.

Even academics care about truth. Not all of them, but not an insignificant number.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not intend to mention your credentials in that way. If that is the case I apologize. Perhaps you are not aware that you brought it up twice.🤷

Your approach is merely an opinion. But I just do not understand where you think people are being personally accused of something in the context of the Church? And it is interesting that while you have made the case for “discretion” in approaching these matters. I fail to see who exactly makes these decisions.

The Church has vehicles in place to educate Cradle and convert alike. And even people who have left and are coming back. Is it your contention that these need to be overhauled? Changed? And if so, to what? I guess I just do not understand what it is you are saying needs to be changed. And why it is taking you so long to come out and say exactly what you are saying.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
It’s called “playing the long game”. A straightforward accusation will make people turn around and go back to their sin. A nuanced approach will be much more likely to save souls.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it is YOUR opinion that you will save more souls using what you deem nuanced. That is just your taste and quite the theological risk for the Church to take.

The Church has and always should take the 4th and 1 approach rather than the long game approach. Because no one knows the day or the hour, and since this life is all anyone is given to achieve heaven, the idea that we have all the time in the world is as counterproductive as nuancing.

Time, my friend, is not a luxury we have but rather God has. And he told us to evangelize. He called us to repentance. And our Church teaches that if we are in mortal sin that we are to drop everything we are doing and go to confession. It is that important. When you stray from the John The Baptist mentality of preaching repentance and conversion, you are playing roulette with not only your own soul but the souls of others. The Truth in the Gospel and in God’s love and mercy and justice is not some elixir that needs to be sweetened by man. Itjust needs to be proclaimed. God’s example, and command is sufficient. His call to repentance is sufficient and fair and Just. As it is, as it has been for the whole of salvation history. Now, I am not advocating we take up signs that say “the end is nigh!” But we do need to act with some sense of urgency in our own conversion and the conversion of others. Nuances can be misunderstood as something else. How in the world do we expect people to give up such a lifestyle if we do not act as if it is something that is immediately endangering their life for all eternity? If we show no urgency to proclaim, how can we expect them to make a decision that is probably the hardest decision they will have to make?

Again, I am only going off of some “vibe” from your posts because to me they are vague and I am having a hard time figuring out what it is you are trying to say on this thread that many things have already been said on.🤷
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Catolico65,
You are convinced that I am a liberal Christian trying to justify homosexuality. That’s just not true. But since you don’t believe me, I’m not sure it’s beneficial to either of us to continue this conversation.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you are not promoting homosexuality as normal. Nonetheless, it is a common thread that homosexuals will generally try to diminish their sin if not claim it is actually good. This being the case the best thing to do with them is grab the bull by the horns and discuss submitting to God and repenting, and what better than a person who has been liberated from those issues?
Prodigal_Son said:
I have been trying to make points that do not fit neatly into the conservative cultural position on homosexuality (which is prone to Pharisaism) or the liberal cultural position on homosexuality (which is prone to rationalizing sinful behavior). You misinterpret my position, whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Gospel should be given any man’s labels because it shouldn’t be prone to interpretation as it is clear as any “concept” could be. After all it is the concept of concepts, if you will.
Prodigal_Son said:
You have not established this.
Click to expand...
You interpretation is not standard, as well as you know. I am also quite sure that Jesus didn’t take time to get to know the two adulterous women and the money changers before telling them their sins, this is a fact. Nonetheless, if it is any consolation I’m all for greeting people before discussing right and wrong.
Prodigal_Son said:
When I have a friend, and I tell her that she is sinning grievously by living with her girlfriend, this would not offend her? :confused:
Click to expand...
Most likely. Nonetheless, when Jesus told us to spread the Gospel he didn’t make it a requirement to “get to know people” beforehand.
Prodigal_Son said:
Nice. The people who are completely healed of it are just in hiding. Right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually, there are many stories on the Cathoilic and Evangelical webpages that I frequent of many people who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind completely. Furthermore, a study released last year shows that homosexuality is not biological in origin and in the majority of cases of people is only temporary. This means there are more ex homosexuals than homosexuals in existence of course.
Prodigal_Son said:
I don’t deny that healing is possible. But I don’t see why on earth you would try to insist on how uncommon a chaste gay or bisexual person is.
Click to expand...
My point is that their condition is not static, it is dynamic and will change over time with Jesus’ love and repentance.
Prodigal_Son said:
Anyone with eyes can see that it is not easy to change one’s sexual attractions. I’m not talking about passing attractions, attached to pleasure experienced. I imagine that boys abused by men or other boys might have a passing attraction to the pleasure experienced by such behavior. But that’s not at all the history of somebody like me. I never experienced any pleasure from a homosexual encounter, but I became obsessed with men as a teenager anyway. And it’s not something I can shake easily, even though I have time after time surrendered it to the Lord.

Perhaps you are using your own experience as a template, and not realizing that other people have completely different experiences?
Click to expand...
I believe there are three classes of homosexuals. The first case are children who are either abused, the second are children who are exceptionally weak of mind and the third are adults who have no prior issues like children.

The first case is children who have been sexually abused. The traumatic experience causes all kinds of confusion and causes the person to have very low self esteem and poor ability to control one’s thoughts. This was my case.

Regarding the second case it is an established fact that children are very impressionable and are prone to believe what people say. Add a child with very low self esteem who is told they are gay by their classmates, adults or parents and they can easily be convinced at some point that they must be homosexual. This is why there has been a marked increase in children who identify as homosexuals even they are prepubescent. This is due to our society’s change in attitude and state sponsored indoctrination.

The third case are adults. I believe this case is explained by the Bible and is rooted nothing more than pride and rebellion. What I have noticed in all of the homosexuals that I have know is that they have a deep seated arrogance and struggle with the concept of humility. For this reason I go straight to repentance and submission to God’s Word. BTW, in my own case while I would never have considered myself arrogant still not submitting to God completely was a challenge for me, which really is a form of arrogance now that I think about it.

My goal is to spread the Gospel and and since Jesus has helped me I expect He wants me to share it with others. Peace.
 
Rats! I missed on being post 400!

Ah, so it goes. This Zombie Thread will be around long enough for me to try for post 500!
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I don’t think any sinner should be told about their sin right away, so I’m consistent there. We have to first accept the person, and then – only after this person knows that we accept them and grant them profound dignity – then we can talk to them about what particular sins they are cherishing. This could take six months, or it could take five minutes. It depends on how open the person being evangelized is.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the best example of how to evangelize would be the man who set the stage for entry into the Church for people. John the Baptist. John’s message was not, “Hey, I don’t want to alienate you or make you feel uncomfortable.” It was one of repentance and conversion. With cleansing. While John’s baptism was not the baptism we know, it was one of cleansing. Now this call was a call based in all of the prophets before him. This is how God has always operated. The call is to acknowledge your sins, repent, and cleanse. Especially when talking about the sacrifice on the Altar. Even before the Christ, there was a massive push for repentance in not only the salvation of cultures and peoples in history but also in personal conversions. John’s message was even ignored by many. But he had a mission to proclaim Christ. Before the sacrifice, the same sacrifice at Mass, before the teachings, before being welcomed into the community. Just as Jesus is the New Sacrifice and the New Covenant, we must proclaim him to be at least as deserving of Holiness as the Holy of Holies. It is all around Catholic history and procedures. It is alive in the very idea of baptism as the gateway to all the sacraments. We MUST be cleansed first. Example after example abound not just in the Bible, but in history itself. Paul was not babied into conversion, he was knocked of his horse. If we call Mary the “Ark of the New Covenant” then we must see how the New Covenant should be honored as the Old was. This is why Mass is not about “welcoming” people, or choosing the right way to phrase God’s words. But rather the source and summit of our faith, of our Church. Repentance is the FIRST step in any kind of welcoming into the Church. To proclaim otherwise is to ignore scripture and the Church Herself. So, you might not think that sin should be proclaimed right away and repentance sought, but God did.
 
Captain_America said:
Rats! I missed on being post 400!

Ah, so it goes. This Zombie Thread will be around long enough for me to try for post 500!
Click to expand...
We will get to 500 faster if you keep posting about it being a zombie thread.🤷

As a general rule I stop posting on threads that have more posts than I do. It is coming up…😃
 
Prodigal_Son said:
This is a mistaken understanding of natural law. Just because the law is written on our hearts does not mean that we have learned how to read it. We do not suddenly have conscious knowledge of right and wrong at the age of reason.

Merry Christmas to you! 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, we do not suddenly have a complete conscious knowledge, but the age of reason is the beginning of the understanding of Natural Law. And that age of reason will vary, for a multitude of reasons from person to person.

Here is an example:

How would you explain a couple who are married. The husband grew up in a traditional Catholic home and the wife did not. The wife who never had any faith formation decides that after her third child she wants to have no more. The husband is in agreement but his conscience is troubled. He was never taught why this is a sin but does remember being told it was a sin. He ignores his conscience and proceeds with his wife’s wishes. Then shortly after the tubal ligation the wife has a sense of guilt, she can’t explain why but it is there. The husband even admits without his Catholic upbringing, he has always known contraception is wrong along with abortion, murder, stealing, porn, masturbation, and fornication. Because he never wanted to examine sin, he blocked it out. Both couples continue to bury the issue and “forget” about the matter.

A few years pass and the husband is being pulled to God and delves into learning more about The Faith. He becomes absorbed in “the why” behind Church teaching. He begins to understand why contraception is a sin, always knowing it was but because the “why” was not there he was able to justify his decision. Now the wife decides’ she want’s to enter The Church because her husband has been sharing is new found love for Holy Mother Church. In their many late night talk’s the wife admit’s, she always knew the day of her tubal ligation, she was doing something evil. Now because she to has read the teachings of The Church, the sin that was always there and has always troubled her is much clearer to her. But nevertheless she always knew it was a sin.

How is this a mistaken understanding of Natural Law convicting a conscience?

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top