Outspoken opponent of the gay agenda wins presidential election in Poland

[phil19034]

But we also have an “evil” side, which, contrary to being tamed, can often benefit us. In other words, we need this selfish, aggressive side to navigate the vagaries of life and survive and thrive in society. Not by harming others but just learning how to fen for ourselves (with Gd’s help of course).

We call that righteous fear. It’s import to fear God’s wrath, fear criminals, fear danger, etc. Those are all good fear.

Bad fear would be illogical and/or unhealthy psychological fears, which can lead to hate, injustice, inaction, etc.

 

[meltzerboy2]

We discussed all this on the other thread. Let’s not derail this one. I think we may already have done so.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I will discontinue that train of thought - but it seemed appropriate to discuss the differences you are having with most of us.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

phil19034:

What do the “gay agenda,” Black Lives Matter, “Catholics for Choice,” the Southern Law Poverty Center, the Woman’s March, etc all have in common? They use Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals . The founder of Black Lives Matter, for example, has even proudly proclaimed that she is a Marxist.

Do all gays, women, blacks, heretical Catholics, etc all agree with everything Saul Alinsky says or Marxism? Of course not.

But that doesn’t mean that so called leaders of these movements do not have socialist and/or marxist tendencies.

Exactly. It’s all out of Alinski’s book - and basicaly just an adaptation of communist strategy. Destabilize society, attack foundations and traditional principles - be relentless with hostility. Then become the savior of law and order by enshrining your principles to replace the Christian values. The gay agenda followed that exactly. Now they’re normalized. So a new revolution has to begin.

You totally hit the nail right on the head.

Just to clarify, though, Alinsky’s thought (at least as expounded in Rules for Radicals) is not specifically Marxist, communist, or socialist. At least in theory, it could be used for right-wing populist movements as well, bearing in mind that portions of the philosophy are expressly amoral and cannot be used by faithful Catholics. In a nutshell, you go into a community, find out where the levers of power lie (they’re not always in the “official” places), find out what grievances or concerns the people have, then you fan these, agitate these, raise people’s consciousness — “you should be pretty angry about this, don’t you think?” — and band together as many people and interest/identity groups as you can, into a popular movement that agitates for, and forces, the desired social, political, and/or economic changes. It’s really not all that complicated — it just requires “dry tinder” to which you can apply a spark, and fanning the tinder to get the fire going.

Those of us who wish to resist unwanted changes, need to be able to see right through this.

 

[Elizabeth3]

So I view this as a great teaching moment to a young child, in age-appropriate language and details of course. You can even introduce to your child what your faith believes about this kind of behavior. All in all, not such a terrible thing, unless of course you wish to shelter your child from the reality of life.

No. Sorry. Not before their conscience is fully formed as to right and wrong. During the younger developmental years they need to come to understand what is the norm as God-willed. They need a strong foundation. When they get a little older, yes we can use age-appropriate language to discuss sin in the world in a broader way. Once their conscience is formed properly, they will be in a better position to understand what is and is not God’s plan. If they grow up being taught it’s sinful but also quite normal, it skews their ability to discern what’s right and wrong. It introduces doubts and gray areas that causes confusion.

First, we shelter and build a good, strong proper foundation. Then as they are developmentally ready to deal with larger and more difficult realities of life, then we broach those issues. Birth through 6th grade is for building the foundation with maybe some issues being introduced gradually at 5th grade. Unfortunately, this foundation building is being encroached on by those with other ideologies. They especially know how important foundation building is and it is why they are targeting the public schools, libraries and media in order to be the ones who influence young minds.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t disagree with you about the foundational building blocks of development coming first. But maybe, just maybe, some of the ideas about tolerance, not everything, introduced by the social justice warriors can be incorporated early on in children’s lives as well, in a way not to cause children to be confused and in a way to teach them Christian (Catholic) moral values such as kindness and compassion for everyone. And maybe that will lead one day to a better world of peace, justice, and love.

 

[Elizabeth3]

That is already being done. The basics of kindness and compassion to all including the sinner is part of the foundation. It always has been. Those can be taught in a general way without introducing drag queens and homosexual lifestyles into the mix. I’m still curious to know how you define acceptance if you wish to share.

 

[meltzerboy2]

The phrase “including the sinner” implies that there are sinners and non-sinners, when you know that is not the case. According to Christian theology, we are ALL sinners including drag queens and homosexuals as well as those who don’t fit into either category. But you seem to be making a distinction between some people and others. Perhaps this is not your intention.

I define acceptance in terms of a libertarian perspective. As I stated previously, I regard sexual freedom in the same way as I regard religious freedom. Everyone has a choice to worship freely (or not worship) according to their own conscience. In the same way, everyone should have the freedom to have sex and love another in their own way provided their behavior does not harm others. No one has the right to tell another they cannot worship or they cannot love the way they wish to. They do have the right to protest, demonstrate, even hate another’s behavior, but they have no right to force people to do what they want.

Now you believe that the gay agenda is molding the lives of children in a direction that runs contrary to your own religious beliefs. But is it really doing that? I believe the main purpose of the agenda is to provide an outlet for gay people to engage in sex and love without fear of being punished for what they do. It is normalizing gay sex not to convert the younger generation but to affirm those who are gay or find out they are gay later in life, so that they don’t hate themselves so much even to the point of suicide. We know that (young) gay people have a very high rate of suicide. Do you think society’s attitudes about their lifestyle have anything to do with that, apart from coming to terms with their own homosexuality? I do believe so. Followers of the Church should be providing comfort and care to those who are gay rather than trying to make them straight or denouncing them as perverts and degenerates. And don’t tell me “hate the sin, love the sinner” is the teaching of the Church. This may be the case but I think most followers do not draw this distinction. Rather, in their heart of hearts, they hate both the sin and the sinner. The comments on threads about homosexuality provide evidence of this.

 

[Inquisitor85]

You asked about fornication.
A 50% fornication rate is relatively new - coinciding with the sexual revolution, brought to us by the same people who bring the gay agenda today.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Inquisitor85]

Question, if your child had a close a friend from primary (elementary) school, who then came out in secondary (high) school, and you became friends with that childs parents, can you honestly say you’d be comfortable telling your child that their friend is evil and is going to burn in hell? Honestly, you don’t think that might cause issues going forward?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

A number of studies have found that premarital sex became much more acceptable (Coles & Stokes, 1985; Hildebrand & Abramowitz, 1984; Hunt, 1974; King & Sobel, 1975; Robinson et al., 1991; Roche, 1986; Roche & Ramsbey, 1993). In addition, the changes in sexual behaviors observed during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s were so evident that they were viewed as a sexual revolution. Associated with this sexual revolution was an increase in the level of sexual activity among adolescents and young adults that reflected increasingly positive attitudes toward and increased incidence of premarital sexual intercourse (Dunn, Knight, & Glascoff, 1992).

Sexual revolution gave us gay marriage.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

can you honestly say you’d be comfortable telling your child that their friend is evil and is going to burn in hell?

Where do you get your ideas about what we might say to children?

 

[Inquisitor85]

A number of studies have found that premarital sex became much more acceptable (Coles & Stokes, 1985; Hildebrand & Abramowitz, 1984; Hunt, 1974; King & Sobel, 1975; Robinson et al., 1991; Roche, 1986; Roche & Ramsbey, 1993).

Ok, but “more acceptable”, relates to attitudes towards premarital sexual relations, not the incidence rate.

Associated with this sexual revolution was an increase in the level of sexual activity among adolescents and young adults that reflected increasingly positive attitudes toward and increased incidence of premarital sexual intercourse (Dunn, Knight, & Glascoff, 1992).

Ok, thanks!

 

[Inquisitor85]

Well then what would you say?

My understanding of Catholic teaching is a little vague but it sums up as; being LGBTQ+ is “unnatural” and any acting on impulses, including thinking about sexual acts, is a sin which leads to burning in hell.

Where am I wrong?

 

[Elizabeth3]

The phrase “including the sinner” implies that there are sinners and non-sinners, when you know that is not the case. According to Christian theology, we are ALL sinners including drag queens and homosexuals as well as those who don’t fit into either category. But you seem to be making a distinction between some people and others. Perhaps this is not your intention.

No, I do not intend to distinguish to between sinners and non-sinners so much as between sin that is public vs private. We all sin but we are not always witness to the sin of others. Even when we are, we are still to confront it (if appropriate to the occassion) motivated by kindness and compassion, not anger and hate. At the same time, when others are attempting to teach my children that certain sexual lifestyles are the norm I will take a stand against that.

everyone should have the freedom to have sex and love another in their own way provided their behavior does not harm others.

Catholics see freedom as being free to choose the good rather than free to choose good or evil. Because we always have regard to the immortal soul that is in danger of losing their salvation, even if no apparent harm is being done on a temporal level, there is certainly spiritual harm. No one is advocating for force other than the ideology being forced on young children in order to indoctrinate them into thinking certain lifestyles are normal and good.

Now you believe that the gay agenda is molding the lives of children in a direction that runs contrary to your own religious beliefs. But is it really doing that?

Yes, I believe the end goal is make it illegal to hold that it’s a sin and to destroy Christianity to the point that it’s largely driven underground and not free to be lived openly.

I believe the main purpose of the agenda is to provide an outlet for gay people to engage in sex and love without fear of being punished for what they do.

They already had that with various hate laws.

It is normalizing gay sex not to convert the younger generation but to affirm those who are gay or find out they are gay later in life, so that they don’t hate themselves so much even to the point of suicide. We know that (young) gay people have a very high rate of suicide.

Could it be that the high rate of suicide has little to do with societal acceptance rather than a mental and spiritual struggle within themselves that they can’t comes to terms with no matter how much society tolerates or allows?

 

[Elizabeth3]

Do you think society’s attitudes about their lifestyle have anything to do with that, apart from coming to terms with their own homosexuality?

I think it has to do with no matter how kind, civil, compassionate, and accepting society is, there is still an impasse where Christians and other religions still view it as a sin and there is no way to escape that knowledge even if no one is trying to force their beliefs on them. The fact that the vast majority of society believes that to be so will always sting to a point. Courage works to reach out those with ssa to support and encourage them in avoiding sin and making strong, loving Christian friendships. This leads to spiritual peace of mind that no amount of tolerance of sin will accomplish.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Well then what would you say?

My understanding of Catholic teaching is a little vague but it sums up as; being LGBTQ+ is “unnatural” and any acting on impulses, including thinking about sexual acts, is a sin which leads to burning in hell.

Where am I wrong?

We would say that it is sinful activity that leads to hell - yes. But if the child doesn’t have any religious background and doesn’t know anything, a lot more is required. We do not conclude that the child is evil and we never say that. The child has some attachment to lust and sexual sin. We have to tell them that this is wrong.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think it’s both. However, surely society telling you over and over that you are evil, sinful, depraved, deviant, perverted, disturbed, disordered, and (once) criminal has not helped matters with regard to high suicide among gay people.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

This leads to spiritual peace of mind that no amount of tolerance of sin will accomplish.

The same people who beg for tolerance and non-condemnation, shut down opportunities for people to get help and change their sinful lifestyle through therapy. They entrap people into their sins under the name of compassion. Whereas those who truly help gay and lesbians, who want the help, to stop sinning and to redirect their affections to the appropriate goal, are shut-down and actually made to be criminal.

 

[meltzerboy2]

However Catholics see freedom, or Protestants, or Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, or any other (religious) group is irrelevant to the freedom that gays, as members of society, are entitled to in such personal matters as loving another person and not harming others in the process. We have no right to impose our religious beliefs, no matter how convinced we are that gays are in danger of losing their souls if they persist in their immoral sexual behavior, on other members of society. No one has a legal right to do so. We do not live in a theocracy.