Paedophile network uncovered…WARNING: VERY SHOCKING

[Galbin]

josie L;11848251**:

He did not say he was pro-death penalty, I believe he said that in particular cases the option of the death penalty is compelling.

Moreover, Jesus was a Jew who followed the mosaic law to the tee, thus he must have believed in the morality that it expressed on issues such as homosexuality . . . . etc.

P.S. The apostles having been designated leaders of the church by Jesus made sure to deliver the untainted message they received to all his followers, i.e., homosexuality is mentioned in the N.T…

That is pro death penalty. If I said I thought abortion was compelling in certain cases then I’d obviously be for it!

Where is homosexuality mentioned in the NT? Thanks.

 

[josie_L]

That is pro death penalty. If I said I thought abortion was compelling in certain cases then I’d obviously be for it!

Where is homosexuality mentioned in the NT? Thanks.

It’s in Romans and Hebrews, I believe. And you’re wrong, I don’t believe he is per se for the death penalty, moreover, I believe in extenuating circumstances the death penalty is not considered, even by the church, to be wrong.

 

[Galbin]

It’s in Romans and Hebrews, I believe. And you’re wrong, I don’t believe he is per se for the death penalty, moreover, I believe in extenuating circumstances the death penalty is not considered, even by the church, to be wrong.

There is a lot of debate about the interpretation of those references. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not even once.

He did however mention how wrong murder was. The Catechism states that DP should basically only be used for safety reasons, “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.”. As for extenuating circumstances, well how would you feel if I said I was a poor abortion in extenuating circumstances? You would say that I was pro murder, which I would be if I made exceptions to the abortion rule…

 

[Dawnia]

There is a lot of debate about the interpretation of those references. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not even once.

He never once said anything positive about homosexuality either. That would have been news if he had, yet he didn’t give homosexuality his blessing. What is not said can be just as loud as what is said.

 

[pnewton]

There is a lot of debate about the interpretation of those references. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not even once…

He didn’t after the incarnation, but he did before. Do not forget that He and the Father are one. When God spoke in the Old Testament, Jesus spoke.

 

[ringil]

Pedophilia is a sexual disorder and is an independent entity of sexual orientation.

Some straight people stalk children of the same sex, some of the opposite sex, and some are simply opportunists.

Efforts to link homosexuality with pedophilia are transparent efforts to demonize gay people.

 

[Galbin]

Pedophilia is a sexual disorder and is an independent entity of sexual orientation.

Some straight people stalk children of the same sex, some of the opposite sex, and some are simply opportunists.

Efforts to link homosexuality with pedophilia are transparent efforts to demonize gay people.

Exactly.

 

[Galbin]

He never once said anything positive about homosexuality either. That would have been news if he had, yet he didn’t give homosexuality his blessing. What is not said can be just as loud as what is said.

I disagree strongly. One cannot properly form an opinion on something that is not stated. If he thought homosexual acts were so evil, he would have brought it up the way he told us not to kill, cheat, covet our neighbour’s spouse, speak badly about our neighbours etc.

 

[Galbin]

He didn’t after the incarnation, but he did before. Do not forget that He and the Father are one. When God spoke in the Old Testament, Jesus spoke.

This is absolutely not what I have been taught in my Catholic education at all. In fact, I have been told on more than one occasion that the OT is not as relevant to Catholics. Hence why the Church no longer preaches hellfire and damnation. Of course, it often seems to be all fire and brimstone on these boards…

 

[pnewton]

This is absolutely not what I have been taught in my Catholic education at all.

Then I am sorry you were poorly formed in your education. But yes, the Holy Trinity is one. Might I refer you to the Nicene Creed were we are told Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. Jesus is also the instrument of all creation. Compare Genesis with the first few verses in John. Yes, the Old Testament is relevant, though context must be understood. It is just as true. It probably could be said to be not as relevant only because it has less of a direct impact on our daily lives. Also, it is important to remember that if you isolate what Jesus said from the writings of St. Paul, who did speak about homosexuality, you are cutting out part of the New Testament.

Finally, the Catechism is clear the homosexuality is a sin. That should end all debate for Catholics.

 

[josie_L]

There is a lot of debate about the interpretation of those references. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not even once.

Whose interpretation are you referring to? Moreover, the N.T. is pretty cut and dry about homosexuality, i.e., it specifically states it’s immoral:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for on another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1: 26-27

Moreover, there are many things that Jesus did not speak of directly in the Gospels and St. John mentions this:

But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 22: 25

Being that He was divine and thus He who instituted morality (in the Old and New Covenant), being that He was a Jew who followed EVERY aspect of the mosaic law, and being that after His ascension He left His Church in the hands of the apostles who declared homosexuality a sin, there is no support for you claiming that Jesus would think of homosexuality in any other way.

He did however mention how wrong murder was. The Catechism states that DP should basically only be used for safety reasons, “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.”

Hmmm, you’re quoting the catechism on DP, what does the catechism have to say about homosexuality?

As for extenuating circumstances, well how would you feel if I said I was a poor abortion in extenuating circumstances? You would say that I was pro murder, which I would be if I made exceptions to the abortion rule…

I really think you’re trying to conflate the meaning of his words, i.e., remember he said what he said after reading a story about two men who were trafficking THEIR ADOPTED CHILD for SEX in order to gain MONEY, i.e., is it really surprising he would say what he said? I too have on occasion said similar things when confronted with people so evil and disgusting, that I expressed or thought of DP in a positive way on such occasions and for such people (even though I’m not for institutionalizing DP).

 

[josie_L]

This is absolutely not what I have been taught in my Catholic education at all. In fact, I have been told on more than one occasion that the OT is not as relevant to Catholics. Hence why the Church no longer preaches hellfire and damnation. Of course, it often seems to be all fire and brimstone on these boards…

There is more mention of Hell in the N.T. than there is the O.T., in fact, Jesus referenced Hell several times (many in reference to the Pharisees).

P.S. I’m not keen on presenting the faith as all fire and brimstone, but neither am I keen about sweeping it under the rug as if it doesn’t exist.

 

[ringil]

Finally, the Catechism is clear the homosexuality is a sin. That should end all debate for Catholics.

Homosexual acts are sins. Homosexuality is not.

 

[josie_L]

Homosexual acts are sins. Homosexuality is not.

What about their thoughts, i.e., I assume they cannot think of the act either (the same for heterosexual people)?

P.S. And is not homosexuality itself considered disordered?

 

[ringil]

What about their thoughts, i.e., I assume they cannot think of the act either (the same for heterosexual people)?

P.S. And is not homosexuality itself considered disordered?

Lust is a sin.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Disordered does not equal sin.

 

[josie_L]

Lust is a sin.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Disordered does not equal sin.

Yes, agreed, “disordered” does not equal sin per se, however, we still do not understand the origins of said “disorder”. If we did, would it not change how we view “homosexuality”?

 

[ringil]

Yes, agreed, “disordered” does not equal sin per se, however, we still do not understand the origins of said “disorder”. If we did, would it not change how we view “homosexuality”?

Geez,

The Church has used the term “disordered” that does not make homosexuality a “disorder”.

Two different things.

 

[pnewton]

Homosexual acts are sins. Homosexuality is not.

Geez,

The Church has used the term “disordered” that does not make homosexuality a “disorder”.

Two different things.

Semantics. Even the inclination is disordered, even when not used as a past tense verb.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.** This inclination, which is objectively disordered**, constitutes for most of them a trial.

Don’t get me wrong, we are *all *disordered, just in different ways, and you are correct that the disorder does not equate to sin any more than an electrical imbalance in the atmosphere is the same thing as lightening.