Pray for DePaul University

[Libero]

Goldy:

Two summers ago, I took a course on human sexuality at my local college to go toward my degree in health education. On one of the days, the teacher brought in a panel of her homosexual friends (I found out that day my teacher was a lesbian also). I, along with another Protestant student, felt like the sacrificial lambs as we were the only ones who spoke out against their lifestyles. Speaking from my experience with that class, I realized that there was definitely a “gay agenda” happening on that campus. The entire discussion that day focused on how gays have no rights, they’re misunderstood, etc. To put it all in perspective, the human sexuality textbook contained drawings of sexual positions for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Needless to say, I threw it away. Libero, these classes aren’t intended to educate people. They push an agenda. They’re designed to gain tolerance and acceptance of a lifestyle that is immoral. Now, you may THINK they are educational because that is their intent. I mean seriously, do you really think anyone would be interested in these classes if they marketed the class as a ploy to gain acceptance of gays and lesbians?

But this is one experience, it would be silly to simply ban the topic because you have had a negative experience with it - I would ban Chemistry if that were the case.

Perhaps your point is more relevant to the particular Institution in question, or the American Education system in general?

I don’t think anyone would be interested in the classes if they condemned this “ploy” you mention, the ones that I have heard being popular are actually ones which have been “unbiased” - but that is just in Britain.

 

[Libero]

irenaeus1:

The gospel according to Libero - I stand by my comment that no one can claim to know Jesus.

The gospel according to St. John - Jesus said, “I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.” (Jn 10:14)
“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (Jn 17:3)

It seems that a person can know Jesus and it has nothing to do with authority in oneself.

The gospel writer also wrote in his epistle:
“This is how we know we are in Him” (I Jn 2:5)
“In this we know that we are of the truth…” (I Jn 3:19a)
“And he who keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And in this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.” (I Jn 3:24)

Apparently, we can have confidence and know much, but it does not rest on self-authority or arrogance.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Perhaps you have not noticed this, but “sheep” is plural - Jesus is one, I am quite confident John was not referring to Jesus, nor God, as I am sure he would not compare him to sheep either.

The second quote talks about recognising the presence of God, not being able to say that you solely know all their is to know about his characteristics.

The third quote discusses recognising our relationship with God, not being able to get a definitive description of Jesus’ mind and beliefs.

I need to see further into the context to discuss the fourth point.

The final points discusses recognising the presence of Jesus, by acting in his teachings, not being able to say you know all about him.

This is simple stuff, the very nature of God, combined with the very nature of humans prevents us from knowing all about God…

 

[Libero]

irenaeus1:

Actually, you did not say homosexuality was perhaps the most controversial, but this is irrelevent. The point I was making was that you appear to make an issue of controversy pointing to uncertainty in a truth. And I claimed that this is not necessarily so, and wondered how you could, for example, come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong since there is obviously as much controversy (if not more) surrounding the issue of abortion. You claim that it’s obvious since ‘Thou shall not kill,’ but clearly it must not be that obvious to others, else there would be no controversy over the topic. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that abortion is wrong. I’m just curious why you aren’t consistent in following your same logic for the issue of homosexuality.

Right, abortion, wrong based on the killing topic, the reasons people do not believe that it is wrong, are that the foetus is not a human, however, I believe (mainly thanks to science - not the church) after having seen evidence e.g. pictures, that indeed a foetus is a person, one picture that swung it for me was the one of the young baby (only a couple of months) in the mothers womb, who on a scan appeared to be smiling - that just made me believe that it is killing, due to the fact that this “dead” thing is certainly alive. As you can see I do not need the church to defend my beliefs on this, it just so happens the church is with me, scripture is irrelevant. In fact I dislike using scripture to try and stop an Atheist - it always seems as if there is no logical or intelligent point for your viewpoint.

Homosexuality, after having studied it a bit seems very different. Firstly, the church generalises, making all homosexuals appear to be debaucharous, sex crazy libertines. Secondly, looking at scripture there is nothing that seems to condemn a modern understanding of homosexuality. Thirdly, it completely ignores psychology, assuming homosexuals choose to be gay. Also, there is no practical non religious argument against homosexuality. Jesus didn’t mention it - the scripture regarding it is very very suspicious. Thats about all…

As demonstrated on a number of threads, you seem to arbitrarily pick and choose your beliefs. You discount the Church because its made up of humans, yet you accept your own judgment (and you are a human being), so how do you come to the conclusion that you are correct. Also, as you have pointed out on other threads, you have a problem with scripture. Well, at least you are consistent in your reasoning here - since scripture was written by humans. Yet you like to point out that Jesus never spoke explicitly regarding homosexuality (according to scripture of course). So you appeal to the very same scriptures that you claim that you cannot completely rely upon with any moral certitude because of human corruption or poor translations. Again you evade the question: why are you willfully a member of such a deceitful and corrupt organization?

Okay, I do not believe the church cannot be wrong in matters of faith and religion, because we are humans - I fully accept that I could be wrong, but I have reached a place where I feel happy with God, a sort of understanding. I point out that I do not usually quote scripture, but rather discuss it’s reliability, and therefore will highlight it’s unreliable stance when trying to put across my views.

I do not feel I have evaded the question, and I shall answer it now

I never chose to be a member of the Catholic church, I am from an Irish family, I was forced into going as a child - where my family come from in Ireland, the town closes down on Sunday, everyone goes to church - it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not everyone still goes, regardless of any issues they have with teaching. I remained in the church in a state of blissful ignorance, when I could have refused to be confirmed, I was still unaware of the issues that I have with the church, it is only very recently that the beautiful image I had of the RCC was shattered, and my conflicts arose. I remain in the church because I believe I can still find God - I don’t want to give up on the faith that I still have

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

Perhaps you have not noticed this, but “sheep” is plural - Jesus is one, I am quite confident John was not referring to Jesus, nor God, as I am sure he would not compare him to sheep either.

John did not refer to Jesus as sheep in this passage. I really question your ability to research something as in-depth as the psychology and morality of homosexuality as you have claimed when you completely misunderstand such an easy verse in scripture.

Perhaps you have not noticed this: the passage is talking about the followers of Jesus being the sheep (not Jesus) and Jesus is the shepherd. He is stating that those who choose to follow him will recognize his voice. Jesus (the shepherd) knows his sheep (Jesus’ followers) and his sheep (Jesus’ followers) know Him (Jesus).

The second quote talks about recognising the presence of God, not being able to say that you solely know all their is to know about his characteristics.

No, the second quote simply states that eternal life is to know Jesus. Let’s keep this simple. You stated that no one can claim to know Jesus, and scripture states that we can know Jesus.

The third quote discusses recognising our relationship with God, not being able to get a definitive description of Jesus’ mind and beliefs.

How do I know your beliefs? Because you have told me. We are not talking about knowing the infinite or knowing everything for that matter. But you are assuming that anything that a person claims to know is unknowable.

The final points discusses recognising the presence of Jesus, by acting in his teachings, not being able to say you know all about him.

I didn’t say anything about knowing ALL about Him. But you cannot act in his teachings if his teachings are unknowable.

This is simple stuff, the very nature of God, combined with the very nature of humans prevents us from knowing all about God…

Again, know one is claiming to know ALL about God, but merely claiming to know what He has revealed to us through divine revelation. You are claiming that we cannot know because everything is so unreliable and apparently unknowable.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

Right, abortion, wrong based on the killing topic, the reasons people do not believe that it is wrong, are that the foetus is not a human, however, I believe (mainly thanks to science - not the church) after having seen evidence e.g. pictures, that indeed a foetus is a person, one picture that swung it for me was the one of the young baby (only a couple of months) in the mothers womb,…

But don’t you understand what you are admitting here. Abortion was wrong even before you were convinced that it was wrong. It was wrong even before we had the technology (thanks to science) of obtaining visual images of the unborn. I think that many have changed their views on abortion for precisely the same reason that you have. Often the first picture the mother puts in her newborn’s baby book is an ultrasound image when not long ago, it was a photo taken at the hospital on their birth day. But please understand, it has always been wrong. And the Church has faithfully taught this truth way before prenatal images could be taken. I.e., the “wrongness” of abortion is independent of you being convinced that it is wrong.

As you can see I do not need the church to defend my beliefs on this, it just so happens the church is with me, scripture is irrelevant.

But what if you were born a few decades earlier – you would not have had any pictures to persuade you, but abortion would’ve still been wrong.

Homosexuality, after having studied it a bit seems very different. Firstly, the church generalises, making all homosexuals appear to be debaucharous, sex crazy libertines.

This is a false statement. The Church condemns all homosexual behavior regardless. The Church does not condemn homosexual behavior of those who are more promiscuous and yet condone those who are faithful to one partner of the same sex.

Secondly, looking at scripture there is nothing that seems to condemn a modern understanding of homosexuality.

What the heck does this mean? For the sake of argument, even if scripture did, you would claim that scripture is corrupt and unreliable.

Thirdly, it completely ignores psychology, assuming homosexuals choose to be gay. Also, there is no practical non religious argument against homosexuality.

There is no practical non-religious argument against pornography or adultery either. Remember Libero, if this is a legitimate standard with which to gauge the validity of your point, then it has to be held true for these others also.

Jesus didn’t mention it - the scripture regarding it is very very suspicious. Thats about all.

Several problems with this argument: Jesus did not explicitly elaborate on numerous sins, so absence is only an argument from silence. As stated previously, Jesus did not condemn incest or bestiality either. Second, you already discounted scripture as your authority (except apparently when you believe it helps your case, as you are attempting to do here)

Okay, I do not believe the church cannot be wrong in matters of faith and religion, because we are humans

So God cannot ever communicate any revelation to us through humans. How do you think that the early Christians came to know anything about Christ except to listen and learn from the apostles and those who succeeded in their ministry?

I point out that I do not usually quote scripture, but rather discuss it’s reliability, and therefore will highlight it’s unreliable stance when trying to put across my views.

More like that you’ll highlight its unreliability when it does not support your position, but quote it when it suits you.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

I never chose to be a member of the Catholic church, I am from an Irish family, I was forced into going as a child - where my family come from in Ireland, the town closes down on Sunday, everyone goes to church - it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not everyone still goes, regardless of any issues they have with teaching. I remained in the church in a state of blissful ignorance, when I could have refused to be confirmed, I was still unaware of the issues that I have with the church, it is only very recently that the beautiful image I had of the RCC was shattered, and my conflicts arose. I remain in the church because I believe I can still find God - I don’t want to give up on the faith that I still have

Thanks for being honest. I do appreciate you answering this. But I ask you, please keep an open mind when studying scripture and the early church fathers and pray that the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth. Give the Church the benefit of the doubt and don’t presume that her teachings are wrong and that secular society is right.

You are in my prayers.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Crumpy]

John R:

DePaul betrays its Saintly Founder St. Vincent

I graduated from DePaul. May I suggest that St. Vincent may in some way be the patron of the school, but not the founder, unless I am mistaken.

After I graduated, I sent the president a letter to complain that the school did nothing (really) to promote the religious aspect of its curriculum. I suppose there were listings of courses in the catalogue, but there wasn’t anything to encourage students to consider the religion (theology or whatever) classes that the University offered.

When I attended the University of Michigan, there were daily announcements of speeches and lectures by visiting scholars, on many subjects. In five years of my spare-time education, I never saw any promotion of spiritually oriented talks, etc. in any of the campuses of the school.

Aside from the name of the school, and a chapel in the downtown campus building, I saw a crucifix on a wall in one classroom. That was it.

College is always what you make of it, that’s for sure, even at Depaul.