The disorder of homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris62
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scripture states that, that sleeping with the same sex is a sin… that is all I need to know…the world may want to change that, but that’s just the way it is. And speaking from a Marriage & Family Therapist perspective, we don’t solely focus on abnormal behavior we have to be aware of normal family behavior in order to keep our biases in check when dealing with a family. When a family comes to me with what they perceive as being a problem, I work with them to create the change they want. As a Catholic I can throw psychology / NLP etc out the window when it comes to a black & White issue like sin… there is simply no doubt there. God comes first.
 
Grace & Peace!
CopticChristian said:
Deo,

I recall somewhere, something about a movie where a criticsim was offered and the criticism was this…“too many words”…I directed an answer to Gaber that I suggest you read. That is all I have to say. I shall dismiss myself from this thread and get back to the work in the Kingdom.
Click to expand...
Coptic, the movie was Amadeus–the context was the Emperor of Austria (depicted as a poor musician, unable to truly understand music) exchanging words with Mozart on The Marriage of Figaro. The words, in the film, are supplied by one of the Emperor’s ministers who suggests that the opera contains, “too many notes.” Mozart is rightly flummoxed, responding that there were neither more nor less notes than the piece required. I don’t know that this reference does your point any favors, Coptic, but I understand what you’re getting at.

I would say–I used as many words as I thought it would take to show you what I meant in the post of fewer words which you completely misunderstood. I did not think that verbal economy would be useful to you (as it did not appear to be useful to you before in the other post). If you find other people consistently using many words to get something across to you, it’s not necessarily because they’re trying to justify something you don’t agree with–more than likely, they suspect that they need all those words in order to explain themselves. And even then…

I wish you all good things in your endeavors and the grace to do the work which God has called you to do.
40.png
Hadrianus:
Nice use of the word “eisegesis.” Not much in common usage .
Click to expand...
I like the word eisegesis. It happens far more often than we’re willing to admit, particularly on the interwebs!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
tskrobacz said:
As I’ve expressed previously the institutional Church is a fine authority when it points to a truth beyond itself…when it humbly recognizes that it, as the Buddhist’s say, is merely the hand that points to the moon, but it is not the moon itself.
Click to expand...
Who decides the truth? Who decides if the “institutional church” is or is just pointing? Who gave that person the authority over the “institutional church?” Would the “institutional church” point at the sun and call it the moon?
 
tskrobacz said:
It is only our ego elf that needs such an absolute answer…a black and white certainty. I think we can agree that even in her deep wisdom, the Church, like each of us continues to reach for the infinite with stubby little finite arms…God is always beyond our understanding and therefor infinitely knowable.
Click to expand...
It was a simple yes or no answer. Would the “institutional church” point at the sun and call it the moon?
 
Stephen168 said:
Who decides the truth? Who decides if the “institutional church” is or is just pointing? Who gave that person the authority over the “institutional church?” Would the “institutional church” point at the sun and call it the moon?
Click to expand...
Do you not understand the relationship between your own Church and Truth? Not to mention, do you not adhere to the Roman Church’s apostolic succession?

And as to your question about sun and moon, directed to the poster, you redirected his premise toward an entirely different premise not contained in his post, and are challenging him on something he did not assert, nor could be deduced from his assertions.

Your entire line of questioning reveals a very poor understanding of what Catholicism does represent.
 
Stephen168 said:
explain
Click to expand...
Where to begin? This is a full catechesis course, given the questions you asked about Truth, about how Catholicism as an institution relates to truth – not to mention “who decides” about Truth, etc. Ever heard of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? :rolleyes: (Hint: Founder of Our Church)
 
Randy_Carson said:
I agree with this. There is an agenda that is being followed.

For example, the percentage of the population that is gay or lesbian is estimated to be 2-5%. Yet, the television show, Glee, features four homosexual men, one lesbian woman, and one bisexual female out of roughly 35 regular characters - approximately 16% of the show’s “population”.

The dispropotionate representation of homosexuals may be due to the nature of the show which is the story of singers and dancers, but I can’t help but think that the writers, directors and producers of the show are seeking to advance a cause in the minds of the younger audience at whom the show is targetted.
Click to expand...
As Coptic Christian pointed out earlier, the APA was corrupted by the GAYPA.
How more likely is it that our entertainment is being corrupted in Hollywood by homosexual writers, directors and producers?
 
chris62 said:
As Coptic Christian pointed out earlier, the APA was corrupted by the GAYPA.
How more likely is it that our entertainment is being corrupted in Hollywood by homosexual writers, directors and producers?
Click to expand...
One doesn’t even have to search out Hollywood for that. The lamestream media is more than glad to lead the charge, headed by -]MSNBC/-] MSLBG. Sixteen percent? Try more like 25%, 33%, and even 50% on many of their news panels. Yes, definitely load the panels so that it looks as if homosexuality is The New Norm.
 
Stephen168 said:
And I hope they get answered by tsk.
Click to expand...
He won’t answer my question.

Elizabeth502 is right, the media are complicit in trying to make homosexuality not just normal but equivalent to normal heterosexual relationships. It’s all on the same continuum of the Left as making unlike things equivalent. Men are equivalent to women. Therefore two women are the same as a man and a woman for all purposes (although biology gets in the way there) so one cannot “discriminate” against male male or female female pairings with respect to children or church teachings. It is after all “hate speech” to say that a pair of lesbians are not the same as my mom and dad…

Right…

Hey Tsk, will you answer my question?
Lisa
 
tskrobacz said:
It is only our ego elf that needs such an absolute answer…a black and white certainty. I think we can agree that even in her deep wisdom, the Church, like each of us continues to reach for the infinite with stubby little finite arms…God is always beyond our understanding and therefor infinitely knowable.
Click to expand...
The Church is clear on this matter. Why is absolute truth a matter of ego? If everything is a shade of gray is that not simply being unprincipled?
 
fix said:
The Church is clear on this matter. Why is absolute truth a matter of ego? If everything is a shade of gray is that not simply being unprincipled?
Click to expand...
No. Shades of gray include the ends of the spectrum, your absolutism leaves out the middle where most everything is. The gray scale, as we use it in photography and printing, and very usefully in real life, is being realistic and situation appropriate. The absolutism of law in some respects demonstrates this, as in some cases it crushes the innocent and frees the guilty. You can find your own examples. But black and white codifications simply divides the world, which is a whole, into arbitrary categories that don’t fit cases by “virtue” of being incomplete and not inclusive.

However, such divisions are highly suitable to paradigms which seek to simplify matters for emotional or political convenience: Jew, non Jew. Black, not black. Enemy of the State, not enemy of the State. Ours, theirs. My belief, not my belief. Pretty simple. Don’t have to account for much, be curious, think and be critical, or any such bothersome thing. You only have to judge. Usually with prejudice.
 
fix said:
The Church is clear on this matter. Why is absolute truth a matter of ego? If everything is a shade of gray is that not simply being unprincipled?
Click to expand...
While the teaching, based on tradition, is clear - our need to hold the Church as “infallible” in all of it’s teachings is purely a response of the ego. It’s only when we can view God’s perfection as inclusive of all that is imperfect that we can truly love the Church’s guiding wisdom, warts and all.

If you study the Saints and the Mystics you soon discover that they frequently embrace teachings of other traditions that add clarity, compassion, humility and perspective to what appears black and white from those that live strictly inside any tradition. In this way they are truly Catholic (universal).
 
Gaber said:
No. Shades of gray include the ends of the spectrum, your absolutism leaves out the middle where most everything is.
Click to expand...
Like what, and why?
The gray scale, as we use it in photography and printing, and very usefully in real life, is being realistic and situation appropriate. The absolutism of law in some respects demonstrates this, as in some cases it crushes the innocent and frees the guilty. You can find your own examples. But black and white codifications simply divides the world, which is a whole, into arbitrary categories that don’t fit cases by “virtue” of being incomplete and not inclusive.
Click to expand...
And how does this pertain to the moral law?
However, such divisions are highly suitable to paradigms which seek to simplify matters for emotional or political convenience: Jew, non Jew. Black, not black. Enemy of the State, not enemy of the State. Ours, theirs. My belief, not my belief. Pretty simple. Don’t have to account for much, be curious, think and be critical, or any such bothersome thing. You only have to judge. Usually with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Murder, OK? Rape? What is your standard?
 
tskrobacz said:
While the teaching, based on tradition, is clear - our need to hold the Church as “infallible” in all of it’s teachings is purely a response of the ego. It’s only when we can view God’s perfection as inclusive of all that is imperfect that we can truly love the Church’s guiding wisdom, warts and all.
Click to expand...
Says who?
If you study the Saints and the Mystics you soon discover that they frequently embrace teachings of other traditions that add clarity, compassion, humility and perspective to what appears black and white from those that live strictly inside any tradition. In this way they are truly Catholic (universal).
Click to expand...
Please share a saint with us that contradicted Church teaching on faith and morals. And, why is the saint the authority over the Church that canonized them?
 
fix said:
Says who?

Please share a saint with us that contradicted Church teaching on faith and morals. And, why is the saint the authority over the Church that canonized them?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about contradicting Church teaching…? I simply stated they have added clarity - teachings, like the parables, if profoundly true often have layers of meaning that are not immediately obvious if viewed from outside a lived experience. In fact profound truths often include their opposites as well.
 
fix said:
Says who?

Please share a saint with us that contradicted Church teaching on faith and morals. And, why is the saint the authority over the Church that canonized them?
Click to expand...
Fix,

Notice that those that want to argue a point of view speak in generalities and not specifics. The only time you see specifics is when as in my case it is directed by emotion filled objection.

Generalizations are not a way to communicate.

You are specific, direct and answer with no doubt as to the meaning of what you say.

There is a difference in forms of communication. When you get no specifics and you are dealing with generalizations you are dealing with disordered thoughts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top