What is it that homosexuals really want?

[Deus_lo_vult]

Yes, I’m asking you what specific items of clothing gives someone the right to ridicule a stranger in a church. You keep talking about miniskirts and revealing dresses. These are obviously revealing and don’t meet the standards of modesty. It’s not necessary to make a list because there is a very clear cut standard. If I can see your buisness, it’s not appropriate for church. The level of “gayness” of most men’s clothing is far more subjective than that and you know it.

Is someone who ‘deviates’ from Catholic teaching not a deviant? Besides, in the episode we’re discussing, to my knowledge, the mother was explaining something to her child; the young man overheard her using the word “deviant” to explain the situation to her child; it wasn’t addressed to his face like an insult.

That’s my point…using frank, un-embellished language is not grounds for criticism. The point that I was making in a previous post, which you overlooked, was that the word ‘heretic’ is no longer used in common parlance, even in religious matters, because it is viewed as having “harsh” connotations; to which I would respond, the objection is semantic. The decision not to use words like ‘deviant’ and ‘heretic’ is a fashionable one.

There are many, many, Catholics who would fit the definition of heretical in this country, indeed, a small majority of them would fall in that category. The words ‘heretic’ and ‘deviant’ are accurate descriptors of many people.

I don’t use the word ‘heretic’ as an epithet, I use it beccause it is germane to a discussion of faith and morals. So is the word ‘deviant’. There’s nothing hyperbolic or exaggerated about either word.

 

[iloveangels]

Yep, that’s about it. I was at Starbucks this afternoon and one of the baristas was a young woman who had her hair shaved nearly to the scalp. all over her head, except at the top. It kind of resembled haircuts male Marines wear. I assumed she was a lesbian – she seemed very nice, but yeah, I admit that I made an assumption about her, judging by her appearance and I couldn’t stop looking at her hair. Okay, yes, I shouldn’t be judgemental and I shouldn’t stare. She may very well feel that we should all accept that her look, as well as their behaviors as normal but I don’t think I’ll ever get used to it.

You assumed. That’s the operant phrase here. She never said anything about it one way or the other, correct?

Then you can assume it was a haircut. A fashion statement. And nothing more.

The problem is when the moral arguments and the politics begin, and the blatant immorality in public begins. That’s the issue, not whether someone has bad taste when it comes to haircuts.

 

[Allegra]

Is someone who ‘deviates’ from Catholic teaching not a deviant? Besides, in the episode we’re discussing, to my knowledge, the mother was explaining something to her child; the young man overheard her using the word “deviant” to explain the situation to her child; it wasn’t addressed to his face like an insult.

That’s my point…using frank, un-embellished language is not grounds for criticism. The point that I was making in a previous post, which you overlooked, was that the word ‘heretic’ is no longer used in common parlance, even in religious matters, because it is viewed as having “harsh” connotations; to which I would respond, the objection is semantic. The decision not to use words like ‘deviant’ and ‘heretic’ is a fashionable one.

There are many, many, Catholics who would fit the definition of heretical in this country, indeed, a small majority of them would fall in that category. The words ‘heretic’ and ‘deviant’ are accurate descriptors of many people.

I don’t use the word ‘heretic’ as an epithet, I use it beccause it is germane to a discussion of faith and morals. So is the word ‘deviant’. There’s nothing hyperbolic or exaggerated about either word.

And my point is that is a person is going to go around calling people a deviant, she better have more to go on than “gay-dar”.

 

[Weareyoung]

A big problem with this modern “LGBT” agenda is that this agenda doesn’t give you a choice as to what actions you will take. According to them having a homosexual “orientation” means you will automatically commit homosexual actions. Everyone has a choice. Love is a choice. And I would argue that their agenda does not promote love. They’ve made it so anytime you have a religious or social objection to same-sex “marriage”, they label your words as “hate.”

If you want to change the world, start with yourself and then move on to individuals, instead of working to change the collective. Demanding government to force everyone to endorse your beliefs is not the way to go.

 

[Faith1960]

You assumed. That’s the operant phrase here. She never said anything about it one way or the other, correct?

Then you can assume it was a haircut. A fashion statement. And nothing more.

The problem is when the moral arguments and the politics begin, and the blatant immorality in public begins. That’s the issue, not whether someone has bad taste when it comes to haircuts.

Few, if any straight females would choose to wear their hair that way and try to come across as manly.

 

[Faith1960]

If you want to change the world, start with yourself and then move on to individuals, instead of working to change the collective. Demanding government to force everyone to endorse your beliefs is not the way to go.

I agree, but apparently they’re making headway with doing it the way they’re doing it. Look at how many states are approving gay marriage.

 

[Polycarp1]

Ezekial 3:4:18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for** their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.
19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.

It is not our place to judge people but we are obligated to point out behavior that will lead them into eternal damnation. If we don’t how could we ever claim that we loved them as God commands?**

 

[cargau]

No one can “love someone to heaven.” That’s the stuff of the sloppy ignorant products of Hollywood. This is the sort of thing you eat popcorn by. This sort of thing makes no sense in Christian theology.

If you love someone enough to CONVINCE them to repent, actually CHANGE their ways, ACCEPT God and LIVE a good Christian Catholic life, then they might get to heaven. But just loving them, no. Not a chance. None of this is really about emotion, particularly Hollywood-style emotion.

And if this person that you profess to love so much refuses, he chooses his fate and there’s nothing-not a thing-that you can do about it. They can do this, and they have a right to do this if they choose, and you can’t do anything about it except get ready to wave bye-bye when the time comes.

Christianity is not just a head trip. It’s also not just an emotional jag. It’s the turning of all a persons faculties–mind, heart, soul and body–toward God. This means that what you do makes a difference as much as what you think or feel. Human beings aren’t paper dolls, nor are they pets or robots.

This is not some hollywood, emotional trip. Loving someone to heaven simply means providing support, guidance, friendship and Christian love that helps them to walk in concert with God’s will.

Some would advocate a love that enables sinful behavior in the interest of tolerance. Admonishing sinners, instructing the ignorant and counseling the doubtful are all spiritual acts of mercy. We are called to be Christ to others.

If someone you loved was doing something that had the potential of harming them physically like driving wrecklessly or abusing drugs, would you hesitate to point out the danger?

Sometimes confronting hard issues that flow againt the cultural tide is hard work. But, if it is done because an individual is concerned with the soul of another, it becomes a great act of love…yes, loving one to heaven.

 

[PompousMaximus]

A big problem with this modern “LGBT” agenda is that this agenda doesn’t give you a choice as to what actions you will take. According to them having a homosexual “orientation” means you will automatically commit homosexual actions. Everyone has a choice. Love is a choice. And I would argue that their agenda does not promote love. They’ve made it so anytime you have a religious or social objection to same-sex “marriage”, they label your words as “hate.”

If you want to change the world, start with yourself and then move on to individuals, instead of working to change the collective. Demanding government to force everyone to endorse your beliefs is not the way to go.

You are entirely right. Love is a choice. So why are we continuing to talk of an “LGBT” agenda when we ourselves as Christians have our own Agenda? And if you place all homosexuals into one big pile and stereotype them as “deviant” you do the same thing that they do to we Christians. lump us all together and speak of us as one “collective” that needs changing, because a bunch of us cannot mind our own business.

There is a certain liberty to Christianity just look for it. There are good good homosexual people out there who Love God with all their hearts, and Love their neighbors more than themselves and we condemn them by just plopping them all on one plate and spraying some ketchup on them and calling it sloppy joe.

 

[PompousMaximus]

Ezekial 3:4:18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for** their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.
19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.

It is not our place to judge people but we are obligated to point out behavior that will lead them into eternal damnation. If we don’t how could we ever claim that we loved them as God commands?**

But how do you know for sure… that their behavior will get them to Heaven or Hell. You are assuming on your own faith that this will happen. So by your logic here you must go to prisons everyday and decry the murderers and rapists to go the good way, but no I do not think you do, you sit at your computer just like me fighting a virtual battle over issues of morality.

The issue you bring up with this scripture is what truly is evil? Gods final covenant with us is that it becomes a personal accountability, not a collective. What is implied by this statement is that the God who created us in His perfect love is disregarding His own teaching through our Lord that “He makes it rain on the just and the unjust.”

I would read this and think dang, I should stay out of it and just pray for the people not tell them they are evil. That is God’s call. and not even the magisterium should be in that business.

And final, look to the blind man. They approach Jesus and say who sinned to make this man blind? Jesus says no one he was born blind for this moment to glorify God. If you believe God will punish the collective for personal sin, you are no better than Pat Robertson saying this like the reason New Orleans was terrorized and devastated by storm was because obviously God had enough of their sinful behavior. We can all agree that that is not correct.

Anyway, Long story long, God can handle everything, why are we as Christians getting in the way of God working on His beloved?

And in answering please do not say you are doing God’s work for Him. Thats a cop out and how can you be so sure?

 

[Elizabeth502]

But how do you know for sure… that their behavior will get them to Heaven or Hell.

There is a difference between knowing whether a particular individual (including ourselves!)will or will not attain Heaven, and being able to define good and evil in an absolute sense. If you do not accept the concept of intrinsic evil – that there are no acts which are objectively evil, then you are operating outside of a Catholic Christian viewpoint, derived from the full Judaeo-Christian body of scripture, thought, and tradition.

So by your logic here you must go to prisons everyday and decry the murderers and rapists to go the good way, but no I do not think you do, you sit at your computer just like me fighting a virtual battle over issues of morality.

No. By scriptural logic, we should be going to prisons, hospitals, shelters, etc. every day to fulfill the corporal works of mercy (Feed the Hungry, Visit the Sick, Comfort the Dying, etc.), because those are summaries of gospel mandates. We were not commanded to spend our days speculating about the Particular Judgment (at death) of each person known and unknown to us, but to act positively toward relieving the suffering of others.

Nevertheless, that does not exclude our different responsibility to speak the truth regarding what is good and what is evil.

 

[Odell]

Anyway, Long story long, God can handle everything, why are we as Christians getting in the way of God working on His beloved?

I believe John answered this already. Did the apostles say God can handle it we as Christians should get out of the way? No they did not.

And in answering please do not say you are doing God’s work for Him. Thats a cop out and how can you be so sure?

Tell me did the apostles do Gods work or not? This is the answer. It’s not a cop out God works through men. These men have passed on this authority.
How can we be sure? It’s clear Christ founded a Church with authority. We trust her authority and we trust Christ when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against her Church.

I have a better question for you. How can you be so sure we are getting in Gods way? No cop outs

 

[PompousMaximus]

There is a difference between knowing whether a particular individual (including ourselves!)will or will not attain Heaven, and being able to define good and evil in an absolute sense. If you do not accept the concept of intrinsic evil – that there are no acts which are objectively evil, then you are operating outside of a Catholic Christian viewpoint, derived from the full Judaeo-Christian body of scripture, thought, and tradition.

No. By scriptural logic, we should be going to prisons, hospitals, shelters, etc. every day to fulfill the corporal works of mercy (Feed the Hungry, Visit the Sick, Comfort the Dying, etc.), because those are summaries of gospel mandates. We were not commanded to spend our days speculating about the Particular Judgment (at death) of each person known and unknown to us, but to act positively toward relieving the suffering of others.

Nevertheless, that does not exclude our different responsibility to speak the truth regarding what is good and what is evil.

But you are saying your personal scripturally based veiw point is truth. and if that is the case folks who read the Koran or any other holy book for that matter can claim that also. We have a responsibility to treat others as humans as we all are part of God creation. Lets not get to big for our britches.

 

[PompousMaximus]

I believe John answered this already. Did the apostles say God can handle it we as Christians should get out of the way? No they did not.

Tell me did the apostles do Gods work or not? This is the answer. It’s not a cop out God works through men. These men have passed on this authority.
How can we be sure? It’s clear Christ founded a Church with authority. We trust her authority and we trust Christ when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against her Church.

I have a better question for you. How can you be so sure we are getting in Gods way? No cop outs

Good question! When I hurt others, that is getting in Gods way. When I bring judgment upon others for their actions claiming I have the authority of the Church I defeat the purpose of the Church. Your Church may have authority but they do not Knight you to claim the authority of the Church. The Church He founded derives its authority from God and we delude ourselves to think we have the knowledge whether collective or not to claim any definite ideal whether it is en vogue or not.

And as for the first part of your statement, they did get out of the way they let the Spirit lead them. We all know that when ourselves die in our person we breathe new light in Christ.

Did they seek to love and understand one another and meet each other where they are or did they constantly bemoan each moral issue to the point of negating the human. Hating the sin, love the sinner does not work unless you negate the human identity bestowed upon them as a part of Creation.

 

[Odell]

Good question! When I hurt others, that is getting in Gods way. When I bring judgment upon others for their actions claiming I have the authority of the Church I defeat the purpose of the Church. Your Church may have authority but they do not Knight you to claim the authority of the Church. The Church He founded derives its authority from God and we delude ourselves to think we have the knowledge whether collective or not to claim any definite ideal whether it is en vogue or not.

And as for the first part of your statement, they did get out of the way they let the Spirit lead them. We all know that when ourselves die in our person we breathe new light in Christ.

Did they seek to love and understand one another and meet each other where they are or did they constantly bemoan each moral issue to the point of negating the human. Hating the sin, love the sinner does not work unless you negate the human identity bestowed upon them as a part of Creation.

No one is judging. By the way the apostles did say what will not alow you in the kingdom of God and what will. Did they speak with the spirit of truth then?

All we have said is either truth or not. If its true than its not contradictory of the spirit of God. We are not condemning anyone on the other hand we have the moral obligation to discuss what is morally right and wrong.

 

[PompousMaximus]

No one is judging. By the way the apostles did say what will not alow you in the kingdom of God and what will. Did they speak with the spirit of truth then?

All we have said is either truth or not. If its true than its not contradictory of the spirit of God. We are not condemning anyone on the other hand we have the moral obligation to discuss what is morally right and wrong.

The apostles said what can and cannot get you into the Kingdom of God, but they are human as we are working through the Spirit. If the apostles claim authority it doesn’t make us, but mere disciples full of authority.

I disagree if you look at another person doing something you feel, through Christ, or faith is wrong and then speak your mind about how it is not right, then you Judge, and it is particular cowardice if you claim to know what is right or wrong about a particular life choice or situation that you yourself do not subscribe or suffer from.

 

[fix]

I disagree if you look at another person doing something you feel, through Christ, or faith is wrong and then speak your mind about how it is not right, then you Judge, and it is particular cowardice if you claim to know what is right or wrong about a particular life choice or situation that you yourself do not subscribe or suffer from.

I want to ask what is the difference between your position and moral relativism?

 

[Elizabeth502]

But you are saying your personal scripturally based veiw point is truth.

No. There is nothing in my post about my personal scriptural view. (Catholics do not uphold private, individual interpretation of scripture.) Catholics maintain that the Church’s view on morality is Universal for all peoples, regardless of separate faith traditions. You will also find that if you do a comprehensive study of the great religions, the moral cornerstones of each are remarkably similar. Why? Because genuine, stable morality is based on what is deep in (“written on”) the human heart merely by virtue of our common humanity, which is touched by God Himself – regardless of whether someone calls that God Allah, Adonai, or the Blessed Trinity. And that universal moral truth is called natural law, which speaks to a higher Truth which binds all of humanity.

 

[fix]

But how do you know for sure…

Is this some type of post modernism? How do we know what is good and what is evil? Well, for one thing Christ founded a Church. We have a living magisterium. Who is your authority?

that their behavior will get them to Heaven or Hell. You are assuming on your own faith that this will happen. So by your logic here you must go to prisons everyday and decry the murderers and rapists to go the good way, but no I do not think you do, you sit at your computer just like me fighting a virtual battle over issues of morality.

No, this seems a bit confusing. No one is judging anyone’s soul. They may judge actions. If murderers and rapists start to form political groups to make murder and rape viewed as good then we have an obligation to point out such error.

 

[PompousMaximus]

I want to ask what is the difference between your position and moral relativism?

I do not know what moral relativism is. If what I speak sounds similar, then maybe there are no differences. But you questioning the way you did, I am assuming that you do not like it, or do not subscribe to it. Whenever God’s law came in conflict with an actual human on earth Jesus in all His Godly wisdom did not condemn, so where do we being little Christs get off doing what even he did not?

I want to ask the question what is the difference between Nazi’s judging Jew’s, and Gypsies for who they are and us doing the same for people doing things we don’t like now?

and notice I didn’t say killing. Scapegoating is a dangerous water to tread, a very slippery slope. It begins as moral high ground and catapults into madness at the drop of a hat.