Which Homosexuals Are "Incurable"?

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think SSA is a choice either. I don’t think heterosexual pedophilia is a choice either. I very much doubt either are genetically heritable too.

I remember seeing something in a Catholic college once, that was about some Eastern Orthodox ethnic branch, and it stated that is this ethnic Orthodox tradition intelligence was believed to originate from the heart. Or said another way or heart gives form and substance to our greater thoughts.

I just find a lot of official Catholic responses from the Holy See and Catholics in general to be pretty phony much of the time.

A lot of Catholic responses resemble teenager’s and pop culture’s rolls with the trends.

Tomorrow it could be a trend in science that homosexuality while not genetically heritable is biologically deterministic anyways and finds it cause in the breast milk of certain mothers. The Catholic response from the Holy See will roll with this trend. And the response to “loving” homosexuals will be rather patronizing from the Holy See if you ask me.

But hey! to each his own.

Time,

If you honestly believe and accept this then you don’t understand what it is you say…

Alcoholism is not a choice either–once one becomes an alcoholic–but there is a choice in entertaining the thoughts.

There is no genetic predisposition.

It is not now and never has been a disease contrary to the propaganda.

It is learned behavior.

Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic is the 12 step religion/AA/disease model paradigm that is not true…

So your thinking in one area clouds your thinking in other areas.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You are not a race. You are not gay either. You have a Same sex attraction.

This is all semantics. Of course neither he nor anyone else is ultimately reducible to race or sexual orientation or any other particularity or peculiarity of personality or “self.” However, all of these things inform who he is, who we are–all of these things* construct* who he is, who we are.

Moreover, being same-sex attracted is not something one has in the same way one can be said to have a cold. Indeed, to say, “I have same-sex attraction,” is in some sense to posit an essential “self” that is complete in and of itself and which must be kept untouched from the corrupting influences of such things as desire or memory or will or intellect–a self, indeed, in which desire, memory, will, intellect (the latter three, by the by, are the three powers of the soul) are all vectors of some sort of infection that might compromise the stability of the “self.” “My otherwise pure self has come down with a case of same-sex attraction.”

But here’s the problem: such a conception of “self” is completely imaginary. Things like race, sexual orientation, the quality of our relationships with others, our culture, our time, our place–all of these things condition and construct who we are. One does not have same-sex attraction any more than one can be said to be same-sex attraction. But to say that one is same-sex attracted (or even gay), or that one is a particular ethnicity is simply a verbal convenience which says, “These things inform my understanding of who I am. They do not exhaust that understanding. They inform it.” To insist otherwise is incredibly pedantic.

You have been programmed by homosexual activists and your labeling yourself by your sexual preference. Gay was a made up to to make the homosexuals seem more happy, normal and slowly delude the public that it a normal life style.

I have no idea if the person to whom you were speaking was programmed by homosexual activists…and neither do you.

Moreover, the word “gay” was used for hundreds of years as slang to suggest ostentation, licentiousness, libertinism…it was, for some time, a term used to describe a prostitute or prostitution. It was not made up–folks in the homosexual subculture began calling themselves “gay” because that’s what they were being called in the various (largely lower-class and criminal) subcultures in which they also moved. There was no political agenda involved in using the word “gay.”

The activists have a play book on how to delude the public back 40 years ago. The book called after the ball.

I’m passingly familiar with the book. But by all accounts, the plan it proposed on the timeline it proposed it was a failure. Would you like to know why? Because there’s no great homosexual grand cabal orchestrating some homosexualist agenda. There are a host of scattered advocacy groups that have their own particular wants and focuses competing for attention, but no umbrella agenda, no umbrella group. The only value the book you mention has now is it’s scare-value for folks who believe in a grand homosexual conspiracy.

While you claim you can’t change, some have and like with any addiction to varying degrees, on going change is possible and some have been married and live happy heterosexual lives.

You say some have changed. I’ve no doubt that some believe they have. But where is the credible scientific evidence for it?

Re: your mention of addiction, please compare apples with apples. You would not get very far in understanding a rhino if you think a rhino is a failed horse. You would not get far playing rugby if the only rules by which you’re willing to play are those governing soccer. Same-sex attraction is not an addiction. It is not a pathology. It may fit in nicely with your vision of the world to think of same-sex attraction as an addiction or a pathology, but it is neither.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…COMPLETED]

If you say it biological is that an excuse to sin?

Of course not. But that’s a bit of a non sequitur, isn’t it?

God made us male and female and to come together as one.

Did he make us all with the necessity to procreate or with the capacity to procreate? If the former, you’ll have a hard time arguing for the goods of celibacy or chastity. If the latter, you’ll have a hard time arguing from capacity to necessity, because capacity does not universally imply necessity. Just because I’m capable of something doesn’t mean it’s necessary for me to do it.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming a couple things here: 1) that same-sex attraction is about homosexual sexual activity as opposed to being attracted to someone of the same sex; 2) that homosexual sexual activity is engaged in as a broken substitute for “normal” procreative sexual relations…but is nonetheless engaged in for the same reasons as one would engage in procreative sexual relations but the proper desire for those “normal” relations is just frustrated. Which is to say that your understanding of same-sex attraction is completely in terms of opposite-sex attraction–i.e., you’re calling the rhino a failed horse again.

At any rate, the burden is on you to prove the veracity of your questionable assumptions.

If by other means you think God made a mistake, look again at your own biology and then what a women would have.

I don’t believe anyone was arguing that God had made a mistake. The argument that might be made is that creation is more diverse than you give it credit for.

That is not, by the way, an argument for the morality of homosexual sexual activity. Again, capacity does not equate with necessity. It is, however, an argument for this: the stuff in the world you might not like or which you might think icky (like same-sex attraction)may in fact have a purpose or a value which you are thus far unable to see or accept.

What you feel doesn’t equate to truth, but what the facts are do.

Indeed. We may all wish to be more mindful of this…

I don’t call myself, Hi I am straight. To lower yourself to your sexuality as what you do or want to do is demeaning to yourself.

You never need to. It’s just assumed. But if you know that people are assuming something about you that isn’t true, chances are it might become somewhat annoying to you and you might at some point and for the sake of honesty wish to correct people’s mistaken assumptions.

So you want to be accepted in the world?

No, of course not. But to live in the world honestly–that’s not so bad is it?

Check out this site it will help you with your faith and obvious struggle with accepting the truth.

In one way or another, we all struggle to apprehend and accept the truth. When we stop struggling because we think we know it all, that’s when we encounter problems…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

…COMPLETED]

Of course not. But that’s a bit of a non sequitur, isn’t it?

Did he make us all with the necessity to procreate or with the capacity to procreate? If the former, you’ll have a hard time arguing for the goods of celibacy or chastity. If the latter, you’ll have a hard time arguing from capacity to necessity, because capacity does not universally imply necessity. Just because I’m capable of something doesn’t mean it’s necessary for me to do it.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming a couple things here: 1) that same-sex attraction is about homosexual sexual activity as opposed to being attracted to someone of the same sex; 2) that homosexual sexual activity is engaged in as a broken substitute for “normal” procreative sexual relations…but is nonetheless engaged in for the same reasons as one would engage in procreative sexual relations but the proper desire for those “normal” relations is just frustrated. Which is to say that your understanding of same-sex attraction is completely in terms of opposite-sex attraction–i.e., you’re calling the rhino a failed horse again.

At any rate, the burden is on you to prove the veracity of your questionable assumptions.

I don’t believe anyone was arguing that God had made a mistake. The argument that might be made is that creation is more diverse than you give it credit for.

That is not, by the way, an argument for the morality of homosexual sexual activity. Again, capacity does not equate with necessity. It is, however, an argument for this: the stuff in the world you might not like or which you might think icky (like same-sex attraction)may in fact have a purpose or a value which you are thus far unable to see or accept.

Indeed. We may all wish to be more mindful of this…

You never need to. It’s just assumed. But if you know that people are assuming something about you that isn’t true, chances are it might become somewhat annoying to you and you might at some point and for the sake of honesty wish to correct people’s mistaken assumptions.

No, of course not. But to live in the world honestly–that’s not so bad is it?

In one way or another, we all struggle to apprehend and accept the truth. When we stop struggling because we think we know it all, that’s when we encounter problems…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I think I used just enough notes here…

So, it appears that the notion of catching same sex attraction as you propose has yet to be proven as true or false. It is possible someone somewhere may find a virus as you mention the common cold. It is possible but not probable.

Self is not as you say is not the result of race, sexual orientation, the quality of relationships, culture, time, place etc. Self is other than these and self is the unknown that makes decisions accepting or rejecting those things you mention. The Executive self is influenced but not formed by these things as you want to believe and purport.

The notion of gay, while interesting, historically means someone that has accepted the notion of Same Sex Attraction and acted on it and accepted that this is who I am, my behavior. Definitions change. Accept that what you would like to believe as it regards the history does not equate to usage. Gay means what it means regardless of what you want it to mean.

There is a homosexual agenda. Your discounting it, not being part of it, suggesting other than what it is does not change the reality that there is one. Accept this.

Your notion of addicted rhino’s and horses implies that you understand the totality of same sex attraction as not addiction, you cannot conclude anything other than you do not see it that way, for some it may be that way and some may play rugby or soccer depending on what they choose to do.

Necessity, capacity, the bottom line is parts is parts created for a reason and we can choose to use them like any other part or deny that part, something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist. A person without arms, legs, genitals, deaf, dumb and blind is not part of necessity or capacity and yet they exist. A person cannot be defined by parts and without parts homosexuals have difficulty being defined even by themselves.

Creation implies God and to suggest that there is diversity in Creation implies that God created homosexuals. Bong, wrong, oh, oh….think again.

Homosexuality is sin, people that engage in homosexuality are evil and where there is evil there is not God.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Self is not as you say is not the result of race, sexual orientation, the quality of relationships, culture, time, place etc. Self is other than these and self is the unknown that makes decisions accepting or rejecting those things you mention. The Executive self is influenced but not formed by these things as you want to believe and purport.

Self is not the result of a bunch of stuff like Culture A + Place B + Genetics C=Self. It is co-emergent with the interactions between and with a bunch of stuff.

There is no executive self apart from the intersubjective self which is socially, culturally, relationally, environmentally, biologically, genetically (etc.) conditioned.

The notion of gay, while interesting, historically means someone that has accepted the notion of Same Sex Attraction and acted on it and accepted that this is who I am, my behavior. Definitions change.

No. The definition you’ve given is roughly how “gay” is understood in much of these forums and in related pietistically inflected subcultures. In the world beyond these forums and its related subcultures, “gay” refers to someone who is same-sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they’ve engaged in homosexual sexual activity. Historically, though, gay was a slang term for anyone or anything ostentatious, outrageous, licentious, louche, dandyish, or related to prostitution or sexual extravagance/libertinism.

Yes, definitions do indeed change–time, culture and context all contribute to that change.

Accept that what you would like to believe as it regards the history does not equate to usage. Gay means what it means regardless of what you want it to mean.

Of course the more archaic uses of “gay” are not current uses–I never said they were. But let’s be frank: the use of “gay” you have defined above is not current either–in the world beyond these forums and its subcultures, being “gay” has nothing essential to do with your behavior…it just has to do with how you understand your sexual orientation. In these forums, I have reluctantly bowed to the forum’s uses. But the actual dominant and normative understanding of the word “gay” does not accord with how you have defined it above. It is possible to be gay and never to have engaged in homosexual sexual activity.

There is a homosexual agenda. Your discounting it, not being part of it, suggesting other than what it is does not change the reality that there is one. Accept this.

I see no evidence of a grand homosexualist conpiracy or agenda. Sorry. Saying, “Accept this,” after you make a pronouncement that strikes me as bogus doesn’t make it suddenly credible. I appreciate your convictions in this regard–please appreciate that I don’t share them.

Your notion of addicted rhino’s and horses implies that you understand the totality of same sex attraction as not addiction, you cannot conclude anything other than you do not see it that way, for some it may be that way and some may play rugby or soccer depending on what they choose to do.

First, I have no notion of addicted rhinos.

Second, my point, indeed, is that I do not understand same-sex attraction as addiction. Nor does the credible scientific evidence. You may ignore the evidence, and that’s fine. But it’s not just a matter of my opinion or what any individual tends to think about it.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…COMPLETED]

Necessity, capacity, the bottom line is parts is parts created for a reason and we can choose to use them like any other part or deny that part, something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist.

Our various parts endow us with particular capacities, but those capacities do not always translate into necessities.

“something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist”? That is a very bizarre and nonsensical thing to say. Are you suggesting that without certain organs and/or appendages that a same-sex attracted person is no longer same-sex attracted? Or are you insinuating that same-sex attraction is all about the genitalia? You are, of course, wrong on all counts. What I’d like to know, though, is: is it your intention to be as insulting as you’re being?

A person without arms, legs, genitals, deaf, dumb and blind is not part of necessity or capacity and yet they exist.

Of course a person without their various parts and appendages is still a person–in fact, they are necessarily still a person.

…] without parts homosexuals have difficulty being defined even by themselves.

Again, this is preposterous and insulting.

Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously when you say things so blatantly ignorant?

Creation implies God and to suggest that there is diversity in Creation implies that God created homosexuals. Bong, wrong, oh, oh….think again.

Are you saying that Creation is not diverse? That a bee, a bacteriophage, a brontosaurus, a birch, a bird and a buffalo are all the same thing? Furthermore, are you saying that you’ve exhausted the mysteries of creation to such an extent that it is impossible for God to surprise you any longer? To live such a jaded life would be intolerably sad!

Homosexuality is sin, people that engage in homosexuality are evil and where there is evil there is not God.

“People that engage in homosexuality are evil.” Huh.

By its very nature, evil is unlovable, and if homosexuals are evil…then we don’t have to worry about loving them anymore, do we? So much for the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” platitude. Good. I’m glad we’re being honest.

(Here again, though, is that hidden undercurrent of classical protestant–or heretical Jansenist, I’m not sure–thinking coming to the fore again in this “all or nothing” conception of what it means to journey toward sanctity.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[speakttruth]

…COMPLETED]

Our various parts endow us with particular capacities, but those capacities do not always translate into necessities.

“something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist”? That is a very bizarre and nonsensical thing to say. Are you suggesting that without certain organs and/or appendages that a same-sex attracted person is no longer same-sex attracted? Or are you insinuating that same-sex attraction is all about the genitalia? You are, of course, wrong on all counts. What I’d like to know, though, is: is it your intention to be as insulting as you’re being?

Of course a person without their various parts and appendages is still a person–in fact, they are necessarily still a person.

Again, this is preposterous and insulting.

Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously when you say things so blatantly ignorant?

Are you saying that Creation is not diverse? That a bee, a bacteriophage, a brontosaurus, a birch, a bird and a buffalo are all the same thing? Furthermore, are you saying that you’ve exhausted the mysteries of creation to such an extent that it is impossible for God to surprise you any longer? To live such a jaded life would be intolerably sad!

“People that engage in homosexuality are evil.” Huh.

By its very nature, evil is unlovable, and if homosexuals are evil…then we don’t have to worry about loving them anymore, do we? So much for the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” platitude. Good. I’m glad we’re being honest.

(Here again, though, is that hidden undercurrent of classical protestant–or heretical Jansenist, I’m not sure–thinking coming to the fore again in this “all or nothing” conception of what it means to journey toward sanctity.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Wow,
I guess I am not as smart as you. I have to get my dictionary out to understand what you are saying. Could you please go down a few pegs for me. I don’t understand half of what you are saying.

One thing is for sure and you can’t deny it. The world is falling apart with sin and the homosexual agenda is pushing it along. Rome! Remember it fell for the same reasons we are falling now.
If SSM is being pushed all over the world then you see no agenda? Never have we had this in the history of the world as far as I know. I live in Massachusetts they are pushing it in schools. Very Naive. I don’t put everything on here from my Encourage group. But I could show you plenty of proof. We have a president pushing this evil and I do mean evil and his Cohorts for goodness sakes… They are all Catholics too. They know and they still don’t care.

My daughter in law is a Anglican from Ireland, love to see her convert.
GB

 

[CopticChristian]

…COMPLETED]

Our various parts endow us with particular capacities, but those capacities do not always translate into necessities.

“something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist”? That is a very bizarre and nonsensical thing to say. Are you suggesting that without certain organs and/or appendages that a same-sex attracted person is no longer same-sex attracted? Or are you insinuating that same-sex attraction is all about the genitalia? You are, of course, wrong on all counts. What I’d like to know, though, is: is it your intention to be as insulting as you’re being?

Of course a person without their various parts and appendages is still a person–in fact, they are necessarily still a person.

Again, this is preposterous and insulting.

Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously when you say things so blatantly ignorant?

Are you saying that Creation is not diverse? That a bee, a bacteriophage, a brontosaurus, a birch, a bird and a buffalo are all the same thing? Furthermore, are you saying that you’ve exhausted the mysteries of creation to such an extent that it is impossible for God to surprise you any longer? To live such a jaded life would be intolerably sad!

“People that engage in homosexuality are evil.” Huh.

By its very nature, evil is unlovable, and if homosexuals are evil…then we don’t have to worry about loving them anymore, do we? So much for the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” platitude. Good. I’m glad we’re being honest.

(Here again, though, is that hidden undercurrent of classical protestant–or heretical Jansenist, I’m not sure–thinking coming to the fore again in this “all or nothing” conception of what it means to journey toward sanctity.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I agree that everything you say is your opinion.

Gay=action…you don’t have to like it, you don’t have to accept it, but it is what it is in this CAF, a culture…you came to and this is what it is.

Homosexual actions are an abomination, they are sinful, God loves the sinner, hates the sin, and calls the sinner back to himself. It is the homosexual engaged in evil that dismisses God, foolishly believing that inviting God into this nest of sin that God will honor that request…ain’t gonna happen, no way no how…

There is nothing redeeming in any acts performed by a homosexual, there is no grace in any act performed by a homosexual, there is no relationship building, there is no household strengthening, there is no such thing. The only act a homosexual can perform while engaged in homosexual activity…is …getting on their knees, asking for forgiveness and recognizing that this is not the path God wants and the only redeemable act is…

Repentance…

 

[CopticChristian]

…COMPLETED]

Our various parts endow us with particular capacities, but those capacities do not always translate into necessities.

“something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist”? That is a very bizarre and nonsensical thing to say. Are you suggesting that without certain organs and/or appendages that a same-sex attracted person is no longer same-sex attracted? Or are you insinuating that same-sex attraction is all about the genitalia? You are, of course, wrong on all counts. What I’d like to know, though, is: is it your intention to be as insulting as you’re being?

Of course a person without their various parts and appendages is still a person–in fact, they are necessarily still a person.

Again, this is preposterous and insulting.

Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously when you say things so blatantly ignorant?

Are you saying that Creation is not diverse? That a bee, a bacteriophage, a brontosaurus, a birch, a bird and a buffalo are all the same thing? Furthermore, are you saying that you’ve exhausted the mysteries of creation to such an extent that it is impossible for God to surprise you any longer? To live such a jaded life would be intolerably sad!

“People that engage in homosexuality are evil.” Huh.

By its very nature, evil is unlovable, and if homosexuals are evil…then we don’t have to worry about loving them anymore, do we? So much for the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” platitude. Good. I’m glad we’re being honest.

(Here again, though, is that hidden undercurrent of classical protestant–or heretical Jansenist, I’m not sure–thinking coming to the fore again in this “all or nothing” conception of what it means to journey toward sanctity.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

While you contemplate the only redeeming act any active homosexual can make=repentance…let me ask you this…

We agree that experience in the womb is limited. When you come into the world you then experience the world via

Vision
Hearing
Touch
Movement
Smell
Taste

and apply meaning to the world as you experience it…

Apples are red and taste good…but not until you learn to read and write red, notice the difference between red and blue and have a chance to eat it

otherwise it is just this thing out there without meaning

Agreed?

 

[speakttruth]

Mark,

I think I used just enough notes here…

So, it appears that the notion of catching same sex attraction as you propose has yet to be proven as true or false. It is possible someone somewhere may find a virus as you mention the common cold. It is possible but not probable.

Self is not as you say is not the result of race, sexual orientation, the quality of relationships, culture, time, place etc. Self is other than these and self is the unknown that makes decisions accepting or rejecting those things you mention. The Executive self is influenced but not formed by these things as you want to believe and purport.

The notion of gay, while interesting, historically means someone that has accepted the notion of Same Sex Attraction and acted on it and accepted that this is who I am, my behavior. Definitions change. Accept that what you would like to believe as it regards the history does not equate to usage. Gay means what it means regardless of what you want it to mean.

There is a homosexual agenda. Your discounting it, not being part of it, suggesting other than what it is does not change the reality that there is one. Accept this.

Your notion of addicted rhino’s and horses implies that you understand the totality of same sex attraction as not addiction, you cannot conclude anything other than you do not see it that way, for some it may be that way and some may play rugby or soccer depending on what they choose to do.

Necessity, capacity, the bottom line is parts is parts created for a reason and we can choose to use them like any other part or deny that part, something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist. A person without arms, legs, genitals, deaf, dumb and blind is not part of necessity or capacity and yet they exist. A person cannot be defined by parts and without parts homosexuals have difficulty being defined even by themselves.

Creation implies God and to suggest that there is diversity in Creation implies that God created homosexuals. Bong, wrong, oh, oh….think again.

Homosexuality is sin, people that engage in homosexuality are evil and where there is evil there is not God.

 

[speakttruth]

Mark,

I think I used just enough notes here…

So, it appears that the notion of catching same sex attraction as you propose has yet to be proven as true or false. It is possible someone somewhere may find a virus as you mention the common cold. It is possible but not probable.

Self is not as you say is not the result of race, sexual orientation, the quality of relationships, culture, time, place etc. Self is other than these and self is the unknown that makes decisions accepting or rejecting those things you mention. The Executive self is influenced but not formed by these things as you want to believe and purport.

The notion of gay, while interesting, historically means someone that has accepted the notion of Same Sex Attraction and acted on it and accepted that this is who I am, my behavior. Definitions change. Accept that what you would like to believe as it regards the history does not equate to usage. Gay means what it means regardless of what you want it to mean.

There is a homosexual agenda. Your discounting it, not being part of it, suggesting other than what it is does not change the reality that there is one. Accept this.

Your notion of addicted rhino’s and horses implies that you understand the totality of same sex attraction as not addiction, you cannot conclude anything other than you do not see it that way, for some it may be that way and some may play rugby or soccer depending on what they choose to do.

Necessity, capacity, the bottom line is parts is parts created for a reason and we can choose to use them like any other part or deny that part, something active homosexuals cannot fathom because without parts the identity fails to exist. A person without arms, legs, genitals, deaf, dumb and blind is not part of necessity or capacity and yet they exist. A person cannot be defined by parts and without parts homosexuals have difficulty being defined even by themselves.

Creation implies God and to suggest that there is diversity in Creation implies that God created homosexuals. Bong, wrong, oh, oh….think again.

Homosexuality is sin, people that engage in homosexuality are evil and where there is evil there is not God.

Coptic, I gave you thumbs up for the other stuff you were saying, but I forgot to add, we have to be careful to say that they are evil, my son was so innocent when he was young and vulnerable to be taken advantage of. I don’t think of him as evil, he’s not acting out right now, but we can have thoughts that can become that way. In some respect I think people can be evil, when you equate the President or any politician that is pushing evil and has a huge influence on impressionable minds. I have compassion for some of these people with these problems, but less for the people in power pushing it. I wouldn’t like someone calling my son evil and thinking he is horrible. Everything God made is good, but corrupted by original sin. If you have a child then you think differently. We have to love the sinner, but hate the sin. When I see people pushing abortion, I think of them as monsters,( politicans mostly) some who call themselves Catholic, because murdering babies is even more evil.
You know what I mean?
GB

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, I gave you thumbs up for the other stuff you were saying, but I forgot to add, we have to be careful to say that they are evil, my son was so innocent when he was young and vulnerable to be taken advantage of. I don’t think of him as evil, he’s not acting out right now, but we can have thoughts that can become that way. In some respect I think people can be evil, when you equate the President or any politician that is pushing evil and has a huge influence on impressionable minds. I have compassion for some of these people with these problems, but less for the people in power pushing it. I wouldn’t like someone calling my son evil and thinking he is horrible. Everything God made is good, but corrupted by original sin. If you have a child then you think differently. We have to love the sinner, but hate the sin. When I see people pushing abortion, I think of them as monsters,( politicans mostly) some who call themselves Catholic, because murdering babies is even more evil.
You know what I mean?
GB

Truth,

Children are innocent in some ways and when they act in evil ways they are evil in their action.

A 5 year old that murders
A 5 year old that commits suicide
A 5 year old that Steals

Does evil in their action…I agree with what you say…there are adults that lead children into evil and their burden is great, better that a stone be hung round their neck and be thrown into the sea than to harm a child…

Mark is not a child…and my comments are directed to adults that knowingly, willingly, act in ways that are not good and worse want to propagate and have others accept these evil acts as just diversity.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I agree that everything you say is your opinion.

That’s nice. Of course it’s a bit irrelevant, but…it’s nice.

Gay=action…you don’t have to like it, you don’t have to accept it, but it is what it is in this CAF, a culture…you came to and this is what it is.

Yes, on these forums and in its associated subcultures, “gay” means more or less what you defined it to mean. As I said above–time, culture and context all contribute to changes in a word’s meaning.

Homosexual actions are an abomination, they are sinful, God loves the sinner, hates the sin, and calls the sinner back to himself. It is the homosexual engaged in evil that dismisses God, foolishly believing that inviting God into this nest of sin that God will honor that request…ain’t gonna happen, no way no how…

I wonder what this statement would look like if you actually considered it in light of the Incarnation–I mean, we didn’t invite God into the nest of sin we made of his world, but look…he invited himself!

You should not ever presume to think that you know where God will not be.

There is nothing redeeming in any acts performed by a homosexual, there is no grace in any act performed by a homosexual, there is no relationship building, there is no household strengthening, there is no such thing. The only act a homosexual can perform while engaged in homosexual activity…is …getting on their knees, asking for forgiveness and recognizing that this is not the path God wants and the only redeemable act is…

Repentance…

“Nothing redeeming in any acts performed by a homosexual…” Any acts?

Well, it’s a good thing that I don’t particularly believe in works-righteousness, otherwise I might disagree with you and say a homosexual can do lots of stuff that’s redeeming. But as it is, I would apply what you say here to pretty much everyone…not just homosexuals. “For all have sinned,” says St. Paul.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Rome! Remember it fell for the same reasons we are falling now.

There are some illuminating points of comparison to be made between the fall of Rome and the fall of the American Empire. But they’re probably not the points of comparison you think they are. There’s no historian I can think of that claims that Rome fell because it’s people did naughty stuff. There are a myriad of explanations for the Empire’s fall, but the one that makes most sense to me is that it became too big to govern sustainably and acquired ever-increasing layers of bureaucratic and government complexity in order to deal with the various problems occasioned by its growing ungovernability.

You should probably know, by the by, that the “moral decay” theory to which you may be referring was pioneered by historian Edward Gibbon…but the moral decay he was talking about was related to his correlation of the decline in Roman civic culture (particularly Roman civic religion) to the rise of Christianity. In other words, he blamed Christianity for the moral decay (and fall) of Rome.

If SSM is being pushed all over the world then you see no agenda?

I don’t, no. It’s the inevitable fruit of the modern liberal democratic state which began taking shape way back in the Enlightenment. Nothing more.

Never have we had this in the history of the world as far as I know.

Not exactly, no. But there were structures in place in some societies and cultures which allowed similar such things to occur–i.e., look at the two-spirit figure in some Native American cultures. Two-spirits were biologically one sex, but culturally the other–eg. a biological man who was considered a woman culturally. A two-spirit man could (and often would) marry another man (often a widower), but not another two-spirit man. In the West, there were the* affrerement *ceremonies–they weren’t marriage, but they gave legal status to two men who wished (for whatever reason) to form a household together.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark,

While you contemplate the only redeeming act any active homosexual can make=repentance…let me ask you this…

We agree that experience in the womb is limited. When you come into the world you then experience the world via

Vision
Hearing
Touch
Movement
Smell
Taste

and apply meaning to the world as you experience it…

Apples are red and taste good…but not until you learn to read and write red, notice the difference between red and blue and have a chance to eat it

otherwise it is just this thing out there without meaning

Agreed?

I’m not even sure what it is you’re asking here, particularly in that “Apples are red” word salad section.

Coptic, in that other (admittedly similar) thread, I told you that I was not going to answer any more of your questions until you got to your point. And as you were not disposed to getting to your point (but kept asking things), I kept my word and didn’t answer your queries. Eventually, though, you gave every impression that you were actually happy that I refused to respond to your questions. So, with that in mind, let me try to increase your joy now…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

There are some illuminating points of comparison to be made between the fall of Rome and the fall of the American Empire. But they’re probably not the points of comparison you think they are. There’s no historian I can think of that claims that Rome fell because it’s people did naughty stuff. There are a myriad of explanations for the Empire’s fall, but the one that makes most sense to me is that it became too big to govern sustainably and acquired ever-increasing layers of bureaucratic and government complexity in order to deal with the various problems occasioned by its growing ungovernability.

You should probably know, by the by, that the “moral decay” theory to which you may be referring was pioneered by historian Edward Gibbon…but the moral decay he was talking about was related to his correlation of the decline in Roman civic culture (particularly Roman civic religion) to the rise of Christianity. In other words, he blamed Christianity for the moral decay (and fall) of Rome.

I don’t, no. It’s the inevitable fruit of the modern liberal democratic state which began taking shape way back in the Enlightenment. Nothing more.

Not exactly, no. But there were structures in place in some societies and cultures which allowed similar such things to occur–i.e., look at the two-spirit figure in some Native American cultures. Two-spirits were biologically one sex, but culturally the other–eg. a biological man who was considered a woman culturally. A two-spirit man could (and often would) marry another man (often a widower), but not another two-spirit man. In the West, there were the* affrerement *ceremonies–they weren’t marriage, but they gave legal status to two men who wished (for whatever reason) to form a household together.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

The two spirit homosexual activity is documented above. These people were essentially homosexual. Homosexuality exists, has existed and it does not justify homosexuality in Christianity. If you believe that we should put homosexuals on a reservation and form a tribe perhaps that is what you are hinting at, I don’t know.

 

[detroitgrass]

To ask if homosexuality is “curable” suggests that it is a disease, which it is not.

Rather, homosexuality is a behavior, and as with all habitual behaviors it can be very difficult to uproot. As with any habit, it takes dedicated effort and trouble to get rid of it. With sexual actions, in particular, it is very hard to get rid of because it has such a strong appeal to the human brain.

It is not impossible for your brother to become straight again; it will just take effort on HIS part to make it happen, and prayer on your part to help him do it.

The person who removed homosexuality out of the DSM (psychiatry bible) later has stated that homosexuality can be cured. After it was removed it was ratified to have some classification. It was later removed completely at the will of political action. A disorder is usually based on behavior and is the basis for all psych 101 classes.

Bottom line is the majority of people have sexual urges. Most, if not all people, have lustful thoughts throughout the day, but behaviorally we do not act on them. Jesus stated to think about these thoughts as a sin, so as a catholic we try to remove these thoughts to be more pure. The homosexuals have more deviant thoughts and much work that much harder to not act and to remove them from thought. In this sense if they can control these thoughts, one can consider them to be cured, and if they can remove the thoughts completely they could even become pure.

 

[speakttruth]

Grace & Peace!

There are some illuminating points of comparison to be made between the fall of Rome and the fall of the American Empire. But they’re probably not the points of comparison you think they are. There’s no historian I can think of that claims that Rome fell because it’s people did naughty stuff. There are a myriad of explanations for the Empire’s fall, but the one that makes most sense to me is that it became too big to govern sustainably and acquired ever-increasing layers of bureaucratic and government complexity in order to deal with the various problems occasioned by its growing ungovernability.

You should probably know, by the by, that the “moral decay” theory to which you may be referring was pioneered by historian Edward Gibbon…but the moral decay he was talking about was related to his correlation of the decline in Roman civic culture (particularly Roman civic religion) to the rise of Christianity. In other words, he blamed Christianity for the moral decay (and fall) of Rome.

I don’t, no. It’s the inevitable fruit of the modern liberal democratic state which began taking shape way back in the Enlightenment. Nothing more.

Not exactly, no. But there were structures in place in some societies and cultures which allowed similar such things to occur–i.e., look at the two-spirit figure in some Native American cultures. Two-spirits were biologically one sex, but culturally the other–eg. a biological man who was considered a woman culturally. A two-spirit man could (and often would) marry another man (often a widower), but not another two-spirit man. In the West, there were the* affrerement *ceremonies–they weren’t marriage, but they gave legal status to two men who wished (for whatever reason) to form a household together.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I have to say you have a very different way of looking at things, not that I agree with your analysis. But your entitled to your opinion, I don’t think you have all the facts. I am going by some of my pastors homilies about Rome and where we are heading to. ( Roman bath houses were rampant with homosexuality) they had them like that in 60’s and the start of Aids if I recall right) ( from a testimony from a Courage member) Your eluding the obvious of the reality of our culture today and the 56 million babies killed so far. But I am sure you will correct me.

How did you become Catholic, any help for a stubborn Irish Protestant? My daughter-in-law, comes straight from Ireland. seven years ago
Thanks and God Bless

 

[speakttruth]

Mark,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

The two spirit homosexual activity is documented above. These people were essentially homosexual. Homosexuality exists, has existed and it does not justify homosexuality in Christianity. If you believe that we should put homosexuals on a reservation and form a tribe perhaps that is what you are hinting at, I don’t know.

:yup:

 

[CopticChristian]

The person who removed homosexuality out of the DSM (psychiatry bible) later has stated that homosexuality can be cured. After it was removed it was ratified to have some classification. It was later removed completely at the will of political action. A disorder is usually based on behavior and is the basis for all psych 101 classes.

Bottom line is the majority of people have sexual urges. Most, if not all people, have lustful thoughts throughout the day, but behaviorally we do not act on them. Jesus stated to think about these thoughts as a sin, so as a catholic we try to remove these thoughts to be more pure. The homosexuals have more deviant thoughts and much work that much harder to not act and to remove them from thought. In this sense if they can control these thoughts, one can consider them to be cured, and if they can remove the thoughts completely they could even become pure.

Detroit,

Homosexuals have thoughts. Some may be deviant and others may not. When they are deviant and acted on then it is obvious what those thoughts are. It is clear that the deviancy is not necessarily in performing homosexual acts but also is attempting to engage in dialogue that justifies that behavior. This is just as deviant…for example…

A homosexual may argue that the Sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are not related to homosexuality but rather hospitality and compare and contrast homosexuality with other sins…to deflect attention to that sin…as seen here…

God finding homosexual acts more loathsome than inhospitality, I find this difficult to follow. The story is about extreme inhospitality. Given Ezekiel’s and Isaiah’s words, there is a lot of rampant inhumanity happening in Sodom, a denial of the dignity of humanity, made in God’s image. That in the midst of this, homosexual acts trump pride, economic inequality and refusal to help the poor is a new one. “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.” Are you saying that a homosexual act will incur God’s wrath instantly, but that spitting on the poor, with whom Christ Himself identified…that just raises a passing Divine indignation??

or…attempt to incur questions for discussion and debate concerning sexuallity. To this the only answer should be…thank you for your thoughts. Homosexual persons in relationhsip acting on homosexual thoughts and urges live in sin and not debate.

I do not believe that the biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).

Then of course there is this…acknowledgement that what the OHCAC teaches is what it is and then engage in dialogue that suggests the rationalized point of view that keeps a homosexual in a sinful relationship…

I understand the Roman church’s stance on the generative aspect of sex. Our Lord is a Lord of Life, we must therefore live open to Life. Where I have trouble with Roman doctrine is that it prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex. Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening; relationship-building, non-vaginal sexual expression between two married people is simply not as valuable as perfunctory vaginal intercourse between two married people. In fact, some may argue that it is impossible to have a non-vaginal sexual experience and for it to be intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening, etc.

The best thing to do is not to engage in dialogue or argument, just state the fact…

Homosexuality is in action a sin. Homosexual relationships are not approved by God, not filled with grace, are not blessed by the Holy Spirit and are an abomination. Then it is clear that the only act a homosexual in a relationship can do that has redeeming quality is Repentance. End of story.