D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
That smell is reminiscent of Pelagianism
- Status
S
speakttruth
Guest
It is so clear what St. Paul tells us, if we are truly learning our faith. Those passages if people say they believe in the Bible, clearly talks about homosexuality in any form, He doesn’t say but not the ones that love each other. As some would like to separate as if God would make that distinction when he created us. How on earth could we procreate the race? It is common sense, not difficult to understand, unless you want to do what you want and not what God wants.
We are talking mortal sin, and that is the one that is death. It only takes one. Fornication is one. Loving each other doesn’t change that. I think most people who know anything about God would admit they are going against God, but justify it by saying they love each other Thank God he gives up time to change. Atheist do good deeds too and deny God. If we don’t stay in sanctifying grace we don’t have the holy spirit in us and therefore we love ourselves more than God. Not that we can’t fall. That is why we have confession to keep us holy and we have to repent. We can’t do it without the grace and when he gives us the grace if we don’t accept it then we are dooming ourselves. God gives us the free will to choose to do evil or good. We can do all the good we want, but if your in a state of mortal sin, your doing it for selfish reasons, because if you know what he expects, you can’t pick and choose the rules he expects us to obey. Just my two cents.
GB
S
speakttruth
Guest
Great article, The first ministry to homosexuals, was written by one that was pushing homosexuality. I forget his name and a nun. I think they were excommunicated. The bishops rewrote it, but it still gives the impression to accept homosexual behaviour and not to do to much about it. Just love them, not to try and help them and tell them the truth that it is wrong. The Canadian one is much better. Father Harvey of the Courage Apostate tried to have them rewrite. They haven’t changed it because of the liberal bishops and their agenda.
That is the consensus with my group and our priest who is our spiritual director.
this article articulates that very well.
thank you, I will give it to my Encourage group, minus the picture.
GB
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Fix,
I appreciate your spoon feeding Rau…I was hoping that Rau would have asked…
So, are you saying that if someone is in Mortal sin that you need grace to repent and if in Mortal sin you cannot gain supernatural merit? Are you also saying that the Church has always taught this based on the Bible, Council of Orange, Council of Trent, and recorded in the Catechism, our deposit of Faith?
Is this what you are saying?
I would have answered “YES”
and Rau would have a firm understanding having formulated those thoughts for himself…
That is what I was hoping for…
I would have then added, it is important to be Catechized throughout our walk and I would recommend the USA Catechism for Adults Audio version, found on Amazon for about $42.00.
S
speakttruth
Guest
If we can use another website to buy the book it would be better to not use AmazonFix,
I appreciate your spoon feeding Rau…I was hoping that Rau would have asked…
So, are you saying that if someone is in Mortal sin that you need grace to repent and if in Mortal sin you cannot gain supernatural merit? Are you also saying that the Church has always taught this based on the Bible, Council of Orange, Council of Trent, and recorded in the Catechism, our deposit of Faith?
Is this what you are saying?
I would have answered “YES”
and Rau would have a firm understanding having formulated those thoughts for himself…
That is what I was hoping for…
I would have then added, it is important to be Catechized throughout our walk and I would recommend the USA Catechism for Adults Audio version, found on Amazon for about $42.00.
They contribute to Planned Parenthood, in case people are not aware it. I didn’t realize they have an audio, if you travel a lot it would be helpful. Good to know thanks
GB
S
speakttruth
Guest
I am sorry, but the way you responded cracked me up.
S
speakttruth
Guest
Very good information for our faith thanks Dakota
this is pretty good too.
socrates58.blogspot.com/...on-alleged-semi-pelagianism.html - Cached
Pelagianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This is still sometimes called Limited Depravity. Thus, Adam’s sin was “to set a bad example” for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as “setting a good example” for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.
This theological theory is named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name.
Pelagianism stands in contrast to two other prominent theological theories: Semipelagianism and Total Depravity
Comparison of teaching
[edit] Church Fathers on free will
Many of the Church Fathers taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil. Justin Martyr said that ‘every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way’. ‘Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.’ (The First Apology, 43). Tertullian also argued that no reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice. (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61). Likewise Origen,[7] and Clement of Alexandria[8]
Justin Martyr said, “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”[9]
Justin Martyr said, “I have proven in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”[10]
Tatian said, “We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.”[11]
Melito said, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.”[12]
Theophilus said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”[13]
Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”[13]
Irenaeus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”[14]
Clement of Alexandria said, “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”[15]
Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.16
this is pretty good too.
socrates58.blogspot.com/...on-alleged-semi-pelagianism.html - Cached
Pelagianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This is still sometimes called Limited Depravity. Thus, Adam’s sin was “to set a bad example” for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as “setting a good example” for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.
This theological theory is named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name.
Pelagianism stands in contrast to two other prominent theological theories: Semipelagianism and Total Depravity
Comparison of teaching
[edit] Church Fathers on free will
Many of the Church Fathers taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil. Justin Martyr said that ‘every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way’. ‘Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.’ (The First Apology, 43). Tertullian also argued that no reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice. (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61). Likewise Origen,[7] and Clement of Alexandria[8]
Justin Martyr said, “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”[9]
Justin Martyr said, “I have proven in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”[10]
Tatian said, “We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.”[11]
Melito said, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.”[12]
Theophilus said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”[13]
Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”[13]
Irenaeus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”[14]
Clement of Alexandria said, “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”[15]
Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.16
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
It’s hard not to change over the course of five years or so.
Here’s the gist of those changes as they relate to these forums, in case you’re wondering:
When I first started writing about same-sex attraction and homosexuality here, I gradually (actually very slowly) realized that the language I was using was not being received in the way I intended; I realized that my understanding of the RCC’s teaching on homosexuality was a bit puerile; and I began to listen more closely to what people said about that teaching and how they said it. Subsequently, I began to study what the RCC actually teaches regarding same-sex attraction and homosexuality. Concurrently, I began to be interested in what people here said the RCC taught, as well as how people here believed a same-sex attracted person would best live that teaching. And I began to notice that the teaching, the articulation, and what it all meant to someone’s way of living didn’t always match up. For instance, someone might explain very well what the teaching was, but then start advocating for reparative therapy as if such therapy were reflective of a dogmatic or doctrinal position the church had taken on dealing with same-sex attraction. So what that advocacy revealed to me was that such a person actually believed that same-sex attraction was a psychological illness or malaise, which is not what the RCC teaches. Moreover, the frequency with which people adhered to this disease model as if it were gospel seemed to indicate that their views of same-sex attraction and homosexuality were not shaped by the teaching of the church, but were firmly based in some other, more socio-political understanding to which the teachings of the church were merely appended as a supportive gloss. I found that interesting.
Gradually, I began to focus on getting a clearer understanding of what a faithful Roman Catholic same-sex attracted person’s life was expected to look like. I began to ask myself (and others) a version of this: If this teaching represents the given circumstances with which and within which same-sex attraction is to be understood, what is the day-to-day vision of life which the RCC asks and expects same-sex attracted folks to accept and live into? Is it realistic? Unrealistic? Is it characterized by shame or joy? Are people encouraged to fear themselves, or empowered to boldly seek, recognize, and do the good? Can we speak of love in its fullness in it, or must we constantly qualify love when we speak of it? Does it represent gospel freedom, or slavery to a new Law? Is there only one vision of life for folks who are same-sex attracted, or are there many visions, each sharing particular features (the fundamental one being chastity), in which same-sex attracted folks may live into the fullness of their humanity? These are questions in which I remain very interested.
Now. Do these changes and all or some the others to which you are not privy please you? Should they please you? These are questions to which I am completely indifferent.
But the question of you being pleased is potentially important to our discussions, and it made me wonder. As you know, I suspect you of being rather absolutist, but I’d not yet begun to believe that you were a dogmatist–someone who not only believes the dogmas they are required to believe, but who believes it dogma to believe the dogmas they believe in the way they believe them in order to truly believe correctly. It gets pretty recursive, I know. And it leads to thinking that has a curious quality of being turned in on itself and burdened to the point of collapse by its own ideological weight. I’m beginning to believe that you might have fallen prey to dogmatism.
And that sheds light on your recent call to repentance: it’s not so much that you’re calling me to repent (you already know I consider myself a Christian), but you’re calling me to believe what you believe in the way you believe it because that would (apparently) please you. It’s not so much that you want me to be in communion with the See of Rome, but you want me (and others, I imagine) to be in communion with you, and on your terms. I may be wrong, but this is my understanding of the drift of your thought.
[CONTINUED…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…COMPLETED]
So when you write this…
As I meditate on whether or not to continue this discussion, I’ve nonetheless jotted down some preliminary thoughts. Particularly in light of my reservations and suspicions above, I’m curious to see what you’ll do with them
Faith: not an intellectual assent to a series of propositions, but the ability to relax in the presence of the One who really really likes and loves us. Further, the loving willingness to be shaped by the One in whose presence we have relaxed.
Hope: inspired and informed by faith, it is the ability to imagine a new vision of the good, the true and the beautiful, and the courage to participate in that vision and it’s coming-into-being in the world.
Love: the willingness to give oneself or empty oneself completely for the sake of another. To seek the good of another over and above oneself. The willingness to look for, see, recognize, joy in and foster the good, the true and the beautiful in another, for the sake of the other even at (especially at) the cost of one’s own desolation, ruin or death. The ability to be selflessly and indiscriminately and gratuitously for others in the ways that God is selflessly, indiscriminately and gratuitously for us.
Virtues: visible signs of grace in a life characterized by love.
Imagination: see Hope above.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
(By the by, and re: your conversation with Rau–I think what he or she is getting at [and granted he/she can speak for him-/herself] is that an act is a mortal sin if it A) involves grave matter; B) is fully known to be sinful, and; C) is given full consent of the will. It is widely understood that if the act is lacking in one or more of these three conditions, it is not a mortal sin but a venial sin, regardless of how devastating the act might be [these conditions actually make it rather hard–though not impossible–to commit a mortal sin]. As a venial sin, it no longer completely robs the individual of grace. Rau’s argument was that people who perform homosexual sexual acts do not generally understand them to be sinful, therefore [in the RC understanding] they lack full knowledge of the nature of the acts, therefore the acts are venial sins and not mortal sins. It is in cases like these in which the “sins of weakness” / “sins of malice” distinction may be more illuminating than the more widespread venial / mortal distinction.)
So when you write this…
…I suspect that you’re not so much interested in what I have to say as opposed to interested to see if what I say is what you have to say. That’s problematic to me in terms of having an actual and ongoing conversation.Have a go with Faith, Hope, Charity, Imagination and virtue…
As I meditate on whether or not to continue this discussion, I’ve nonetheless jotted down some preliminary thoughts. Particularly in light of my reservations and suspicions above, I’m curious to see what you’ll do with them
Faith: not an intellectual assent to a series of propositions, but the ability to relax in the presence of the One who really really likes and loves us. Further, the loving willingness to be shaped by the One in whose presence we have relaxed.
Hope: inspired and informed by faith, it is the ability to imagine a new vision of the good, the true and the beautiful, and the courage to participate in that vision and it’s coming-into-being in the world.
Love: the willingness to give oneself or empty oneself completely for the sake of another. To seek the good of another over and above oneself. The willingness to look for, see, recognize, joy in and foster the good, the true and the beautiful in another, for the sake of the other even at (especially at) the cost of one’s own desolation, ruin or death. The ability to be selflessly and indiscriminately and gratuitously for others in the ways that God is selflessly, indiscriminately and gratuitously for us.
Virtues: visible signs of grace in a life characterized by love.
Imagination: see Hope above.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
(By the by, and re: your conversation with Rau–I think what he or she is getting at [and granted he/she can speak for him-/herself] is that an act is a mortal sin if it A) involves grave matter; B) is fully known to be sinful, and; C) is given full consent of the will. It is widely understood that if the act is lacking in one or more of these three conditions, it is not a mortal sin but a venial sin, regardless of how devastating the act might be [these conditions actually make it rather hard–though not impossible–to commit a mortal sin]. As a venial sin, it no longer completely robs the individual of grace. Rau’s argument was that people who perform homosexual sexual acts do not generally understand them to be sinful, therefore [in the RC understanding] they lack full knowledge of the nature of the acts, therefore the acts are venial sins and not mortal sins. It is in cases like these in which the “sins of weakness” / “sins of malice” distinction may be more illuminating than the more widespread venial / mortal distinction.)
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
Too many notes
I should repent, you should repent, we should all repent
Repent=Change our minds. We all should constantly be changing our minds and not conforming our selves to the world but be transformed by the renewal of our minds.
I try to renew and change my mind daily. It gets old having the same old mind.
Imagination is a created part of who we are. In our heads we only have two resources Memory and Imagination. We can imagine a greater good. We can recall a greater good. All are as real as the other. We can imagine ourselves becoming Holy as God is Holy.
Faith is a gift, that allows you to know the Revealed truths
Hope is nothing less than Faith as Benedict points out we were saved in Hope
Charity is God Himself, for if Faith, Hope and Charity are considered and the only thing that endures is Charity…the only thing that can endure is God Himself therefore God is Love.
What is Love? Good Rabbi what must I do…why do you call me good…God alone is God.
Love is willing God to others in your thinking, feeling, believing and actions and whatever you do if it does not bring someone to the Revealed truths of God…then this is not Love.
Virtues are habits that are good habits as opposed to bad habits. Virtues animated by grace can cause the habitual practioner to perfect their character, grow in morality and animated by Faith/Hope and Charity cause growth towards Holiness and love of God.
Repent, do not be conformed to the world…join me…we can repent together…
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Second, I’m not trying to convince the RCC to change her teachings–if I were, I wouldn’t spend so much time here on these forums! I’m trying to better understand those teachings as well as the sort of life a Roman Catholic same-sex attracted person faithful to those teachings is asked to live.
Personally, though, the thing I find most curious about the teaching is that it seems to understand same-sex attraction as being about homosexual sexual activity as opposed to being about attraction to someone of the same sex. That seems odd and not quite accurate to me. Surely anyone who sees another person as merely instrumental in the performance of an act or repertoire of acts to which they’re actually attracted is, indeed, in a bit of moral trouble regardless of their sexual orientation.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
No.
In general and without reference to the specific issues you mention, there are a lot of people I admire and think are brilliant with whom I passionately disagree on some (or even many) issues.
First, same-sex attraction is not something I have, as if it’s a cold, or as if I’m on one side of a room and same-sex attraction is on a table on the other side of the room and someone enters and says, “Who left their same-sex attraction unattended on this table?” to which I would have to respond, “Oh, sorry, it’s mine, just put it with my things.”
Second, I’m not trying to convince the RCC to change her teachings–if I were, I wouldn’t spend so much time here on these forums! I’m trying to better understand those teachings as well as the sort of life a Roman Catholic same-sex attracted person faithful to those teachings is asked to live.
Personally, though, the thing I find most curious about the teaching is that it seems to understand same-sex attraction as being about homosexual sexual activity as opposed to being about attraction to someone of the same sex. That seems odd and not quite accurate to me. Surely anyone who sees another person as merely instrumental in the performance of an act or repertoire of acts to which they’re actually attracted is, indeed, in a bit of moral trouble regardless of their sexual orientation.
I’m interested to read it, speak. Thank you for the suggestion.
I’ve heard of West, and am passingly familiar with the theology of the body. I’m also familiar with some of the criticisms faithful RC folks have of the theology of the body.
I’m always appreciative of the prayers of others.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
I take this to mean that you could not or would not bother to actually pay attention to what I wrote. That’s fine.Mark,
Too many notes
I think your understandings of faith, hope, love, virtue and imagination are certainly useful and workable–though your definition of hope is a bit self-reflexive and may need a little more explicating: it’s hard to say, “Hope is actually faith” with the expectation that you’re defining something that is perhaps dependent on but not actually identical with something else…even if the difference between them is nuance, the character of that nuance is important and worthy of attention. Regardless, I hope you see that in many respects our understandings of these things overlap, though are not identical. I hope you also see that it’s okay that they’re not identical.
But speaking of hope, I don’t have much of it when it comes to anything particularly edifying coming of our ongoing discussion. I don’t actually believe that you’re interested in a conversation because I don’t believe you can be interested in talking with someone whose views you can’t be bothered to pay attention to or engage with, let alone read. Furthermore, your serial disinterest makes your call to repentance sound perfunctory, rhetorical and solipsistic.
But all that’s quite alright.
I hope your Lenten journey bears an abundance of Easter joy.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
E
epan
Guest
It is not your job to “cure” your brother. Nor is it yours, or your family’s job to judge him.
You will read many opinions on this forum. Some of them are well informed on the topic, there are just as many which are not.
Your brother is an adult. He can make his own choices.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
D
detroitgrass
Guest
So we are not ever to see sin and confront it? If your neighbor was murdered, we should just look the other way. If someone is stealing, we should just ignore it. Please. Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible says judge a sinner. The key here is only God can have final judgment. Let’s not forget what homosexuality is. For a man, it is sticking his penis in another man’s anus. Worse, most homosexuals take advantage of young boys. They usually look for boys that have either not had sex with a girl or are generally not accepted. They usually hang around and just be nice offering car rides, going fishing, playing video games, ect to gain the misguided teenagers trust. Then after awhile, show them some pornography to get them aroused and may give alcohol. Bam, then they perform oral on the young boy. When all else fails they rape him. Then they convince the boy that he has done gay acts and must be gay. The boys usually are embarrassed and will not tell anyone. Eventually, they are convinced the gay man must be right. This is what happens folks, and although the details may be different, this is the game plan. So maybe you want to look the other way. But I for one will not stand to watch. Remember, how things change in culture. First they are:
despised, non-acceptance, non-tolerant, tolerance, than acceptance, then normality.
It does not matter if you are talking about human slavery, Nazis or homosexuality, the culture changes with that sequence (can move in either direction). In the early 70s, gay groups launched an offensive to go after education - the DSM. In the 90s they launched an attack on 3 major groups - marriage, private groups (boy scouts), and military. You see how in just 20 years that sequence has moved. One those three targeted groups lose, gays and their lifestyle will not be able to be changed with the courts defending them.
Watch out folks, the goal is to say, if you are a teenager, and you have not had sex with a girl AND a boy, something is wrong with you. You need to be more open minded.
Liberal TV shows have launched their agenda to have a gay person on every show to say it is normal. It is everywhere and it makes me sick. They have even made the gay kid “cool” and desirable so that those that are not popular will want to be gay just for the acceptability factor. TV shows that once air family shows are now nothing more that shows pushing the gay agenda. And when you complain, they say change the tv station. Guess what, that’s all that is on!
Remember, in MASSACHUSETTS, pre-schoolers are taught a family can mean two mommy’s or two daddy’s. This is the agenda.
Homosexuals need to be taught that their ACTIONS are not accepted, and NOT tolerated. This idea what happens behind close doors is their business is what borders acceptance. This allowance of gays to corrupt innocent kids must stop. Grown men need to understand they cannot ACT on their impure thoughts and look to prayer and counseling to control such urges.
There was a long thread on this last year, which has since been closed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=645336&highlight=gay+cool
I seriously do not believe being “gay” is “cool” or “desirable” in youth culture. If I remember right it’s about the most uncool thing there is.
I certainly didn’t “want to be gay just for the acceptability factor.” I didn’t choose to be “labeled as gay” especially because I wasn’t, and I don’t remember any “acceptability factor,” but I do remember getting my head pushed into a brick wall.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Detroit,
You do have an active imagination, as do I. I imagine that anyone knowing anything about the world can imagine whatever it is to imagine and understand that when discussing something descriptors tend to be judgmental…
Homosexual acts are sinful…should be quite enough. How do we teach that? We say that they are sinful, we point out why they are sinful and we try to be Charitable in that approach. I fail sometimes here however in the context of providing understanding fewer words may be useful.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Signit,
Here is the second to last post in that thread…
This is a person. This person has feelings. There is a great deal of insight found on that thread and your reproducing it should stimulate conversation.
D
djames99
Guest
God’s viewpoint doesn’t make exception to the rule, ie:Either only some are in abomination, or most are, or… What gives scripture credence is that even years after Lev, now in the context of Romans and decadence, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to be a watered down view of the first mention. The Doctors inspired by the Holy Spirit still convey a confidence of what they say.
Visit the Courage site (couragerc.net) for excellent advice. And yes, there may be pathological reasons for this but I think this is a very few cross section of society. But so what is this for a Christian who can move mountains?
No one becomes the transgression. All labels are to be avoided, including the term Gay. The description is homosexual or homosexuality. It is trickery that the devil wants the afflicted to believe. If it were not true, no one could claim an absolute cure as some have through devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
Further still, she can cause cures even in the pathological cases by others who plead for the afflicted. (theholyrosary.org “Promises”). Love is very powerful. A love that stems from amiable relations can blossom to another type. Wondrous is the power of the Holy Spirit.
The judgmental thing as been worked ad nauseum. The fact is, it is every Christian’s duty to fraternally correct his fellow brother and sister. If satan can convince helpers that they are in the wrong, the better for him. A negative reaction from this calls for patience, and it is up to the afflicted to come around to it hopefully.
Now, how this is done of course calls for sensitivity and order. Once one has received an admittance of such a thing personally, and not through rumor or third hand information, the Christian first acts in two ways, damage control and remedy. The appropriate atmosphere is very important. Even if the discussion is commenced by the afflicted in careless hear shot of others, one should remain silent until the appropriate time of privacy, or in session with a self help group or spiritual adviser. He will thank you for this later as remedy begins to have effect and reality sets in. Self help groups call for a little caution however. Because of the prevailing accepted view and the cruelty of secular opinion, perhaps a group from another diocese would be better. Complete anonymity at this time would be helpful, and discretion always of course. Our aim is a new life and the shedding of the skin of the old man.
Damage control and reparation, by telling the victim to sever his ties from people who are supportive of his acting out his condition, and to stop presuming it is permanent. He must stop advertising the devil’s lie. Secular advice that is not in line with Church teaching is tainted advice. For these well meaning people, even if true, it’s source finds it’s compliance to a person who’s disposition believes in selective doctrine and at times is at variance to Church teaching. This manifest is a compounding effect. He needs advice from people who are 100% compliant with Church teaching.
Anyway, a long topic, so this is enough for now.
Visit the Courage site (couragerc.net) for excellent advice. And yes, there may be pathological reasons for this but I think this is a very few cross section of society. But so what is this for a Christian who can move mountains?
No one becomes the transgression. All labels are to be avoided, including the term Gay. The description is homosexual or homosexuality. It is trickery that the devil wants the afflicted to believe. If it were not true, no one could claim an absolute cure as some have through devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
Further still, she can cause cures even in the pathological cases by others who plead for the afflicted. (theholyrosary.org “Promises”). Love is very powerful. A love that stems from amiable relations can blossom to another type. Wondrous is the power of the Holy Spirit.
The judgmental thing as been worked ad nauseum. The fact is, it is every Christian’s duty to fraternally correct his fellow brother and sister. If satan can convince helpers that they are in the wrong, the better for him. A negative reaction from this calls for patience, and it is up to the afflicted to come around to it hopefully.
Now, how this is done of course calls for sensitivity and order. Once one has received an admittance of such a thing personally, and not through rumor or third hand information, the Christian first acts in two ways, damage control and remedy. The appropriate atmosphere is very important. Even if the discussion is commenced by the afflicted in careless hear shot of others, one should remain silent until the appropriate time of privacy, or in session with a self help group or spiritual adviser. He will thank you for this later as remedy begins to have effect and reality sets in. Self help groups call for a little caution however. Because of the prevailing accepted view and the cruelty of secular opinion, perhaps a group from another diocese would be better. Complete anonymity at this time would be helpful, and discretion always of course. Our aim is a new life and the shedding of the skin of the old man.
Damage control and reparation, by telling the victim to sever his ties from people who are supportive of his acting out his condition, and to stop presuming it is permanent. He must stop advertising the devil’s lie. Secular advice that is not in line with Church teaching is tainted advice. For these well meaning people, even if true, it’s source finds it’s compliance to a person who’s disposition believes in selective doctrine and at times is at variance to Church teaching. This manifest is a compounding effect. He needs advice from people who are 100% compliant with Church teaching.
Anyway, a long topic, so this is enough for now.
- Status