Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[CopticChristian]

Excellent. We are agreed that the** Bible contains different versions of marriage.**rossum

Ross,

You appear to be gloating. You believe that there are different versions of marriage in the Bible. Is there marriage of man/billy goat or man/cow or man/sheep or man/angel or man/man or any other abomination in the Bible?

What is your point?

What do you believe that this proves from your point of view?

 

[rossum]

Ross,

You appear to be gloating. You believe that there are different versions of marriage in the Bible. Is there marriage of man/billy goat or man/cow or man/sheep or man/angel or man/man or any other abomination in the Bible?

What is your point?

What do you believe that this proves from your point of view?

My point is that there is not “one original Biblical version” of marriage, since there is more than one version of marriage in the Bible.

Throughout history there have been, and still are, many different versions of marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

Many of those versions of marriage are Biblical, while other have been claimed as Biblical.

rossum

 

[CopticChristian]

My point is that there is not “one original Biblical version” of marriage, since there is more than one version of marriage in the Bible.

Throughout history there have been, and still are, many different versions of marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  *** Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.*** Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  Many of those versions of marriage are Biblical, while other have been claimed as Biblical.

rossum

Rossum,

While sitting under the tree, one learned enlightenment, that the world is not what we cling to and that what we know and what we feel are pains of our own causing…so if you learned that then…

You have ears…let you hear…you have eyes…let you see…you can read let you learn…the Bible is a history and a book that is used by the OHCAC as a means of teaching, revealed from God…given to the Church as the written word…Protestants like it too…

The OHCAC does not claim “biblical teaching”…we claim Church teaching based on Scripture and Tradition…and the OHCAC says that we learn from the head of the Church…Christ…he said…in the beginning it was not so…

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

God, we believe Jesus was God/man…God taught us that there is only one definition of marriage…so learn this…Joseph Smith came long after Jesus and is not God, the OT is explained by Jesus and the purpose of the teaching is one man and one woman, Virginia and California are not in the Bible and Jesus taught this before your putting this list together…Otay…:newidea:

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that there is not “one original Biblical version” of marriage, since there is more than one version of marriage in the Bible.

If you were speaking in a Fundamentalist forum, rossum, that might be a trenchant point, however, as you are speaking to Catholics (mostly), your argument is untenable.

As you know, our views do not come from the Bible. They come from Christ. And Christ spoke of marriage between a man and a woman, becoming One.

 

[Lochias]

If you were speaking in a Fundamentalist forum, rossum, that might be a trenchant point, however, as you are speaking to Catholics (mostly), your argument is untenable.

As you know, our views do not come from the Bible. They come from Christ. And Christ spoke of marriage between a man and a woman, becoming One.

Agreed. It also takes a woefully inadequate understanding of the Bible, it’s history, and the process of exegesis to arrive at the conclusions that rossum is arriving at.

Woefully inadequate, indeed.

 

[In_Training]

Why can’t liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

IF.

“we would leave them alone IF…”

That’s a problem. Who says it’s okay to attack somebody just because they’re mean to you or they don’t agree with you or they shout mean things? Catholics shouldn’t have negative behavior toward anyone, unless it’s someone who’s threatening your life.

You admit in your question that “we,” presumably meaning “Catholics,” don’t leave liberal gay activists alone. That’s also a problem. There isn’t anyone “we” should be attacking.

Some people attack the Catholic church. Not all of them are liberal gay activists. If they want to attack, let them. We demonstrate who we are not by getting involved in attacks, but by practicing the grace of forgiveness. People will always find reasons to “attack” the Catholic church…if it isn’t this group or that group, it’ll be Mr. Smith in Accounting or Ms. Jones down the street. We are **not **dependent upon other groups for our survival.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a great example of what a Catholic is, but I do know what I’m supposed to be doing, and attacking people isn’t on that list.

 

[CopticChristian]

IF.

“we would leave them alone IF…”

That’s a problem. Who says it’s okay to attack somebody just because they’re mean to you or they don’t agree with you or they shout mean things? Catholics shouldn’t have negative behavior toward anyone, unless it’s someone who’s threatening your life.

You admit in your question that “we,” presumably meaning “Catholics,” don’t leave liberal gay activists alone. That’s also a problem. There isn’t anyone “we” should be attacking.

Some people attack the Catholic church. Not all of them are liberal gay activists. If they want to attack, let them. We demonstrate who we are not by getting involved in attacks, but by practicing the grace of forgiveness. People will always find reasons to “attack” the Catholic church…if it isn’t this group or that group, it’ll be Mr. Smith in Accounting or Ms. Jones down the street. We are **not **dependent upon other groups for our survival.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a great example of what a Catholic is, but I do know what I’m supposed to be doing, and attacking people isn’t on that list.

In,

The notion of “attack” has to be understood…to speak out and say “there is no such thing as gay”…is this an attack?..to say “homosexual behavior is disordered”…is this an attack?..to say that I believe that homosexuality is a choice…is that an attack?..

What is an attack?..it is perception…I agree…attack no one…speak out, say no…disagree…what is an attack?

Help me understand what you believe an attack is?

 

[In_Training]

In,

The notion of “attack” has to be understood…to speak out and say “there is no such thing as gay”…is this an attack?..to say “homosexual behavior is disordered”…is this an attack?..to say that I believe that homosexuality is a choice…is that an attack?..

What is an attack?..it is perception…I agree…attack no one…speak out, say no…disagree…what is an attack?

Help me understand what you believe an attack is?

That question can be answered by the OP who posed the original question. OP is the one who chose the word “attack.”

You wouldn’t want someone telling you, homosexuality IS a real thing and Christianity is disordered, would you? How would that make you feel when you believe you know the truth, and someone is spitting in your face for expressing that truth (instead of just kindly saying, I disagree)?

Most people’s problems with the church begin with the notion that Catholics can’t just agree to disagree, they have to be right all the time and in fact DON’T leave anyone alone. That is the hype that drives many anti-Catholics. However, there are Catholics out there who simply pray for others to find peace instead of spitting in their faces and calling them disordered. My cousin has bipolar disorder and it’s difficult but I wouldn’t go up to him and say, “you’re disordered and I believe that’s a choice, so cut it out.” Which leads to another point - you’re saying people with disorders choose to have them?

Why are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to have beliefs? People are allowed to not be Catholic.

My main point in response to the OP was, it sounds like you’re responding to bad behavior with bad behavior. Just because someone is “wrong” doesn’t mean we are allowed to attack them. Disapproving is okay…attacking is not. No matter what the other side did.

 

[PRmerger]

My main point in response to the OP was, it sounds like you’re responding to bad behavior with bad behavior. Just because someone is “wrong” doesn’t mean we are allowed to attack them. Disapproving is okay…attacking is not. No matter what the other side did.

I don’t think you’ll find a single Catholic here who will proclaim that it’s okay to attack a homosexual.

So what you are arguing against is a strawman, In Training.

You mentioned earlier something about “spitting in your face”–well, that, too, is something that I doubt you’ll find a single Catholic arguing for.

Really, In Training, all we are saying, essentially, is that homosexuality is disordered.

You do believe that Catholics can maintain this position, yes?

 

[CopticChristian]

That question can be answered by the OP who posed the original question. OP is the one who chose the word “attack.”

You wouldn’t want someone telling you, homosexuality IS a real thing and Christianity is disordered, would you? How would that make you feel when you believe you know the truth, and someone is spitting in your face for expressing that truth (instead of just kindly saying, I disagree)?

Most people’s problems with the church begin with the notion that Catholics can’t just agree to disagree, they have to be right all the time and in fact DON’T leave anyone alone. That is the hype that drives many anti-Catholics. However, there are Catholics out there who simply pray for others to find peace instead of spitting in their faces and calling them disordered. My cousin has bipolar disorder and it’s difficult but I wouldn’t go up to him and say, “you’re disordered and I believe that’s a choice, so cut it out.” Which leads to another point - you’re saying people with disorders choose to have them?

Why are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to have beliefs? People are allowed to not be Catholic.

My main point in response to the OP was, it sounds like you’re responding to bad behavior with bad behavior. Just because someone is “wrong” doesn’t mean we are allowed to attack them. Disapproving is okay…attacking is not. No matter what the other side did.

The OP uses the word attack in refernce to attacks on the Church…

Re: Why can’t liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

you said…

Catholics shouldn’t have negative behavior toward anyone, unless it’s someone who’s threatening your life.

You admit in your question that “we,” presumably meaning “Catholics,” don’t leave liberal gay activists alone. That’s also a problem. There isn’t anyone “we” should be attacking.

You reference that we should not be attacking…

So I asked an posited what is and who decides what is and what is not an attack…

My main point in response to the OP was, it sounds like you’re responding to bad behavior with bad behavior. Just because someone is “wrong” doesn’t mean we are allowed to attack them. Disapproving is okay…attacking is not. No matter what the other side did.

You conclude with attack and the question who decides what is and what is not an attack. What I want to point out is that this is Catholic Answers, a forum, where I as a Catholic can express my Catholic views…the Catechism says that homosexuality is disordered based on Scripture and Tradition…this is a fact…

This information comes from the OHCAC Catechism, the magesterium, that teaches…

Homosexuals have the American Psychiatric Association that has no credibility and has changed the meaning of homosexuality and want me to accept it and since the APA has no authority over anyone and no credibility what they say means nothing.

So help me understand what an attack is?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You wouldn’t want someone telling you, homosexuality IS a real thing and Christianity is disordered, would you?

It happens all the time. Occasionally by the homosexual lobby, but more often by their aggressive supporters on the Left, using the media as a hammer of attack. It’s pretty much daily on -]MSNBC/-] MSLGB.

My cousin has bipolar disorder and it’s difficult but I wouldn’t go up to him and say, “you’re disordered and I believe that’s a choice, so cut it out.”

Bipolarity is not analogous to homosexual behavior.

Why are Catholics the only ones who are allowed to have beliefs?

Which Catholics have claimed that?

 

[livingwordunity]

"Militant gays is a term to describe the intolerant behavior of homosexual activists that seek to intimidate, suppress, vandalize, and assault anybody that opposes their homosexual movement. Militant gays seek civil rights, marriage for their same-sex partners, adoption of children, and federal and state benefits. They try to indoctrinate younger generations, organize protests to further their agenda and oppose traditional family values. Harmless Christians are almost always their target.

Militant gays have powerful allies including Democrats, Hollywood, Big Media and last but not least lawyers. When they are denied their agenda by legal means or through the democratic process, the results are mob assaults, death threats and vandalism.

Examples of morally offensive, anti-American behavior

The radical homosexual anarchist group known as “Bash Back! planned for over a month the assault on the Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms. Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded, “This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland.”

Mass Resistance has compiled a list of militant gay actions in the wake of California’s successful Proposition 8 campaign.

More than 200 protesters screamed and chanted in front of the Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles during Sunday services, intimidating families. 

In Palm Springs, an enraged crowd of homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross. 

Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church was targeted, a swastika constructed. Same situation occurred targeting parishioners at a Catholic church in Riverside, Ca. 

A disgusting anti-Mormon TV ad was broadcast across California, portraying LDS missionaries invading a home of lesbians. 

Several thousand homosexual activists rioted at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles 

Lesbians parked a van with a big sign "Bigots" in front of a Mormon family's house (parents and five kids) near San Francisco. 

A Mormon church near Sacramento was spray-painted with "No on 8" . 

A Sacramento theater director was forced to resign from his job after it was revealed that he had given a $1000 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 committee. 

There were instances of cars vandalized with Hate 8 engraved with a knife.

Gay activists have disrupted and viciously vandalized churches nationwide for their stances against gay “marriage.”"

Source

 

[In_Training]

No, I’m still learning. I went through 12 years of Catholic school and realized I’d learned absolutely nothing about being a Catholic, so I had to start over.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I’m still learning. I went through 12 years of Catholic school and realized I’d learned absolutely nothing about being a Catholic, so I had to start over.

In,

Ma friend…I went to 12 years of Catholic School…was assaulted by Protestants that insisted I had to become “Christian”…as a result I turned to apologetics, and the CAF…I then started reading, studying, went through a series of studies by Scott Hahn and others…spent more time reading Encyclicals, the Catechism…and on and on…and I am still learning…it is good to admit that you are starting over…I start over every day I wake up…I learn from others on these threads…there are some pretty…smart fellers here and I learn lots from them…Conversion is a journey, an ongoing process…Paul as you recall in time said early

I am the least of the Apostles

later

I am the least of the Saints

last

I am the greatest of sinners…

We all have to start somewhere…

 

[Rhuarc]

I think the people who remain in the Church to stir up dissent rather than moving onto a denomination that agrees with them will suffer even greater in hell than those that fell into apostasy.

 

[In_Training]

I learn from others on these threads…there are some pretty…smart fellers here and I learn lots from them…Conversion is a journey, an ongoing process…

We all have to start somewhere…

 

[GraceSofia]

My point is that there is not “one original Biblical version” of marriage, since there is more than one version of marriage in the Bible.

Throughout history there have been, and still are, many different versions of marriage:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

Many of those versions of marriage are Biblical, while other have been claimed as Biblical.

rossum

The thing to notice about your list is that, from the beginning, marriage has always involved MALE + FEMALE. At times and in places it has involved one man and more than one woman, or one woman and more than one man, but the key was and is MALE + FEMALE. The few months in recent California history was a blip on the screen of history and caused by a homosexual judge with an agenda who should have recused himself. Another blip which homosexualists like to bring up is the psychopathic Nero, but again, his contemporaries knew that his proclivity was not the norm.

“In the beginning…” In the Old Testament, in Genesis 1 and 2, God creates man and woman and institutes marriage.

John Paul II wrote:

This image and likeness of God, which is essential for the human being, is passed on by the man and woman, as spouses and parents, to their descendants: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1: 28). The Creator entrusts dominion over the earth to the human race, to all persons, to all men and women, who derive their dignity and vocation from the common “beginning”.
…]
From the very beginning they appear as a “unity of the two”, and this signifies that the original solitude is overcome, the solitude in which man does not find “a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). Is it only a question here of a “helper” in activity, in “subduing the earth” (cf. Gen 1: 28)? Certainly it is a matter of a life’s companion, with whom, as a wife, the man can unite himself, becoming with her “one flesh” and for this reason leaving “his father and his mother” (cf. Gen 2: 24). Thus in the same context as the creation of man and woman, the biblical account speaks of God’s instituting marriage as an indispensable condition for the transmission of life to new generations, the transmission of life to which marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordered: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

Then in the New Testament, Jesus again talks about ***true marriage. ***

It is truly significant that in his important discussion about marriage and its indissolubility, in the presence of “the Scribes”, who by profession were experts in the Law, Jesus makes reference to the “beginning”. The question asked concerns a man’s right “to divorce one’s wife for any cause” (Mt 19:3) and therefore also concerns the woman’s right, her rightful position in marriage, her dignity. The questioners think they have on their side the Mosaic legislation then followed in Israel: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Mt 19: 7). Jesus answers: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19: 8). Jesus appeals to the “beginning”, to the creation of man as male and female and their ordering by God himself, which is based upon the fact that both were created “in his image and likeness”. Therefore, when “a man shall leave his father and mother and is joined to his wife, so that the two become one flesh”, there remains in force the law which comes from God himself: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19: 6).

~ John Paul II in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM On the dignity of women which should be required reading for anybody interested in the topic of marriage.

 

[GraceSofia]

It happens all the time. Occasionally by the homosexual lobby, but more often by their aggressive supporters on the Left, using the media as a hammer of attack. It’s pretty much daily on -]MSNBC/-] MSLGB.

Bipolarity is not analogous to homosexual behavior.

Which Catholics have claimed that?

"Militant gays is a term to describe the intolerant behavior of homosexual activists that seek to intimidate, suppress, vandalize, and assault anybody that opposes their homosexual movement.
.
.
. Source

 

[Bradski]

Really, In Training, all we are saying, essentially, is that homosexuality is disordered

Do you live somewhere where it is considered a disorder by the relevant experts? I sincerely hope that you don’t.

 

[rossum]

Do you live somewhere where it is considered a disorder by the relevant experts? I sincerely hope that you don’t.

I suspect that PRmerger considers Catholic theologians to be “relevant experts”.

rossum