Why do you refute a charge that you are "homophobe?"

[lak611]

“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers–none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11,
NRSV)

Yes, it is possible for homosexuals to be saved. But they must repent of their sinful lifestyle and live chaste lives once they become Christians or return to the Christian faith. All sex that is not between a husband and wife is sinful, according to the Bible. Homosexual relations, fornication and adultery are ALL equally evil. I don’t hate homosexuals. Because I love them, I must point out the fact that they are sinning and urge them to repent. This does not make me a “homophobe”, it makes me a Christian.

 

[JoeyWarren]

We were? What, exactly, were we wrong about?

As to the article, he spends a great deal of time obfuscating statistics and stating the obvious - homosexual acts aren’t bad because the Bible condemns them (he’s right - it doesn’t) - homosexual acts are bad because they go contrary to marriage.

The Bible doesn’t need to say anything about homosexuality: everything that it teaches us about marriage tells us that homosexual acts are in no way like marriage - and therefore (since the Bible also teaches us that any kind of sex outside of marriage is mortal sin), they are perversions to be avoided.

I am also offended on behalf of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Junior, both of whom were upstanding family men, that this guy uses their images to promote his perverted cause.

The homosexual agenda is nothing at all like the struggle of India to be free of British colonialism, nor is it anything like the struggle of Black Americans for voting rights in America, since persons of homosexual orientation are free to vote, and free of the oppression of colonial rule. (And if they’re not, it’s not because they’re of homosexual orientation.)

Homosexuals have total freedom - the only things they can’t do are get married and have children - and no law of man will ever overcome those two problems, try though it may.

Of course we were wrong! Just as were wrong on other issues as well.

In 1632 the scientist Galileo (who was a man of faith) dared to support the radical 15th-century idea of Copernicus that all planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun. Immediately, Galileo was proclaimed a heretic by the Pope who quoted Scriptures in his attempt to disprove what science was proving.

We imprisoned Galileo based on the current truth that we believed. Later science proved that we were wrong in our literal interpretation. Finally Pope JP II issued a statement.

In 1992, 359 years later, Pope John Paul II finally admitted the church had been wrong to ignore science and to interpret the Bible literally.

Back in time the current truth was that segragation was okay. Now he have a new truth.

Jerry Falwell believed the Bible supported segregation in the church until a black shoeshine man asked him, “When will someone like me be allowed to become a member of your congregation?” Through those simple words, the Holy Spirit spoke new truth about the ancient biblical texts to the Rev. Falwell, and in obedience he ended segregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Back in time, the current truth was that Heretics had to be put to death. At some time we were given a new truth. We are to not kill Heretics.

Back in time the current truth was that it was a sin to even be homosexual let alone act upon it. Now we have a new truth, It is okay to be homosexual because we know now that they are born homosexual but it is still a sin to act upon it. That is more like a cruel joke. It’s like God is saying: “I made you a homosexual but you cannot act upon what I made you”

Back in time, the current truth was that no one outside the Catholic Church had salvation. The new truth is that there is now salvation outside of the Catholic church.

Wanna argue about what is natural and unnatural?

It’s not natural for a man to shave his faces. It defeats God’s original design of us. If God intended us to be clean shaving he would have created us to not grow facial hair.

It’s not natural for a woman to shave her armpits and legs. It defeats God’s orignal design of us. If God intended woman to be hairless on the armpits and legs he would have made created us as such.

It’s not natural for us to neutralize or prevent our underarm odor. God created that odor for a reason. In essence we are saying: “God you messed up on the armpit thing, we are correcting the goof up”.

C-section is not natural. We have decided to overrule God and say that every child should live and/or every mother should live who otherwise without technology would die at childbirth. You may argue that God gave us intelligence to overcome this. The same intelligence that says it’s okay to be a homosexual(provided you don’t act upon it).

Should I continue?

 

[sassygal1973]

I also think God made hygiene…teehee

 

[JoeyWarren]

I also think God made hygiene…teehee

 

[fix]

Of course we were wrong! Just as were wrong on other issues as well.

We imprisoned Galileo based on the current truth that we believed. Later science proved that we were wrong in our literal interpretation. Finally Pope JP II issued a statement.

I think you are misreading the issue.

…Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility. …

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Wanna argue about what is natural and unnatural?

It’s not natural for a man to shave his faces. It defeats God’s original design of us. If God intended us to be clean shaving he would have created us to not grow facial hair.

It’s not natural for a woman to shave her armpits and legs. It defeats God’s orignal design of us. If God intended woman to be hairless on the armpits and legs he would have made created us as such.

It’s not natural for us to neutralize or prevent our underarm odor. God created that odor for a reason. In essence we are saying: “God you messed up on the armpit thing, we are correcting the goof up”.

C-section is not natural. We have decided to overrule God and say that every child should live and/or every mother should live who otherwise without technology would die at childbirth. You may argue that God gave us intelligence to overcome this. The same intelligence that says it’s okay to be a homosexual(provided you don’t act upon it).

Should I continue?

No, because by natural the Church is talking about the natural end of the act as in the natural moral law. We are talking of moral acts.

 

[jmcrae]

1. Galileo’s theory was incorrect - he believed that the sun stands still and that the planets travel in perfect circles around it. Not so - the sun is also in motion, and the planets travel around it in irregular elipses; not circles.
2. He was put under house arrest for insisting that his theory be taught as dogma in the Churches and for disrupting Mass to promulgate his theory; not for having a theory that contradicted the common understanding of the Scriptures. Copernicus had similar theories, but never experienced any kind of “punishment” for having them. (And it was Copernicus’ theory that eventually turned out to be correct: not Galileo’s.)
3. He was not burned at the stake; he was placed under house arrest.
4. He was not forbidden to publish his theories: if he had been, none of us would ever have even heard of him. His books were on the Forbidden Index, but he was never actually prevented from publishing them.
5. I have it on good authority from a current member of the Academy of Sciences that if he had behaved toward the modern day Academy of Sciences in the same way that he behaved toward the Church in his own day, he would have been unceremoniously bounced out the front door on his head, his work would never have been published to begin with, and he would have lost his teaching certificate.

In other words, he’s lucky that all he had to deal with was the Inquisition.

 

[JoeyWarren]

1. Galileo’s theory was incorrect - he believed that the sun stands still and that the planets travel in perfect circles around it. Not so - the sun is also in motion, and the planets travel around it in irregular elipses; not circles.

nit picking?

Galileo was more right then the church? Yes or No?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Back to the original OP question:

1. First of, it’s a blantant ad hominem, not adding anything to their argument.
2. Secondly, it does not follow that one whom critizes the morality another’s action that one fears the person. Example: I can criticize divorce, but it does not follow that I fear divorcees.
3. Thirdly, this accusation confuses the action with the person himself.

 

[Jason_Hurd]

1. Galileo’s theory was incorrect - he believed that the sun stands still and that the planets travel in perfect circles around it. Not so - the sun is also in motion, and the planets travel around it in irregular elipses; not circles.

Your examples do not address the main reason the Church was upset with Galileo: he posited a heliocentric galaxy rather than a geocentric one. While you are technically correct, your examples stand beside the main point of contention and do not nullify Galileo’s idea.

 

[BryPGuy89]

My #1 favortie response to “Are you homophobic?”: Absolutely, I have a fear of anything that results in the desctruction of humanity.

SG

I doubt us homosexuals or those with SSA (what ever title floats your fancy) are capapable of destroying the human race or the root cause of any problems in this world.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Don’t bother refuting it.
Just say “Outta my face you filthy Sodomite!”
That’s what I do.
WP

That is homophbic on the other hand.

 

[JoeyWarren]

No, because by natural the Church is talking about the natural end of the act as in the natural moral law. We are talking of moral acts.

The constitution of what a moral act is or is not is personal opinion.

That gay pastor had valid points. There are specific reasons why certain things in the bible were written that no longer apply today.

What is natural morality?

In my navy days I always pondered this. This happened on the submarine I was on. Some guy brought a porn movie on patrol on a submarine. Nearly everybody would watch it (tells you something about the christianity level of sub-sailors ) well anyway, when it came to two guys having sex, they would fastforward thru it but would not fast forward when two girls were having sex.

To them it is was more moral for women to have sex with each other then for men to have sex with each other. I first thought this moral distinction to be more prone for men, but when i visited some XXX bars, I found that women were equally disgusted watching two men get it on, but were somewhat indifferent when two women got it on.

Acts of Immorality and Morality are in the eye of the beholder and the evaluator.

Like I said earlier, it was the churches position that even claiming to be gay was a sin much less acting upon it. New truth rears it’s head about them being born with it and now the church says it is okay to be gay. Just don’t act on it.

Am I a homophobe? You betcha. Not for the same reasons as most. I personally find the act very nasty, but I have to temper my own feelings with “Enlightened Common Sense” ( a phrase I think came from Dr Hahn ) and reasoning.

We no longer believe a woman is to be silent in the church, we no longer believe a woman has to have her head covered. New truths and enlightments have cleared these barriers to growth.

There are a lot of things that were once believed and now not believed because they only pertained and were relevant to the culture of those it was written to.

 

[jmcrae]

Your examples do not address the main reason the Church was upset with Galileo: he posited a heliocentric galaxy rather than a geocentric one.

So did Copernicus. Under the same Pope, and in the same city. Nothing bad ever happened to Copernicus.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Your examples do not address the main reason the Church was upset with Galileo: he posited a heliocentric galaxy rather than a geocentric one. While you are technically correct, your examples stand beside the main point of contention and do not nullify Galileo’s idea.

He was nit picking. He missed the context of what is being said, just as he accuses protestants of not grabbing the context of a specific span of scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

nit picking?

It wouldn’t be “nit picking” if the Church had bowed down to Galileo and made his theory to be a Dogma of the Church, which was what he wanted.

Galileo was more right then the church? Yes or No?

Galileo had a theory about astronomy. The Church does not teach science.

The reason the Church refused to make Galileo’s theory a Dogma of the Church was that it does not teach science; not because of the merits of the theory.

If the Church had bowed to him, and had made it a Dogma of the Church, then yes, the Church would have been found to be very fallible, indeed, when the new evidence came in concerning the errors in his theory.

 

[JoeyWarren]

So did Copernicus. Under the same Pope, and in the same city. Nothing bad ever happened to Copernicus.

My God jmcrae, get your facts straight:

Copernicus lived from 1473 to 1453 and was a Bishop.

Galileo lived from 1564 to 1642 and was not clergy.

Under the same Pope?

Come now.

GALILEO WAS BORN 11 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF CONPERNICUS

 

[JimO]

When the discussion is reduced to name calling, it’s pretty much over as a discussion. When someone calls you a “homophobe”, it just means that they have no further interest in the discussion, if they ever really did in the first place. “Homophobe” seems to be the most degrading thing that moral conservatives can be called in a PC world, but when you get right down to it, it’s no different than someone trying to end a debate by saying “your momma.”

 

[jmcrae]

My God jmcrae, get your facts straight:

Copernicus lived from 1473 to 1453 and was a Bishop.

Galileo lived from 1564 to 1642 and was not clergy.

Under the same Pope?

Come now.

GALILEO WAS BORN 11 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF CONPERNICUS

OOOPS ya got me. (Too much TV - there’s a show that has them having a conversation together, and I was thinking of that show.)

BUT, nothing bad ever happened to Copernicus. Who had a very similar theory. Right?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Also Galileo was a local whereas Copernicus was distant from Rome. Also C worked on his theories years later from ordination as Bishop.

 

[JimO]

Wow! I didn’t read the whole thread, but you two guys are really confusing me on this Galileo and Copernicus thing. Does that make me an Astrophobe?