S
Seeker1961
Guest
Fortunately, many of us understand the difference between Christ’s followers and Christ.
- Status
P
Portofino
Guest
:tiphat:“Chapeau,” as the French say
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Right on. And what did Jesus say? Your sins are forgiven. Go, and sin no more. "Nuff said.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Gay “marriage” was not an issue in Jesus’ time, so why should he talk about it? Besides, as the Apostle John said, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21: 25). Furthermore, Catholicism is not based on sola scriptura, and I don’t believe that even the most sola scriptura Protestant would consider the absence of a verse wherein Jesus proscribes a sin under the Law to mean that He would condone said sin. Finally, Christians don’t even need to quote the Old Testament, wherein homosexuality is indeed declared an abomination (Lev. 18:22, 20: 13). This passage from the apostle Paul will suffice: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Rom. 1: 26).
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Again with the hate and persecution brush. Say it as many times as you like, it won’t make it true.
M
markeverett49
Guest
I agree. It’s one thing to say that not all Old Testament moral claims bind Christians but it’s another thing to say that Paul isn’t here condemning homosexual acts.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
I thought most temptations were from the flesh and the world and only a few from the evil one
At least what a Miles Christi priest said
Shalom
God bless
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Certainly temptation comes as a result of our sinful nature, as well as from the devil. However I think there is a trend in modern Catholicism to discount the power of the devil, or even to deny his existence entirely. This latter view is most disturbing and is in fact heretical. Scripture tells us of two occasions when Christ Himself was tempted by the evil one.
I think that the lapse among Catholics in praying to St. Michael after every Mass is in part at fault for this disconnection to belief in an evil fallen angel and in his objectives. Since many Catholics no longer pray the Rosary, they aren’t connecting with St. Michael there either.
And isn’t it just like Satan, to try to convince us that he doesn’t exist, or isn’t behind the concerted effort to forsake divine and natural law, to legitimize perversion and to subvert the Holy Sacrament of Marriage?
None of the above is intended to dispute with what a Miles Christi priest may say. I wholeheartedly support the charism, spirituality, mission and liturgical practices of the Miles Christi Religious Order!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
The vast majority of temptation is the result of concupiscence; demons don’t focus on the minnows, they focus on the big fish.
K
kompaz
Guest
Actually… In Luke 7:1-10 there is a story of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. The twist is, the servant is referred to using the Greek word pais, which was a slang term for a homosexual lover.
Now, some dispute this interpretation, pointing out that pais is used elsewhere in the text to mean a slave/servant. But think about it for a moment. If pais actually means a homosexual lover, then the story makes a lot more sense. Why would the centurion go and seek Jesus, if the sick one was a mere, expendable slave? Wouldn’t having an emotional relationship with the sick one make actually going through such effort more probable?
If this interpretation is true, then Jesus did not see the nature of their relationship as an obstacle for healing. There were no conditions attached. Jesus healed the guy’s pais, remotely at that, because he was impressed with his faith. And if so, how does anyone, including the Pope, have authority to build a wall between a gay Christian and Jesus?
B
BroomWagon
Guest
That’s interesting, new one on me and I’ve already consulted with one person who knows the Bible well on this. A central part of the Mass comes from this section of Luke (Matthew too?) where we say before Holy Communion, “Lord, I am not willing to receive you but only say the words and I shall be healed.”
In fact, I would think surely this has been discussed in these forums before if not, worthy of its own thread.
M
markeverett49
Guest
For whom was this a slang term? Rabbis? Given that the term is used by the same author in the non-slang way—to mean a servant—I should think you need evidence to show why this case it means something else.
When you say “expendable” servant, I wonder if you’re thinking of chattel slavery, which is not what the Romans practiced. Many teachers were servants—it didn’t make them despised, much less ‘expendable.’
F
Faithdancer
Guest
And I’m not surprised that one of the unbelievers brought up the passage. It is often thrown up as an attempt to prove that Christ condoned homosexuality. The problem is, only a small minority of “scholars” support the loose translation that they claim the revisionist historical interpretation of the passage, and the bias of these “scholars” is well known.
It’s really amusing in a strange sort of way, when unbelievers attempt to use Scripture to back up their wild assertions, especially on a website where there are a number of folks who have spent years, even decades, engaged in serious biblical scholarship. Well, I guess we could admire their brashness, if nothing else.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I believe that the power of Satan is real and he will take anyone he can get, at any time, particularly those who are striving to deepen their faith and lead more saintly lives- if that is who you mean by “big fish.” We can also see him at work as the master of deception in the work of those who seek to convince everyone that homosexual activity is not sinful, and that the Sacrament of Marriage is obsolete.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
By big fish I mean people who matter in the grand scheme of things. Unlike God, Satan is a finite being and thus can only do so much, necessitating hefocuses his energy where he can cause the most damage.
People don’t want to be criticised for their actions, this is a very common thing thus many homosexuals try to convince people that homosexual acts are okay and want to be able to be married to get societal recognition. I feel that many of these people do feel “in love” and since heterosexuals have debased marriage to the point where it is only about “loving the other person” and that children need not be involved they don’t understand why they can marry. Indeed it doesn’t make sense that they can’t marry when they love the person and marriage is only about love, that was caused by heterosexuals being selfish. Some of them want to be able to have sex with someone they love and some of them just want sex. Do you know who made it so that sex is only about love? Heterosexuals with the pill. Do you know who made casual sex okay? Heterosexuals.
They are simply logically extending what heterosexuals have started. Heterosexuals don’t want to consider that they caused this mess because then they’d have to blame themselves and who honestly wants to do that.
F
fix
Guest
And how do you know this? The bible? Who compiled the bible
?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Kompaz,
Whatever twist you think it is, it isn’t, this stuff of reinterpritation is all over the internet by those promoting gay/christianity. It is bunk.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Totally. Also, with regard to the earlier statement that supposedly Jesus had nothing to say on the subject: Of course he didn’t. The Gospels were News, as in something different. It was kerygma. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it wouldnoy for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting kerygma, and no Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.
The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Certainly there are many heterosexuals who have behaved immorally, and have failed marriages, and have divorced all too easily. But heterosexual marriage is still the only marriage approved in Heaven. And I disagree with your premise that homosexuals were not promiscuous until heterosexuals somehow taught them that it was okay to be promiscuous.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
By allowing no fault divorces and them becoming common heterosexuals devalued the permanence of marriage, when they started using birth control and abortion came around they removed the societal expectation of children. If the procreative aspect of marriage has become irrelevant then logically there is no argument against couples who are absolutely incapable of reproducing. If it’s okay for heterosexuals to be promiscuous then homosexuals should be allowed to be promiscuous too.
Heterosexuals have devalued and debased marriage to the point where heterosexuals can see themselves fitting in as married, they see there is a new normal so they want to be part of it too. In the 1950’s and 1960’s homosexuals ridiculed the concept of gay marriage because of things associated with it such as prosecution for adultery, and the lack of no-fault divorces etc. Then prosecution for adultery went away, no-fault divorces became the law of the land and now many want marriages because it is all rights and no social responsibilities these days.
No marriages happen in Heaven.
I didn’t claim that they weren’t promiscuous until they were taught, I claimed that when it became morally acceptable for heterosexuals to be promiscuous many homosexuals wanted that too.
- Status