Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

[Elizabeth502]

Here is the contradiction which many of us see repeatedly in discussions of this sort.

If one is an atheist (or a non-theist), why would you care about what Catholics believe? Second, why would you (anyone) be so persistent about arguing against beliefs which you find (variously) humorous, ridiculous, absurd, embarrassing, nonsensical, illogical, etc.? Third, why would you care about social positions held by various religious groups?

It seems that most Catholics are not threatened by the opinions of atheists and their demonstrated opposition to religion. As long as Catholics are not prevented from their Constitutional Free Exercise of Religion (individually and as an institution), most Catholics are unconcerned about “silencing” atheists, not to mention having no interest in interminably visiting atheists’ blogs and message boards in an effort to “convince” them how wrong they are.

I have a sense of quiet self-assurance about my religious beliefs. That is also true for people of many other faith traditions (Jews, Protestants of various sects, Muslims, etc.)

I do not observe that atheists on this discussion forum are quietly self-assured, however. If they were, they would not bother to visit, open threads, and argue endlessly about why Catholics have certain moral positions. Rather, they would find the Catholic opinion irrelevant.

Odd, that those who find Catholicism most irrelevant are the ones who most demand the approval of Catholics and their Church.

 

[saveusfromhell]

I concur with this observation: there is a tremendous amount of anti-gay rhetoric that imply, both in tone and substance, animosity towards gays. To me, this is an obvious fact of reality, but I understand it may be difficult for those who advance anti-gay rhetoric to view their speech in that way.

it seems you don’t grasp the concept of the sin not the sinner.otherwise please quote the posts your talking about. generalisation re posters doesn’t work and adds nothing to a debate.
if there was a thread opened on any aspect of the teachings of the church on sexual matters it would meet with the same stance from catholics towards it as any thread that proportes to normalise within the teachings of the church gay relationships .

 

[saveusfromhell]

Here is the contradiction which many of us see repeatedly in discussions of this sort.

If one is an atheist (or a non-theist), why would you care about what Catholics believe? Second, why would you (anyone) be so persistent about arguing against beliefs which you find (variously) humorous, ridiculous, absurd, embarrassing, nonsensical, illogical, etc.? Third, why would you care about social positions held by various religious groups?

It seems that most Catholics are not threatened by the opinions of atheists and their demonstrated opposition to religion. As long as Catholics are not prevented from their Constitutional Free Exercise of Religion (individually and as an institution), most Catholics are unconcerned about “silencing” atheists, not to mention having no interest in interminably visiting atheists’ blogs and message boards in an effort to “convince” them how wrong they are.

I have a sense of quiet self-assurance about my religious beliefs. That is also true for people of many other faith traditions (Jews, Protestants of various sects, Muslims, etc.)

I do not observe that atheists on this discussion forum are quietly self-assured, however. If they were, they would not bother to visit, open threads, and argue endlessly about why Catholics have certain moral positions. Rather, they would find the Catholic opinion irrelevant.

Odd, that those who find Catholicism most irrelevant are the ones who most demand the approval of Catholics and their Church.

 

[Crescentinus]

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, another great post by Elizabeth…then it sure got quiet here all of sudden!

“having no interest in interminably visiting atheists’ blogs and message boards in an effort to “convince” them how wrong they are” So true. I visited one, and it was full of the most hateful, vile and even pornographic cartoons and photo-shopped pictures mocking the pope and the clergy…it made me angry, then very sad. I definitely don’t think that particular site is representative of all unbelievers by any means, but it does seem as if a few of those who frequent that site may have found their way here.

p.s. don’t ask me for the url of that website- even if I remembered it I wouldn’t post it as it would be a serious sin to do so, considering the content.

 

[BroomWagon]

Yes, another great post by Elizabeth…then it sure got quiet here all of sudden!

“having no interest in interminably visiting atheists’ blogs and message boards in an effort to “convince” them how wrong they are” So true. I visited one, and it was full of the most hateful, vile and even pornographic cartoons and photo-shopped pictures mocking the pope and the clergy…it made me angry, then very sad. I definitely don’t think that particular site is representative of all unbelievers by any means, but it does seem as if a few of those who frequent that site may have found their way here.

p.s. don’t ask me for the url of that website- even if I remembered it I wouldn’t post it as it would be a serious sin to do so, considering the content.

Away from here, I know of 2 atheists who are humane and discuss issues rationally, for ex. “why would we see so much suffering”, things like that. So, personally, I think a number of them are very earnest indeed. I might even conjecture it is 40% of them who discuss topics respectfully, so much so, I think one of the ones I know almost secretly wants to believe.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Away from here, I know of 2 atheists who are humane and discuss issues rationally,

And I surely know of more than 2. However, that was not, of course, my point. Those not here are not the issue, as they are not the ones feverishly composing arguments.

 

[epan]

Quote: “Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.”

They have a demon. These will keep you away from holy things. The life the Church calls us to is the opposite of a life of soul-destruction. So it is opposed by those who love evil.

People given over to serious sin will find very many clever aways of talking over their conscience.

I read a good satire about a fictional ‘gay’ Lutheran minister being reconciled with his parish. The author substituted the word ‘homosexual’ with the word ‘vampire’. The idea was to wake people out of their acceptance of this proclivity, which is forbidden.

e.g. "I have prayed and prayed to God over my vampiric tendencies and I’ve learned to love myself. God wouldn’t have given me this desire to drink blood if he hadn’t wanted me to do it. Vampires are people, too. Love the sinner, hate the sin " Pastor Damien was welcomed back with open arms by a supportive congreation. “My son is a vamipire”, said one lady. “I always knew he was, growing up. We’ve come to terms with it. What can’t people just be nice?”

So, would this point of view be safely categorized as “demonizing” others, whom you misunderstand?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Here is the contradiction which many of us see repeatedly in discussions of this sort.

If one is an atheist (or a non-theist), why would you care about what Catholics believe? Second, why would you (anyone) be so persistent about arguing against beliefs which you find (variously) humorous, ridiculous, absurd, embarrassing, nonsensical, illogical, etc.? Third, why would you care about social positions held by various religious groups?

1. It’s interesting to learn the beliefs of others, especially when you live in a society where the majority of people share those beliefs or similar variants of them. In fact, I’d say it’s essential.
2. Christians are a fairly large voting group, and the church and its teachings can influence many people. Christians also believe that their morality is objective, is the truth, and many of them seek to have their morality made into law. Being an atheist, people also try to convert you especially when living in an extremely Christian society, so we generally have to be able to defend our beliefs on a regular basis. It’s also good fun to debate this stuff.
3. Same reason as question one - it’s good to learn what others believe, as the majority of Christians (or, Christians of that certain denomination) are going to share that belief. It also makes it easier to defend your own position if you know that of others.

It seems that most Catholics are not threatened by the opinions of atheists and their demonstrated opposition to religion. As long as Catholics are not prevented from their Constitutional Free Exercise of Religion (individually and as an institution), most Catholics are unconcerned about “silencing” atheists, not to mention having no interest in interminably visiting atheists’ blogs and message boards in an effort to “convince” them how wrong they are.

Sure. I don’t have any interest in silencing Catholics, either, or trying to ‘convert’ them. But it’s important to have these discussions, I believe. We can all learn from them, and as I’ve already mentioned, being an atheist in a society that’s fairly religious (well, maybe the USA anyway) I often have to defend my views. I certainly don’t believe I have had any impact what so ever on any Catholic on this forum while I have been debating.

I have a sense of quiet self-assurance about my religious beliefs. That is also true for people of many other faith traditions (Jews, Protestants of various sects, Muslims, etc.)

I do not observe that atheists on this discussion forum are quietly self-assured, however. If they were, they would not bother to visit, open threads, and argue endlessly about why Catholics have certain moral positions. Rather, they would find the Catholic opinion irrelevant.

I don’t follow your logic. I enjoy debating you, find it interesting and educational, find it helps me defend my own beliefs, and yet you’re somehow using it to suggest that I am not entirely convinced of my atheism? Is that not just as silly an argument as when gay activists accuse those who oppose gay rights of being repressed homosexuals? And, why would I find the Catholic opinion irrelevant? Do Catholics not vote? Do they not try to have as much impact on our nation as anyone else?

Odd, that those who find Catholicism most irrelevant are the ones who most demand the approval of Catholics and their Church.

I don’t demand your approval. And I certainly don’t find Catholicism irrelevant. There are many Catholics, and certainly Catholics try to make a big impact on the way our country is run, so it’s good to know what they believe.

Of course, if you find my presence here annoying or insulting, then I will kindly leave.

 

[Faithdancer]

So, would this point of view be safely categorized as “demonizing” others, whom you misunderstand?

Actually he didn’t say homosexuals *were *demons, but that they have a demon, which I understand as meaning that homosexuals are under the influence of Satan when they commit homosexual acts; in other words, homosexual activity is inherently evil. This is perfectly valid from the standpoint of moral theology. What does your church say about homosexual acts?

 

[spencelo]

Actually he didn’t say homosexuals *were *demons, but that they have a demon, by which I understand to mean that homosexuals are under the influence of Satan when they commit homosexual acts.

Homosexuals aren’t demons themselves, but they’re inhabited by demons who influence their actions? I would suggest exercising a bit more empathy if you can’t see why the distinction doesn’t hold water with the gay community.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Actually he didn’t say homosexuals *were *demons, but that they have a demon, which I understand as meaning that homosexuals are under the influence of Satan when they commit homosexual acts; in other words, homosexual activity is inherently evil. This is perfectly valid from the standpoint of moral theology. What does your church say about homosexual acts?

as all of us would be then when we don’t live a chaste life

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Actually he didn’t say homosexuals *were *demons, but that they have a demon, which I understand as meaning that homosexuals are under the influence of Satan when they commit homosexual acts; in other words, homosexual activity is inherently evil. This is perfectly valid from the standpoint of moral theology. What does your church say about homosexual acts?

Here’s the problem, Faithdancer. DeCourcy said that gay people have a demon. All gay people. Now, you may appeal to the specialist definition of “gay” which often appears on these forums (i.e., a same sex attracted person who actively engages in homosexual sexual activity, defines him- or herself according to their sexuality, and participates in and/or promotes [either implicitly or explicitly] a particular political agenda informed by post-modern relativist identity politics), but to the vast majority of folks out there in the real world, “gay” just means someone who is same sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. DeCourcy did not care to clarify that he was speaking of same-sex attracted folks who engage in homosexual sex.

So to the average person who may have stumbled onto these forums (and who may be struggling with their religion and their sexuality), DeCourcy’s post says to them: same-sex attracted folks have a demon and they love evil. He continues, though, to equate any sort of homosexual, chaste or no (note that his example references only tendencies and desires, so every same-sex attracted person is pretty much covered), to vampires, the basic point being: same-sex attracted people are soul-less monsters.

By defending DeCourcy, you’ve said to the aforementioned average person stumbling onto these forums that it is entirely appropriate to say that same-sex attracted people are demonic, evil-loving and monstrous. Moreover, your defense implies that making such comparisons can be justified by the moral theology they actually caricature and debase, suggesting thereby that such comparisons and views are totally orthodox and should be seen as uncontroversial because the moral theology that ostensibly supports such views (even though they’re caricatures) should be uncontroversial. But what you don’t seem to realize is that associating such views with orthodox moral theology does not rehabilitate the views, but damages the credibility of the theology and damages your own moral credibility for thinking that the views and the theology are perfectly compatible.

I can understand the desire to defend moral theology against those ignorant of it or vehemently opposed to it, but when the line you draw against detractors and others actually puts on your “side” of the line dehumanizing rhetoric that is just this side of crazy, then I think you need to be more careful about where you’re drawing that line.

Anyway, if any were still wondering “why gays turn away from the Church,” reading DeCourcy’s post and your defense of it should answer the question quite handily.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Publisher]

Grace & Peace!

Here’s the problem, Faithdancer. DeCourcy said that gay people have a demon. All gay people. Now, you may appeal to the specialist definition of “gay” which often appears on these forums (i.e., a same sex attracted person who actively engages in homosexual sexual activity, defines him- or herself according to their sexuality, and participates in and/or promotes [either implicitly or explicitly] a particular political agenda informed by post-modern relativist identity politics), but to the vast majority of folks out there in the real world, “gay” just means someone who is same sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. DeCourcy did not care to clarify that he was speaking of same-sex attracted folks who engage in homosexual sex.

So to the average person who may have stumbled onto these forums (and who may be struggling with their religion and their sexuality), DeCourcy’s post says to them: same-sex attracted folks have a demon and they love evil. He continues, though, to equate any sort of homosexual, chaste or no (note that his example references only tendencies and desires, so every same-sex attracted person is pretty much covered), to vampires, the basic point being: same-sex attracted people are soul-less monsters.

By defending DeCourcy, you’ve said to the aforementioned average person stumbling onto these forums that it is entirely appropriate to say that same-sex attracted people are demonic, evil-loving and monstrous. Moreover, your defense implies that making such comparisons can be justified by the moral theology they actually caricature and debase, suggesting thereby that such comparisons and views are totally orthodox and should be seen as uncontroversial because the moral theology that ostensibly supports such views (even though they’re caricatures) should be uncontroversial. But what you don’t seem to realize is that associating such views with orthodox moral theology does not rehabilitate the views, but damages the credibility of the theology and damages your own moral credibility for thinking that the views and the theology are perfectly compatible.

I can understand the desire to defend moral theology against those ignorant of it or vehemently opposed to it, but when the line you draw against detractors and others actually puts on your “side” of the line dehumanizing rhetoric that is just this side of crazy, then I think you need to be more careful about where you’re drawing that line.

Anyway, if any were still wondering “why gays turn away from the Church,” reading DeCourcy’s post and your defense of it should answer the question quite handily.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This friend speaks my mind.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Everyone thinks this gay thing is new but as said before, the Greeks and then Romans apparently practiced it a good deal.

That’s the problem with EVERY progressive cause.

Many of them think they are the grandiose saving grace of all and their ideas are new and revolutionary and that folks like us are too stupid and stuck in tradition to get it.

Well, I got some news…

Progressive causes are just as traditional and old as any other!

Trouble is they don’t last because they don’t work, are uneconomical and do not bring fulfillment.

 

[kompaz]

If one is an atheist (or a non-theist), why would you care about what Catholics believe?

Tell me, why are Catholics opposed to gay marriage? After all, nobody will force them to marry members of the same sex, so why the fuss?

Because Catholics are opposed to gay marriage because they think that: (1) gay sex is inherently evil and (2) the state should make all evil acts illegal.

There. When you vote, that what you believe, will affect others who don’t believe in what you believe.

 

[BroomWagon]

Tell me, why are Catholics opposed to gay marriage? After all, nobody will force them to marry members of the same sex, so why the fuss?

Because Catholics are opposed to gay marriage because they think that: (1) gay sex is inherently evil and (2) the state should make all evil acts illegal.

There. When you vote, that what you believe, will affect others who don’t believe in what you believe.

You bring up good points, however, I don’t know if I or you or anyone else has the right to redefine marriage and that is what we are talking about as well.

Okay, you have some people who want “Gay Marriage Banned.”

At the same time though, you have many people who merely want to retain the definition of Marriage. Some people say no matter what you do, there really is only one marriage, that between a man and a woman.

Per Wisconsin’s vote in 2006:

Marriage. **Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state **and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?”

caids-wi.org/marriage/index.htm

The article continues:

I see no mention of the word “Gay” nor “homosexual” nor any other word meaning essentially the same thing.

I see no mention of the word “Ban” nor “prohibition” nor any other word suggesting that a particular practice is being "outlawed."

 

[Faithdancer]

Grace & Peace!

Here’s the problem, Faithdancer. DeCourcy said that gay people have a demon. All gay people. Now, you may appeal to the specialist definition of “gay” which often appears on these forums (i.e., a same sex attracted person who actively engages in homosexual sexual activity, defines him- or herself according to their sexuality, and participates in and/or promotes [either implicitly or explicitly] a particular political agenda informed by post-modern relativist identity politics), but to the vast majority of folks out there in the real world, “gay” just means someone who is same sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. DeCourcy did not care to clarify that he was speaking of same-sex attracted folks who engage in homosexual sex.

So to the average person who may have stumbled onto these forums (and who may be struggling with their religion and their sexuality), DeCourcy’s post says to them: same-sex attracted folks have a demon and they love evil. He continues, though, to equate any sort of homosexual, chaste or no (note that his example references only tendencies and desires, so every same-sex attracted person is pretty much covered), to vampires, the basic point being: same-sex attracted people are soul-less monsters.

By defending DeCourcy, you’ve said to the aforementioned average person stumbling onto these forums that it is entirely appropriate to say that same-sex attracted people are demonic, evil-loving and monstrous. Moreover, your defense implies that making such comparisons can be justified by the moral theology they actually caricature and debase, suggesting thereby that such comparisons and views are totally orthodox and should be seen as uncontroversial because the moral theology that ostensibly supports such views (even though they’re caricatures) should be uncontroversial. But what you don’t seem to realize is that associating such views with orthodox moral theology does not rehabilitate the views, but damages the credibility of the theology and damages your own moral credibility for thinking that the views and the theology are perfectly compatible.

I can understand the desire to defend moral theology against those ignorant of it or vehemently opposed to it, but when the line you draw against detractors and others actually puts on your “side” of the line dehumanizing rhetoric that is just this side of crazy, then I think you need to be more careful about where you’re drawing that line.

Anyway, if any were still wondering “why gays turn away from the Church,” reading DeCourcy’s post and your defense of it should answer the question quite handily.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Once again (with deja vu): The Catholic Church accepts those with a homosexual orientation who practice chastity. Those who continue to engage in homosexual acts are in a state of mortal sin. We Catholics believe that the devil tempts us to commit mortal sins, including sexual sins, and it is our Christian duty to confess our sins, to do penance, and to amend our lives. You can disagree all you want, but these are the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can try to convince others that homosexual activity is not evil, but you won’t have much luck with well-formed Roman Catholics.

As far as gays turning away from the Church, if they refuse to stop engaging in homosexual activity and refuse to adopt a life of total chastity, then by definition via their sinful actions they are turning away from the Church, and from God. That is de fide.

 

[devotee_of_Jesu]

Dear dchezik,
Interesting. You state, “I gave up…” You also stated, “I had to incline…”. Both of those statements are showing a choice. You chose to give up… You chose to incline (believe)… We all have free will, the ability to reason (on most things) and the ability to choose. If it were not so, those who break laws could say, “I didn’t have a choice” because I don’t know how to tell the difference between right and wrong. In re: the issue of why gays leave the Church, maybe they realize you can not attend a Christian church and call yourself a Christian because you choose the Lifestyle of GLBT which clearly is not following the true way of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I choose to believe that person is a “child of (meaning made by) God” and as such deserves our charity but I do not choose to accept their lifestyle as the Bible clearly makes the answer available to us in both the Old and New Testament. We most certainly CAN choose what we believe and choose our behavior and our behavior says more about us than our words do. As with most things we need to have basis for reasoning before we can choose but once we have a basis to make a choice, we can choose. Are there humans on other planets? I have nothing to (name removed by moderator)ut and allow me to reason a choice as to what to believe. But I can say, “I don’t know.” That statement there is a choice. I choose to be truthful…I don’t know. THAT is my choice of belief on that subject. Free will, ability to reason and ability to state our choice in what we believe. You know, some people, maybe many, CHOOSE to remain in the dark so they don’t have to commit themselves. But that is their choice, it is what they choose. Thanks for a most interesting conversation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Here’s the problem, Faithdancer. DeCourcy said that gay people have a demon. All gay people. Now, you may appeal to the specialist definition of “gay” which often appears on these forums (i.e., a same sex attracted person who actively engages in homosexual sexual activity, defines him- or herself according to their sexuality, and participates in and/or promotes [either implicitly or explicitly] a particular political agenda informed by post-modern relativist identity politics), but to the vast majority of folks out there in the real world, “gay” just means someone who is same sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. DeCourcy did not care to clarify that he was speaking of same-sex attracted folks who engage in homosexual sex.

So to the average person who may have stumbled onto these forums (and who may be struggling with their religion and their sexuality), DeCourcy’s post says to them: same-sex attracted folks have a demon and they love evil. He continues, though, to equate any sort of homosexual, chaste or no (note that his example references only tendencies and desires, so every same-sex attracted person is pretty much covered), to vampires, the basic point being: same-sex attracted people are soul-less monsters.

By defending DeCourcy, you’ve said to the aforementioned average person stumbling onto these forums that it is entirely appropriate to say that same-sex attracted people are demonic, evil-loving and monstrous. Moreover, your defense implies that making such comparisons can be justified by the moral theology they actually caricature and debase, suggesting thereby that such comparisons and views are totally orthodox and should be seen as uncontroversial because the moral theology that ostensibly supports such views (even though they’re caricatures) should be uncontroversial. But what you don’t seem to realize is that associating such views with orthodox moral theology does not rehabilitate the views, but damages the credibility of the theology and damages your own moral credibility for thinking that the views and the theology are perfectly compatible.

I can understand the desire to defend moral theology against those ignorant of it or vehemently opposed to it, but when the line you draw against detractors and others actually puts on your “side” of the line dehumanizing rhetoric that is just this side of crazy, then I think you need to be more careful about where you’re drawing that line.

Anyway, if any were still wondering “why gays turn away from the Church,” reading DeCourcy’s post and your defense of it should answer the question quite handily.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

It is not proper to suggest that demons are here or there. It is proper to define what it is you speak of. If your concern is what someone stumbles on then let them stumble on this.

We are created man and woman.

Some men and some women think of attraction to the same sex and that we would call same sex attraction.

Some men and some women think of attraction to the same sex and act on it. This we would call sin. Sinners can repent. Repentance calls for a change of mind. Metanoia is repentance which just means change your mind. Repentance requires a resolve to stop the sin.

Some men and some women think of attraction to the same sex and act on it and then accept that this is their lot in life and believe that the life is what is called “gay”. These may be people in sodomizing relationships or people in Lesbian relationships. This would be unrepentant sinners. These would be the so called “gays”…

God is good and the absence of God is evil. Sodomizing relations and Lesbian relations that are active and continually acting on the same sex attraction do not have God in them because these relations are not of God and not good. If God is not in these relations then these relations have the absence of God and are evil. There you have it.

I hope that this clears up the problem of anyone stumbling on these threads…