meltzerboy
New member
You are always the voice of reason and mercy in your posts, Easterjoy!
- Status
K
kbwall
Guest
I personally belive that if you’re going to make an anti-bully message, it should be anti-bully across the board. Homosexuals are not the only ones being bullied. That way you send a message against bullying, and you’re not promoting homosexuality.
Also, while I do not support bullying of homosexuals, comparing them to races, and poor people, etc. is not entirely accurate. Race is a neutral aspect of a person, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about being one race than being another race. Pursuing homosexual relationships is immoral though. That’s not an excuse to bully them, love the sinner after all, but I’m just saying, they’re not the same as other minorities.
Also, while I do not support bullying of homosexuals, comparing them to races, and poor people, etc. is not entirely accurate. Race is a neutral aspect of a person, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about being one race than being another race. Pursuing homosexual relationships is immoral though. That’s not an excuse to bully them, love the sinner after all, but I’m just saying, they’re not the same as other minorities.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
What would be wrong with a poster that said:
"Go and learn the meaning of the words,f ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Matt. 9:13
“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” John 8:7
Gays are Children of God, too
Self-righteous Bullying is Still Bullying
Christians Don’t Let Other Christians Bully Gays
And why put up such a poster? Because of the number of people who pussyfoot around when it comes to sticking up for people they have decided are worse sinners than they are, that’s why. It is a specific message that a generic “don’t bully” doesn’t get across, because so many people think that being mean to someone for being gay or divorced and remarried or for wearing a dress when he’s a man isn’t “really” cruelty, but some weird form of righteousness by self-distancing.
C
chevalier
Guest
I agree with Easter Joy.
But I disclaim any liability.
But I disclaim any liability.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Most people who find me a liability don’t come right out and say so, Chev.
S
severus68
Guest
Great post.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
The truth can be challenging. Sorry to bring modernity and evidence to the discussion if that troubles you.
I agree that you should not sit silently, yet you bash me for not sitting silently. We may disagree with each other. This is not bashing. It is disagreeing.
The Church is struggling with this issue. Pardon me for pointing out that the Emperor is naked. If he were not, then it would not be such a popular topic of discussion here. Eventually the Church will come around, as it did with the solar system, as it did with slavery, as it did with lending money, as it did… on and on and on… The Church does change. Otherwise it would perish.
I see myself as supporting the Church in the broader sense of history. I think in spite of its serious blemishes, that it has been a positive influence throughout history. I also think that many popes have been cowards and power mongers… but the ones who have been great have used the power and influence of the Church effectively. In my opinion, the current choice of pope is extremely unfortunate. I am not bashing him. I think he is a good man. Obviously brilliant. Obviously sincere and hard working. Obviously spiritual. Better than a stupid and greedy president, which we have suffered. But Benedict lacks the insight to move the Church forward at the rate at which the world is changing. Perhaps his religious life, which makes him a spiritual leader, works against him as a temporal leader. He appears to be clueless on significant issues… i mean really clueless. Embarrassingly so.
The gay thing is nearly a non-issue. It is only symbolic at this point. Times are changing, as they do. It is remarkable how much attention it gets here. That would be a very bad sign if this site was representative of Catholic thinking. But fortunately, it appears to be a refuge of a fringe element.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Church is not the one struggling with the issues around homosexuality. The Church figured them out back in the days of the Fall of the Roman Empire (which was caused in part by the fact that half the soldiers in the Roman army were pleasure-seeking homosexuals, and easily conquered by untrained barbarians).
In any case, modern science agrees with the Church - successful species are those that reproduce. Homosexuals don’t reproduce. Success, therefore, excludes homosexuality.
No - the Church is not confused. It is the world that is confused and obsessed by this issue.
S
SanAgustin
Guest
The Catechism makes it clear that this type of bullying is not to be tolerated, and explicitly says so;
If the Catechism makes it a point that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”, I’m not sure why any Catholic should be afraid to fight explicitly against it.
Reminds me of John 7:53-8:11, I don’t think Jesus was concerned he was going to be seen as condoning adultery.
F
francisca
Guest
Matt 9:13
I did not come to call the righteous but sinneers
The verse you quoted means to call sinners into repentance.
Those who call sinners into repentance shall never bully, instead, they will be wrongly accused as one.
The evil spirit in the air is roaring and waiting for us to make a wrong move.
As patient as a lion waiting for it’s prey, it will be as aggressive when devouring it.
We, however, are the lamb of God who take away the sins of the world. We will still love them, by telling the people not to bully gays, despite we will be wrongly accused and persecuted even as a bully by those who disagree with our belief.
So, we have no choice in our love towards humanity but to campaign agaist gay bully, knowing we will be wrongly accused as one, on one of these days, my friend, one of these days.
S
SanAgustin
Guest
Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29), not us.
F
francisca
Guest
We who speak the truth will be crucified with Him.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me. Gal 2:19-20
Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
(But other than that, the thought of being willing to take on the Cross of Christ as our own is spot on.)
C
chevalier
Guest
Most people have lost a sense of reciprocal kindness.Most people who find me a liability don’t come right out and say so, Chev.
S
SanAgustin
Guest
Francisca, I don’t want to be a theological nitpicker but that doesn’t mean we should be calling or considering ourselves the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. That title and role is specifically reserved for our Savior.
God Bless!
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I agree with you that the best science of the previous millennia was empirical. We are in a more evidential time. I am not bashing the Church at all. I am bashing the retrograde position is has taken lately, specifically the view the progress is undesirable. Throughout history, in the Church or elsewhere, the great leaders have always been progressive. Jesus is a good example. If advocating a healthy institution is bashing, then I stand accused.
I disagree with the Pope. That is my right as a non-catholic. I don’t quite understand the sheeple who accept another human uncritically. That is why I am not a Catholic. I think he is brilliant. I am sure he is sincere in his faith. His accomplishments far exceed anything that I might achieve. I recognize that and respect him for that. But he is out of sync, and was probably a very poor choice in leadership. Jimmy Carter was a very good man, but a very poor president. The Church needs leadership right now.
If your faith is too weak to accept my criticism for what it is, the constructive criticism of a skeptic of your religious sect, then I would suggest that your faith is very weak, and you might consider other options.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
The Church is struggling with the topic, or it would not even be a topic of discussion here. Your post is so absurd that it is not even worth responding to.
Keep in mind how it dealt with the child molester issue. Utter confusion and incompetence. Unbelievably so. Defying common sense and reason. The Church actually chose to increase the suffering of the victims. Explain that as rational and unconfused behavior and policy.
Your 2,000 year old pseudo science fails. Nearly every successful species include homo activity. It is part of the normal biological spectrum, and the percentages appear to be relatively constant. This has been documented for many decades. Try again.
F
francisca
Guest
Yes, I agree. Thankyou for correcting me.
What I wanted to say was that the world will persecute us (believers), for proclaiming God’s truth, just as they persecuted Jesus.
Here is my to-the-point opinion about the OP:
Let the gays and the homosexuals defend their case themselves. I can see clearly that many of them are capable in doing that. I can’t see why would we need to help them in building their stand against our own belief.
I knew some gay people sometime back in my life. I was not very close to them, I was one of their customers. So I had NEVER spoke about it. I knew that it would be “out of place” to talk to them about such a private topic simply because I was not “that” close to them. So I kept my mouth shut about it. I treated them like other normal people around me. I laughed at their jokes, I liked their happy easy-going personality.
I don’t get confrontational at all in real life. Certainly I do not believe in gay bullying.
However, I would not join in any campaign titled “agaist gay bullying”, because such campaign will only produce a kind of sentiment similar to gay-bullying: It will produce a kind of sentiment against believers. Let they do this themselves if they need to.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, what happens is, we get uninformed people coming on the Forum asking these questions; they are given the teachings of the Church, and then they argue with it, and then pro-homosexualists join in and start arguing, and that’s how it goes. The teaching of the Church is plain and simple. The confusion of modern people is what keeps the argument alive and kicking.
You know, the irony of this is that, this is one situation where the Bishops, instead of following the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church, decided instead to listen to modern science. Modern science said, “Don’t be so medieval - this is a mental illness and it is curable. Give these men therapy and pills, and they will be fit to go back to work.”
So they did that, and they sent these guys back to work after they were supposedly “cured” of their homosexuality by modern science, and guess what - the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church (which said, if a priest commits sexual sins, remove him from his priesthood forthwith, and ban him from all human company for the rest of his life) turned out to be correct.
Can’t win for losing, it seems.
By the way, it seems weird to me that homosexual priests are “bad, bad, bad!” but other homosexuals “need to be accepted and understood.”
What’s the difference (other than the priesthood) between homosexual priests, and other homosexuals?
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Well, we just have to disagree then. I believe that the Church is acting inappropriately, and it will change its position as it has on many other issues. My view is that the conservatives in the Church are overreacting to social and scientific change, and are doomed to failure. My hope is that they don’t damage the Church irrevocably. History has shown it to be a very plastic institution in a broad sense, so I have some hope that it will get back on an upright course and still be here in the future.No, what happens is, we get uninformed people coming on the Forum asking these questions; they are given the teachings of the Church, and then they argue with it, and then pro-homosexualists join in and start arguing, and that’s how it goes. The teaching of the Church is plain and simple. The confusion of modern people is what keeps the argument alive and kicking.
You know, the irony of this is that, this is one situation where the Bishops, instead of following the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church, decided instead to listen to modern science. Modern science said, “Don’t be so medieval - this is a mental illness and it is curable. Give these men therapy and pills, and they will be fit to go back to work.”
So they did that, and they sent these guys back to work after they were supposedly “cured” of their homosexuality by modern science, and guess what - the 2,000 year wisdom of the Church (which said, if a priest commits sexual sins, remove him from his priesthood forthwith, and ban him from all human company for the rest of his life) turned out to be correct.
Can’t win for losing, it seems.
By the way, it seems weird to me that homosexual priests are “bad, bad, bad!” but other homosexuals “need to be accepted and understood.”
What’s the difference (other than the priesthood) between homosexual priests, and other homosexuals?
If I understand you, then you are of the opinion that stasis, rigidity, and rejection of evidence which contradicts strongly held beliefs is the key to success in a changing world.
- Status