[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all. [/quote]
Why?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all. [/quote]
Then none at all. If those must be the terms, that is.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all. [/quote]
I have to concur with others. Why?
Obviously this is an abstract idea and not actually based in reality. Although you maybe confusing accepting and tolerating. Or are misunderstanding my use of accepting.
The Catholic Church has accepted men that have acted on their homosexual tendencies. However, if they are to join the ranks of clergy they have to refrain from further behavior before entering the seminary. We accept homosexuals into the Church, we won’t stop them from taking an RCIA class and being baptized and confirmed. However, we do not accept homosexual acts or sexual acts outside marriage (which automatically excludes homosexual acts) or they cannot participate in the sacrament of communion (they first have to go to confession).
We also have love for our homosexual brethren, but we only tolerate their homosexual behavior. We accept the person, but not necessarily their actions.
If this is still not clear; the Catholic Church accepts sinners, but we do not play as if it is okay to sin (that was Luther’s idea).
Personally, I accept you all as long as you don’t act out on your feelings towards women.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Personally, I accept you all as long as you don’t act out on your feelings towards women.
[/quote]
So you’re against procreation huh? How long have you wanted the extinction of the human race?
Awwww…I know you want homosexuality to be the same thing as heterosexuality, but IT’S NOT!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Many christian-flavored spirtiualist churches…[/quote]
Fixed.
[/quote]
With no objective standard, Christian vs. Christian-flavored is in they eye of the beholder.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Many christian-flavored spirtiualist churches…[/quote]
Fixed.
[/quote]
With no objective standard, Christian vs. Christian-flavored is in they eye of the beholder.[/quote]
Nope, not on the topic of homosexuality. Or any other sexual relationship outside of man and wife, for that matter. It’s flat out new-age spiritualism with christian window dressing. They might as well embrace adultery and pre-marital sex. I can call myself a duck, but nobody with eyes or ears would believe me. If Christianity seems to fit one’s reality show, Mtv, modern lifestyle, oh-so conveniently, it’s obviously a silly lie. I liked it better when the progressives were more honest and went into Wicca, healing crystals and ‘energies,’ and eastern religions. At least there wasn’t a total disconnect from scriptural and traditional reality.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I did, just saying I wouldn’t be surprised to see this happen at some point, given the history of religions evolving over time to reflect the morals of society (not that they ever see it this way). Many Christian churches already welcome gays, most recently American Episcopalians with their recognition of gay clergy.[/quote]
Lol, don’t worry you can surprised as it ain’t going to happen. The Catholic Church will never recognize same-sex marriage as it is not possible as it is not actually marriage.
That is (accepting gays) what reflects the morals of society today? Accepting gays? Well, then society is by and far behind the Catholic Church. We’ve been doing it for quite sometime.
Not only do we accept gays, we convert them, baptize them, and make them productive citizens of society, we also hire them without discrimination (ultimately, we’re the only ones that will be protecting gays when the tides turn back to prejudice against them). What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
The Catholic Church doesn’t see gays and straights, first we see persons with inherent dignity to be treated with certain level of respect as all are children of God. This is why the Catholic Church is one of the few religions that still advocate visiting prisoners.
So you maybe correct, some religions may accept gay marriage, but never worry the Catholic Church will still be its old, with open arms while rejecting modernism and teaching sinners to repent of their sins and become virtuous.
So, yes forlife we accept you, but we don’t accept you sinning and we won’t recognize your marriage to another man.[/quote]
Like I said, religions never admit they’re changing with the times. They always position doctrinal changes as “further enlightenment” or “divine clarification”. Yes, even the Catholic church has changed its doctrines over time. I know you won’t see it that way, but I disagree.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all. [/quote]
I have to concur with others. Why?
Obviously this is an abstract idea and not actually based in reality. Although you maybe confusing accepting and tolerating. Or are misunderstanding my use of accepting.
The Catholic Church has accepted men that have acted on their homosexual tendencies. However, if they are to join the ranks of clergy they have to refrain from further behavior before entering the seminary. We accept homosexuals into the Church, we won’t stop them from taking an RCIA class and being baptized and confirmed. However, we do not accept homosexual acts or sexual acts outside marriage (which automatically excludes homosexual acts) or they cannot participate in the sacrament of communion (they first have to go to confession).
We also have love for our homosexual brethren, but we only tolerate their homosexual behavior. We accept the person, but not necessarily their actions.
If this is still not clear; the Catholic Church accepts sinners, but we do not play as if it is okay to sin (that was Luther’s idea).
[/quote]
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it’s all or nothing for that individual then the door is that way. Please make sure it’s shut on the way out. I heard that new church, “Church of the oh-so-conveniently Hedonistic Christian folks” just opened up for services.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Many christian-flavored spirtiualist churches…[/quote]
Fixed.
[/quote]
With no objective standard, Christian vs. Christian-flavored is in they eye of the beholder.[/quote]
Nope, not on the topic of homosexuality. Or any other sexual relationship outside of man and wife, for that matter. It’s flat out new-age spiritualism with christian window dressing. They might as well embrace adultery and pre-marital sex. I can call myself a duck, but nobody with eyes or ears would believe me. If Christianity seems to fit one’s reality show, Mtv, modern lifestyle, oh-so conveniently, it’s obviously a silly lie. I liked it better when the progressives were more honest and went into Wicca, healing crystals and ‘energies,’ and eastern religions. At least there wasn’t a total disconnect from scriptural and traditional reality.
[/quote]
To you, it’s a silly lie. To them, it’s a natural reflection of god’s love and the core message of Christianity.
You have faith that you are right. They have faith that they are right.
No objective standard to know whose beliefs (if any) reflect reality. That is why beliefs based on faith mean nada.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it’s all or nothing for that individual then the door is that way. Please make sure it’s shut on the way out. I heard that new church, “Church of the oh-so-conveniently Hedonistic Christian folks” just opened up for services.[/quote]
If the Catholic church really is god’s church, the damage is only until the person dies, and is compensated by eternal glory in the hereafter.
If the Catholic church is not really god’s church, the damage is tragically unnecessary.
Either way, damage is done. And the damage is based solely on faith that the Catholic church is god’s church. Which as we’ve been discussing, is problematic, since faith says nothing about what is actually real.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Many christian-flavored spirtiualist churches…[/quote]
Fixed.
[/quote]
With no objective standard, Christian vs. Christian-flavored is in they eye of the beholder.[/quote]
Nope, not on the topic of homosexuality. Or any other sexual relationship outside of man and wife, for that matter. It’s flat out new-age spiritualism with christian window dressing. They might as well embrace adultery and pre-marital sex. I can call myself a duck, but nobody with eyes or ears would believe me. If Christianity seems to fit one’s reality show, Mtv, modern lifestyle, oh-so conveniently, it’s obviously a silly lie. I liked it better when the progressives were more honest and went into Wicca, healing crystals and ‘energies,’ and eastern religions. At least there wasn’t a total disconnect from scriptural and traditional reality.
[/quote]
To you, it’s a silly lie. To them, it’s a natural reflection of god’s love and the core message of Christianity.
You have faith that you are right. They have faith that they are right.
No objective standard to know whose beliefs (if any) reflect reality. That is why beliefs based on faith mean nada.
[/quote]
Objectively by any measure, it’s a modern construct. Scripture is clear on this topic. No intellectually honest person can reconcile homosexuality with Christianity. Scripture isn’t even silent, nor ambiguous in it’s condemnation. As I said, you might as well try to tell us that adultery or any form of fornication is up for debate. It clearly contradicts Christian morality on ALL levels, scripturally and traditionally.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it’s all or nothing for that individual then the door is that way. Please make sure it’s shut on the way out. I heard that new church, “Church of the oh-so-conveniently Hedonistic Christian folks” just opened up for services.[/quote]
If the Catholic church really is god’s church, the damage is only until the person dies, and is compensated by eternal glory in the hereafter.
If the Catholic church is not really god’s church, the damage is tragically unnecessary.
Either way, damage is done. And the damage is based solely on faith that the Catholic church is god’s church. Which as we’ve been discussing, is problematic, since faith says nothing about what is actually real.[/quote]
What?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it’s all or nothing for that individual then the door is that way. Please make sure it’s shut on the way out. I heard that new church, “Church of the oh-so-conveniently Hedonistic Christian folks” just opened up for services.[/quote]
If the Catholic church really is god’s church, the damage is only until the person dies, and is compensated by eternal glory in the hereafter.
If the Catholic church is not really god’s church, the damage is tragically unnecessary.
Either way, damage is done. And the damage is based solely on faith that the Catholic church is god’s church. Which as we’ve been discussing, is problematic, since faith says nothing about what is actually real.[/quote]
Faith isn’t needed for what I’m saying . I don’t need faith in hinduism nor Islam to know when something steps completely outside of their respective bounds. I just need to be able to read.
Edit: I’m a bit honestly telling me you see the compatibility here? Really? You’ve some knowledge of scripture and the historical reality. Faith isn’t necessary for discerning this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Many christian-flavored spirtiualist churches…[/quote]
Fixed.
[/quote]
With no objective standard, Christian vs. Christian-flavored is in they eye of the beholder.[/quote]
Nope, not on the topic of homosexuality. Or any other sexual relationship outside of man and wife, for that matter. It’s flat out new-age spiritualism with christian window dressing. They might as well embrace adultery and pre-marital sex. I can call myself a duck, but nobody with eyes or ears would believe me. If Christianity seems to fit one’s reality show, Mtv, modern lifestyle, oh-so conveniently, it’s obviously a silly lie. I liked it better when the progressives were more honest and went into Wicca, healing crystals and ‘energies,’ and eastern religions. At least there wasn’t a total disconnect from scriptural and traditional reality.
[/quote]
To you, it’s a silly lie. To them, it’s a natural reflection of god’s love and the core message of Christianity.
You have faith that you are right. They have faith that they are right.
No objective standard to know whose beliefs (if any) reflect reality. That is why beliefs based on faith mean nada.
[/quote]
Objectively by any measure, it’s a modern construct. Scripture is clear on this topic. No intellectually honest person can reconcile homosexuality with Christianity. Scripture isn’t even silent, nor ambiguous in it’s condemnation. As I said, you might as well try to tell us that adultery or any form of fornication is up for debate. It clearly contradicts Christian morality on ALL levels, scripturally and traditionally. [/quote]
So you think all American Episopalians, etc. are intellectually dishonest? I don’t believe that, any more than I believe you are intellectually dishonest.
I think Pat and Tiribulus are both sincere and intellectually honest. I agree with Pat far more often than with Tiribulus, but I don’t question the earnestness of their beliefs.
Some Christians believe the biblical commentary on homosexuality was on homosexual prostitution, rather than on homosexuality in a committed relationship. Some believe it was cultural, like forbidding women to speak in church or have their heads uncovered was cultural, and no longer applies in our day. Some believe Jesus never condemned homosexuality, since there is no biblical record of him doing so. Some believe that as the god of love, god wouldn’t create people to be gay, only to damage them by living contrary to their orientation, or by living asexual, lonely lives.
I’m not a Christian, so none of it really matters to me. I’m just pointing out that people can be equally sincere, have equal faith, and hold opposite opinions on doctrinal issues, whether it be the nature of god, free will, salvation, or other issues like eating pork, celebrating holidays, drinking coffee, slaughtering cattle, having more than one wife, marrying someone of another race, or being gay.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it’s all or nothing for that individual then the door is that way. Please make sure it’s shut on the way out. I heard that new church, “Church of the oh-so-conveniently Hedonistic Christian folks” just opened up for services.[/quote]
If the Catholic church really is god’s church, the damage is only until the person dies, and is compensated by eternal glory in the hereafter.
If the Catholic church is not really god’s church, the damage is tragically unnecessary.
Either way, damage is done. And the damage is based solely on faith that the Catholic church is god’s church. Which as we’ve been discussing, is problematic, since faith says nothing about what is actually real.[/quote]
Faith isn’t needed for what I’m saying . I don’t need faith in hinduism nor Islam to know when something steps completely outside of their respective bounds. I just need to be able to read.
Edit: I’m a bit honestly telling me you see the compatibility here? Really? You’ve some knowledge of scripture and the historical reality. Faith isn’t necessary for discerning this. [/quote]
Faith defines what religious people believe is or is not morally correct. American Episcopalians have faith that their doctrines are true, just as Catholics have faith that their doctrines are true. It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Someone should point out to our resident atheist homosexual that it doesn’t matter which doctrine is true. All those who accept Christ get into Heaven.
And that leaves him out.
OUCH!
[quote]forlife wrote:
Faith defines…[/quote]
Nuh-uh, you have no faith. You’re a man of objective facts. So you should be agreeing with me.