Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever. >>>[/quote]Do you believe what I preach and thereby desire to be saved? I will PM you my phone number right now and pray with you if you do.

[/quote]

That’s exactly the arrogance I’m talking about. You insist that only those who believe what you preach will be saved, and moreover that people can only have that belief if God imposes it on them against their will.

302

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Broski Chris, didn’t you once claim to be a “sponsor” in your church for teh gheys where you would try and rehabilitate them and such?
[/quote]

teh gheys?

I may have said that, and I did to some extent, however I was pointed in the right direction that I wasn’t making myself clear (and I didn’t understand the information as thoroughly as I thought I did). Rehabilitation was being used in a different context as I was aware of. However, that was also when I was in a protestant congregation.

I’m now fully in the Catholic Church, and I am not connected to that group anymore. However, I do help homosexuals if they wish to seek help, and have a few friends that have. Now, I just send them to a place that will help them live chaste lives:

303

[quote]forlife wrote:
In other words, you can’t point to even one scripture where Jesus said anything negative about gays. And you’re wrong about Peter as well. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is the ONLY person in the entire new testament to hate on gays, and this is the same man whom most cherry picking Christians choose to ignore when it comes to his condemnation of women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Why? Because misogyny is no longer socially acceptable. Nor is homophobia, increasingly even in this country. [/quote]

I haven’t said anything negative about gays. All I said was that acting on one’s homosexuality is wrong. Paul didn’t hate on gays, if you read carefully, Paul is referring to homosexual acts. Yeah, I don’t ignore Paul either on the women speaking in Church. If you haven’t noticed, there are no female priests and most women in my parish wear veils to the Liturgy.

Lol, that’s not misogyny, and Paul wasn’t homophobic, unless I’m homophobic just because I believe that homosexual acts, just like any other sexual acts outside a valid marriage are wrong.

[quote]

It doesn’t bother me that you are a fundamentalist, literalist Christian any more than if you were an alcoholic, a glutton, or a sloth. The problem is not the emotional insecurity requiring absolute answers to life’s biggest questions. It is the acting on that insecurity, particularly trying to force others to accept the same emotionally driven answers as facts. I am not anti-Christian; I am talking about all fictional (i.e., faith based) beliefs driven by what people want to be true rather than by what actually is true. I understand that some people hate all Christians, however I am not one of them. That would be the same as shunning an alcoholic. Now, if you’re trying to legislate your fictional beliefs, there is a difference in that. However, just shunning you because of your emotional beliefs is wrong.[/quote]

304

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]

Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.

As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]

slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]

In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.

Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.

I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]

I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.[/quote]

Example: Obama.[/quote]

Obama isn’t my master. He doesn’t own me and I am not his slave. Are you?[/quote]

He can make laws in which you have to follow, he taxes you does he not, and he makes you pay the bill when he goes to war? Did you vote for Obama, if you did he commanded more than his own vote, making him an Aristocrat and by that I mean master and slave = Aristocrat and commoner.

[quote]
Oh, you meant to say that some men are meant to lead others, rather than some men are meant to own others. Glad you clarified that.[/quote]

Still master and slaves, one’s master wasn’t always his owner.

305

[quote]forlife wrote:
I was talking about this recent rash of statements from you. When you shared the observation by a priest that you are medievally myopic in your perspectives[/quote]

I am prone to medieval thinking and myopic piety. A big difference from what you said, and he was referencing me becoming a priest and dealing with parishioners.

[quote]
, it suddenly all made sense. My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality.[/quote]

I’m not stuck in the middle ages, my medieval ‘thinking’ is in reference to my Catholic faith. Unless believing there is a G-d, believing there is right and wrong, and that loyalty to the Church and Country is middle ages. The reference to the medievalness was to my following of Thomas.

[quote]
Biblical morality is certainly regressive. The old testament is regressive compared to the new testament. And the writings of Paul are regressive, on issues like slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality, compared to what we’ve learned in the subsequent 2,000 years of social enlightenment.[/quote]

Do you think Thomas Aquinas is regressive?

306

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever. >>>[/quote]Do you believe what I preach and thereby desire to be saved? I will PM you my phone number right now and pray with you if you do.[/quote]That’s exactly the arrogance I’m talking about. You insist that only those who believe what you preach will be saved, and moreover that people can only have that belief if God imposes it on them against their will.[/quote]Is that a no? I’ll deal with your gross misrepresentation of the call of God, despite my repeated declarations, after you answer, but I won’t be home for a while so later.

307

[quote]Worse, you claim to be God’s chosen ones, who for no reason other than to glorify Himself, will be saved while everyone else on the planet, despite anything they desire or do, will be damned to suffer forever.

I don’t think you elevate yourself over others in the sense that you’re more “deserving”, but only in the sense that you’re more “chosen”. [/quote]

We’re neither more deserving nor more chosen. We are saved from the damnation others will suffer, not because we are better than others, but because when God provided a Way to have our sins erased and escape damnation, we trusted in His way of escape rather than trying to figure out our own way. That option is open to anyone, so you are just as chosen as we are. And even though you have not yet accepted God’s choosing you, He still loves you where you’re at and wants you on His side.

308

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]

This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.

Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]

Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]

Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]

Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.

Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?

Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]

Well first, Ad hominem tu quoque a little?

And, second…Lol…what? You are not serious are you?

Show me this rampant homosexual contact with Church boys that has happened in the last 10 years. All these cases you are hearing about in the news, they are civil suits…you know why? Because the statute of limitations has come into effect and they can not try the case in a criminal court…because these happened decades ago.[/quote]

Etiam , EGO tentatio vos “personally” quoniam res a simulator planto “moral altus humus” vos loco vestri in vel magis ridiculum quam si vos erant sincerus in vestri fides.

Quod est non loquor ut a verus catholic has vox despicio in “hilaris behavior”. Ago vestri own vita quod subsisto charisma super quis duos women operor. “Interesting” quam proventus of “lesbianism” nunquam adveho sursum “isn’t it”?

Also, the cock that crows the loudest against homosexuality is usually the closet-case cock connoisseur. Deal with your issues kid, before attacking others.

You don’t wanna be that kind of homophobe (yes, homophobe; “Having gay friends” is a bullshit disclaimer. I bet you don’t tell them to their face how sinful and wrong their ways are…) who gets arrested in an airport bathroom for soliciting sex with an undercover police officer. Word to Idaho.

309

[quote]Dustin wrote:<<< Anytime you bring religion into these debates you automatically Fail. >>>[/quote]And there we have it folks. Dustin’s religion. The foundational presupposition governing all others. We know beforehand that whatever else may possibly be true God ain’t it. I have one too (everybody does). That is, NOTHING can be true WITHOUT the God of bible.

310

[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]

This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.

Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]

Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]

Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]

Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.

Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?

Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]

Well first, Ad hominem tu quoque a little?

And, second…Lol…what? You are not serious are you?

Show me this rampant homosexual contact with Church boys that has happened in the last 10 years. All these cases you are hearing about in the news, they are civil suits…you know why? Because the statute of limitations has come into effect and they can not try the case in a criminal court…because these happened decades ago.[/quote]

Etiam , EGO tentatio vos “personally” quoniam res a simulator planto “moral altus humus” vos loco vestri in vel magis ridiculum quam si vos erant sincerus in vestri fides.

Quod est non loquor ut a verus catholic has vox despicio in “hilaris behavior”. Ago vestri own vita quod subsisto charisma super quis duos women operor. “Interesting” quam proventus of “lesbianism” nunquam adveho sursum “isn’t it”?[/quote]

You’ll have to forgive me if I misread you, but my Latin is a little rusty.

But on your second statement, homosexuality encompasses lesbianism, too. Now the only reason it has come up about gay men is because of forlife. If there was a lesbian I am sure the topic of gay women would have come through. However, the topic at hand is about traditional marriage v. gay marriage (both gay men and women).

As I pointed out, I have no aversion to homosexuals. G-d still loves them, they are still children of G-d and deserve to be treated with dignity just as you and I are treated with dignity. My riding opinion is that it is not a choice (I won’t go into why it’s not a choice, but I stop there and do not go to biological or genetic reasons) but an inclination or orientation that one may have. If there is a 6,000 Catholic students at my school, I suspect that 300 of those are homosexuals. I know about half those 6,000 students at my school, so statistically that means I know 150 of them, and with the other students at my school I could bump that up to 300-400 homosexuals I know. As far as I know, I treat everyone with dignity and I do so for those that I know are homosexuals or not. Homosexuality doesn’t change the fact that we’re supposed to treat others with dignity and respect NO MATTER WHAT. And, I believe binge drinking is wrong, and almost everyone I know does it on campus. I treat them with dignity even when I see them in horrendous states of unconsciousness. Same goes for those that commit homosexual acts, even though I think it is wrong, I do not hate them.

Homosexuality and homosexual acts are not synonymous. And, kid? Did you really just pull a whoever smelt it dealt and you call me the kid?

[quote]
You don’t wanna be that kind of homophobe (yes, homophobe; “Having gay friends” is a bullshit disclaimer. I bet you don’t tell them to their face how sinful and wrong their ways are…) who gets arrested in an airport bathroom for soliciting sex with an undercover police officer. Word to Idaho.[/quote]

I didn’t say me having gay friends was a disqualification of me being homophobic, I said I wasn’t homophobic. Me having gay friends is how I would know (how can you know your scared of something if you never go around it?) that I’m not homophobic, they do not repulse me anymore than I repulse myself (and I’m actually quit fond of myself). They do not repulse me anymore than alcoholics or than those with inclinations to other sexual perversions. Those that even do commit those acts do not repulse me, how would it look for me as a Catholic to say I follow Jesus and than act repulsed by those who the Church says I am supposed to help? Did Jesus not eat with tax collectors and prostitutes? I am sure Jesus knew those two things were wrong, but I am sure he did not have a knee jerk reaction when he met those who committed acts of tax collecting and prostitution.

And, it’s still a little bit of a fallacious argument to say, because I say something is wrong than I have a phobia to it. I don’t, and you have no evidence for your opinion, other than I said homosexual acts are wrong.

311

Chris your homey from the Marian friary of our lady of Guadalupe, whose homily YOU posted to me was much closer to the truth. Aug 09 - Homily: Saintliness is not Silliness - YouTube You’re not gonna tell me there is more division here as you no longer concur with our fine friar that to say that God loves the sinner and hates the sin is a satanic lie now are you. Or did you never agree in the first place. Oops, that would still be division and that between a noob and a formerly educated Catholic friar. How dare you? Come on Chris my dear friend. You’re throwin me slow balls here.

312

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That is, NOTHING can be true WITHOUT the God of bible.
[/quote]

And you came to this conclusion… because you got a tingly feeling one day? Oh, right, directly after talking to (get this) a christian pastor!

Ca-ray-zee how that works.

No, really, Tirib. Please explain what the experience was for you, and how exactly “weird experience” leads to “the bible is true”.

313

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Please explain what the experience was for you, [/quote] A RE_Post:
I was raised catholic, but that just naturally fell away as I got older. My parents divorced when I was 4. I hated school despite being exceptionally good at it. I could read and spell at senior high school levels by 3rd grade. They put me in one of these classes for gifted children and wanted to skip me from 2nd to 4th and then from 3rd to 5th grades. but my mother and step father wouldn’t let them. >>>>>----Fast forward–> I failed 8th grade because I was in jail and otherwise never there practically the whole year finally dropping out of school altogether in 10th grade which should have been 11th. I got myself in sufficient enough trouble with the people I was selling drugs for here in Detroit that it became necessary for me to leave town and I went to Phoenix. I was 17. In short order I wound up homeless (as in sleeping wherever I fell down) for almost a year during which time I was wasted on one thing or another and in and out of jail.

I ended up in alcoholics anonymous through a court order where I actually did get off the drugs and alcohol though I eventually found the whole thing pretty idiotic(still do). That’s where I met Bobby. The guy who led me to the Lord. I saw him speak at a meeting. He was really different. He told everybody, among other things, in his calm confident, but not arrogant manner that God is GOD. He is not some idol you call “higher power” as you understand him and He doesn’t leave His children recoverING from drunkenness their whole life. He delivers them from it.(abbreviated version) I was oddly intrigued. The girlfriend I was sitting with was not at all thrilled, but I called Bobby over anyway. I wasn’t even sure what I was going to say to him. I had very long hair and was dressed in my then typical skin tight n half naked rivethead heavy metal garb complete with chrome studded black leather dog collar and wrist bands.

I have never known anybody else like this guy. After a minute of my stammering small talk and him just looking at me intently he interrupted and said “I know what you’re trying to ask me even though you don’t. If you want answers come to my place tomorrow night at 7”. He wrote an address (no phone number) on a scrap of paper, handed it to me and turned around and walked away. I didn’t even have a driver’s license never mind a car, but I rode my bicycle 12 miles across Phoenix to his apartment not even sure why I was going there. This was late 1984. He didn’t look the least bit surprised to see me there. He got right to it, asking me what I believed about God and heaven etc. As I sat confidently declaring all my qualifications for heaven, if there was one, Bobby just blankly looked at me. He was an uneducated, not particularly well spoken former street hustler 20 years my senior, scarred, missing teeth and black as the ace of spades. At that time the very last person on Earth one would think God would use to reach an arrogant self absorbed 20 year old white kid.

He did not argue with me. He bent forward, looked me right in the eye and told me “Son, you are a sinner just like me. Guilty before the throne of holy and just God and you will be sentenced to eternal death and damnation if you continue on this path of rebellion”.

I was stunned and sat there for a minute my mouth hanging open, but what I now recognize as the not only holy and just, but also loving and merciful spirit of the living God told me in the depths of my being that he was right. I was already being made alive with Christ in heavenly places. It was almost like slow motion. I sheepishly asked him “what do I do?” He said “confess to Him that without the saving blood and resurrected life of Jesus Christ you are as a child of the first Adam born in sin and worthy of the full wrath of his justice and ask him to save you”.

I almost laughed, “that’s it?” “That’s it” he said. “He will honor the eternal covenant made with his eternal Son and make you a brother of Christ of which he himself is the firstborn by giving you his very life in the promise of the Holy Spirit dwelling in your heart”. (paraphrases, but pretty close)

I did and so did He. It’s been a rocky road at times and despite my disgraceful excuse-less backsliding for a while, even in the depths of drunken despair when I begged him (and much much worse) to just leave me alone I knew he was there and he never took his loving hand off my life. Quite the contrary. Like I say, the worse I was the nearer He drew Himself to me until it drove me to my knees in tearful repentance. For the past 5 plus years my faith has been greatly renewed again. The crushing pressure of being unemployed and trying to provide for my family, far from bringing discouragement and fear has been an opportunity for my Lord to drive me into never before dreamed of peace and devotion to Him. “Whom the Lord loves he disciplines and he chastens every son whom he receives”.

314

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chris your homey from the Marian friary of our lady of Guadalupe, whose homily YOU posted to me was much closer to the truth. You’re not gonna tell me there is more division here as you no longer concur with our fine friar that to say that God loves the sinner and hates the sin is a satanic lie now are you. Or did you never agree in the first place. Oops, that would still be division and that between a noob and a formerly educated Catholic friar. How dare you? Come on Chris my dear friend. You’re throwin me slow balls here.
[/quote]

Please explain to me how I do not ‘concur’ with the Father? Do I not rebuke those who sin? Do I not love the sinner? Do I loath the sick man, instead of his illness? Do I not refrain from soothing the sinner and adding fuel to his sin? Do I not use prudence in my judgments?

I am no following, either you’re seeing something I am not or you didn’t watch and listen to the Father.

315

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Please explain what the experience was for you, [/quote] A RE_Post:
I was raised catholic, but that just naturally fell away as I got older. My parents divorced when I was 4. I hated school despite being exceptionally good at it. I could read and spell at senior high school levels by 3rd grade. They put me in one of these classes for gifted children and wanted to skip me from 2nd to 4th and then from 3rd to 5th grades. but my mother and step father wouldn’t let them. >>>>>----Fast forward–> I failed 8th grade because I was in jail and otherwise never there practically the whole year finally dropping out of school altogether in 10th grade which should have been 11th. I got myself in sufficient enough trouble with the people I was selling drugs for here in Detroit that it became necessary for me to leave town and I went to Phoenix. I was 17. In short order I wound up homeless (as in sleeping wherever I fell down) for almost a year during which time I was wasted on one thing or another and in and out of jail.

I ended up in alcoholics anonymous through a court order where I actually did get off the drugs and alcohol though I eventually found the whole thing pretty idiotic(still do). That’s where I met Bobby. The guy who led me to the Lord. I saw him speak at a meeting. He was really different. He told everybody, among other things, in his calm confident, but not arrogant manner that God is GOD. He is not some idol you call “higher power” as you understand him and He doesn’t leave His children recoverING from drunkenness their whole life. He delivers them from it.(abbreviated version) I was oddly intrigued. The girlfriend I was sitting with was not at all thrilled, but I called Bobby over anyway. I wasn’t even sure what I was going to say to him. I had very long hair and was dressed in my then typical skin tight n half naked rivethead heavy metal garb complete with chrome studded black leather dog collar and wrist bands.

I have never known anybody else like this guy. After a minute of my stammering small talk and him just looking at me intently he interrupted and said “I know what you’re trying to ask me even though you don’t. If you want answers come to my place tomorrow night at 7”. He wrote an address (no phone number) on a scrap of paper, handed it to me and turned around and walked away. I didn’t even have a driver’s license never mind a car, but I rode my bicycle 12 miles across Phoenix to his apartment not even sure why I was going there. This was late 1984. He didn’t look the least bit surprised to see me there. He got right to it, asking me what I believed about God and heaven etc. As I sat confidently declaring all my qualifications for heaven, if there was one, Bobby just blankly looked at me. He was an uneducated, not particularly well spoken former street hustler 20 years my senior, scarred, missing teeth and black as the ace of spades. At that time the very last person on Earth one would think God would use to reach an arrogant self absorbed 20 year old white kid.

He did not argue with me. He bent forward, looked me right in the eye and told me “Son, you are a sinner just like me. Guilty before the throne of holy and just God and you will be sentenced to eternal death and damnation if you continue on this path of rebellion”.

I was stunned and sat there for a minute my mouth hanging open, but what I now recognize as the not only holy and just, but also loving and merciful spirit of the living God told me in the depths of my being that he was right. I was already being made alive with Christ in heavenly places. It was almost like slow motion. I sheepishly asked him “what do I do?” He said “confess to Him that without the saving blood and resurrected life of Jesus Christ you are as a child of the first Adam born in sin and worthy of the full wrath of his justice and ask him to save you”.

I almost laughed, “that’s it?” “That’s it” he said. “He will honor the eternal covenant made with his eternal Son and make you a brother of Christ of which he himself is the firstborn by giving you his very life in the promise of the Holy Spirit dwelling in your heart”. (paraphrases, but pretty close)

I did and so did He. It’s been a rocky road at times and despite my disgraceful excuse-less backsliding for a while, even in the depths of drunken despair when I begged him (and much much worse) to just leave me alone I knew he was there and he never took his loving hand off my life. Quite the contrary. Like I say, the worse I was the nearer He drew Himself to me until it drove me to my knees in tearful repentance. For the past 5 plus years my faith has been greatly renewed again. The crushing pressure of being unemployed and trying to provide for my family, far from bringing discouragement and fear has been an opportunity for my Lord to drive me into never before dreamed of peace and devotion to Him. “Whom the Lord loves he disciplines and he chastens every son whom he receives”.
[/quote]

So lets get these points down:

You were raised to be christian, lending you a predisposition toward seeking out that religion as an adult.

You were impressionable, after years of instability (drug use, homelessness, etc).

A charasmatic man (at least, one you found to be charasmatic) gave you (in your young, unstable, impressionable state) VERY clear, definitive answers.

You fail to notice that this guy hangs around AA(!) converting vulnerable people to his religion.

You decide, with no other proof then your own conjecture, that this guy MUST have been sent by the LORD.

From then out, you started from the conclusion that the GOD ol Ace of Spades spoke of MUST be real.

Cut the shit, dude. If a rabbi had gotten to you with the same “This is THIS” attitude, you’d be jewish. Same for a muslim forcefully declaring “Allah is ALLAH”. Your religious conviction is the product of being brainwashed as a child and “witnessed to” when you were vulnerable and unstable.

316

I wonder how long that guy ran the “I’ll hang around recovering addicts and push my religious views on them! I’ll tell them that MY God…er, GOD, wont leave them recovering forever, but will deliver them from their addiction!” scam.

Its religion at its finest: pinpoint weak, vulnerable, suffering people and tell them YOUR religion is the one that will help them.

I wonder how many other struggling people caught this guys bullshit and thought “This must be a sign from the LORD! The LORD sent this man just for me, there can be no other way!”

317

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Please explain to me how I do not ‘concur’ with the Father? Do I not rebuke those who sin? Do I not love the sinner? Do I loath the sick man, instead of his illness? Do I not refrain from soothing the sinner and adding fuel to his sin? Do I not use prudence in my judgments?

I am no following, either you’re seeing something I am not or you didn’t watch and listen to the Father.[/quote]That’s not what he said Chris and it’s right there for all to view. He said specifically that to say that GOD loves sinners while hating their sin is a satanic lie. He went so far as to remove all doubt by saying God will not be casting acts of sin into the lake of fire, but sinners who He hates. I agree. Watch it again. That’s very reformed of him =] In fact if you’ll remember I commended the man with eyebrows raised when you first made the mistake of showing me this. I could have almost said just about everything he does in this homily (sermon, but who cares) myself. I do hasten to add that this does not mean that we are so privileged as to know the elect and thereby permitted to hate sinners like God does. He can do it and we can’t.

318

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
In other words, you can’t point to even one scripture where Jesus said anything negative about gays. And you’re wrong about Peter as well. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is the ONLY person in the entire new testament to hate on gays, and this is the same man whom most cherry picking Christians choose to ignore when it comes to his condemnation of women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Why? Because misogyny is no longer socially acceptable. Nor is homophobia, increasingly even in this country. [/quote]

I haven’t said anything negative about gays. All I said was that acting on one’s homosexuality is wrong. Paul didn’t hate on gays, if you read carefully, Paul is referring to homosexual acts. Yeah, I don’t ignore Paul either on the women speaking in Church. If you haven’t noticed, there are no female priests and most women in my parish wear veils to the Liturgy.

Lol, that’s not misogyny, and Paul wasn’t homophobic, unless I’m homophobic just because I believe that homosexual acts, just like any other sexual acts outside a valid marriage are wrong.

I haven’t said anything negative about fundamentalist, literalist Christians. All I said was that expecting others to share your emotional beliefs driven by an insecure need for black and white answers is wrong.

Why do you think Peter and Paul disagreed and argued about key doctrines? Why did Peter say that Paul was notoriously hard to understand, and many would misinterpret his writings? As a Catholic, I would think you’d give precedence to Peter over Paul, and to Jesus over both.

319

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]

Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.

As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]

slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]

In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.

Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.

I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]

I can’t let this go unchallenged. Some men are meant to be masters over others? I’ll give you a chance to explain first.[/quote]

Example: Obama.[/quote]

Obama isn’t my master. He doesn’t own me and I am not his slave. Are you?[/quote]

He can make laws in which you have to follow, he taxes you does he not, and he makes you pay the bill when he goes to war? Did you vote for Obama, if you did he commanded more than his own vote, making him an Aristocrat and by that I mean master and slave = Aristocrat and commoner.

[quote]
Oh, you meant to say that some men are meant to lead others, rather than some men are meant to own others. Glad you clarified that.[/quote]

Still master and slaves, one’s master wasn’t always his owner.[/quote]

Merriam-Webster definition of slave:

A person who is considered the property of another person.

Whatever, just wanted to ensure you weren’t implying some people were meant to own other people.

320

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I was talking about this recent rash of statements from you. When you shared the observation by a priest that you are medievally myopic in your perspectives[/quote]

I am prone to medieval thinking and myopic piety. A big difference from what you said, and he was referencing me becoming a priest and dealing with parishioners.

[quote]
, it suddenly all made sense. My appeal to Pat was to point out that being Catholic doesn’t mean you have to be stuck in the middle ages in your morality.[/quote]

I’m not stuck in the middle ages, my medieval ‘thinking’ is in reference to my Catholic faith. Unless believing there is a G-d, believing there is right and wrong, and that loyalty to the Church and Country is middle ages. The reference to the medievalness was to my following of Thomas.

[quote]
Biblical morality is certainly regressive. The old testament is regressive compared to the new testament. And the writings of Paul are regressive, on issues like slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality, compared to what we’ve learned in the subsequent 2,000 years of social enlightenment.[/quote]

Do you think Thomas Aquinas is regressive?[/quote]

So what did the priest mean when he said you are prone to medieval thinking and myopic piety? To me, that phrase stongly implies a regressive tendency that could hurt your effectiveness as a priest. I don’t know Thomas Aquinas well enough to have an informed opinion on how regressive his views are.