Daniel's Mommy,
Daniels Mommy said:
Anytime you refer to homosexuals and the acts they engage in as "abomination" or "disordered" or whatever clinical term you might try to use, it is anti-homosexual. Plain and simple.
First of all, you accused me of using epithets. An epithet is some kind of offenisve slur, which I NEVER did. So you will agree that your accusation was false. Secondly, I NEVER referred to persons struggling with same sex attraction as an "abomination" or "disordered." In fact, I never used the word abomination at all. You did a few pages back, putting the word in my mouth when I did not use it, but I never used it.
You need to make a distinction between persons and acts. They are not the same. If I tell a lie, I am guilty of the sin of lying, but I am not a lie. I am distinct from my acts. If someone desires to hurt someone else, that desire is disordered, but that person themself is not. It is the desire that is disordered. Homosexual acts are disordered. I am not making a statement about persons.
Pointing out the reality of sin in the world is not anti-anything except anti-evil. If I told you a lie and you pointed it out, you would not be anti-Filia Mariae, you would be pointing out a sin on my part.
I don't find Jesus offensive, I find what many Christians try to make Jesus into to be offensive. In fact, I find Jesus quite the opposite : loving, kind, generous, and willing to live His life by example.
It's unfortunate that you are making the mistake of equating being loving with being nice. Sometimes, when you love someone, you can't be "nice." Jesus wasn't always "nice." The Scriptures frequently tell of him "rebuking" people when they were in error. Love means you correct people not to be self-righteous and superior, but because you will their good and want to be in heaven with them someday.
I would beg to differ. This OP denigrates a Church where a friend of mine attends. I find the title of this OP offensive. I find the reasons for starting this thread offensive. I find it offensive to continually attack someone's Church, knowing full well they are members here, too.
CaDan joined the thread after it was started. The issue is very simply- this parish is unfaithful to the Church. That is what is supposed to be discussed here, and you are in violation of the moderators directive for non-Catholics not to debate in this thread.
Sure you did. Read all your posts.
Once again, you fail to understand the distinction between persons and acts. Identifying an act as sinful is not condeming the person who commits the act. This is an important distinction you need to understand.
Again, show me where the Word of God defines the activity as sinful, please. Please oh please show me where Jesus states that homosexuality is a sin.
The first problem is that you believe the Word of God to be contained in Scripture alone. This belief is false and contradictory to Scripture itself. You also seem to believe that Jesus gave simple directives for every moral issue when He did not. Can you show me where He says, "Pedophilia is wrong"? Of course not. Because Jesus didn't make up a list of every sin you could commit and hold forth on it. Proof texting is a deficient means of doctrinal evaluation; one needs to look at the whole of Scripture not isolated verses.
I certainly can show how Scripture teaches the purpose and design for marriage, and how that purpose and design in contrary to homosexual relationships.
In a nutshell- In Genesis 2 we are presented with the original marriage and we see how original man and woman live in unity pre-Fall and are commanded to sustain one another and multpily in fruitfulness. God declares these two to be in His image and likeness. Their relationship of mutual self-donation is an image of the mutual self-donation of the Father and Son in perfect unity of love. This love is so real that it results in a third person, the Holy Spirit. The mutual self-donation of man and wife is so real it results in a new person too, one who has to be given a name nine months later. Again and again through the Old Testament the relationship between God and Israel is presented as the relationship between a husband and wife. The Song of Songs celebrates sexual love of husband and wife, especially in terms of how it images God's love for His people.
In Matthew 19, Jesus identifies the normative definition of marriage- the indissoluble union of man and woman. Romans does condemn homosexuality directly. Ephesians 5 tells us that the union of man and wife in marriage is an image of Christ and His Bride the Church. Revelation tells us that heaven in the wedding banquet of the Lamb where we wil be joined to Him forever, in fulfillment of what marriage foreshadowed.
What characterizes this relationship of God to His people- a free, total, fruitful gift of self. God's love for us brings forth new life, our eternal life in Him. Marriage images this by bringing forth new life in the image and likeness of God.
There can be no total gift of self in a homosexual act- it is anatomically impossible, and no fruitfulness can result.
Did you know that marriage is the most common analogy for God's relationship to His people in the Scriptures?
Because He had bigger fish to fry with His time on earth. Again I think the self-proclaimed "Christ's Church" ought to focus a little more on HIM and a little less on the homosexuals.
I stated that St. Joan's needs to focus more on adoring Christ in the Eucharist and was told this is not necessary, social justice is necessary. In reality, we draw our strength from the Eucharist, our source and summit. That gives us strength to go out into the world preaching the Gospel to all, that they may "repent and believe in the good news" as Jesus commanded us to do.
Unfortunately, perceptions are all one has to go on when the conversations take place in writing. Offensive language and wording in the OP and continually throughout this thread....not a perception, but in fact a reality.
While you may have been subjectively offended, there was nothing objectively derogatory or condeming of people.
DanielsMommy,
I apologize for angering you, but the issue being discussed here is not your feelings on homosexuality. If you want to start another thread on why you think homosexual acts are a perfectly morally licit choice, that it fine and your prerogative. But you are hijacking a thread that was not focused on that and are accusing me of things that I did not do. This is both unfair and hurtful. If you read the thread again, you may find you still think I am wrong about homosexuality but you will find I NEVER condemned any person. I only identified a parish that is unfaithful to Christ's Bride in a number of ways, one of which is the encouragement of homosexual acts.
Peace.
I forget!
