Pro-life vid of day: Mandela – national hero and abortion advocate
by LauraLoo
Jill wrote previously on her feelings about Nelson Mandela’s mixed legacy. World Net Daily has additional thoughts from a man who personally knew Mandela:
[The late] Nelson Mandela was a radical Marxist and a firm advocate of abortion, pornography, homosexuality and legalizing prostitution, according to a prominent Christian missionary who was summoned to the home of the South African president.
Rev. Peter Hammond, founder of Frontline Fellowship and Africa Christian Nation, has worked for nearly 30 years helping persecuted Christians in Africa….
In 2010, Frontline released a set of two videos titled, My Meeting with Nelson Mandela, in which Hammond reveals the true character of the anti-apartheid revolutionary and recalls his visit with him at his home.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTFhaUYmzV0[/youtube]
“I’m astounded that so many in the West idolize Mandela and lift him up as a messianic figure because they obviously don’t know what he teaches, what he believes or what he does – or his support for some of the most radical Marxist dictatorships on the planet with some of the worst human-rights records, such as the governments of Red China and Cuba,” Hammond stated.
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Ken; photo by Dave Hogan/Getty Images via about.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Nobody, including Mandela, advocates for homosexuality (well, except for the few creepy gay guys who wanna convert straights, but they are rarer than people who want to convert gays). People advocate for homosexual people to have equal rights and be treated okay, which is a HUGE problem in most areas. Gays and lesbians are beaten, raped, imprisoned, and murdered in many African countries due to cultural and religious influences. Advocating for these people isn’t something to be condemned, because they need help. LGBT people do not deserve to be treated like that.
In apartheid South Africa, gays and lesbians (only white ones, I think) were forced into unwanted medical treatments to “cure” their orientation, among other issues. Post-apartheid things are legally better, but the social attitude is still pretty mean towards people who aren’t straight. . It’s due to Mandela’s government that gays aren’t treated legally terribly anymore, and that’s a good thing, not something to condemn.
Thanks for this. I made this video with Peter at St Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida a few years back. Since Mandela’s death, it’s gone viral. Thanks for helping us get the truth out.
This video shows that Mandela was not morally consistent given his anti-apartheid efforts. He lost his way sometime after that. That is very evident..
“secular/sectarian humanism holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
.
Homosexuality is a ‘turd’ that has no clean end.
.
You sweeter than Jesus folks keep examining it real close and hopefully, sooner rather than later, the truth will set you free.
.
Just remember to wash your hands thorougly when you are done.
.
Jude 22-23 22 And refute [so as to] convict some who dispute with you, and on some have mercy who waver and doubt. 23 [Strive to] save others, snatching [them] out of [the] fire; on others take pity [but] with fear, loathing even the garment spotted by the flesh and polluted by their sensuality.
.
Gal 6:1 BRETHREN, IF any person is overtaken in misconduct or sin of any sort, you who are spiritual [who are responsive to and controlled by the Spirit] should set him right and restore and reinstate him, without any sense of superiority and with all gentleness, keeping an attentive eye on yourself, lest you should be tempted also.
.
Eph 4:14 14 So then, we may no longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men, [gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead.
.
Rom 1:30-32 30 Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents. 31 [They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.32 Though they are fully aware of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them. AMP
.
1 Tim 1:8-11 8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose for which it was designed], 9 Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers, 10[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers — and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine 11 As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. AMP
I am not blaming all this on Mandela, but the country is in bad shape. They have a very high AIDS and crime rate. I read that under Mandela the economy tanked, but I am not sure this is true.
Hands up all those who are going to change from straight to gay because someone says it would be a good idea……………..no takers? Advocacy failure I guess.
Mandela advocated for peoples freedom, rights and equality. This meant that women who needed an abortion could get one. It meant that homosexuals might lead safer and more equitable lives. He did not ‘advocate’ that people be gay or have abortions.
Hammond’s claim that providing constitutional safety and equality for gays is ‘privileges for perverts’ says all that needs to be said. Equality =/= privilege.
He criticizes Mandela for meeting the Chinese leadership. Hello! Nixon anyone? Reagan?
One can only conclude that Hammond is using Mandela’s death as an opportunity to push his own barrow and self-promote.
well, except for the few creepy gay guys who wanna convert straights, but they are rarer than people who want to convert gays).
How do you know this? I have met quite of few people who wanted to convert me to gay — at least temporarily. I was a bartender/waitress for years. Bartime parties were notorious for women hitting on me (although I would have to say in most cases, there were men behind the scenes in one form or another encouraging/coercing drunk women). And yes, I saw self-proclaimed straight people of both genders cross lines while drunk/drugging that they would never cross while sober. Does this mean they are bi-sexual or just addicts/sinners looking for love?
Anyway, I see the school culture trying everything possible to normalizing gay sexual behavior. I’m digging in my heals and telling kids they can choose to change if they’ve crossed any sexual lines they regret.
There are numerous ‘gay conversion therapy’ groups claiming they can ‘fix the gay’. Some even get government funding. I think Bachmann’s husband is involved? Some of their leading lights have recently renounced them, something which comes as no surprise to people with the relevant qualifications (or even just the rational).
I’m not aware of any equivilent level of ‘make them gay’ groups. Are you?
Gay sexual behavior is normal for gay people. Educating people that such is the case doesn’t make anyone gay. It doesn’t promote ‘gayhood’ as a choice. It simply works to abate bigotry and homophobia.
they can choose to change if they’ve crossed any sexual lines they regret – what about you, can you change your sexuality?
Yes Ken, we’re all quite aware that you have no problem with discrimination and violence towards gay people.
“How do you know this?”
Because there are way, way more straight men and women than there are gay men and lesbian women. It’s just a matter of numbers. And in my experience most gay people just want to be left alone. There’s certainly an “activist” segment that pushes hard for some things that I consider out of line, but they don’t speak for LGBT people the same way Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for all Christians or PETA doesn’t speak for all vegetarians and vegans. And considering how many people think that homosexuality is a choice, I think it’s safe to say that they eclipse the amount of LGBT people who want to “convert”.
There are sexually aggressive gay men, of course, because there are bad people in every group. I’ve been propositioned and even harassed or groped on occasion by other men. But the majority of gay men are like the majority of straight guys, and don’t harass or coerce people into sexual situations. And don’t forget there are sexually aggressive women too, like you mentioned (though males are sometimes involved in those situations too, as you pointed out).
Bisexuality may be the cause of the “straight but had sex with the same gender” people. A lot of bisexuals tend to deny their same sex attractions (which is fine if they do not want to involve themselves with the same gender), and sometimes the attractions come out when people are vulnerable (drunk, etc). Or it could be as you say, loneliness or need for love. All male populations have higher rates of homosexual behavior than the general population, so there’s something there to consider.
“Mandela advocated for peoples freedom, rights and equality. This meant that women who needed an abortion could get one. It meant that homosexuals might lead safer and more equitable lives. He did not ‘advocate’ that people be gay or have abortions.”
Yeah, except for the unborn babies that he forgot need equality and rights and the freedom not to be killed.
And btw I’m not arguing the morality of homosexual behavior, I’ve had my fill of that here and my views are rather confused on the matter. I just argue equal rights and freedom from discrimination and violence, which I think most people agree with here. That’s why including Mandela’s views on homosexuality here upsets me, what his government did was put legal protections that no one should disagree with (except for same sex marriage, there are arguments there I guess) for LGBT people. I can’t see how anything he did regarding homosexuality would be a cause for concern for anyone, even if you have a moral opposition to homosexuals.
This is Jack btw, I feel weird talking to people I’ve talked to forever and them not knowing it’s me lol.
I thought that was you, Jack. Why “Deluded Lib Pro-lifer”?
I could change my sexual behaviors if I so wished. I could start dabbling in porn and then getting into harder stuff. I could choose to take pay for sexual behavior or pay out for it. I could choose to have an affair. I could choose to manipulate a minor or assault someone. I could choose to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender. I could choose to get into orgies or porn movies. I could choose to hang out and work at sex stores and have sex parties.
And then I could choose the opposite of all the above.
Lol Lrning. For one, it makes me laugh every time I see it or type it out. And two, it seems that’s the majority opinion of me from both other liberals who don’t agree with my pro-life views and some of the conservative pro-lifers. I’ll wear the label with pride! :D
Yes Prax everyone chooses their own behavior. It’s perfectly possible to be gay or bisexual or whatever and be celibate or be with someone of the opposite gender, whichever the person chooses. But you can’t choose who you are attracted to. No matter how much you pray, or hate yourself, or wish you were different the attraction doesn’t go away. That doesn’t mean you have to act on it but I don’t believe that the orientation is fixable. Exodus issued a really nice (I’m not being sarcastic) apology for how they advanced that view and the leader flat out lied about his continuing same sex attraction. I don’t think anyone wakes up one day and thinks “hey, it would be so cool to like other guys and make a good portion of the world think I’m disgusting and compare my attraction to pedophilia, sounds like a plan!”. Why would anyone want to make life suck so much more?
There are people who aren’t genuinely attracted to the same gender who engage in homosexual behavior and those people can change, I think, but some people are just gay or bi, no way to change it imo.
Here’s the apology that Alan Chambers issued when Exodus International shut down, it makes me all choked up. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/june/alan-chambers-apologizes-to-gay-community-exodus.html
Sexual behaviors such as porn, infidelity etc. are one thing. If you decide to try something you haven’t felt the need to try so far in life you might find yourself biting your lip or holding your nose though.
Your sexuality is quite another.
If you decided to have a same-sex dalliance then you are either latently bisexual or it would be a case of ‘grin and bear it’ to prove some point. Or maybe you’ve been ‘grinning and bearing’ your behavior to date?
“If you decided to have a same-sex dalliance then you are either latently bisexual or it would be a case of ‘grin and bear it’ to prove some point. Or maybe you’ve been ‘grinning and bearing’ your behavior to date?”
Meh, Ive known a few people who had some same sex “dalliance” and they seem to be pretty much straight. They were both ex-cons though, like I said homosexual behavior tends to be higher in all male populations (I’ve seen a couple studies), and I don’t believe they were coerced. I think some people just go for it because they want some human contact or sex. But most people who engage in that sort of thing are oriented that way, I do agree.
I am oriented towards the cigarette over the carrot stick. I still am attracted to the cigarette but know it is not healthy or natural. Carrots make me feel better and are better for me.
I chose to change. And now I am an ex-smoker. Tolerate my choice.
Finished here.
We’re not even disagreeing mostly, so I don’t know where the tone is coming from. I would take issue with the “it’s not natural” thing, because sexual behavior between same gendered animals is observed in many species. That doesn’t make it right, but I can’t buy the not natural thing. Abnormal, sure. Wrong, okay. Damaging, in some cases sure. Unnatural, not so much.
But anyway, regardless of the argument about if being gay is okay or not, South Africa’s policies pre-Mandela’s government were punitive and cruel, and the culture for LGBT people there is still bad. There have been many “corrective rapes” against lesbians, even on girls as young as thirteen, and sexual assault used to punish gay men as well is almost as prevalent. That’s in addition to other physical violence and social problems as well. I don’t agree with lumping Mandela’s actions in regards to the LGBT community in with stuff like legalizing abortion and supporting prostitution.
We aren’t born with a ‘smoking orientation’.
We are born with our sexual orientation.
Abnormal, sure. – uncommon is more accurate than abnormal. Unless we consider left handed folk, red-heads and those with rarer blood types to be abnormal as well.
Wrong, okay. – what? Not at all. Calling it wrong is unjustifiable
Damaging, in some cases sure. – yep. But also damaging due to the behaviors of others.
Unnatural, not so much. – not in the least.
“Abnormal, sure. – uncommon is more accurate than abnormal. Unless we consider left handed folk, red-heads and those with rarer blood types to be abnormal as well.”
Abnormal or uncommon works, I guess. Uncommon is a nicer word.
“Wrong, okay. – what? Not at all. Calling it wrong is unjustifiable”
I simply do not know anymore.
I think the “abnormal” is accurate enough in regards to the prevalence of homosexual orientations versus the prevalence of heterosexual orientations, Reality. And in regards to reproduction solely, it seems like it’s abnormal to prefer sex that doesn’t have the option of reproducing?
“abnormal” can be applied in either neutral or negative ways Allegedly-Deluded Lib Pro-lifer. And you know which way some people here apply it. “Uncommon” is accurate without connotations.
And in regards to reproduction solely, it seems like it’s abnormal to prefer sex that doesn’t have the option of reproducing? – what, like hetero couples who know they can’t have kids? Hetero couples who do a bit of non-vaginal horizontal folk dancing? Hetero couples who have post-menopausal sex?
From a chastity website –
“Because of this, some argue that the Church is “discriminating against gays.” This is an understandable reaction, but realize that the Church is not singling out same-sex couples. In fact, the Church also believes that heterosexual couples are incapable of marriage if they are impotent. Not to be confused with sterility (a condition in which a couple is able to have intercourse but unable to have children), impotency means that a person is incapable of having intercourse.”
I wonder if that means they have to divorce if one of them becomes impotent.
Hey I didn’t imply I was going Catholic even if I’m not too sure about my views on homosexuality.
It weirds me out that sterility wouldn’t be a reason to not allow marriage, but permanent impotency would be? At least it’s not just picking on gay couples. But if all sex acts are supposed to be open to life AND unitive, I don’t understand why sterility would not be a reason for disallowing marriage when impotency would. I’m never going to understand all the rules but I’m sure I break most of them most of the time.
I’ve read before it’s only permanent impotency that precludes marriage, Reality, not treatable impotency. And no they would not get divorced at impotency further in the marriage, because they had managed to consummate already as I understand it. Same for post-menopausal sex. I believe that they might be eligible for annulment within the Church if they never consummate because of permanent impotency and other reasons, as I understand it.
Yep, there are so many variables and ‘according to circumstance’ directives, it’s an absolute wheel of fortune Allegedly-Deluded Lib Pro-lifer.
Well this is what is confusing me, Catholic doctrine is generally very internally consistent in my experience, even if there’s plenty I don’t agree with. I don’t think it’s so much wheel of fortune, that might fit different Protestant churches better (they all disagree with each other). But Catholicism is pretty consistent. That’s why this is confusing to me, I’ll just read up on it.
You have seen the dissing of some catholics, both ‘internal’ and ‘external’, by other catholics here haven’t you ADLP? “Catholics for Choice” anyone?
I’m talking about the actual Roman Catholic doctrine, it’s very consistent generally. I’m not talking about separate groups or churches that consider themselves Catholic but might not follow all the doctrine. There’s no overarching Protestant doctrine that the churches are supposed to follow like there is Catholic doctrine. I’ve been trying to read all the different types of Christianity and their doctrines but I fear I’m just confusing myself lol. I get them all mixed up with each other.
For a vegetarian you are displaying an unusual desire to eat an elephant ADLP.
I simply don’t want to reject something that so mNy people believe in unless I understand it fully. Doesn’t seem rational to reject it because I had bad experiences previously.
Do any of its proponents understand it fully? Why is it that there are so many variances, versions, interpretations and selections? Heck, even the leading theologians aren’t in lock-step.
Doesn’t seem rational to reject it because I had bad experiences previously. – yeah well, you might be a bit Robinson Crusoe on that one around here ADLP ;-)
“Do any of its proponents understand it fully? Why is it that there are so many variances, versions, interpretations and selections? Heck, even the leading theologians aren’t in lock-step.”
Well I think most Christian churches believe that if you believe the basics you go to heaven, even if you’re sinning according to other doctrines of that specific church? Maybe a Christian can chime in on that one, I’m not too clear on it. And I know the Catholics have purgatory, where I think all believers go even non-Catholics before they are purified for heaven. I think that is how it goes, I’d have to read up on it more. But anyway what I’ve found is the basics are similar across most denominations except for like Calvinist type churches lol, and they are rare. But idk maybe it’s hopeless, I am just very worried about hell.
Idk about Robinson Crusoe I’ve never read that book or know the plot.
“There’s no overarching Protestant doctrine that the churches are supposed to follow like there is Catholic doctrine.”
Well, right, Diluted ; ) that’s because there is no Protestant church per se. It is a general label applied mostly by non-Protestants. I’m Lutheran. To me, Protestants refers to the reformation in the 16th century. As you must know, specific denominations of Lutherans do have their own overarching consistent doctrine. Oh, and it’s good stuff.
So are you convinced that hell exists, Jack, or just in case, you’d hate to go there?
Lifejoy I haven’t gotten to study Lutheran churches yet, but aren’t the Lutheran churches today the result of Martin… Luther protesting Catholicism? As in the original Protestant church? Lol, that sounds funny but I thought that is where we get Lutheranism.
I’m not convinced hell exists I just have nightmares since childhood about going there, so I figured I’d try and make sure.
Well, yes, Jack. My point is: of course there isn’t an overarching doctrine, there is no Protestant church. You seemed to note that as being odd or at least unexpected. The word Protestant is only significant to Catholics or as a historical relic, as you noted, of how we came to be. But we have NO unity with other “Protestant” churches except in our non- Catholic-ness.
Jack ~ I’d be happy to talk to you about what I believe and/or what my church teaches. I admire your pursuit of your questions. But far better than church body doctrine, read the Bible. Starting the New Testament is perfectly timed for Christmas! =)
“Worried about hell”? No such place exists. But if there were such a place, I think you’d be one of the last to be invited. From what I take of the claimed words, lessons and behavior of jesus there are plenty of others who are more likely to find themselves there than you. There can be a ‘hell’ on earth but that’s another matter.
You don’t know the plot of Robinson Crusoe? You are a philistine man! Haven’t you even seen the questionable yet enjoyable movie version with tom hanks? Being ‘a bit Robinson Crusoe’ means you are on your own. Solo. Marooned.
specific denominations of Lutherans do have their own overarching consistent doctrine. – I attended a couple of lutheran church services many years ago. I found them less dreary than ‘protestant’ services but less ‘dramatic’ than catholic ones. Probably the most enjoyable of the lot. It may sound a bit odd but I found the colors nicer.
Oh, and it’s good stuff. – can we get a show of hands? :-)
But far better than church body doctrine, read the Bible. Starting the New Testament is perfectly timed for Christmas! – the problem is LifeJoy, you all do that yet come up with differing doctrines.
No I get that. I was just saying to Reality that the supposed inconsistency between Catholics who are sterile being allowed to marry but impotent Catholics not being allowed surprised me because Catholic doctrine itself is generally internally consistent, at least the stuff I’ve read so far, and all the churches are supposed to follow if if the claim to be Catholic. With non-Catholic churches they usually have much leeway to set their own doctrine (like churches that call themselves Baptist sometimes have wildly different doctrines). I totally forgot about Lutherans, sorry. All I meant is that Catholicism is centralized and consistent so the discrepancy surprised me.
““Worried about hell”? No such place exists. But if there were such a place, I think you’d be one of the last to be invited. From what I take of the claimed words, lessons and behavior of jesus there are plenty of others who are more likely to find themselves there than you. There can be a ‘hell’ on earth but that’s another ”
No I would go because of the not believing thing. That’s consistent with nearly all denominations I’ve looked into so far, is that it’s definitely my current destination. You’re supposed to have faith and works, and works are supposed to come through faith. That’s what pretty much all of them believe. And I don’t have faith and not really works either, so there I go to eternal torment. That much I understand. I can’t find a denomination that says being a generally nice guy gets you anywhere but hell without the rest. And I’m not that nice lol.
Ah, I see with the Robinson Crusoe thing, for Tom Hanks movie are you talking about Castaway? You’re the philistine, that’s a great movie! I suppose I’m somewhat Crusoe lol.
Lifejoy I do read the Bible a lot.
If it’s a show of hands you are looking for, Reality, come on over to my church next time you’re in the neighborhood. People will shake your hand, give you a hand, and be Jesus’ hands and feet on earth. And you can even check out our super nice colors. Ha. =) Pretty stained glass, antique lights … even a little Gospel. That’s enjoyable too.
No I would go because of the not believing thing. That’s consistent with nearly all denominations I’ve looked into so far, is that it’s definitely my current destination. You’re supposed to have faith and works, and works are supposed to come through faith. – like I said ADLP, from what I take of the claimed words, lessons and behavior of jesus you’ve probably got less to worry about than others who may be considered ‘safe’.
You’re the philistine, that’s a great movie! – now now, I said it was questionable yet enjoyable. Not very true to the book or the classic film versions. Unless and until you’ve seen or read more you cannot claim I am the philistine ;-)
Thanks but no thanks LifeJoy. I’ve spent enough time inside churches to last a lifetime. I’ll probably have to do so if a wedding pops up, although it’s more likely to be for funerals at my age.
The show of hands I was looking for LifeJoy, was how many here agree with your statement that lutheran doctrine was ‘good stuff’ and how many think theirs is the ‘good stuff’.
When you said specific denominations of Lutherans do have their own overarching consistent doctrine did you mean that each denomination has their own overarching consistent doctrine or that there is one across all those denominations?
OK, I see what you were getting at with the protestant doctrines comments. I would also note that there is a label problem. “Lutheran” can refer to a few different church bodies, each with their own beliefs. There may be some common core similarities, but for example, some Lutheran denominations support abortion and some are in fellowship with Methodists who also support abortion. Cringe. I also do think you are right that some protestant denominations have less specified doctrine from church to church or even day to day. I am glad you read the Bible. I still don’t understand why, from your perspective of being without faith.
Reality ~ I do see the disagreements among the churches as a stumbling block. But I also see them as witness to people’s remarkable inabilities and sometimes unwillingness to fully grasp God.
Right, Reality, a real show of hands in this venue would probably align me with the likes of Jack and you! =) Perhaps a little stranded myself.
But I also see them as witness to people’s remarkable inabilities and sometimes unwillingness to fully grasp God. – do you not think they might say exactly the same thing of you?
That’s the problem you see. So many faiths, so many denominations, so many doctrines, all claiming “mine is right” and criticizing or condemning the others.
Right, Reality, a real show of hands in this venue would probably align me with the likes of Jack and you! – oh dear, it is not my aim to get you in trouble.
Perhaps a little stranded myself – don’t worry, you’re not alone :-)
“But I also see them as witness to people’s remarkable inabilities and sometimes unwillingness to fully grasp God. – do you not think they might say exactly the same thing of you? That’s the problem you see. So many faiths, so many denominations, so many doctrines, all claiming “mine is right” and criticizing or condemning the others.”
I actually claim that inability and sometimes unwillingness as my own as well.
That said, I do however see Biblical interpretation as an academic process, and some denominations can make a more compelling case than others. Some churches try to downplay what they don’t like or what will make them unpopular with folks.
“like I said ADLP, from what I take of the claimed words, lessons and behavior of jesus you’ve probably got less to worry about than others who may be considered ‘safe’.”
No, because they all believe that the one unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit (and atheism and agnosticism are mortal sins in Catholicism, if you die with an unforgiven mortal sin on your soul you can’t go to heaven if I understand it correctly, and I got plenty of mortal sins). Rejecting the Holy Spirit, as is explained to me, is basically non-belief or lack of faith. So no matter how much I follow Jesus’s words I’m still not headed anywhere good. I even asked some Christians specifically because I fear I can’t force myself to believe, and it’s unanimous you cannot be good enough to go to heaven, it requires faith,
“There may be some common core similarities, but for example, some Lutheran denominations support abortion and some are in fellowship with Methodists who also support abortion.”
Are these churches considered “not Lutheran” to the rest of the Lutherans like pro-choice Catholics are considered CINOs? I’m just curious.
“I still don’t understand why, from your perspective of being without faith.”
Idk I like learning and I worry. Is it weird to read without faith? I admit the entire Old Testament makes me cringe at the amount of times I would have been stoned to death, but I like a lot of the New Testament.
Perhaps buddhism might be safe for you ADLP.
it’s unanimous you cannot be good enough to go to heaven, it requires faith – what do you expect them to say? I still reckon a good doubter stands a better chance than a bad believer.
Is it weird to read without faith? – not at all. LifeJoy encouraged you to do so. I’m sure many others here would too.
I admit the entire Old Testament makes me cringe at the amount of times I would have been stoned to death – that’s funny, a doubter feeling more threatened than the believers.
Is it weird to read without faith? I would consider it a very good thing, but most wouldn’t bother. I would sometimes wonder if my faith is strong enough, and quite honestly, worry – until I heard a pastor say (and he said it way better) that when we feel this way, we need to focus not on our faith but on the object of our faith, Jesus. I would expand on this, that in fact, knowing we need faith in Him IS faith. I am not saying that’s where you are, but it’s something to think about.
As to your not real Lutherans question: the weird thing is that the largest Lutheran denomination is very liberal. I personally feel that anyone who condones abortion does not truly know who God is, so I’d go even further and call someone’s Christianity into question. Perhaps the defining quality is believing Luther’s Sola Fide, faith alone.
“what do you expect them to say? I still reckon a good doubter stands a better chance than a bad believer. ”
Well I do know a verse that says God will “spit out” the lukewarm, which as far as I can tell means he’s not fond of bad believers, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are screwed if you don’t believe according to many other verses. I mean there was doubting Thomas, but Thomas did believe after being shown proof, I be the would have been doomed if he had never seen proof and didn’t believe. So I can’t find any biblical justification for non-believers going to heaven, even though I really would like to find that. :(
“I admit the entire Old Testament makes me cringe at the amount of times I would have been stoned to death – that’s funny, a doubter feeling more threatened than the believers. ”
I’m not kidding, everyone gets stoned for everything in the Old Testament! It really freaks me out. I was really upset about the putting to death of men who “lie with other men”, or the stoning of rape victims that didn’t cry out for help. But apparently that’s the Old Covenant and doesn’t apply anymore? But then I wonder why God would condone that stuff in the first place. Oh well i like the New Testament, I’ll stick with that.
I find your worrying about all this pointless ADLP.
I know. I wish I had either your or the believers certainty.
Well-quoted about the lukewarm, Jack. But that’s not you. Ask yourself why you think you don’t believe and go through it, not around it. The doubts I have come from the idea that it’s too good to be true. But I know there is a God. Does He not like me or is He indifferent towards me? No. He loves me and He has the power to take care of me, so He will. I always ask myself, what are the other options? How could it be any other way? I don’t know, Jack, because ultimately His grace defies logic. One of my favorite passages is: “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we may be called the children of God.”
With that I must bid you Good Night! =)
Well Jack, I just think for myself. We have that capacity.
There’s usually a reason why something defies logic.
That’s not the kind of doubt I have LifeJoy but I really do appreciate you sharing. How do you get over the “defied logic” part? Have a good night and sleep well.
“Well Jack, I just think for myself. We have that capacity. ”
Lol well if you haven’t noticed thinking for myself seems to make me deluded. Allegedly. How do you not worry at all that you’re wrong? We’re you not raised religiously? I can’t remember, how do you find peace in your life?
I might have shared some of these reservations some time in the last 95 years, but I think there’s something in the old Roman saying ‘de mortuis nihil nisi bonum’ – of the dead, say nothing that is not good.
Deluded lib, the Catholic Church goes down the rabbit hold pretty deep about seemingly small details in an effort to try and define the total and true meaning of the sacraments. When we are unable to reconcile some technical aspect of the doctrine it sometimes can help to remember marriage is so much more than any technical or biological aspect we may struggle with.
Joshua, was there ever a Roman saying that death in and of itself is no form of repentance?
“the Catholic Church goes down the rabbit hold pretty deep about seemingly small details in an effort to try and define the total and true meaning of the sacraments.”
Lol this I have realized and it gives me a headache. :P
Do you know why impotent couples cannot marry but infertile couples can?
Do you know why impotent couples cannot marry but infertile couples can?
I believe that it’s because the marriage cannot be consummated. Sterility and birth control is an issue of sin: a couple who uses birth control is sinning (by Catholic thought) because they are intentionally thwarting God’s plan for the marital act, whereas sterile couples aren’t. Impotence, though, is an issue of capacity: an impotent couple cannot complete the marital act, and therefore they lack the ability to marry, regardless of their intention to.
At least, that’s what the answer would have been in the twelfth century.
Ergh. Overwhelmed by work at the moment, but trying a reply to this one seems urgent enough to be a moral imperative…
DLPL (Jack?) wrote:
No, because they all believe that the one unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit (and atheism and agnosticism are mortal sins in Catholicism, if you die with an unforgiven mortal sin on your soul you can’t go to heaven if I understand it correctly, and I got plenty of mortal sins).
Well… hold on, here. There’s a lot more at play than just those ideas (which are true, but only within the right context).
The only way to be “unforgiven” for a mortal sin (and Scripture [1 John 5:16-17], as well as common sense, tells us that there are “mortal” and “non-mortal” sins [see the Revised Standard Version [RSV] of the Bible for the clearest translation to that effect]) is to be UNREPENTANT of it. And to be a sin in the first place, three things have to happen:
1) The thing itself must be objectively wrong.
2) You need to know, with sufficient knowledge, that the thing itself is objectively wrong.
3) You need to choose, with sufficient freedom, to do that thing anyway.
The conditions for a mortal sin are the same; the only difference is that the severity of “wrongness” in #1 is mortal [N.B. Catholic theology often calls such things “gravely sinful”–meaning “weighty”, not in any reference to the “grave” where the dead are buried], rather than non-mortal. Murder, for example, is gravely sinful; stealing a candy bar is not, though it is still wrong.
This means that if any of these conditions is not met, then no sin is charged to the soul in that instance. For example:
A two-year-old might hypothetically grab a flask of deadly poison from somewhere and splash it in a place which results in the death of a family member; but no sane person would suggest that the two-year-old is culpable (i.e. personally guilty) of any sin (much less a mortal sin), even though the consequences are severe.
A pagan who is utterly ignorant of the nature of the Holy Eucharist might, through some bizarre (and terrible) circumstance happen upon a consecrated Eucharistic Host on the ground, and he might possibly treat it as he would treat anything which looks to be a discarded scrap of bread on the floor (e.g. throw the Host in the garbage, feed the Host to a dog, etc.); but his utter ignorance of the Reality which he holds prevents him from being charged with sin, even though the action is as gravely wrong as can be imagined (i.e. treating Jesus like garbage or dog-food). That utter ignorance which blocks culpability (“blameworthiness”) is usually called “invincible ignorance”.
However: there are some sins for which, according to the Church (and common sense), no one can reasonably claim utter ignorance (e.g. murder, rape, etc.); it’s not possible even for an utter pagan or atheist who’s never so much as heard that the Christian Gospel exists (much less its contents) to plead, “But I didn’t *know* that it was wrong to rape my sister and torture her to death; no one ever TOLD me!” That’s utter nonsense; certain fundamental moral truths (forgive me, Reality) are written on every human heart, and no one can claim to be utterly ignorant of them. But the specific content of the Gospel (which we call “Divine Revelation”) is not among those. God will not hold us to the utterly impossible; He will hold us responsible only for that which we could have done rightly (or avoided doing wrongly), and did not.
Rejecting the Holy Spirit, as is explained to me, is basically non-belief or lack of faith.
That’s not accurate… especially since (for example) no one can be expected to have faith in something which he has not yet heard (or heard convincingly–bad Christians can often contaminate the Gospel message so thoroughly by their words and actions and inactions that their efforts to “evangelize” can backfire, and can even largely “innoculate” unbelievers from even considering the Gospel in the future). ”Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (which is the more accurate translation) is not explicitly explained in the Gospels, but the Churh has (ever since the time of the Apostles) always taken that to mean “final impenitence”–i.e. a free REFUSAL to accept what God offers, even unto death. You might think of it this way: if the phrases “God loves us” and “God desires all men [i.e. people] to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth” [1 Timothy 2:4] are to mean anything at all, they must mean that God will not cast away anyone who wants to stay with Him; He will not hold any people in Heaven against their wills. Since “Heaven” is really “utter union with God and His beloved ones” (and not some simplistic, materialistic “paradise” in which one eats chocolate cake forever without growing tired or sick of it), one who hates God would find Heaven to be a worse torment than Hell! C.S. Lewis (and others) have pointed out that “Hell’s doors are locked… but from the inside, not from outside”; the only reason anyone goes to Hell is that God sadly lets them go. C.S. Lewis (again) wrote (in “The Great Divorce”, I think?): “In the end, there are but two options: the soul says to God, ‘Thy Will be done’ (and enters Heaven), or else God says to the soul, ‘THY will be done’, and the soul flees to hell.” (That’s a bit paraphrased, but you get the idea.)
So no matter how much I follow Jesus’s words I’m still not headed anywhere good.
No one, this side of eternity, can know that anyone is destined for hell. We can know in the abstract (e.g. we can say that those who embrace unrepented mortal sin will not be saved if they persist thusly unto death; and we can say that those who believe in Christ, do as He commands, and endure to the end [Matthew 24:13] will be saved), but we can’t know that for any individual (including ourselves). And others have already pointed something out to you: you still struggle with this issue! You haven’t given up on finding “what is true, and what is not?” That’s quite different than the lukewarm believer (as you referenced, but wrongly applied to yourself, I think) who can’t be bothered to care whether any of this is true or not. Difficulty with faith is no sin; it’s simply difficulty.
I even asked some Christians specifically because I fear I can’t force myself to believe, and it’s unanimous you cannot be good enough to go to heaven, it requires faith,
That’s true: no human can “earn” his way to Heaven, since we lack the power; and we have no natural “right” to Heaven, either, so God is not obligated in the least to give Heaven to us (which would be nonsense, anyway, if one understands that Heaven is utter union with the God Who loves us–can you imagine someone saying, “Look, can you please just admit me into a completely loving union with you, even though I choose not to love you?” It’s absurd, and logically impossible!). The only way we can attain Heaven is as a free gift, from God Himself… and that requires that we love Him. And we cannot love that which we do not know. This is why it’s so critical to remain open and honest (no matter what pain we suffer) in our pursuit of the truth; for if we’re open to Truth (even the tiniest bit), Truth will come to us and empower us to trust and to love Him. If truth is more important to you than are comfort or avoidance of pain, then that is a good path to Faith and Salvation.
Idk I like learning and I worry. Is it weird to read without faith? I admit the entire Old Testament makes me cringe at the amount of times I would have been stoned to death, but I like a lot of the New Testament.
I’d definitely advise you to stick with the New Testament, at first; the OT is obscure, and it’s so steeped in traditions, idioms and mind-sets which are now alien to us that even the brightest and most faithful humans on earth have their hands full trying to understand and explain it. But just as a mental exercise: if you were guaranteed that, if you endured death by stoning, you could be assured Heaven forever (with no more tears, no more pain, and utter fulfillment of the deepest yearnings of your heart, and beyond)… would you accept it?
More later… must dash!
Jack:
Quick answer to the “impotence” question (LisaC has the superficial details mostly right, though it was gutted of meaning):
Do you remember when I said that Heaven (as opposed to being an infinity of eating your favourite snack, etc.) is utter union with God and with His loved ones? The true (and arguably the only lasting) PURPOSE of marriage on earth, if it’s embraced as it should be, is to serve as one of the clearest “signposts” pointing to Heaven… to the perfect union in which we will never suffer interpersonal lack or wound or alienation, ever again. The sexual act (despite the fact that modern man has ripped the raw physical and/or emotional pleasures away from the totality of sex, and sought to have these alone) is designed to be a living, biological sign of this “fittingness of union”, if you will (e.g. the female and male bodies are designed to be complementary in that respect, in a way that two males or two females cannot possibly be)… and an inability to unite in that respect is an inability to be a living “sign” in that particular way. In fact, a man who is permanently impotent is also ineligible for the Catholic priesthood… for the same general reason (i.e. he cannot image “spiritual fatherhood” in its full capacity if he does not have a full sexual capacity to surrender freely in the name of that particular greater calling; do not misunderstand: this does not mean that a priest is obliged to act out in a genital way–that is utterly forbidden, since he has renounced all claim to that, and only a lawful wife could be the recipient of such action, anyway).
Here’s an idea, fellow prolifers — why don’t we stop worrying about each others’ sexual orientations and religious views (or lack thereof) and focus on the abortion issue? We just have to agree to disagree about some things.
Yes Ken, we’re all quite aware that you have no problem with discrimination and violence towards gay people.
Violence against gay people is rampant in Africa, and in some cases it is condoned and even encouraged by Christian organizations. I had a coworker who came from an African country. He said that two well-known female business owners who ran a restaurant were once caught in a compromising position. The people in the town barricaded them inside the restaurant and set it on fire, and the two women burned to death. I told him that I thought this horrible, but he thought it was okay, and he was always talking about God. No one deserves to be treated like this … NO ONE!
Phillymiss,
I don’t think that a sincere question by Jack, or sincere answers given by others, constitutes a waste of time or energy, or constitutes any sort of destructive effort… nor do I think that Jack, others, you, or I are thusly rendered incapable of fighting abortion, nor do I think that anyone who objects to homosexuality on Christian grounds need at all turn into someone who wishes to do violence to those afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder; we are, as the saying goes, capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
A discussion board is not abused by discussion; and abortion is not simply a “raw desire to kill babies”; the reasons are a bit more tangled than that, and sexual issues are in the forefront of those reasons. I don’t mean to scold, here, but I do want members to be free to discuss things aside from the absolute least common denominator.
You’re right, Paladin, and I am not trying to stop people from theological discussions or issues concerning sex. I just don’t want to see ostracized or condemned because they don’t fit the mold of what a prolifer “should” be, think, or believe. I have to admit that I am kind of turned off by many of the prolifers in the Philadelphia area. Many are devout, conservative Catholics. I don’t have a problem with that, but they have a tendency to push people away who don’t agree with them.
someone who wishes to do violence to those afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder; we are, as the saying goes, capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Glad that you agree that violence against LGBT people is wrong. But same sex attraction disorder? I have mixed feelings about homosexuality, to be honest, but if you were a gay person who is prolife and read that statement, how would you feel?
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/12-quotes-against-sodomy-that-every-catholic-should-know.html?utm_source=sm-tfpsa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0224&utm_campaign=tfpsa_newsletter
Phillymiss wrote, in reply to my comment:
Glad that you agree that violence against LGBT people is wrong.
I do; and it would be wrong, even if I disagreed with it.
But same sex attraction disorder? I have mixed feelings about homosexuality, to be honest, but if you were a gay person who is prolife and read that statement, how would you feel?
I would probably feel similarly to how I’d feel if someone told me I had cancer (I do, though I’m in remission), or if someone told me that I had a metabolic processing disorder (which I do). It’s not a function of feelings; it’s a function of objective truth and reality.
Should doctors refuse to give me a correct diagnosis because they fear how I might feel (and believe me, I did not feel good when I was told about either one!)? The fact that someone has a disease is no legitimate cause for shame for them (any more than being a cancer sufferer is a shame for me); so all talk about shame (or keeping silent about the diagnosis to “avoid shaming”) is–forgive me–utter nonsense. If I have cancer, I want to know about it, so that I can take steps to adjust my choices and behaviours so as to maximise health. Would you deny SSAD sufferers the same benefit, simply because our current culture is too stupid to label it a disease? God help us if those in positions of medical influence decide to start that insane approach with cancer (“surely they must have done something to bring it on themselves, such as a bad lifestyle… but who am I to judge?”–I’ve actually had people say that to me!), or diabetes (“surely their eating habits corroded their pancreatic health… but that’s their choice!”)…
Thanks Paladin
“1) The thing itself must be objectively wrong.
2) You need to know, with sufficient knowledge, that the thing itself is objectively wrong.3) You need to choose, with sufficient freedom, to do that thing anyway.”
Yes I’ve read this and I like it, obviously you can’t charge kids or someone who is severely mentally disabled with something as heinous as a mortal sin. But I think with the influence of Christianity everywhere in the west, it’s pretty hard not to know when something is a sin according to Christianity. I mean, you’d really have to work at it to not know. Unless not understanding or buying the reasons why something is considered sinful (which is my problem with like half the sins lol) counts as ignorance.
“But the specific content of the Gospel (which we call “Divine Revelation”) is not among those. God will not hold us to the utterly impossible; He will hold us responsible only for that which we could have done rightly (or avoided doing wrongly), and did not. ”
No I do get that. When I was a kid I used to stay up nights worried about all the Asian and Middle Eastern kids that were going to hell because they simply had never heard the Gospel, but I realize now that would be a rather psychotic God to actually send people to hell for never hearing of him, so of course most of you don’t believe that because none of you are psychotic lol. But I always wonder what the point of missionaries is. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be in ignorance, instead of hearing the Gospel and rejecting it?
“That’s not accurate… especially since (for example) no one can be expected to have faith in something which he has not yet heard (or heard convincingly–bad Christians can often contaminate the Gospel message so thoroughly by their words and actions and inactions that their efforts to “evangelize” can backfire, and can even largely “innoculate” unbelievers from even considering the Gospel in the future).”
I think it’s the “rejecting” part that’s important, not the unbelief. But I do know Evangelicals who don’t think that the being taught badly thing will excuse you, you are still responsible for rejecting it even if you were taught poorly, I think. Or I might have misunderstood, But I don’t know anyone but the craziest churches that think people go to hell automatically if they haven’t even heard the Gospel (the church I was raised in didn’t even completely believe that! Too crazy for even them!).
“Since “Heaven” is really “utter union with God and His beloved ones” (and not some simplistic, materialistic “paradise” in which one eats chocolate cake forever without growing tired or sick of it), one who hates God would find Heaven to be a worse torment than Hell! C.S. Lewis (and others) have pointed out that “Hell’s doors are locked… but from the inside, not from outside”; the only reason anyone goes to Hell is that God sadly lets them go. C.S. Lewis (again) wrote (in “The Great Divorce”, I think?): “In the end, there are but two options: the soul says to God, ‘Thy Will be done’ (and enters Heaven), or else God says to the soul, ‘THY will be done’, and the soul flees to hell.” (That’s a bit paraphrased, but you get the idea.)”
Well makes sense I guess. The way you talk about it doesn’t seem like you believe in the fire and brimstone hell that a lot of churches believe (they are quite gleeful in their descriptions, imo, it’s rather creepy). I haven’t read much on Catholic opinions of hell itself because the idea of hell itself is so freaky to me that I just don’t wanna, I should get on that.
“No one, this side of eternity, can know that anyone is destined for hell. We can know in the abstract (e.g. we can say that those who embrace unrepented mortal sin will not be saved if they persist thusly unto death; and we can say that those who believe in Christ, do as He commands, and endure to the end [Matthew 24:13] will be saved), but we can’t know that for any individual (including ourselves). And others have already pointed something out to you: you still struggle with this issue! You haven’t given up on finding “what is true, and what is not?” That’s quite different than the lukewarm believer (as you referenced, but wrongly applied to yourself, I think) who can’t be bothered to care whether any of this is true or not. Difficulty with faith is no sin; it’s simply difficulty. ”
I don’t think you get what bad luck I have. With my luck I’ll die right now at the ripe old age of 25 and God will be like “lol well here’s this one rule that you forgot about by now enjoy Satan’s realm”. Lol. I do get that still searching makes a difference, I guess.
“ The only way we can attain Heaven is as a free gift, from God Himself… and that requires that we love Him. And we cannot love that which we do not know. This is why it’s so critical to remain open and honest (no matter what pain we suffer) in our pursuit of the truth; for if we’re open to Truth (even the tiniest bit), Truth will come to us and empower us to trust and to love Him. If truth is more important to you than are comfort or avoidance of pain, then that is a good path to Faith and Salvation.”
I’m just wondering how I can love someone I can’t convince myself actually exists. That’s what makes me nervous. I do find the existence of any higher power pretty unlikely and I haven’t been able to change that though I really attempt to. And the most nerve-wracking part is I don’t even love some of what I learn about God! Is that terrible to admit? I’m totally going to hell for that one. But I honestly can’t figure out have to have no resentment towards the deity who in the Old Testament condoned and even ordered or carried out terrible things. That I find difficult to love. Maybe I should pretend there is no Old Testament, I’m mostly fine with New Testament God.
“ But just as a mental exercise: if you were guaranteed that, if you endured death by stoning, you could be assured Heaven forever (with no more tears, no more pain, and utter fulfillment of the deepest yearnings of your heart, and beyond)… would you accept it? ”
Uh… Well depends, how could I be assured eternity? Would God come down and give me solid proof or would I expected to go on this from religious texts or something? If I could be absolutely assured, yeah sure whatever, we all die and death is never pleasant (stoning sounds particularly horrific though, but it would be over eventually). If I was just “assured” by religious texts or something, I doubt I’d take the deal.
None of that changes the fact I think stoning for anything is barbaric and the whole OT freaks me out.
Oh and thanks for explaining the infertility versus impotency issue Paladin (and LisaC), that makes sense somewhat. But what if someone is infertile because they did something wrong (say they contracted an STD from premarital sex that left them infertile). Would they still be allowed to marry even though the can’t have the ‘open to life’ part and it’s their own responsibility.
“Violence against gay people is rampant in Africa, and in some cases it is condoned and even encouraged by Christian organizations. I had a coworker who came from an African country. He said that two well-known female business owners who ran a restaurant were once caught in a compromising position. The people in the town barricaded them inside the restaurant and set it on fire, and the two women burned to death. I told him that I thought this horrible, but he thought it was okay, and he was always talking about God. No one deserves to be treated like this … NO ONE!”
That’s why it upsets me the thread turned into how bad LGBT people are or aren’t, rather than the horrific abuses going on in Africa which is what I tried to bring attention to in my first post. I mean, dislike Mandela for whatever you want, but trying to gain equality for gays instead of watching them be slaughtered and imprisoned was not something that was bad about his government. Again, everyone has time to condemn homosexuality, no one has time to condemn the suffering homosexuals experience at the hands of others. But I don’t know why I ever get surprised about any treatment LGBT people receive. Did you know that pseudo-“Christian” organizations in the US have publicly supported the anti-gay laws that end up putting gay men in particular in prison for years and years? As well as supporting the anti-gay culture that causes all these “corrective” or “punishment” rapes and murders? It’s just disgusting. And then they support Russia’s abusive policies as well. I think the majority of Christians would not agree with this, but people certainly aren’t protesting it all that loudly.
“You’re right, Paladin, and I am not trying to stop people from theological discussions or issues concerning sex. I just don’t want to see ostracized or condemned because they don’t fit the mold of what a prolifer “should” be, think, or believe. I have to admit that I am kind of turned off by many of the prolifers in the Philadelphia area. Many are devout, conservative Catholics. I don’t have a problem with that, but they have a tendency to push people away who don’t agree with them. ”
Oh this is never going to get all that better, I believe. Pro-lifers are humans, humans like groups, groups don’t like minority viewpoints that much. If the majority of people in a group are conservative Christian, then non-conservatives and non-Christians are always going to feel excluded or put upon to an extent. I do think many people could work on being more accepting of people without having to accept their views, but meh.
“Glad that you agree that violence against LGBT people is wrong. But same sex attraction disorder? I have mixed feelings about homosexuality, to be honest, but if you were a gay person who is prolife and read that statement, how would you feel? ”
I think it’d depend on the gay person’s understanding and feelings towards Catholicism. As far as I can tell Catholics think that a lot of things are objectively disordered, not just homosexuality, and it’s easier to avoid getting your feelings hurt if you understand they think that way about everyone to an extent. I didn’t take offense to it but I would have like six months ago or so, probably. At least the “it’s a disorder” view is nicer than the “gay people are just disgusting monsters who choose to have sex with the same gender for no other reason than to be hedonistic and spite God and spit in good people’s faces” view. At least the disorder view acknowledges that it’s difficult and painful for those who wish to abide by traditional Christian teachings but are LGBT.
Not to say there’s not a lot of homophobes in the pro-life movement, because there are (even one or two post on this blog semi-regularly, though most people here are not homophobic regardless of their religious feelings about homosexuality). And I think the genuine homophobes should stop calling themselves pro-life and embarrassing everyone else.
Actually phillymiss just avoid Lifesitenews and their comment section in the “homosexuality” section if you don’t want to tear out your hair and lose all hope for acceptance in the pro-life movement for LGBT people. Seriously, some of the most hateful people in the world comment there, loudly and proudly, and you will get banned for trying to argue (I think I’m on my sixth identity there, but I finally stopped commenting there because it was seriously upsetting me). I won’t link to or consider Lifesitenews a valid source anymore because of the rampant hate they allow there towards LGBT people, or non-Christians, or anyone who isn’t a perfect conservative Christian.
I should make my last comment clear, that I don’t think it’s just Catholics that have nicer views towards LGBT people, many non-Catholics also believe it’s a sin or disorder but don’t hate or exclude. One thing about many Protestant denominations is that they see all sins the same, so homosexuality is no worse than lying or whatever. Which is fine with me as long as they aren’t hateful.
Paladin:
homosexuality was originally a category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM I and II) but was removed in the 80’s under the assumption that because it reflected TWO percent of the population back then, it does not qualify for the a disorder label.
:) You’re leading me into temptation, with this long reply, Jack!
Thanks Paladin
:) For what it’s worth…
Yes I’ve read this and I like it, obviously you can’t charge kids or someone who is severely mentally disabled with something as heinous as a mortal sin. But I think with the influence of Christianity everywhere in the west, it’s pretty hard not to know when something is a sin according to Christianity. I mean, you’d really have to work at it to not know. Unless not understanding or buying the reasons why something is considered sinful (which is my problem with like half the sins lol) counts as ignorance.
That’s precisely one of the ways in which “ignorance” (in the sense of “not yet having the knowledge”–not meant in the pejorative sense) can function. I, for example, am aware of the fact that the consumption of alcohol is considered to be a sin by some groups, and yet I sometimes drink a very small amount of wine (though I usually can’t abide the taste of alcohol at all–it needs to be very sweet, to cover up what my taste-buds consider to be the noxious flavour), and I reject the idea that alcohol is intrinsically evil (for many reasons). But if, for the sake of argument, we pretend that the “other [teetotalling] side” is RIGHT, and alcohol IS always sinful to imbibe, then my ignorance of the group’s reasons would keep me from sin (or at least grave sin) until such time as they were explained to me, credibly and reasonably enough for me to see the truth in them. Eventually, if the reasons were compelling enough to settle the matter intellectually, then I’d be faced with a choice: keep drinking (despite what my intellect now recognises to be truth), or obey. The first would be a clear example of sin.
But I always wonder what the point of missionaries is. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be in ignorance, instead of hearing the Gospel and rejecting it?
That’s a question with a very long answer! In short, the answer is “no”–because the Gospel reflects life as it truly is, and all people have a natural right to the truth… especially since it describes how we’re made, created and designed to “work”. A hypothetical tribe of primitives would not be guilty of self-damage or suicide by unwittingly eating the centers of peach-pits (though they contain cyanide), but it would be no kindness to them to withhold that truth from them. In addition, everyone has a right to grow and mature as a person; even pagans can “feel” something wrong with the idea of injecting brain-damaging chemicals into the skulls of infants in order to keep them from growing up to be killers, rapists, etc.; there’s a birthright of intellect and will to which we are natural heirs. Ignorance of sickness-and-death-causing things, even if there is no guilt involved, still yields sickness and death.
Well makes sense I guess. The way you talk about it doesn’t seem like you believe in the fire and brimstone hell that a lot of churches believe
Well… no, and yes. I believe that hell is comprised of unspeakable torments for all eternity; but I believe (in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church) that the talk of fire, etc., is mainly a metaphor for “unspeakable agony” (and it was chosen as a metaphor mainly because fire strikes people as being the most agonizing thing they can imagine). The desperation and agony of a soul which has chosen to flee eternally from the only source of happiness, joy and fulfillment–one who has chosen gnawing isolation, terror and alienation from all good things and people, all the while having full and clear knowledge of the fact that his free choice is keeping him forever away–is far worse than any earthly fire could be. Such a soul is unspeakably lost: hell is torment, but Heaven would be worse for him. A soul which has rejected love has rejected the ability to “breathe the air of Heaven [i.e. love]”, and he chokes eternally in an endlessly futile attempt to escape the God Who loves him too much to imprison him against his will. Frankly, I don’t think the “fire-and-brimstone” versions come near enough to the horrible truth. And yet: those who presume to say that people are “thrown” into hell against their will (and despite their supposed pleas for mercy, tears, etc.) are deluded. The true damned soul would see God approaching to save, and snarl, “NO! I burn, and I do not want to burn, but I’d rather burn than submit to the caresses of YOU!”
I don’t think you get what bad luck I have. With my luck I’ll die right now at the ripe old age of 25 and God will be like “lol well here’s this one rule that you forgot about by now enjoy Satan’s realm”. Lol. I do get that still searching makes a difference, I guess.
:) I know you’re joshing, but: the fact that anyone would have “forgotten” would have meant that their culpability (“blameworthiness”) is reduced thereby. One simply cannot sin “by accident”; it needs to be a free and knowing act of the will. One can’t sin by accident any more than one can sin while asleep.
I’m just wondering how I can love someone I can’t convince myself actually exists.
You can’t, yet… but again: at the risk of sounding simple-minded, you can only do what you can do , at any given point in time. If I am studying arithmetic for the first time, no one has the right to condemn me for failing to understand or appreciate a calculus theorem; if you do not yet know God (and by that, I mean “know” in the sense of being introduced properly and accurately, and taking some time to get to know Him… yes, and even letting Him offer His own accounting for those things which you don’t understand [or like] about Him), then it’s premature to talk of you being sinful in failing to love Him. Before I met my wife, I didn’t know she existed… and therefore, I didn’t love her (though I “loved” a sentimental idea of “my wife-to-be”, and I even prayed for her before I knew who she was); but that’s no fault on my soul, and my wife certainly doesn’t think less of me for it! In fact, if I were introduced to her badly (perhaps by someone who hated her, or by someone who lusted after her and was trying to get rid of me, etc.), I might even have needed to overcome a good deal of baggage before true love of her could blossom.
One side-note: when Christians speak of “love”, they can be referring to at least four different things: ”storge”, which is “urge to compassion” (e.g. the “love” which moves us to try to protect a defenseless animal being attacked), “eros”, which is the “seeking-to-be-filled-by-you” love (which is not evil, so long as it’s kept within proper bounds), “philia”, which is the sentimental love of friends (“brotherly love”, it was sometimes called in olden days), and “agape”, which is utterly selfless, self-giving love which does nto seek its own interests at all (i.e. loving as God loves). All of them have their place… and we humans, as Pope Benedict said in his encyclical on love, “cannot live on agape alone”, since we cannot give what we do not have. That is why we receive from God (Who is limitless and endlessly gives such love), and THEN, in turn, love one another properly.
It’s difficult to explain (and I’d refer you to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est”, if it wouldn’t bore you!), but: if humans loved using only storge, they’d kill each other in order to prevent even the least pain (such as a toothache); if humans loved each others using only eros, they’d squeeze the life out of their “beloved” to the last drop; if they loved each other using only philia, they’d be both passionless and trapped in a sort of stagnancy; and if humans loved using only agape, they’d starve.
I say all this to clarify what I meant by “true love of my wife blossoming”. True Christian love is not, and it has never been, a FEELING. Feelings are good, mind you… but they are not to be confused for what they are not. Christian love is a CHOICE… the choice to seek the best good of the beloved, and to sacrifice of oneself toward that end. I do not say that what is known as “falling in love” (which is really affection and infatuation, not “love” in teh full sense of the word) is evil; far from it! But the initial intoxication of it is temporary, like all emotions; and it must either surrender itself up to growing and developing into deeper, chosen love, or it must die (and turn into something evil and ugly).
That’s what makes me nervous. I do find the existence of any higher power pretty unlikely and I haven’t been able to change that though I really attempt to.
I honestly wish I could help you clearly, with this! It is (with apologies to reality) possible to prove beyond all doubt that an eternal, infinite/limitless, uncaused, fully-good Cause of all contingent things (“and this we call ‘God'”, as St. Thomas Aquinas says) does exist… but it is only possible to prove beyond all *reasonable* doubt that the Christian God exists, and that He Is Who He says He Is. It’s also not possible for logic to move anyone’s heart to trust; only a personal encounter can do that. I could have studied my wife in the abstract, and heard all the proofs for her existence; but I could not love her before I met her, encountered her as a person, and came to know her. Such is the case with God. A love affair can’t be completed by a logic or math theorem; all that logic can do is remove the debris which blocks the road to the Beloved; it does not instill love, nor does it force anyone to travel down the road. All I can say on that point is an echo of what Our Lord said, Himself, “for those who seek, shall find; those who knock will have the door opened to them; do not tire of knocking” (cf. Luke 11:5-10).
And the most nerve-wracking part is I don’t even love some of what I learn about God! Is that terrible to admit?
No, it isn’t. Honesty with self and about others is always preferable to pretense (not that I’m saying to speak up whenever you see an ugly hat, or anything!). Let me put it this way: if God cannot handle your honest questions and objections, then He’s not worthy of your belief… and He knows that. Just be sure not to jump too quickly to the conclusion that He has failed in that regard.
I’m totally going to hell for that one.
:) I hardly think so, friend.
But I honestly can’t figure out have to have no resentment towards the deity who in the Old Testament condoned and even ordered or carried out terrible things. That I find difficult to love. Maybe I should pretend there is no Old Testament, I’m mostly fine with New Testament God.
As I said: it’s probably very wise to focus on the New Testament, for now. Just allow yourself the possibility that, despite all apparent odds and difficulties, there may yet be explanations even for the “worst” of what you dread in those other books. But for now, I think you’re safe not bothering with them, just yet. Just don’t slam and bolt the door irrevocably.
Uh… Well depends, how could I be assured eternity?
The question was a hypothetical; I was assuming that the assurance would be in some way which convinced you utterly (and not necessarily tied to what we know of revelation, etc.).
If I could be absolutely assured, yeah sure whatever, we all die and death is never pleasant (stoning sounds particularly horrific though, but it would be over eventually).
That answers my question, and it might give your food for thought, re: some of the apparently harsh things within the OT. I do not want to give you the idea that there is a simple, cookie-cutter answer to all of them at one blow; that is not so; but even a gleam of hope has power, I’ve found.
Jack, the quick answer to your question about whether a person who is sterile as a result of an STD could marry is, yes. A canonical impediment to marriage (or any other sacrament) doesn’t exist to be punitive. It exists (in this case) because the church believes that certain qualities are fundamental to the nature of marriage: if those qualities aren’t present, regardless of the reason, then a marriage just isn’t there, and the church can’t make it exist. The marital act is one of those fundamentals, whereas fertility is not.
It’s more complicated than that, but it would take more time than I have to go into it all.
“That’s precisely one of the ways in which “ignorance” (in the sense of “not yet having the knowledge”–not meant in the pejorative sense) can function. I, for example, am aware of the fact that the consumption of alcohol is considered to be a sin by some groups, and yet I sometimes drink a very small amount of wine (though I usually can’t abide the taste of alcohol at all–it needs to be very sweet, to cover up what my taste-buds consider to be the noxious flavour), and I reject the idea that alcohol is intrinsically evil (for many reasons). But if, for the sake of argument, we pretend that the “other [teetotalling] side” is RIGHT, and alcohol IS always sinful to imbibe, then my ignorance of the group’s reasons would keep me from sin (or at least grave sin) until such time as they were explained to me, credibly and reasonably enough for me to see the truth in them.”
Oh that does make sense I think. So like, for example, my drug use at a ridiculously young age that was born more out of ignorance and pain than any genuine attempt to sin wasn’t be as grave as it would be if I went and shot up some junk right now, knowing as I do the devastation of addiction and drug use. I knew using drugs was “wrong” in a vague way as a young kid, but I really wasn’t aware in a real way of why they were wrong (and my father gave me alcohol, and older people were more than happy to give me drugs and encourage their use), so I have less culpability for that particular sin? Is that what you are saying, along those lines?
“That’s a question with a very long answer! In short, the answer is “no”–because the Gospel reflects life as it truly is, and all people have a natural right to the truth… especially since it describes how we’re made, created and designed to “work”…. Ignorance of sickness-and-death-causing things, even if there is no guilt involved, still yields sickness and death.”
I see. (I wasn’t trying to insult missionaries, as an aside, I always feel like I’m being mean asking those type of questions). So what you’re saying is that it’s better for people to have the information that will lead them to a better life if they choose to follow it, even if that takes the risk that some will knowingly reject it, than it is to let them live in ignorance and hurt themselves even if it protects them in ignorance to some extent?
“he desperation and agony of a soul which has chosen to flee eternally from the only source of happiness, joy and fulfillment–one who has chosen gnawing isolation, terror and alienation from all good things and people, all the while having full and clear knowledge of the fact that his free choice is keeping him forever away–is far worse than any earthly fire could be.”
Now see now this does not help my panic attacks about hell. :P
“And yet: those who presume to say that people are “thrown” into hell against their will (and despite their supposed pleas for mercy, tears, etc.) are deluded. The true damned soul would see God approaching to save, and snarl, “NO! I burn, and I do not want to burn, but I’d rather burn than submit to the caresses of YOU!””
Ok so are you of the opinion like some Christians that people get a “chance” after death, so to speak, to repent and not be damned? So like say I die today, just keel over, and I see God and I’m like “Seriously sorry I couldn’t convince myself to believe in you quickly enough, I do now and I’m sorry, please don’t put me in hell” that would save my soul?
“One side-note: when Christians speak of “love”, they can be referring to at least four different things: ”storge”, which is “urge to compassion” (e.g. the “love” which moves us to try to protect a defenseless animal being attacked), “eros”, which is the “seeking-to-be-filled-by-you” love (which is not evil, so long as it’s kept within proper bounds), “philia”, which is the sentimental love of friends (“brotherly love”, it was sometimes called in olden days), and “agape”, which is utterly selfless, self-giving love which does nto seek its own interests at all (i.e. loving as God loves). All of them have their place… and we humans, as Pope Benedict said in his encyclical on love, “cannot live on agape alone”, since we cannot give what we do not have. That is why we receive from God (Who is limitless and endlessly gives such love), and THEN, in turn, love one another properly.”
I have heard this before and I basically find it difficult to understand, prob because my childhood church was heavy on condemnation and light on love, and I never learned or received much of that then or currently. I do see people saying that love is a choice a lot, which makes no sense to me. I don’t claim to love people I don’t like, but many Christians do, so I think I just have trouble understanding this. I’ll mull over it some more.
“Honesty with self and about others is always preferable to pretense (not that I’m saying to speak up whenever you see an ugly hat, or anything!). Let me put it this way: if God cannot handle your honest questions and objections, then He’s not worthy of your belief… and He knows that. Just be sure not to jump too quickly to the conclusion that He has failed in that regard.”
Well this is actually comforting, thank you. Again, my prior experience was always questions were bad, and it’s taken me several years as an adult to accept I’m not pure evil for being like “yeah that doesn’t make any sense to me, in fact I don’t like it at all”.
“That answers my question, and it might give your food for thought, re: some of the apparently harsh things within the OT. I do not want to give you the idea that there is a simple, cookie-cutter answer to all of them at one blow; that is not so; but even a gleam of hope has power, I’ve found.”
Well I guess that makes sense on some level. I always think that an all-loving deity could find a less barbaric way of “cleansing” people even before Jesus’s time on earth. And some things that people got punished for doesn’t even seem like sins to me at all. I won’t worry about it too much though.
“Jack, the quick answer to your question about whether a person who is sterile as a result of an STD could marry is, yes. A canonical impediment to marriage (or any other sacrament) doesn’t exist to be punitive. It exists (in this case) because the church believes that certain qualities are fundamental to the nature of marriage: if those qualities aren’t present, regardless of the reason, then a marriage just isn’t there, and the church can’t make it exist. The marital act is one of those fundamentals, whereas fertility is not.”
See but I don’t get why fertility isn’t a fundamental though. I get that Catholics see marital sex as requiring both openness to life and unity, I thought it was one of the reasons they view homosexuality as wrong (because it’s fundamentally sterile, for one, and they don’t view it as unitive). Actually, I thought that’s why they view masturbation as wrong as well, because it’s sexual pleasure that is neither unitive or open to life. So it makes no sense to me that someone who is infertile, by their own choices or bad luck, would be allowed to partake in sacramental marriage if they are lacking the ability to ever partake in non-infertile sex. I just don’t get it. I must be missing something, usually Catholic views make sense at some level if I study them enough even if I don’t agree.
Thomas R. wrote:
Paladin: homosexuality was originally a category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM I and II) but was removed in the 80?s under the assumption that because it reflected TWO percent of the population back then, it does not qualify for the a disorder label.
Yes, I remember… and if memory serves, it was done without even pretending to offer research to back up the “new” conclusions; it was a raw political move–a complete redefinition of legal terms, based on the desires of the panel (and/or those who exerted pressure on them).
As someone who utilizes the DSM on a daily basis I am in total agreement with you Paladin.
Heavens, this thread has caught fire again! I’ll need to be brief, here, since duty calls soon!
Jack wrote, in reply to my comment:
Ok so are you of the opinion like some Christians that people get a “chance” after death, so to speak, to repent and not be damned? So like say I die today, just keel over, and I see God and I’m like “Seriously sorry I couldn’t convince myself to believe in you quickly enough, I do now and I’m sorry, please don’t put me in hell” that would save my soul?
No… but my belief would have largely the same result. I believe that God will never let anyone damn themselves without trying anything and everything in His power (which does not negate/destroy our free will) to give us ample grace to save us. That “moment of decision” and “moment of grace” (though that’s inaccurate–God floods us with grace at every moment, and it’s only our free receptivity of it which changes things; God doesn’t change, but we do) will not come after death, but it might come in the very last moments of earthly life (if that’s what it takes). God is also perfectly qualified to mitigate what would otherwise be a spiritual death-sentence (i.e. damnation) on the basis that He knows fully how we’ve been influenced and coerced by biology, circumstances, training, lack of knowledge, etc. Mind you, He’s also incapable of being fooled by the same self-lies that some people tell themselves to excuse themselves; He knows our culpability (an the extent of it, and the extent of any mitigating factors) exactly and perfectly, and no mistakes will be made. God will not be mocked (e.g. in the case of someone who’s guilty and knows it, but tries to rationalize it away), but God will also not condemn those who “knew not what they did”. Such moments of grace (if you will) can happen anywhere, anytime, so long as life persists… and they WILL happen, unless deliberately and freely refused. But God keeps knocking at our locked door, even then, so long as life endures.
Come on, I can understand the Protestant view of homosexual behavior as a sin as any other, and I can understand the Catholic “objective disorder” thing, but I can’t get the “homosexuality/bisexuality is a mental illness” thing, and I think it’s ridiculous. Sexual behavior between same gendered animals is found in many mammals and other types of animals, so I do believe it has a biological basis and I don’t believe it’s “unnatural” and I don’t think there is evidence for that. It seems to me like some percentage of the population is just wired differently, and it might be a disorder of the soul or whatever, and it may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s an illness.
I do not believe that anal sex is a natural act. I have written once before that this act is now creeping into heterosexual unions as it has been so popularized in the porn industry. It may not be an issue of homosexuality so much as of sodomy. This a touchy subject on this thread so I am going to stop there..
Homo/bisexuality =/= any type of sex act. It’s an attraction and orientation, not an act. I’m only half straight and I’d never engage in that particular sex act willingly, I seriously think it’s horribly gross and awful personally, if we’re being blunt. But if we’re talking about homo or bisexuality as an orientation, that’s quite removed from whatever acts people with those orientation may or may not decide to partake in. I wish people wouldn’t conflate them.
Lol well if you haven’t noticed thinking for myself seems to make me deluded. Allegedly. – that claim is made because you do think for yourself, and some people don’t like that.
How do you not worry at all that you’re wrong? – I make no assumptions. I constantly check, recheck, learn, listen, contemplate – whatever it takes to choose what I discern as the best ‘path’.
We’re you not raised religiously? – not overly. Church and sunday school, no great religious ‘activity’ at home.
how do you find peace in your life? – by trying, by working at it, every day. ‘Peace’ in one’s life is subjective and variable.
If it is claimed that same sex attraction is a disorder then so are being left handed, red haired or possessing a rare blood type.
simply because our current culture is too stupid to label it a disease? – science tells us it isn’t a disease, that’s the point. Unless you consider left handedness, being a redhead or having a rare blood type a disease too?
As for the DSM claims:
“Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).”
“Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.”
These are the reasons homosexuality was dropped from the DSM.
“If it is claimed that same sex attraction is a disorder then so are being left handed, red haired or possessing a rare blood type.”
But none of these things have the characteristics that cause the Catholics to think of same sex attraction as disordered. You can argue it on scientific grounds, but on religious grounds they are pretty consistent about it. Being left-handed, having a rare blood type, or being red-headed doesn’t impact your life in any significant way or influence you to live outside the bounds of what is considered morally legitimate behavior. Same sex attraction does. My O-neg blood doesn’t do anything besides make it somewhat more difficult to find me donors for a transfusion or transplant if I needed it, otherwise it doesn’t impact my thoughts, behavior, or life in any way. Same sex attraction does. That’s where they see the difference at least, and I see their point.
But none of these things have the characteristics that cause the Catholics to think of same sex attraction as disordered. – not quite so ADLP, both my parents had their knuckles hit with sticks at school for being left-handed. They had to learn to use their right hands.
My son is left-handed. He had no problems at school but when we were in London we stocked up on kitchen utensils (peeler, scissors etc.) and other such stuff at the left-handed shop to make life easier for him.
To consider that homosexuality is outside the bounds of what is considered morally legitimate behavior is where the error lies.
“Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as “unnatural,” which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day” (Boswell, 1980).
So they could just as easily have chosen something else to condemn.
Hey, we have the same blood type! Anything you want to tell me? :-)
“not quite so ADLP, both my parents had their knuckles hit with sticks at school for being left-handed. They had to learn to use their right hands.”
But was that official Catholic doctrine or some churches taking a cultural meme and going with it? It’s like… FGM is common in Christian African countries (and Muslim African countries) but it seems to be because of cultural influence instead of religion, I can’t find anything in ANY Christian doctrine that approves of mutilating female genitals (though they are just fine with mutilating male genitals, and even required it at one point!). So some stuff may get put with religion that’s actually cultural, or ends up from differing religions being cobbled together (like Santeria, which is basically Catholicism + “witchcraft” and is practiced in like Cuba and other Caribbean nations).
Idk about the whole “haven’t always condemned homosexuality” thing. I do know that Catholics aren’t bound by only the Bible, they have the extra-Biblical stuff they go by too. But the Bible does seem pretty condemning to gays, I’ve tried very hard to find some positives there and it just doesn’t exist.
“Hey, we have the same blood type! Anything you want to tell me?”
I’m your secret love child, send me back child support plz.
In all seriousness I hope you give blood if you are able, universal donors really should if they are physically able. I can’t because I have permanent deferment. :/
It’s that whole ‘wheel of fortune’ thing Jack. Observing ‘religion on planet earth’ is like looking at the ‘tree of evolution’.
No you are not my secret love child! The way I have conducted my sexual behavior throughout my life precludes the possibility. Nor do I have the capacity to assist financially I’m afraid (I do know you are only joking btw).
I was a blood donor for many years – not for payment. I was even ‘on call’ at one stage. But circumstances dictate that I am no longer permitted to donate blood. And no, it’s not for reasons certain people may wish to conclude!
“It’s that whole ‘wheel of fortune’ thing Jack. Observing ‘religion on planet earth’ is like looking at the ‘tree of evolution’”
This I realize… I doubt there would be six bazillion denominations of each religion if there weren’t some truth to that, but there are some common trends and stuff I find interesting. If there’s rationality behind a religious view, reasons for why they think it’s “immoral”, I tend to give it another look. Like with homosexuality, I just don’t see it as incredibly positive. If you are a bisexual male and have a choice between seeking male partners or seeking female partners (or both), I just can’t see any great benefit to including men at all. The “bad” parts are due to factors that aren’t exclusive to homosexuality, of course, but they are factors that can’t really be corrected for. The gay community will probably always have higher STD rates, just because it’s so much smaller and diseases spread to a greater percentage. Men can kill through domestic violence easier than women ever will (unless women grab a weapon, and even then they are less likely to do so). You’re more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male date than a female date, and those numbers can’t be corrected, men are just more likely to sexually assault people than women are (not gay dudes, dudes in general). It just seems like dating men would be a much riskier proposition and probably not the best idea unless you’re exclusively attracted to men, and even then abstaining from certain activities seems like it’s the best idea for your health. So I can see where there’s at least some basis for the “homosexual behavior is wrong” thing, besides all the religious and moral opinions they have.
Of course all this indicates that women shouldn’t date men either, lol, so Idk about all that.
“I was a blood donor for many years – not for payment. I was even ‘on call’ at one stage. But circumstances dictate that I am no longer permitted to donate blood. And no, it’s not for reasons certain people may wish to conclude! ”
Ha, well I’ve never been able to donate because of the whole IV drug using thing. Apparently it’s unhealthy and risky to stick needles in your body. Who knew?
If you are a bisexual male and have a choice between seeking male partners or seeking female partners (or both), I just can’t see any great benefit to including men at all. – that you say this leads me to think that you are purely heterosexual because surely a true bisexual would be equally attracted to both.
It just seems like dating men would be a much riskier proposition and probably not the best idea – I’ve often said that given the behavior of so many men I’m surprise lesbianism isn’t in the majority.
Apparently it’s unhealthy and risky to stick needles in your body. Who knew? – I must tell my doctor that ;-)
“that you say this leads me to think that you are purely heterosexual because surely a true bisexual would be equally attracted to both”
I “dated”, in a sense, some guys before I was married. I just hate admitting it on this site because of the anti-gayness attitude, and if someone asked me in real life I probably wouldn’t admit it. I just don’t see why, even with being attracted to both men and women, it would benefit me in any way to express that attraction in a dating relationship ever again instead of just dating women. Seems like a much riskier proposition even if you completely ignore any moral questions. And then there’s the “self-homophobia” some of my gay friends have accused me of having.
“I’ve often said that given the behavior of so many men I’m surprise lesbianism isn’t in the majority. ”
Seriously, men can be awful. People who aren’t exclusively attracted to them should avoid dating them lol.
And then there’s the “self-homophobia” some of my gay friends have accused me of having. – I do detect a bit of that.
Yet you state I just don’t see why, even with being attracted to both men and women, it would benefit me in any way to express that attraction in a dating relationship ever again instead of just dating women which indicates to me that you don’t have much of an attraction to men at all.
Seriously, men can be awful. – yep, another reason why I stick with women ;-)
“Yet you state I just don’t see why, even with being attracted to both men and women, it would benefit me in any way to express that attraction in a dating relationship ever again instead of just dating women which indicates to me that you don’t have much of an attraction to men ”
See this is annoying, it’s like when the conservatives claim you can will away same sex attraction. Why does having certain proclivities mean you can objectively look at them and see that they might not be a good idea to act out? Dating men is an objectively riskier proposition for either men or women, as compared to women. And it’s probably particularly not a good idea for me with some things from my childhood. I don’t see why I would have to consider men potential romantic partners. Or why any bisexual dude would have to. I’m sure you don’t have sex with every single woman you find attractive, do you? Some women might be bad potential partners for whatever reason. Same thing for me, I can just date straight if I think it’s a better idea.
Fair enough Jack. Good point. I suppose that if the attraction is roughly equvilent then you can decide to stick with one more than the other. And if there are reasons which make that a good idea then it’s not like you’re really ‘missing out’ on anything I suppose.
Hah! I’m very, very careful when it comes to women. If I find someone attractive I’ve barely even noticed that before my ‘radar’ is searching and checking for deeper things. And the single women my age………..boy, talk about dangerous territory.
If you were my ‘secret love child’ ADLP, who would your mother be?
“Fair enough Jack. Good point. I suppose that if the attraction is roughly equvilent then you can decide to stick with one more than the other. And if there are reasons which make that a good idea then it’s not like you’re really ‘missing out’ on anything I suppose.”
So you understand, as long you know I don’t think anyone has to abide by my choices. And I dunno why you think anyone would claim to be anything other than straight. Another reason I want to only date straight, people are mean sometimes in general to LGBT people, you’re treated way worse. Bisexuals have the opportunity to avoid homophobia without celibacy, if we so choose to. But then you get the unpleasant side effect of listening to people bash on those just like you without knowing they are also insulting you.
“Hah! I’m very, very careful when it comes to women. If I find someone attractive I’ve barely even noticed that before my ‘radar’ is searching and checking for deeper things. And the single women my age………..boy, talk about dangerous territory.”
Lol well if this is true I don’t get why you would have any issue or problem seeing why a bisexual would avoid dating the same gender. Twice the trouble with no improvements to make up for the greater risks.
“If you were my ‘secret love child’ ADLP, who would your mother be”
lol what? Obviously not my actual mother.
I guess I’m in a lucky situation Jack. The same sex attracted folk amongst my friends, and amongst my clients, don’t appear to cop much in the way of negative attitudes and behaviors where I live. Some, of both genders, are military personnel. One friend is a doctor, whose partner is a tour guide. The monthly market here is even designated as a celebration of all things gay once a year.
So as I said earlier, I shall check, recheck, learn, listen and contemplate upon your words.
“lol what? Obviously not my actual mother.” – well of course not. That’s not how the game works :-)
Meh there’s some where I am but not too bad. Homosexual couples seem to deal with it fine. I am, if you haven’t noticed, highly oversensitive though, and wouldn’t be able to deal.
If we are going fake mothers I used to dream Claire Huxtable was mine when I was a kid lol. If we are going real people the only people who have claimed me as a surrogate son are pro-lifers, and I’m sorry they would not be interested in you lol.
Seriously, stop with the pro-abort stuff. You’d be a great pro-lifer. We need more non-religious people,
Highly sensitive maybe.
Oversensitive perhaps.
But not highly oversensitive. ;-)
the only people who have claimed me as a surrogate son are pro-lifers, and I’m sorry they would not be interested in you lol. – they probably wouldn’t land at the top of my dance card either.
I seriously can’t come up with who your ‘secret love child’ mother would be if I were your ‘secret love child’ father.
Seriously, stop with the pro-abort stuff. – ain’t gonna happen Jack. I’ve been pro-choice since I was in my teens.
You’d be a great pro-lifer. – now there’s an invite to an influx of insidious inquisition!
We need more non-religious people, – indeed we do ADLP.
Lol hahaha, well I’ll tell you, when me and another commenter who shall remain nameless were playing the “Lets ship Jill’s commenters together because it’s the funniest thing ever” game, we had you in a relationship with Doug, so all you need is a surrogate and there you go.
“I’ve been pro-choice since I was in my teens”
Not such a good sign, teens aren’t known for their cool rationality. Never say never, I’m not giving up.
“now there’s an invite to an influx of insidious inquisition! ”
Nobody expects the Pro-Life Inquisition? Enough with the alliteration man, we simple wanna protect the babies, not persecute.
Not such a good sign, teens aren’t known for their cool rationality. – maybe not but after witnessing what the older sisters of two friends of mine were subjected to I started thinking about it. Later there were a couple of girls in high school who suffered the same treatment. I have and do give the matter serious thought. And it’s not like I don’t expose myself to the alternative viewpoint now is it.
Never say never, I’m not giving up. – well Thomas R. will probably accuse me of patronizing you, again, but I don’t expect you to give up.
Nobody expects the Pro-Life Inquisition? – ah, a cultural reference, very good Jack.
Enough with the alliteration man, – better than some of the illiteration we see sometimes ;-)
we simple wanna protect the babies, not persecute. – and I want to protect women, not have them subject to persecution.
I knew using drugs was “wrong” in a vague way as a young kid, but I really wasn’t aware in a real way of why they were wrong…so I have less culpability for that particular sin? Is that what you are saying, along those lines?
That’s almost certainly a valid interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Catholic pastoral care tends to be deeply subtle and sensitive on paper, but enacted cloddishly. For example, you’ll often see pro-lifers say that Pope Francis is “pro-life” because he chastised priests who refused to baptize illegitimate children. But the pope’s gesture isn’t what should be remarkable: rather, we should all be appalled that a priest would have to be told that.
See but I don’t get why fertility isn’t a fundamental though. I get that Catholics see marital sex as requiring both openness to life and unity…So it makes no sense to me that someone who is infertile, by their own choices or bad luck, would be allowed to partake in sacramental marriage if they are lacking the ability to ever partake in non-infertile sex.
It’s possible to approach it by distinguishing between what a marriage fundamentally is, and what it is fundamentally intended to produce. (Catholic) marriage requires the union of flesh to be a marriage. One purpose of marriage is to produce “the good” of offspring (using Augustine’s language there), but if that good isn’t produced, it’s absence doesn’t dissolve the bonds that created the marriage. (Any more than the birth of a child would spontaneously transform an unmarried couple into a married one).
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if, if you dig far back enough, you’ll find some text or leader saying that sterile should be discouraged from marrying, since their marriage cannot produce children, but that’s not the same thing as saying that they are incapable of marrying, as people who cannot perform the marital act are incapable of marrying.
More tomorrow, possibly.
“maybe not but after witnessing what the older sisters of two friends of mine were subjected to I started thinking about it. Later there were a couple of girls in high school who suffered the same treatment. I have and do give the matter serious thought. And it’s not like I don’t expose myself to the alternative viewpoint now is it.”
What did they suffer?
“Catholic pastoral care tends to be deeply subtle and sensitive on paper, but enacted cloddishly. For example, you’ll often see pro-lifers say that Pope Francis is “pro-life” because he chastised priests who refused to baptize illegitimate children. But the pope’s gesture isn’t what should be remarkable: rather, we should all be appalled that a priest would have to be told that.”
I don’t know what the rationale behind not baptizing an illegitimate baby would be at all :( I do agree some church officials seem to contradict the kinder parts of their own doctrine, but I guess that’s how humans are. I love Pope Francis though, hes like my favorite human being ever.
The distinction between what marriage is and produces actually makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
Sorry for the long hiatus… and sorry for neglecting your comments on the other thread, Reality! To be honest, I lost track of which thread that was, altogether! :) (Could someone point me to it again, and have mercy on my frenzied work-load?)
I do need to get back to the frenzy, but one quick comment to Jack:
I don’t know what the rationale behind not baptizing an illegitimate baby would be at all.
Illegitimacy, per se, is never a valid reason for withholding Baptism; I do know that priests are obligated to withhold Baptism (except in cases where there is serious and urgent danger of death) for children whose parents/guardians have no capacity or intention to raise him/her Catholic… since Baptism not only brings immense grace, but it raises the Baptized to a much higher required standard, spiritually speaking (which would “activate”, in a sense, when the child attained the age of reason and gained the capacity to sin mortally)… which would be reckless (and even cruel) to do to a child which had no realistic chance of being formed in a family which could provide training/formation to that effect. Mind you, some ill-catechized priests (and others, acting on their own initiatives) have ignored this principle completely, and gone on to do whatever they pleased (may God have mercy on them).
LisaC… sincere, non-debate question:
What led you to be pro-legal-abortion, may I ask? You seem to have more than a casual knowledge of Catholic teaching (I’ve been rather impressed with your most recent comments to that effect, in fact), so I’ve a hard time imagining what could have separated you from the Church…
December 16, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Reality says:
.
Sexual behaviors such as porn, infidelity etc. are one thing. If Real-stupid-ity decides to try something she hasn’t felt the need to try so far in life she might find herself biting her lip or holding her nose though.
. Your sexuality is quite another.
. If Real-stupid-ity decided to have a same-sex dalliance then she is either latently bisexual or it would be a case of ‘grin and bear it’ to prove some point. Or maybe Real-stupid-ity has been ‘grinning and bearing’ her behavior to date.
.
[not that there is anything wrong with that….in kooksville!]
.
STD, anyone?
“But if we’re talking about homo or bisexuality as an orientation, that’s quite removed from whatever acts people with those orientation may or may not decide to partake in. I wish people wouldn’t conflate them. ”
I understand the difference btw sexual orientation and particular acts Jack. Here’s the issue – individuals who are 100 percent homosexual engage in anal sex exclusively. They are not having intercourse any other way Jack, are they??? So how can you claim that the homosexual orientation is quite removed from the act itself???
It may be different for bisexuals I agree, but still anal sex is the way to go when a bisexual male hooks up with either another bisexual or a homosexual male.
In other words, it is not possible to remove that particular act from homosexual or bisexual sexual orientation. It is there, just like vaginal intercourse is there for heterosexual couples.
If you were my ‘secret love child’ ADLP, who would your mother be?
Did you hit your head right before you typed this question, “reality?” :-D
Thanks Paladin, I guess I don’t really understand the point of baptism for Catholics very well, I just kinda have knee jerk reactions to anything that seems like blaming kids for parental choices..
“individuals who are 100 percent homosexual engage in anal sex exclusively.”
Have you never heard of oral or other types of sax? Seriously, your statement is not remotely in any way true. All studies done on the subject show a percentage of exclusively gay men who never engage in anal sex with their partners. As well as a percentage of exclusively gay men who rarely engage in it . It’s completely possible to be a gay man or bisexual man in a relationship with another guy, and engage in sexual activity without ever having anal sex.
“It may be different for bisexuals I agree, but still anal sex is the way to go when a bisexual male hooks up with either another bisexual or a homosexual male.”
No, no, no. This bisexual is disagreeing as strongly as possible with this statement, and now I’m grossed out. In the gay community a lot of “hook ups” and causal sex is actually oral sex, anal sex is a different story because there are many gay and bi men who actively dislike it. Some hook ups do involve anal sex, but they don’t all. Not even close.
I guess I figured out why some conservatives use “gay” as a shorthand for “indiscriminate anal sex”.
Paladin I emailed you btw, I am not 100% sure you still use the email I used, I haven’t sent you mail there for a long time. Please let me know? I’d like I talk more about the stuff we were talking about privately (and reduce the chance you’ll forget what thread we are commenting on!).
Well, thanks for sharing. I will take you as an authority on this although I don’t fully buy it wholesale.
And just so you know, I never use the term “gay” but always homosexual. We’ve had this discussion about proper terms months ago. So don’t lump this conservative therein. :)
Don’t take my authority on it, I’m just some guy on the internet . Look up the studies. Gay men really are capable of choosing not to engage in certain behaviors, and many do for numerous reasons.
Hi, Jack!
I’m swamped at the moment, but I fired off a quick reply (with my updated e-mail address–I still use the old one, but I don’t check it as often)!
Thanks Paladin. :)
I am not sure about the studies Jack. I bet they are mostly self-report and you know how accurate those are, heh?
Well, all self reports have their issues, but there’s consistently a segment of gay and bi men who report not engaging in that practice, some have never even tried it. Men who are attracted to other men aren’t all that different from straight men, and not all straight men engage in the same activities or enjoy the same activities. And some gay and bi guys choose to refrain from sex completely, just like some straight men choose to remain celibate for religious or other purposes.
I just take issue with the fact it’s impossible to be gay or bi and refrain that activity, even if you date or “hook up” with another man. It’s not all hedonism and anal sex. Gay and bi men are perfectly capable of being individuals with self-control and discernment.
It’s not surprise to me that so many seem to think having same sex attractions is a mental disorder since you seem to have a misunderstanding of gay and bi men as people.
You do know who called it a mental disorder Jack, don’t you? Not me. Anyway, we can engage in this polemic for eternity. For now we seem to agree that anal sex is not all that. I am okay with that agreement so let’s move on :)
Paladin called it one (I disagree with him) and you seem to think it should have remained in the DSM (I disagree with you). But yeah, I don’t see this conversation getting anywhere. People seem to want to see gay and bi people in a certain light and there’s nothing I can say that changes that, I think.
You are not the only one who disagrees with me or Paladin. Its obvious :)
I’m just never going to understand the inclination that people who have a problem with homosexuality have to assume they know what not straight people get up to in the bedroom. It just seems judgmental and insensitive. Do people honestly believe that gays and bis are some type of different human, who can’t control themselves and avoid some activities? Or that gays and bis don’t have personal preferences or religious beliefs that influence their behavior? I really have tried to understand the objections to homosexuality, but it seems as though there is an underlying bias against LGBT people that’s on a different level from solely religious objections and concern for the well-being of the participants.
Reality can you see why I pretend to be straight in real life, and claimed to be straight on this blog for quite a long time, even to the point of lying?
Here’s the issue – individuals who are 100 percent homosexual engage in anal sex exclusively. – as Jack has pointed out, that is not at all correct Thomas R.
Did you hit your head right before you typed this question, “reality?” – no, did you hit yours before you asked your question “thomas r.”? Now go on, tell me this response of mine is 80% cut and paste and 20% analysis. :-)
You do know who called it a mental disorder Jack, don’t you? – those who have been proven wrong.
Reality can you see why I pretend to be straight in real life, and claimed to be straight on this blog for quite a long time, even to the point of lying? – very much so ADLP. Sad isn’t it.
kenthebirther says:
December 18, 2013 at 10:03 am
December 16, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Reality says:
well actually, no kentheburper. That is not what I said. Can’t you even cut and paste successfully?
“Here’s the issue – individuals who are 100 percent homosexual engage in anal sex exclusively. – as Jack has pointed out, that is not at all correct Thomas R. “
Yes, “reality” but you have missed two posts above that questioned the reliability of self-reports (or did you omit that on purpose, heh). I can tell you all about my experiences as a heterosexual male but those are just anectodal in nature, yes? So is Jack’s claim. Anectodal summation does not extend to the collective of a group. There is the problem you see. Jack can claim and I can claim but the hard fact is that citing self-reports is as inaccurate as providing anectodal justification.
I think that those that solely rely on those two as reliable sources, may miss a few things..
Anecdotes by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, but a compilation of anecdotes (like self reporting studies, especially if several different surveys say the same thing) points to general trends.
And you said 100% of men who engage in homosexual behavior have anal sex. I am telling you there is at least one who doesn’t and wouldn’t ever, even if you ignore the trends that studies report that it’s not a rare thing. I don’t know the point of insisting that men attracted to men can’t possibly have preferences that don’t include that, or that they all are exactly the same. It’s dehumanizing Thomas. I don’t understand why people tell me over and over that they don’t see LGBT people badly, they just disagree with homosexual behavior, but when I question them enough I find out they actually think stuff like this, or agree even non-practicing gay or bi people should be excluded from religious activities, or things like that. I simply don’t understand.
Yes, “reality” but you have missed two posts above that questioned the reliability of self-reports (or did you omit that on purpose, heh). – not at all “thomas r.” and not at all. So on what basis did you make your claim when you don’t even have anecdotal evidence let alone any real evidence?
I can tell you all about my experiences as a heterosexual male but those are just anectodal in nature, yes? – yes you could, although I’d rather you didn’t.
So is Jack’s claim. – I find Jack’s claim far more reliable than yours. I have a number of homosexual friends. Some amongst them shudder at the mere thought of anal sex.
Anectodal summation does not extend to the collective of a group. There is the problem you see. – indeed, so why did you feel the need to make such a spurious claim about a collective?
Jack can claim and I can claim but the hard fact is that citing self-reports is as inaccurate as providing anectodal justification. – what are you claiming exactly? That as a heterosexual male you haven’t experienced homosexual anal sex? Wow.
I think that those that solely rely on those two as reliable sources, may miss a few things.. – so I’ve observed.
Jack ~ You had asked how I overcome the notion that grace defies logic. Let me clarify: God’s grace is logical, as in perfectly consistent, with who He is. Pure goodness. It is illogical to my human mind.
My apparent goodness is often tainted by self-seeking motivations. “Do onto others …” was never intended to be a social contract, but a simple test by which to determine the goodness of an action. Following the rules in order to stay safe or for personal gain is not goodness. It’s just being clever or not a total jerk (and maybe just cuz we don’t want any one to think we’re a total jerk – and again, why?) So my point is: our idea of goodness is so very distorted that real goodness is difficult to fathom.
… until we experience it. Real love. Love is not logical. Oh how we love our children. We’d give our lives – and in many ways we do give our lives – for our children. A taste of pure, selfless, sacrificial love. That’s why God calls us His children. That may even be one reason He gives us children, so that we might begin to understand true love, pure goodness, the way He loves us. That idea sweeps me off my feet.
“reality” and DLPL - I cannot anymore discuss any issues related to homosexuality/anal sex/bisexuality at least until 01/07/2014. If I do, I may not be in a state of preparedness for Christmas. Hope you understand…
No one was ever forcing you to.
I think this whole ‘rabbit hole’ discussion of anybody ‘deciding’ a marriage is invalid because of infertility is misguided. It has been proven that with God all things are possible so it seems vain that any man says that the union of a particular man and a woman is ‘incapable’ of bringing forth children.
Hi DLPL, how is the weather in your neck of the woods? We are winter sports kind of a family so the past few days have been grand.
Well, I moved from southern Florida to the Pacific Northwest very recently, so I am constantly freezing. I dunno how you all handle actual cold temperatures, because it’s only like 36 degrees and I am shivering constantly lol. I’ve never tried winter sports (never saw snow until a week or so ago) but I would love to try snowboarding some day.
I now what you mean about the shivering. We went to Florida’s Disney World with the kids a month ago and it was about 72 or so. People were wearing all sorts of long-sleeve jackets and we were parading in t-shirts. Get this – we were the only family at the hotel’s outdoor swimming pool the entire length of our stay and got some serious stares. :)
I HATE Disney World, because I used to live near Orlando and tourists are just flat out rude lol. My kids like it though. It doesn’t surprise me that your family was the only one out in the pool, I start getting cold around 65 or something, time for a long sleeved shirt! My kids are loving the colder weather up here though, they think it’s novel.