Gays Must Change Says Archbishop

[des]

In fact, Russ, we are going thru a period right now of various religious individuals using their holy books as a reason for their hatred and strife around the world. They can quote text, and will. to defend their positions.

It isn't what I think is really Christianity (or Islam for that matter).

 

 

I like "indwelling God".

 

 

--des

[Quaker Way]

I like "indwelling God".

 

I stongly suggest Dr. Rev. Howard Thurman's books, especially 'Deep is the Hunger' and 'Meditations from the Heart'. His thoughts, sermons, and meditations are very much in the direction of many of our discussions here.

[jamesAMDG]

Flat:

 

I'm sorry you were treated that way. Such uncharity demeans its targets and its user. Alas, if only Christians would stop dishonouring Christ, but until the Second Coming it looks unlikely. Perhaps it is because of this expereince that you limit welcome to being physically allowed in this or that building at a given time. For me it is not the physical welcome which matters (or is primary, anyone who wants to pray can go into a Church so long as they don't disrupt other or commit a sacrilege - which would both be sins against charity towards other people and so are different from what we are discussing) Churches aren't (or shouldn't) be an excuse for social clubs were we just hang out and leave everyone to their own devices. Churches should be the place where we meet for the specific purpose of worshipping the Lord and growing in Him. For these reasons I think that your stated understanding of "welcome" and your implied understanding of the function of the Church is incorrect and shallow.

 

canajan, eh?:

 

My message of love and forgiveness tells you that although I loved the heart and soul of each person I met -- total inclusiveness -- I also understood that human beings make mistakes. Often these mistakes are grievous and intentional. Hence the need for forgiveness.

 

I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins on the Cross. That by his atoning sacrifice my debt is paid if I accept that salvation and live in His way, that is to say if I live a faithful Christian live, confessing my sisn and pariticipating in the sacraments and life of the Church. BUT if I refuse I will have to suffer the consequences of my sins because I will have refused Jesus' free offer.

 

As far as I can this explain lacks the understanding that the free acceptance of forgiveness is necessary for its efficaciousness in Christianity. If this were not true there would be no need for conversion, no need to amend our lives, preach the Gospel and certainly no necessity for the martyrs to shed their blood.

 

The Way of the Christ is to love the heart of each being you meet, but to recognize the painful reality that many human beings choose not to be who they really are -- individuals capable of remarkable feats of emotional courage. Forgiveness is an act of emotional courage. I called on people to love and forgive.

 

Just to be sure I understand. Is frogiveness a one-time act? Like the progressive version of the protestant "once saved, always saved" doctrine? Christianity has always taught that forgiveness is an on-going, oft-repeated act required for those who ask it, as much in as much as they ask. The Lord Jesus Christ is infintely and perfectly merciful, He loves us and forgives us as many times as we need, but we need to ask for that forgiveness and accept it with the intention to not sin again. When we fail, we go to Him again and ask forgiveness, which He mercifully grants provided we have a right intention. To take forgiveness as a balm which alleviates our need for improvement isn't maturity, it's the epitome of selfishness (ie: I am "forgiven" but can do whatever I want because I'm "broken")

 

des:

 

James, it's just where I draw my line. You know progressives do draw them (at least this one does).

 

I know you do, and even though I usually disagree with you too, I can respect that fact that you draw lines about rightness and wrongness.

 

I think a lot of the conservative stuff is tiring, after all, you know I didn't go to the TCPC to read conservative stuff, but ok when you go on and on quoting Bible verses, and so forth. I will defend your right to do this. Although I have to say, I am getting more weary of it.

 

I know and I think that your patience is pretty exceptional. I frustrate myself by my own sinfulness all the time, heck, given the choice I wish I could take some time our from me too, no offense taken. Of couse, if I become so bothersome to you you could always ignore me, I probably wouldn't like it, but I can understand it. I've given up on all sorts of things, school, flaky liberalism, all kinds of crap.

 

But attacking someone who's sexual orientation is different based on some Bible verses-- well that's my line. In your defense, you really don't do a personal attack, and it was pretty mild as far as that goes. [...] But I don't think it is ok for me to tolerate any amount of negative behavior towards homosexuals regardless of how mild it might be.

 

I didn't attack anyone, personal or otherwise, I've statated and believe that homosexuality, as a behaviour, is sinful. So is stealing, so is adultery, so is viewing pronography, so is rape, so is rudeness, so is driving over the speed limit, so is smoking pot and so on and so on. I'm sorry if there are either gays or lesbians on the board who have taken what I have said as a personal attack. I have always tried to behave within the mandates of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

If I have failed in this, and it's possible, wouldn't be the first time I've been uncharitable, I'm sorry for the manner in which I expressed myself.

 

As a side note, just to be clear, your tolerance can only react in an intolerant way when I disagree? This always confused me about the left. Besides the queastion begging assumption that tolerance is, in fact, a virtue. They never seem able to the ridiculousness of being using tolerance to be intolerant of someone else's intolerance.

 

 

ALL:

 

Experience shows that the corruption of Original Sin still exercises a hold on humanity. But of course this is the crux of what I have been trying to say.

 

There has been, and still is, an impression on this board (and amongst progressives I know) that a rejection of someone's behaviour is also a rejection of them as people. Of course this is not the case. I've never met anyone who didn't struggle with a few vices. Lord knows I have my own. Chrisitianity has always taught that man can be better. That with the aid of Christ's grace we can rise above our selfish desires and all the impediments between us and He who died for our sakes, who didn't let anything on Earth impede His love for us.

 

That has always been one of Christianity's greatest strengths, we are not their to celebrate how good we are (someone might have once said something about a Pharisee who did that) but rather we are there to accept responsability for our sinful actions and do better with God's help.

[des]

>des:

I know you do, and even though I usually disagree with you too, I can respect that fact that you draw lines about rightness and wrongness.

I know and I think that your patience is pretty exceptional. I frustrate myself by my own sinfulness all the time, heck, given the choice I wish I could take some time our from me too, no offense taken. Of couse, if I become so bothersome to you you could always ignore me, I probably wouldn't like it, but I can understand it. I've given up on all sorts of things, school, flaky liberalism, all kinds of crap.

 

 

There's a difference, James. We have a self-proclaimed progressive board. Yes, we all say and do things

that are tiresome. Certainly me. But in context, this is a progressive board. So therefore, if someone else

is progressive is tiresome, I wouldnt' say so. I think you are kind of here as a guest.

 

Why don't I put you on my ignore list? I don't know. Maybe as much as I disagree with you I find you a

mostly well-behaved and you usually don't get under my skin. Heck, I actually think I like you. Not your opinions, but just you.

 

>I didn't attack anyone, personal or otherwise, I've statated and believe that homosexuality, as a behaviour, is sinful. So is stealing, so is adultery, so is viewing pronography, so is rape, so is rudeness, so is driving over the speed limit, so is smoking pot and so on and so on.

 

Yes, since you weren't personal about it, I gave somewhat a benefit of the doubt. I think that IF you are

to view homosexuality as a sin, this list is a little nicer than the last one, which listed it along with theivery etc. at least you add goign over the speed limit and rudeness. (Funny about that combination. I could get very off track about New Mexico drivers. :-))

 

 

>I'm sorry if there are either gays or lesbians on the board who have taken what I have said as a personal attack. I have always tried to behave within the mandates of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

>If I have failed in this, and it's possible, wouldn't be the first time I've been uncharitable, I'm sorry for the manner in which I expressed myself.

 

You didn't.

 

I think you have, not that I was motivated to check out the Catholic church site. But it misses the point.

 

Science pretty much indicates people are born being homosexual (at least with the predisposition), and as has been shown in research are genetically marked that way, know they are homosexual very early in life and so on, I fail to see this as any kind of choice. If it is no kind of choice, then homosexuals some churches, at least, allow that the person has to remain chaste, against his will (I say mostly his because lesbianism wasn't even thought of in Biblical times). Some churches don't allow even that much.

 

Ok, so here you have a person, through no fault of their own is gay. Has to remain in the closet and miserable (factually speaking, people who supposedly "change" are rare, and the research doesn't in any show that it is really doable), alone. And maybe even still it is their fault and they are sinning. There are thousands of stories of gay folks who just can't take it any more. The suicide rate of gays is very high.

There are thousands of straight folks who are convinced of the sinful of gays and conduct their own vigilanty crusades, with murder as an occassional (too often) result. I blame some churches for some of this.

A big part of one's identity is sexual orientation. So "we love you but hate your sin" seems shallow.

(I know you didn't say that. But that is one argument I hear often enough.) If you have to "improve

to some higher standard" and that's your make up that you practically were born with... It's different than say lying. Everyoen lies, I would guess, but I dont' think there are too many people who see it as an essential part of their identity? Maybe "Liar's Club International"??

 

 

>As a side note, just to be clear, your tolerance can only react in an intolerant way when I disagree? This always confused me about the left. Besides the queastion begging assumption that tolerance is, in fact, a virtue. They never seem able to the ridiculousness of being using tolerance to be intolerant of someone else's intolerance.

 

Hmm, I don't recall being "intolerant". I think what I said is that I draw the line as to how much I think is basically "ok". I think you raise an interesting point of tolerance as a virtue. Perhaps it is the wrong word?

I certainly don't tolerate homophobia anymore than racism, sexism, or...

I have no idea what a better term might be??

 

.ALL:

Experience shows that the corruption of Original Sin still exercises a hold on humanity. But of course this is the crux of what I have been trying to say.

 

I don't buy Original sin. At least perhaps not in the way that you profess to.

I think we all fall short, is the way I would put it. And I don't say that all (that we would both say are sins) are things that I would want to be happy with. Or that all is just hunkey dorey with humanity. It is obviously a mess. I think that the lines of our disagreement are probably a little smaller than you might imagine. At least on that.

 

--des