(June 16, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well, *WE* don't condemn anybody, first of all. 

I shouldn't give examples because we have no way of knowing a person's heart and so we have no way of knowing who went to Hell. But for argument's sake, let's take Hitler. I may be completely wrong, and cannot say for sure, but he was probably someone who rejected love and goodness. Look at the things he did and the way he lived his life... his actions are completely devoid of love and goodness. His actions seem to show that he rejected those ideals.  

And yes, it i chosen. By choosing to reject those things, you put yourself in the only place where those things do not exist. And like I said. It isn't any sort of physical pain and suffering. It's just a place where love/goodness is not present. That is what makes it a bad place, but if you hate love/goodness then it makes sense for you to be in a place where it is not present.

The bible describes it as a place of fire and torment, not lack of goodness

It also was described as a place where God (who IS love and goodness) is not present. Describing Hell like a 3 dymensional place under the earth with fire and darkness is the same as describing the story of Adam and Even and the garden of Eden. It's just an easy way to describe what it is to the people of the times, but there is definitely symbolism involved.

Hitler loved his dogs. And he considered what he was doing to be good.

Like I said, I may very well be wrong about Hitler. There is no way of knowing for sure.

I don't think you can show me one person on earth who doesn't want love and acts according to what is not right.....so....nobody goes to hell?

If you just want people to love you, but you bring hatred and misery to people in return, then you are just acting on selfishness, not on love.

Quote:You are correct, but you have to understand that the Christian defenition of the sin of lust is not simply arousal. Arousal can be involuntary and thus cannot be immoral in and of itself. Lust is when you make the conscious decision to dehumanize someone into an object of gratification for yourself. Doing this requires some active thought and choice. 

So....it only takes redefining a few words to make it all work, huh? Again, nowhere can you find this distinction in the scripture and that is your own addition, based on what you already decided is moral

The origins of the word lust is biblical, so perhaps it was not Christianity that redefined it, but society. And like I said, this is Catholic teaching. Not something I decided on my own.

Quote:Do I believe homosexuality is immoral? No. Homosexuality is not freely chosen. People don't *choose* to be attracted to people of the same sex any more than they choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. And since attraction is not voluntary, it cannot be immoral in and of itself.

How refreshing!

This is what Catholicism teaches, and it is also what I believe most Christians think.

Quote:I DO, however, believe that any sexual activity outside the context of a husband and wife is immoral. This applies to people who are attracted to the opposite sex as well as those who are attracted to the same sex.

Sigh....and you were doing so well, coming across as such an honest person. But no. Only more bigotry masquerading as open mindedness. Of course.

Being gay isn't wrong.....you just can't ever act on the impulse that is a part of who you are and your human nature! See how accepting catholics are?

I'm sorry, but there is no mild way to put it, nor should there be: that is revolting. It's the cause of sexual repression, self loathing and misery and has ruined many a sex life. It's disgusting and hiding the hatred behind statements like 'homosexuality isn't a sin' means NOTHING when you follow it with 'unless you act on it'.

You come across as a kind person. I fail to see how you can endorse this bigotry.

You may not agree with my beliefs about sexual morality, and that is perfectly fine. I understand, and I wouldn't expect you to agree.
Regardless, if 2 men or 2 women want to be in a romantic relationship, it is their right to do so and I still respect them as people and I respect their right. But I cannot say I believe it to be morally good.

Would you agree though that people who are attracted to children "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature?"
If so, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking it is not always moral to act on impulses. You just don't think it's right in this particular case.

(June 16, 2015 at 1:25 pm)abaris Wrote: And they feel justified in the same way you feel justified. They only get a different message from the same texts.

Again, cherry-picking, as I was saying last night. We should be glad that CL is cherry-picking the good stuff due to the good upbringing she got, I supose ... but the reed is still equally thin, as you're pointing out. "There but for the grace of god go I", and all that good stuff.

(June 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I have never heard of any pastor calling for the killing of gays/transgendered folks, or for the demise of people. But that is obviously very much against everything Jesus taught.

I've already linked you to facts about that in this very thread. Are you not at least opening those links and reading the headlines?

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  It means that you haven't learned about it.

Perhaps you should do a little reading?

I must admit, I have not opened reading material and I apologize. I have been very overwhelmed trying to answer all of you and have not had the time. If you want to tell me something, it is better if you cut and paste or if you put in your own words. If you post a link I probably won't get to it.

I 100% agree that just because I haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are some messed up people out there who call themselves Christians. Fortunately, they are in the very small minority.

---

(June 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 1:25 pm)abaris Wrote: And they feel justified in the same way you feel justified. They only get a different message from the same texts.

Again, cherry-picking, as I was saying last night.  We should be glad that CL is cherry-picking the good stuff due to the good upbringing she got, I supose ... but the reed is still equally thin, as you're pointing out. "There but for the grace of god go I", and all that good stuff.

I'm not sure how it still counts as cherry picking when I say I feel the *whole* Old Testament is written in allegorical form, rather than just the bad stuff....

But if that is how you feel then I can respect your opinion and move on.

I want to thank you, C_L for keeping a respectful tone, not breaking any rules, and not strawmanning here. You have no idea how refreshing it is, being that we tend to attract a lot of disingenuous assholes.

But now there's this:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Are you saying that gays having sex within wedlock is immoral? Or is that OK?

Note how I said "between husband and wife" and not "married according to the state."

I believe that marriage is definitive of a woman/man relationship. A gay couple aught to have all the same rights under the law, but it is not a marriage in the Catholic definition of the word, which is what I believe in. Therefore I do not believe it is moral for 2 men or 2 women to engage in sexual activity, even if they are married under state law.

Do you believe it's not moral for Catholics?  Or everyone?  After all, you believe in objective morality...

(June 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
Would you agree though that people who are attracted to children "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature?"
If so, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking it is not always moral to act on impulses. You just don't think it's right in this particular case.

Oh please. This is the usual religious bullshit of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. Hopefully you do get the difference between consenting adults and intercourse with minors. And it's kind of ironic, considering that all too many catholic priests can't keep it in their pants with children.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure how it still counts as cherry picking when I say I feel the *whole* Old Testament is written in allegorical form, rather than just the bad stuff....

But if that is how you feel then I can respect your opinion and move on.

You did hear him say Jesus this and Jesus that, didn't you?

Well, sorry to dissapoint, but no Jesus in the OT, just a differrent message coming from his understanding of Jesus.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You may not agree with my beliefs about sexual morality, and that is perfectly fine. I understand, and I wouldn't expect you to agree.
Regardless, if 2 men or 2 women want to be in a romantic relationship, it is their right to do so and I still respect them as people and I respect their right. But I cannot say I believe it to be morally good.

Please make a case why same sex relationships are 'not morally good'

See, there you go with more of that self-contradictory bullshit: I respect it, but I think it's wrong. Nuh uh, not buying that shit. Calling somebody's relationship wrong is disrespectful.

Be a bigot if you must. But at the very least, be honest about it.

Quote:Would you agree though that people who are attracted to children "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature?"
If so, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking it is not always moral to act on impulses. You just don't think it's right in this particular case.

You really just did that.


Wow.

You really just equated a relationship between two consenting adults to child rape.

That's low. And also, incredibly dumb.

Unlike you, I can make a case for why acting on pedophilic impulses is wrong: it is always without the child's informed consent, therefore always rape. Homosexuality is not.

And that comparison is positively disgusting.

I think I lost half of my respect for you from that post alone. I still can't fathom how you can come off so sweet and hold such hateful beliefs.

Oof..that pedophilia comparison is rough... It should be obvious that we're talking about consenting adults.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I want to thank you, C_L for keeping a respectful tone, not breaking any rules, and not strawmanning here. You have no idea how refreshing it is, being that we tend to attract a lot of disingenuous assholes.

But now there's this:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Note how I said "between husband and wife" and not "married according to the state."

I believe that marriage is definitive of a woman/man relationship. A gay couple aught to have all the same rights under the law, but it is not a marriage in the Catholic definition of the word, which is what I believe in. Therefore I do not believe it is moral for 2 men or 2 women to engage in sexual activity, even if they are married under state law.

Do you believe it's not moral for Catholics?  Or everyone?  After all, you believe in objective morality...

Hey, thank you so much! I appreciate that. I'm sorry some of us Christians can be so rude sometimes. :/

I believe it is objectively immoral, yes. But culpability changes depending on the person. So for someone of a different faith who has no idea or genuinely believes differently, they probably have very little fault, if any. And honestly, I do believe God shows great mercy for gay folks who act on their attraction, whether catholic or not. It must be extremely difficult to have to live a celibate life and to never get to feel the closeness of a life partner. I'm sure God understands that better than any of us and I think He is very merciful to these people.

When speaking about objective actions, we can say whether and action is moral or immoral in and of itself. But we can never judge the state of another  person's soul.

---

(June 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
Would you agree though that people who are attracted to children "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature?"
If so, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking it is not always moral to act on impulses. You just don't think it's right in this particular case.

Oh please. This is the usual religious bullshit of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. Hopefully you do get the difference between consenting adults and intercourse with minors. And it's kind of ironic, considering that all too many catholic priests can't keep it in their pants with children.

Please don't misunderstand. I know the 2 are worlds differently. I just wanted to know if your comment  that it's wrong to say someone "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature" applied to all people, or if it applies just to some people.

Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Instead of having to be merciful at all, why not just make it not a sin in the first place, if he's merciful to those people that do it?