How to be an accepting Catholic

doctoremma

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand this stubbornness in clinging to a label that has nothing to do with you and that you have declared you won't let it have anything to do with you... other than the label itself

One of my family is a Catholic. A pro-choice, pro-contraception, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay rights, anti-Pope, non-mass-attending one, but a Catholic nonetheless. Never tell them any differently!!!

eviltwin

Members of my family are Catholic, they live in sin, have kids out of wedlock, are fully supportive of gay marriage, use birth control and get communion every sunday. The ground hasn't opened up and swallowed them.

Truth be told you have no idea when you go to mass how Catholic someone is, its highly unlikely the majority have views that follow church teachings.

Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

Members of my family are Catholic, they live in sin, have kids out of wedlock, are fully supportive of gay marriage, use birth control and get communion every sunday. The ground hasn't opened up and swallowed them.

Truth be told you have no idea when you go to mass how Catholic someone is, its highly unlikely the majority have views that follow church teachings.

That's pretty immature if you ask me. Still, paper never refused ink the way the Church won't refuse their money.

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't see what gives you the right to say that.

It's pretty clear (i.e. an open and shut case) from the content of their post that he/she is not in communion with the Church. Therefore, he/she should not receive Holy Communion. It's disrespectful and immature to do otherwise.

Onesimus

Have you rephrased it because you don't want to allow the term "in love" to be used to describe the feelings shared by a homosexual couple? Because, by your definition, they cannot be "in love"?

No I have rephrased it because the term ''Love'' is an interpretation that belongs to the world and not to Christians.

Do you think your outlook might change if you felt love/affection/lust for another man? Do you think love is something that can be casually tossed aside, that can be resisted with a little bit of willpower (whereever you source your will power from)? Do you not find being in love with your chosen partner an all-consuming fire, a passion, a life without it not worth living?

Yes the Love that belongs to the world is something that can be casually tossed aside because it is not authentic and the Love I have for my wife is not of this world. So I therefore cannot explain this Christ like love to someone who has not developed or tasted this authentic love of Christ.

The outlook of those who are already homosexual and suffer these lustful thoughts for the same sex and who are Catholic are an outstanding example of someone who resists the temptation. Why? because they have sought and tasted the sweetness and authentic Love of Christ. They have ( as the Gospel tells us ) found that treasure that they do not want to let go of.

I would invite the OP and everyone else to delve into Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. The original document is tough to handle but Christopher west breaks it down in his book. I am ashamed to say though that I have only touched the surface of Theology of the Body. It's a big book and a rather huge subject.

Rasheed

Actor wrote: »

It's the former part of the post that's most disconcerting. As Archbishop Martin said recently: "It requires maturity on those people who want their children to become members of the church community and maturity on those people who say 'I don't believe in God and I really shouldn't be hanging on to the vestiges of faith when I don't really believe in it"

It's not very mature (or logical) to turn up to Mass every Sunday and then go outside preaching abortion, homosexuality, contraception and IVF treatment. It's almost as if it's fashionable these days to go against the grain on these thorny issues.

I dont preach to anyone, it's everybody's choice though. And I have never in my life done something because it's fashionable.

eviltwin

Actor wrote: »

That's pretty immature if you ask me. Still, paper never refused ink the way the Church won't refuse their money.

Of course it won't, its a business after all, they can turn a blind eye once they are getting some money in the coffers

Rasheed

bluewolf wrote: »

Why don't you just find a christian church that aligns with what you believe in? Seriously? I don't understand this stubbornness in clinging to a label that has nothing to do with you and that you have declared you won't let it have anything to do with you... other than the label itself

Because I like being a Catholic. My family are Catholics, my friends are Catholics and I like belonging to that community and the sense of togetherness that brings. I enjoy mass, I enjoy going on pilgramiges.

I'm not being particularly stubborn about it, the minute I feel that Im completely at odds with the church, I'll leave. But it'll be my choice.

Rasheed

Rasheed wrote: »

Because I like being a Catholic. My family are Catholics, my friends are Catholics and I like belonging to that community and the sense of togetherness that brings. I enjoy mass, I enjoy going on pilgramiges.

you can have a sense of community with a church that actually shares your beliefs and has masses too
seriously, "everyone i know is one so i want to fit in too" is such a bad reason

I'm not being particularly stubborn about it, the minute I feel that Im completely at odds with the church, I'll leave. But it'll be my choice.

you are completely at odds with the church...

totus tuus

On 'Cafeteria Catholics':

There are apparently many in the Catholic Church today who outwardly live and worship as Catholics, but who do not accept in its entirety the Catholic faith. That faith is no longer the guiding light of their life. They seek the sacraments of the Church, but are unwilling to accept some of the teachings of the Church. They want the gifts God gives through the Church, but not the sacrifices He asks through the Church.


They foolishly think they do not need the guidance and protection of the chief Shepherd that Christ has provided for His flock. Yet just as the sheep that wanders off and gets separated from the fold become an easy prey to wild animals that would kill and devour it, so Catholics who wander aside from the protective guidance of the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Shepherd whom Christ has provided, become easy prey to the deceptions and wiles of the devil. Such a one may be clever about worldly things, but his vision has become clouded (without the light of faith) as to his own innate weakness, and as to the wisdom of seeking God’s will rather than their own.



Whether or not the rejection of this or that teaching of the Church (divinely revealed) causes total loss of faith, only God knows. Only a grave sin of disbelief can cause this, and only God knows when all the conditions are present. But those who deliberately reject something taught by the Church as divinely revealed, even if taught only by the ordinary magisterium, are walking dangerously close to the edge of the precipice.


The Christian life has always demanded many sacrifices of the true follower of Christ. That is a major part of the cross that His followers are asked to carry. And now the time has come when greater and greater sacrifices are going to be required in order to be a true and practicing Catholic, when more and more what we stand for, what we believe, is going to be challenged and ridiculed. It will take a strong faith, a firm hope and a courageous love to encounter all this and not accept the wisdom of the world. Without these divine helps, that cross will become a "stumbling block," and will be rejected as "foolishness." (1Cor. 1:23-25). Strengthen our faith, Lord, to accept and live all that You have revealed and made known through Your Church. "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." (Jn. 20:29)

http://www.rosary-center.org/ll46n4.htm

Corkfeen

Totus, how many Catholics would you say accept every teaching of Catholicism in Ireland? Everything would indicate that very few agree with every stance that it holds.

Rasheed

bluewolf wrote: »

you can have a sense of community with a church that actually shares your beliefs and has masses too
seriously, "everyone i know is one so i want to fit in too" is such a bad reason


you are completely at odds with the church...

Ah no, I'm not doing it to fit in, that'd be sad, I'm a Catholic because I want to be a Catholic. I'm not completely at odds with the church, i do agree with some aspects, just not all.

Rasheed

Corkfeen wrote: »

Totus, how many Catholics would you say accept every teaching of Catholicism in Ireland? Everything would indicate that very few agree with every stance that it holds.

You see, I completely agree with you here. The world is changing so much that people have to change too. Who am I to say that two men in loving relationship cant marry? Or that the people in Africa, for example, shouldn't use condoms therefore spreading AIDS or bringing children into a life of starving and hardship? I don't know if I'm getting my point across here righty!

Gumbi

Onesimus: Neither you nor the church has a monopoly on love.

totus tuus

Corkfeen wrote: »

Totus, how many Catholics would you say accept every teaching of Catholicism in Ireland? Everything would indicate that very few agree with every stance that it holds.

That's why I believe we are in the time of the Great Apostasy!

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes the Love that belongs to the world is something that can be casually tossed aside because it is not authentic and the Love I have for my wife is not of this world. So I therefore cannot explain this Christ like love to someone who has not developed or tasted this authentic love of Christ.

I'm not being provocative here, trying to understand...

Do you think the love I have for my husband is "of this world" and could be reasonably be tossed aside? That it is not "authentic"? That if some part of my relationship fell foul of your standards, I could be asked to give it up (or condemned for persisting with it)?

If so, it seems quite reasonable for me to suppose you resist from using the words "in love" to describe the feelings shared by a gay couple, as these feelings, just like my own, are not "authentic love".

Is the love you share with your wife somehow more special than those I share with my loved ones?

Onesimus wrote: »

The outlook of those who are already homosexual

Not sure what you mean by "already homosexual"?

Onesimus wrote: »

Why? because they have sought and tasted the sweetness and authentic Love of Christ. They have ( as the Gospel tells us ) found that treasure that they do not want to let go of.

That's all well and good for those who share your religious belief - their choice, their life. What of those who do not share your religious belief? You want to impose this standard on these people?

Onesimus

Do you think the love I have for my husband is "of this world" and could be reasonably be tossed aside? That it is not "authentic"? That if some part of my relationship fell foul of your standards, I could be asked to give it up (or condemned for persisting with it)?



If so, it seems quite reasonable for me to suppose you resist from using the words "in love" to describe the feelings shared by a gay couple, as these feelings, just like my own, are not "authentic love".

Only Christ searches all hearts and is the Judge of all, I do not condemn/judge people for being in any kind of sexual relationship, I just strongly disagree and choose Christs authentic vision. being in a straight relationship, you are already on just one of many paths that lead to an authentic and perfect love in Christ. If your relationship does not involve Christ then no, it is not ''authentic'', but would retain certain charecteriscs of an authentic relationship. But it has the potential to be truly authentic if you accept the invite of the Gospel and Christ into your relationship. If you choose to seek a relationship with Christ that is. Then it becomes authentic love.

The same goes for a homosexual couple. They have the potential to have an authentic relationship with one another if they invite Christ into that relationship because some of the aspects of their relationship have certain authentic qualities that are not quite yet brought to authentic perfection. And in so doing, they will then be able to root out the superflous nature of their ''sexual'' relationship or anything that did not reflect authentic love. Because once getting to know Christ like many other homosexual Catholics, they then recognize that what they were doing was not ''perfect love'' and that they were only indulging in their idea of what they thought love to be. They then decide to pick up their Cross and follow Jesus Christ and shed all that is of the world away from them.

Is the love you share with your wife somehow more special than those I share with my loved ones?

Yes it is because it involves Jesus Christ.

Not sure what you mean by "already homosexual"?

it was in response to you asking me would my view change if I felt sexual attraction for a man.

That's all well and good for those who share your religious belief - their choice, their life. What of those who do not share your religious belief? You want to impose this standard on these people?

Nobody is imposing any kind of standard Emma. it is an invitation. You accept the invite or you don't.

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

Only Christ searches all hearts and is the Judge of all, I do not condemn/judge people for being in any kind of sexual relationship, I just strongly disagree and choose Christs authentic vision. being in a straight relationship, you are already on just one of many paths that lead to an authentic and perfect love in Christ. If your relationship does not involve Christ then no, it is not ''authentic'', but would retain certain charecteriscs of an authentic relationship. But it has the potential to be truly authentic if you accept the invite of the Gospel and Christ into your relationship. If you choose to seek a relationship with Christ that is. Then it becomes authentic love.

The same goes for a homosexual couple. They have the potential to have an authentic relationship with one another if they invite Christ into that relationship because some of the aspects of their relationship have certain authentic qualities that are not quite yet brought to authentic perfection. And in so doing, they will then be able to root out the superflous nature of their ''sexual'' relationship or anything that did not reflect authentic love. Because once getting to know Christ like many other homosexual Catholics, they then recognize that what they were doing was not ''perfect love'' and that they were only indulging in their idea of what they thought love to be. They then decide to pick up their Cross and follow Jesus Christ and shed all that is of the world away from them.

Thank you for your patience and explanation. Are you permissive of gay relationships if they are celibate?

Onesimus wrote: »

Nobody is imposing any kind of standard Emma. it is an invitation. You accept the invite or you don't.

Would you vote in a manner which allows equality in marriage (and in life) for gay couples? If not, are you not imposing your standards on others?

Onesimus

Thank you for your patience and explanation. Are you permissive of gay relationships if they are celibate?

I do not have the ability to effect two peoples free will. Therefore it is not for me to ''permit''. But should you organize your question in a different way such as ''Do you agree it is ok for two gay couples to have a relationship if they are celibate, is one that is in the vision of Christ?, then my answer would be no. If their relationship with one another is as brother and sister ( or brother to brother ) like any other Christian mans relationship is with his brother then yes that is fine. But a celibate relationship that involves sexual attraction for the same sex is not in Christs vision at all. Because as I mentioned before, commiting the mortal sin of a homosexual act does not have to be one that is external, but can be internal.

Would you vote in a manner which allows equality in marriage (and in life) for gay couples? If not, are you not imposing your standards on others?

No to vote yes to allow homosexuals the ability to Marry by a Catholic would be seen as participating in such a sin being the correct world view. It is not an imposition at all. I am simply exercising my right to ''disagree'' by voting no.

The same could be said for homosexuals who vote yes. They could be said to be imposing upon us their views when in actual fact are just exercising their right to vote on a subject they agree or disagree with.

eviltwin

Does the church recognise a civil marriage as a marriage?

Benny_Cake

eviltwin wrote: »

Does the church recognise a civil marriage as a marriage?

It depends. The Catholic Church recognises civil marriages where neither party is Catholic, but if a Catholic is involved they are required to get a dispensation from their bishop in order to marry in a civil ceremony.

Most Protestant denominations fully recognise civil marriages - I know the Church of Ireland allows for a blessing to be given but the couple would be seen as already having being married in the civil ceremony.

Pwpane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It depends. The Catholic Church recognises civil marriages where neither party is Catholic, but if a Catholic is involved they are required to get a dispensation from their bishop in order to marry in a civil ceremony.

Most Protestant denominations fully recognise civil marriages - I know the Church of Ireland allows for a blessing to be given but the couple would be seen as already having being married in the civil ceremony.

The Catholic Church recognises civil marriages as legal arrangements. In the case of a Catholic wanting an annulment from a non-Catholic, it's usually not a problem due to the non-canonical nature of the marriage. At least, that's the understanding I was given.

philologos

crfcaio wrote: »

Is there any way I can exert the religion while still holding on to my personal opinions about certain subjects? I've always liked how being in a religious group - at least that's my idea of it - you don't feel "alone" anymore - there are people who share the same views and faith as you do.

Any and all help is appreciated.

Just out of interest - what authority do you believe that God has over man?

It seems like you want to put God second and you first.

I understand your question and I think it could be valid if you were asking simply why Christians believe that sexuality should be expressed only within marriage, but you seem to want to make yourself Lord while still believe in your own personal God that you control.

What's the point in believing in a god that is just a puppet that you can control? Why would I believe in such a cheapened and compromised God?

God is in control. He is Lord, not us no matter how much we want to be.

Mintoz

Rasheed wrote: »

You see, I completely agree with you here. The world is changing so much that people have to change too. Who am I to say that two men in loving relationship cant marry? Or that the people in Africa, for example, shouldn't use condoms therefore spreading AIDS or bringing children into a life of starving and hardship? I don't know if I'm getting my point across here righty!

The teachings are old, because the truth doesn't change. Saying that people must change because the world does is folly, sorry but it is. What if the world is moving in the wrong direction, away from God, would you think Christ would want his followers to move away from him, and thus straight into the hands of Satan?

That's just naive.

Mintoz

doctoremma wrote: »

Thank you for your patience and explanation. Are you permissive of gay relationships if they are celibate?



Would you vote in a manner which allows equality in marriage (and in life) for gay couples? If not, are you not imposing your standards on others?

A Catholic, or the church does not impose their standards - but Gods standards, what they beleive to be Gods standards as a result of divine revelations from scripture. Big difference.

Mintoz

Rasheed wrote: »

I am a Catholic also but like yourself, have difficulty in follownig all it's teaching. I think homosexuals have the right to find love and happiness and marry their partner as much as anyone.

I think contraception is a basic human choice as is abortion. I may not agree with something but I do believe everyone should have a choice.

To give you my point of view, I always have and hopefully always will be a Catholic. I won't accept that it's anyones right to tell me that I can't be a Catholic because I don't fully follow it's code. I try to live my life as best I can and if thats not good enough, well that's between me and my God and nobody else.

I am shocked, no really. At least you were honest and grouped contraception with abortion, because at heart, in principle, they are the same thing: Treating Gods children, life, like some sort of nasty infection or disease. This thinking is not compatible with loving God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul. It serves to reduce the amount of Christians in the world, thus comforming to the enemy's 'big plan'. Meanwhile the Muslims are producing on average 8 kids, and taking over Europe,

Each child, even in the womb, is destined for an eternal life of joy with God, and frustrating his plan for life, is just not acceptable, in all honesty.

Corkfeen

Mintoz wrote: »

A Catholic, or the church does not impose their standards - but Gods standards, what they beleive to be Gods standards as a result of divine revelations from scripture. Big difference.

It's acceptable to impose god standards in law upon everyone? Even though not everyone believes in this belief? I thought one of the big things with Christianity was that people had free will... It's not exactly free will when you choose to prevent them from making their choices in life.

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

Just out of interest - what authority do you believe that God has over man?

It seems like you want to put God second and you first.

I understand your question and I think it could be valid if you were asking simply why Christians believe that sexuality should be expressed only within marriage, but you seem to want to make yourself Lord while still believe in your own personal God that you control.

What's the point in believing in a god that is just a puppet that you can control? Why would I believe in such a cheapened and compromised God?

God is in control. He is Lord, not us no matter how much we want to be.

I'm surprised to see such a spirited defence of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church coming from you Philologos ;-)

As you come from a reformed perspective, would you not accept that everyone has the right to study and interpret scripture for themselves? I didn't get the impression that the OP was setting themselves up as God, just that they are seeking God, want to be part of a worshipping community, but have serious questions over certain teachings - as very many Christians do.

Mintoz

mrac wrote: »

This is something I absolutely hate when discussing with a religious person, "this baseless opinion I just put forward is not mine its gods therefore its correct and doesn't need backing up, not only that it's right even in the face of contradictory evidence."

I never said we know, you cannot know, it's a matter of faith and reason. Whatever evidence you claim to have, cannot be evidence, it's impossible to prove.

If the church beleives the teachings are Gods standard, then it's within reason for them to voice it. I'm sure you'd agree.

Mintoz

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm surprised to see such a spirited defence of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church coming from you Philologos ;-)

As you come from a reformed perspective, would you not accept that everyone has the right to study and interpret scripture for themselves? I didn't get the impression that the OP was setting themselves up as God, just that they are seeking God, want to be part of a worshipping community, but have serious questions over certain teachings - as very many Christians do.

From the perspective of a finite human mind, who does not know everything, it's unreasonable to believe each individual can interpret scripture correctly each time. There are times when it seems God contradicts himself, but that's only because it's a human being reading it, so it makes sense its left up to a singular authority, magisterium.

Rasheed

Mintoz wrote: »

. It serves to reduce the amount of Christians in the world, thus comforming to the enemy's 'big plan'. Meanwhile the Muslims are producing on average 8 kids, and taking over Europe,

Each child, even in the womb, is destined for an eternal life of joy with God, and frustrating his plan for life, is just not acceptable, in all honesty.

Oh sweet Jesus are you serious?

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm surprised to see such a spirited defence of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church coming from you Philologos ;-)

I agree with the teaching authority of God and Him alone, and I believe in many cases the RCC are actually teaching that.

Although an evangelical. I can see something in this argument that makes me concerned. I'm very used to liberal Christianity, and in particular liberal Protestantism.

However, I think both parties can be concerned when people aren't arguing what does God actually say on this issue, and shifts to how can I make my view more important than God in my life and still be a Christian.

I think most of us should be able to agree, that Jesus unequivocally said to seek the Kingdom of God first, and that Jesus said that one can't serve two masters. We serve Him first.

What debate would be the most productive is where God's word actually stands on the matter.

If you will this is something of pan-Christian interest.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

As you come from a reformed perspective, would you not accept that everyone has the right to study and interpret scripture for themselves? I didn't get the impression that the OP was setting themselves up as God, just that they are seeking God, want to be part of a worshipping community, but have serious questions over certain teachings - as very many Christians do.

I would accept that God has revealed His word, that God is real, and that God has spoken to us. As a result I think the Bible should be handled with the utmost care, and that there will be consequences for those who treat it lightly.

I believe the individual Christian should read the Bible for themselves, but I don't agree that we're lost in interpretation. Thankfully, the Bible isn't just a book, it has an author, and we can grow in Him, and we can ask Him for guidance in our lives.

If God wasn't real, sure, everyone could be right. If God is real and He has spoken, His word should be taken seriously, that is if we're going to come before the judgement seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5).

I think treating God's word lightly goes for both parties. The conservatives in using Scripture as a battering ram rather than God's inspired word, and many liberals in reading Scripture, but in ignoring what doesn't suit.

I say, come let us reason together.

georgieporgy

crfcaio wrote: »

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting here!

So, as some of you might know, Catholicism in South America is HUGE - thank you (I guess) Spaniards and Portuguese colonizers -, and I was "raised" a Catholic - after all, I come from a country where almost 70% of its people are Catholics.

I sometimes feel like there's something missing in my life - I always thought it was religion and faith. The problem? Well, according to what I know, the bible says several things are wrong, include homosexuality. I am not homosexual, but I've met people who are, and there's nothing wrong with them, and I can't understand why God would create something that is against His will. Aren't all men made after His image?

So, for this reason, I've never dwelt deep enough in Catholicism - because of what it says is okay and what's not.

Is there any way I can exert the religion while still holding on to my personal opinions about certain subjects? I've always liked how being in a religious group - at least that's my idea of it - you don't feel "alone" anymore - there are people who share the same views and faith as you do.

Any and all help is appreciated.

I see from your post history that you are a young brazilian /american man living in LA. (I love LA). And for some strange reason you like Irish people!:eek:
Your question for an 18 year old is quite reasonable. Jesus said "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened unto you". You have answered your question in your own post. You are a catholic. You like being a catholic, but as yet you haven't seriously studied what that entails. All you have to do is continue practising your faith and continue searching. Don't expect to get all the answers to everything just at once.
A group that might interest you is http://www.youth2000usa.org/index.cfm?load=page&page=167 . There you will find people your own age with the same questions.
A good source of reading material is http://www.ignatius.com/

That's a good place to start but there are many others if they don't suit your personality.

Mintoz

Rasheed wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Christians are at war, it may be comforting to tell ourselves we're not, but that's just denial. Muslims will be in control of Europe in another 30 years or so. The demographics are worrying.

God has promised that our enemies will not prevail over us, if we keep his commandments. Well, most of Europe and America don't, not as long as they worship other Gods, and continue to abort, contracept and serve Mammon. He's giving Muslims Europe because they deserve it.

Sounds extremist doesn't it? God wants saints, heroes, not watered down, weak, 'nice people'. He wants people who have passion for the truth, for him.

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm surprised to see such a spirited defence of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church coming from you Philologos ;-)

I agree with the teaching authority of God and Him alone, and I believe in many cases the RCC are actually teaching that.

Although an evangelical. I can see something in this argument that makes me concerned. I'm very used to liberal Christianity, and in particular liberal Protestantism.

However, I think both parties can be concerned when people aren't arguing what does God actually say on this issue, and shifts to how can I make my view more important than God in my life and still be a Christian.

I think most of us should be able to agree, that Jesus unequivocally said to seek the Kingdom of God first, and that Jesus said that one can't serve two masters. We serve Him first.

What debate would be the most productive is where God's word actually stands on the matter.

If you will this is something of pan-Christian interest.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

As you come from a reformed perspective, would you not accept that everyone has the right to study and interpret scripture for themselves? I didn't get the impression that the OP was setting themselves up as God, just that they are seeking God, want to be part of a worshipping community, but have serious questions over certain teachings - as very many Christians do.

I would accept that God has revealed His word, that God is real, and that God has spoken to us. As a result I think the Bible should be handled with the utmost care, and that there will be consequences for those who treat it lightly.

I believe the individual Christian should read the Bible for themselves, but I don't agree that we're lost in interpretation. Thankfully, the Bible isn't just a book, it has an author, and we can grow in Him, and we can ask Him for guidance in our lives.

If God wasn't real, sure, everyone could be right. If God is real and He has spoken, His word should be taken seriously, that is if we're going to come before the judgement seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5).

I think treating God's word lightly goes for both parties. The conservatives in using Scripture as a battering ram rather than God's inspired word, and many liberals in reading Scripture, but in ignoring what doesn't suit.

I say, come let us reason together.

I don't find a huge amount to disagree with here, and I'd agree wholeheartedly with the last two paragraphs. I'm pretty liberal-minded myself, but I always try to ask myself am I just seeing what I want to see. The Bible sets some pretty high standards, and most of them have nothing to do with sex, though you wouldn't think so from this forum sometimes!

mrac

Mintoz wrote: »

Yes, I'm serious. Christians are at war, it may be comforting to tell ourselves we're not, but that's just denial. Muslims will be in control of Europe in another 30 years or so. The demographics are worrying.

God has promised that our enemies will not prevail over us, if we keep his commandments. Well, most of Europe and America don't, not as long as they worship other Gods, and continue to abort, contracept and serve Mammon. He's giving Muslims Europe because they deserve it.

Sounds extremist doesn't it? God wants saints, heroes, not watered down, weak, 'nice people'. He wants people who have passion for the truth, for him.

You are a scary man...or a funny troll, I cant tell...

georgieporgy

philologos wrote: »

,

I think treating God's word lightly goes for both parties. The conservatives in using Scripture as a battering ram rather than God's inspired word, and many liberals in reading Scripture, but in ignoring what doesn't suit.

I say, come let us reason together.

If we could all do that we might get somewhere. Good post Philo.

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't find a huge amount to disagree with here, and I'd agree wholeheartedly with the last two paragraphs. I'm pretty liberal-minded myself, but I always try to ask myself am I just seeing what I want to see. The Bible sets some pretty high standards, and most of them have nothing to do with sex, though you wouldn't think so from this forum sometimes!

I know, unfortunately. I think this forum lacks in many ways in which it could be a better witness. I'd rather that every thread wasn't about abortion or same-sex marriage, but I don't think this is always down to Christian posters. I think that on many occasions non-believers have brought this topic up time and time again.

When the topic does come up however, I believe it is important to remain faithful to what the Bible is saying, in a loving and compassionate manner.

If I had more time I'd like to continue to study series I started in Mark. I might see if I can get another thread up in the next few weeks. I always found those were constructive in looking to see who Jesus is and why He came.

Andrewf20

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes because it is a distorted ''love'' that is not the Love of Christ. The word ''Love'' carries a variety of meanings in cultures, religions and philosophical groups around the world.

But why would God create some people as homosexual who are to forever feel guilty about acting out their natural instincts? Why are they denyed the possibiliy of looking forward to a proper heterosexiual relationship in marriage?

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would God create some people as homosexual who are to forever feel guilty about acting out their natural instincts? Why are they denyed the possibiliy of looking forward to a proper heterosexiual relationship in marriage?

I don't think God creates people to be homosexual or heterosexual. Sexuality isn't an identity and I don't think it should be, God creates people.

Andrewf20

Mintoz wrote: »

Each child, even in the womb, is destined for an eternal life of joy with God, and frustrating his plan for life, is just not acceptable, in all honesty.

What are your thoughts on natural miscarraige though? Is this part of Gods plan and if so why?

Mintoz

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would God create some people as homosexual who are to forever feel guilty about acting out their natural instincts? Why are they denyed the possibiliy of looking forward to a proper heterosexiual relationship in marriage?

It's a result of the fall. God never 'made' anyone gay. Lots of people are disordered in different ways, sight disorders, walking disorders, reading disorders, speech disorders, the list goes on. It's only a big deal in this time, because it's about sex. Sorry, but it is. People justify everything these days in the name of sex, abortion, divorce.. Bill Clinton showed that. Hence homosexuality being acceptable after the sexual revolution. That's not a co-incedence.

They are asked to be chaste and bear their crosses with Christ, as everyone else is.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

I don't think God creates people to be homosexual or heterosexual. Sexuality isn't an identity and I don't think it should be, God creates people.

But whats your thoughts on where/when/how it originates? Its found in the animal kingdom as well of course.

Rasheed

Mintoz wrote: »

Yes, I'm serious. Christians are at war, it may be comforting to tell ourselves we're not, but that's just denial. Muslims will be in control of Europe in another 30 years or so. The demographics are worrying.

God has promised that our enemies will not prevail over us, if we keep his commandments. Well, most of Europe and America don't, not as long as they worship other Gods, and continue to abort, contracept and serve Mammon. He's giving Muslims Europe because they deserve it.

Sounds extremist doesn't it? God wants saints, heroes, not watered down, weak, 'nice people'. He wants people who have passion for the truth, for him.

Ah, I don't know are messing or what but to say that the muslims are going to take over?? Ha! Tis a new one on me! Fair play to you though, you keep populating the place with Christians and we might be alright!

Andrewf20

Mintoz wrote: »

It's a result of the fall. God never 'made' anyone gay. Lots of people are disordered in different ways, sight disorders, walking disorders, reading disorders, speech disorders, the list goes on. It's only a big deal in this time, because it's about sex. Sorry, but it is. People justify everything these days in the name of sex, abortion, divorce.. Bill Clinton showed that. Hence homosexuality being acceptable after the sexual revolution. That's not a co-incedence.

They are asked to be chaste and bear their crosses with Christ, as everyone else is.

But I dont see a clear victim here, unlike with other sins such as murder, theft and so on?

Where do you think homosexuality originates?

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And THAT, folks, is why people dislike religion.

You might have no passion for the truth, but others do. Let's all become weak, submissive sissys, Lets all 'go relative', and say every religion is the same.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

You might have no passion for the truth, but others do. Let's all become weak, submissive sissys, Lets all 'go relative', and say every religion is the same.

I have no passion, or respect for that matter for people who justify war and hatred against others based on the fact they worship a different supernatural being, no.

Mintoz

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But I dont see a clear victim here, unlike with other sins such as murder, theft and so on?

Where do you think homosexuality originates?

If one disobeys Gods law, then they will be the victim. The average life of a gay male in America is 40. Would aloving God lead them into a lifestyle which could kill them? If they separate themselves from Gods law, which is clearly understood, then they themselves are the victims.

Well, it originates from the desire for sex, with the opposite sex, so they can procreate. It's a disorder like any other, but again, it's about sex, the modern days religion. So it's justified, even if God disproves.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

If one disobeys Gods law, then they will be the victim. The average life of a gay male in America is 40. Would aloving God lead them into a lifestyle which could kill them? If they separate themselves from Gods law, which is clearly understood, then they themselves are the victims.

Well, it originates from the desire for sex, with the opposite sex, so they can procreate. It's a disorder like any other, but again, it's about sex, the modern days religion. So it's justified, even if God disproves.

Source?

In regards to your second paragraph, sex or mass? Hmmm. It's a real toughie, but I know which I'd go for.

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I have no passion, or respect for that matter for people who justify war and hatred against others based on the fact they worship a different supernatural being, no.

I wasn't asking you to have passion for others, but the truth. I wouldn't kill anyone from another religion either, or wage a war you've misunderstood. I am supposed to love my enemies, and I do. If I met a Muslim, I'd invite him in for tea, and maybe, a few hobnobs.

But to be honest, they're heretics. Lets not play pretend. They deny Christ's divinity, and that he will return at the end of time to destroy Chrstians.

The bible seems to separate people into two different groups: Those who love the truth, and those who don't.