Skip to comments.
Vatican - Considerations regarding ... homosexual persons
Zenit ^
| 07/31/2003
| Vatican - CDF
Posted on 07/31/2003 5:55:16 AM PDT by lrslattery
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: ThomasMore; oldcodger; LiteKeeper; nobdysfool; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M; the_doc; CCWoody; ...
Where do the Calvinists stand on this issue? Mom, could you ping your list? We would stand against any form of same sex marriage , seeing homosexuality as an abomination before God
I will ping for more thoughtful discussion
21
posted on
07/31/2003 8:39:54 AM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: ThomasMore; wideawake
I don't want to leave any impression that the Reformed position denies a natural knowledge of sexual relations. I think most Reformed theologians would classify sexuality under the general heading of General Revelation. Romans 1 is the basic framework for General Revelation in the Reformed tradition, if I'm not mistaken. What I have seen by the "christian" homosexual community as it relates to defense of their position from a biblical standpoint is that they engage in a form of exegesis that tries to tightly construe those passages, that we would all consider as a commandment against homosexuality, as pertaining to only sexual relations with temple prostitutes. Quite devious exegisis eisegesis.
22
posted on
07/31/2003 8:47:34 AM PDT
by
lockeliberty
(Semper Reformanda)
To: RnMomof7
Thanks mom! :^)
To: RnMomof7
There isn't much more to say - it's sin. No better or worse than any other form of fornication.
To: lockeliberty; wideawake
Quite devious exegisis eisegesisPersonal interpretation certainly leaves the door open for that. Devious, BTW, is an understatement! This is pure evil at work here! Anti-Christ!
To: anniegetyourgun; RnMomof7
No better or worse than any other form of fornication. Annie, see post #11!
To: anniegetyourgun
It's worse than other forms of fornication.
It heaps an offense to God's created order on top of an offense to God's moral law.
In the proper context, intercourse between a man and a woman can be a God-pleasing, holy act.
In no context can sodomy ever be pleasing to God.
27
posted on
07/31/2003 8:55:21 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: RnMomof7
It's strange that Calvanists would be thought to all have a different opinion than Arminians. Calvanism vs Arminianism is a top level doctrinal debate for those who take the bible to be the inspired Word of God. Homo Marriages are a travesty to Christianity and deserve no consideration at all.
28
posted on
07/31/2003 8:56:05 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
To: lockeliberty; ThomasMore
I don't want to leave any impression that the Reformed position denies a natural knowledge of sexual relations. You haven't created that impression.
To abbreviate:
The Catholic position is that not only is sodomy an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (i.e. the Scriptures), but that even those who have not been gifted with the grace of revelation can deduce the evil of sodomy by applying right reason and analyzing the evidence of creation.
The Reformed position (as I understand it) is that we only know sodomy as an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (again through the Scriptures) because man's reason, distorted by the depravity of sin, cannot arrive at a sure knowledge of God's truth in this matter through his defective reason alone. What we can do is, being vouchsafed the truth through Scripture, deduce from it the natural reasons for God's ordinance.
29
posted on
07/31/2003 9:01:36 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: ThomasMore
If the clergyman is closeted, and most are, this will not be an easy task. However, this task is not impossible. Oaths; investigations where applicable... are a good start. Check out where the clergyman goes on his time off; whether he preaches against homosexality or is silent about it...Undercover investigations have worked as well. I have no reason to fear that in my life. But some out there do fear being exposedYou are a Deacon correct?
Tom you attend functions within your diocese , you must have a pretty good idea about most of them. My husband's pastor is flaming . He used to hold a position of some power in the diocese but the shortage of priests forced him to pastor.I believe according to RC beliefs as long as he is celibate there is no problem.
I will add this. It is a terrible image problem for the Catholic church to have swishing Pastors before the public eye.
I have heard non Catholics comment that "they are all gay". We both know that is not true. But in my diocese it sure seems tilted that way .
A strong stand by the church on this issue would be a very good first step
30
posted on
07/31/2003 9:02:11 AM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: wideawake
Sin is sin - when we stumble on one, we are guilty of all. And, all are guilty - redemption through the work of the Christ is our only hope. The only difference with sexual sin (all kinds) is that we take the penalty into our own body.
To: wideawake
We should feel pity for these creatures, but recognize that no one who commits such sins can ever be close to God or deserve the regard of their fellow men unless they renounce them. The Vatican is less condescending than you, happily. It uses the term "homosexual acts," and clearly distinguishes between the act and the orientation.
Apparently you can't bring yourself to make the distinction.
32
posted on
07/31/2003 9:06:02 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
To: ThomasMore
From my FR homepage (so it must be right ;->)
I believe that my sins are no better than anyone elses. In the eyes of God, a homosexuals sin is no worse than mine. Yes, there will be homosexuals in heaven (gasp). Those who accept the atoning death of Christ, and renounce their lifestyle, will be there. Those who seek to have the church approve of, and celebrate their lifestyle, will have some explaining to do (as will the church leaders who play into this).
Thanks for including The Swarm on this tread!
SDG
33
posted on
07/31/2003 9:09:06 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(Calvinism, it's not just a good idea, but Scripturaly correct!)
To: wideawake
The Reformed position (as I understand it) is that we only know sodomy as an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (again through the Scriptures) I think you understanding is mistaken. We divide revelation under two specific headings: General Revelation and Special Revelation. General Revelation are those things which we ~inferentially~ know to be true. I think most Reformed theologians would classify sex between a man and a women to be a general revelation to all men as the only role for sex regardless of any knowledge of special revelation.
34
posted on
07/31/2003 9:15:00 AM PDT
by
lockeliberty
(Semper Reformanda)
To: anniegetyourgun
All sins are not the same in their gravity. Christ himself makes this plain in the Gospel.
35
posted on
07/31/2003 9:16:11 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: NYer
Thanks, NYer for posting the whole thing.
36
posted on
07/31/2003 9:16:50 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: lockeliberty
Correct, but the question here is the mode of knowledge. Special Revelation is, to the Reformed Christian, Scripture.
General Revelation is known how? By right reason? By instinct? The Catholic would say the former.
37
posted on
07/31/2003 9:18:41 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: wideawake
**I take issue with the term "respect."
We should not respect sodomites, any more than we should respect someone who beats his wife or spends his life high on drugs.**
Doesn't this fly in the face of "Love the sinner; hate the sin?" Even Christ loved the goodness in sinners and told them to "Go forth and sin no more." after a healing encounter or simply even a casual encounter.
38
posted on
07/31/2003 9:19:44 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: ThomasMore; wideawake; NYer; cpforlife.org
39
posted on
07/31/2003 9:19:59 AM PDT
by
Coleus
(God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
To: sinkspur
Apparently you can't bring yourself to make the distinction.If you read the portion of the post I quoted, viz. "one who commits such sins" you'll see that you've ignored my distinction.
I never said anything about those who are tempted but do not submit.
40
posted on
07/31/2003 9:22:47 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson