Why some Christians feel more threatened by homosexuality than other, more violent, sins - Page 5

Seeker1961 · #61 Jun 16, '12, 5:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

I don't understand the term "family planning." Who plans the family? The Church? The State?

For years, there were Catholic adoption agencies, only recently have laws been put into place that force them to abandon their conscience and right reason or close. So they closed.

For years, Catholic hospitals had conscience rights, now, by law, the State is trying to take them away.

Peace,
Ed

You didn't answer the question. If religious organizations stopped taking Federal funding, would they then be exempt from the HHS regulation? If yes, the solution is simple. Stop taking the money and let the faithful make up the difference.

toosan1967 · #62 Jun 16, '12, 6:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Negative. Just go to any Wal-Mart looking for condoms. They're under a sign that reads Family Planning. The poster specifically said "family planning drugs." Drugs plan families????Peace, Ed

I'm not sure I get your point. Of course, Ed; people plan families (specifically the number of kids the parents can afford at a particular time), whether they use Natural Family Planning or prescription drugs to which I was specifically referring. And while condoms might be used for family planning, they are not covered by health insurance as far as I know. That is the point of NFP isn't it? Family planning? Indeed, condoms and NFP are the only devices which may be used to prevent conception. The drugs don't prevent conception. They prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus; which is probably why, deep down, the Church is so opposed to the drugs. I understand that. I do understand too the Church's insistence on the difference between using the mother's fertility cycle in such a way as to prevent conception as opposed to interfering with that cycle through the use of drugs. I just see contra-implantation as a deeper wrong than contra-ception. In any case; were you just picking on me? So: about the Federal subsidies. . . .?

Alder · #63 Jun 16, '12, 7:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Evidence for you last statement please?

It's from

Mendelson, G. (2003). Homosexuality and psychiatric nosology. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37 (6), 678-683.

"The deletion of homosexuality from the psychiatric nosology was the result of concatenation of social forces, including political pressure from homosexual organisations, involved of the wider human rights movement, and epidemiological data that questioned the “scientific” basis for considering homosexuality simpliciter a mental disorder. "

The article goes into more detail as to why the scientific basis wasn't so scientific. For example, Alexander Morison observed unusual sexual behaviour (some of which included homosexuality) in psychiatric inpatients and concluded from that that homosexuality was a form of partial psychosis

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Are you saying Psychiatrists knew basically nothing about homosexual behavior prior to the 1970s?

Um...no.

Corki · #64 Jun 16, '12, 8:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker1961

You didn't answer the question. If religious organizations stopped taking Federal funding, would they then be exempt from the HHS regulation? If yes, the solution is simple. Stop taking the money and let the faithful make up the difference.

Not as the mandate stands now. The implementation of the mandate is entirely based on the type of organization, the size of its employee base and the community it serves. Where its funding comes from has no bearing on the HHS mandate, although it does with some other laws and rules.

For example, as the HHS mandate is currently written, an order of religious sisters that operates entirely on donations and receives no federal, state or local government funds bu which serves the poor regardless of their religion would be covered under the mandate.

Semper Zelare · #65 Jun 16, '12, 8:41 pm

Whatever Alder, you just slowly took more and more of what I said out of context. I wrote that line in passing, and your inability to understand the humour in it is merely because of the inferior form of communication we're using. [Which is also why so many atheists can't engage Christians in real life. The internet is where atheism has grown, but you can't attack religion to people's faces in real life and still look like you won the debate. IE: you look like a jerk when you say "you're praying to somebody in the sky" if you say that in public and not online.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

It is, I'm sorry to say. It is religious folks, not gay people, who are being selfish. It is not selfish to want to be left alone, and not be told that their personal business, which harms nobody, legally prevents them from enjoying the same freedoms as their neighbors.

So there's two men who live with each other and just want to be left alone and happily love each other in New York in their gay marriage. Then there's two men who go on a mission trip every single month to Uganda to teach impoverished children English, and to do mission work. When they aren't in Uganda they pray frequently for all the Ugandans they know (for their health, etc). Which two are selfish, and which are selfless?

The fact that marriage has legal benefits actually shows that we have a right to say what we do. The state only started civil marriage after the wars in the 1870s in Europe; they wanted people to have children so they incentivised marriage. Just goes to show how the Church can always say what it wants about its own institution.

And yeah, we can deny them their right in the 14th amendment, because we reject the idea of civil marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament granted by the Church. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize a civil marriage between two Catholics as Sacramentally valid. So, if we don't buy into civil marriage, then absolutely we can continue to deny the Sacrament of Marriage to anyone we want to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

I'm sorry, but this is quite amusing. You accuse gay people, who want the same rights as straight people, of being self-obsessed and narcissistic, while patting yourself on the back for spending a few minutes every week praying - that is, asking an invisible man who might not even be there - praying that he will relieve the suffering of CHRISTIANS in other parts of the world. Not Muslims. Nor Buddhists. Not the functionally a-religious - who might want a relationship with some God, if only they didn't have to focus so much on finding food and not being murdered by drug-addled soldiers. None of these people who, incidentally, are destined for an eternity in Hell if they don't manage to get their theological act together. Just the Christians.

Well how's that lie taste in your mouth? I pray for Moslems and Bhuddists all the time. I also pray for the "functionally a-religious"... I just call them atheists and secularists. I pray for all these people to be converted by the Church because I want them all to be saved. I want all the Moslems to be saved, all the Bhuddists to be saved, all the atheists and secularists to be saved. So, I DO PRAY for them. And how dare you to lie about what I pray about... there's no way for you to know that... so enjoy the taste of the lie in your mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

I don't know how many gay people actually pray for those living lives more unfortunate than their own. My guess is that few do. Part of the reason could be that if they're going to commit to helping people, they have more practical ideas for accomplishing this than kneeling at one's bedside and asking God to do all the heavy lifting.

God does all the heavy lifting all the time. EVERY TIME A HUMAN BEING DOES A GOOD WORK, IT IS BECAUSE GOD GAVE THAT PERSON HIS GRACE TO DO SO!!!! [Even gay people who don't believe in Him]

Every Good Work comes from God

mytruepower2 · #66 Jun 16, '12, 8:45 pm

On the initial topic of this thread, I think some Christians are more threatened by less "violent" (read; bloodthirsty; the cultural definition) sins because Christians realize that it's not the bloodthirstiness of a sin that matters. It's whether or not you repent of your sin in time to turn for Jesus to heal you.

Now, in the case of ax-weilding psychopaths, you're not likely to be able to fool yourself into thinking it's an acceptable lifestyle choice. Sooner or later, you'll either repent, or you'll start to beat yourself up over what you did.

The modern homosexualist is perfectly-content in supporting sin, and is even proud of it. S/he talks about their participation in demonstrations of this sort in mixed company.

There will never be a society that acknowledges ax-weilding psychopathy as a norm of life, and therefore, there will never be a society that encourages people to defy God through violence. However, there may well be a society that views homosexual acts as a norm of life, and therefore, there may well be a society that encourages people to defy God through homosexuality.

In fact, I don't think I'd be going to far to say that in some states, this conjecture about society is a lived reality.

Alder · #67 Jun 16, '12, 9:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Zelare

Whatever Alder, you just slowly took more and more of what I said out of context. I wrote that line in passing, and your inability to understand the humour in it is merely because of the inferior form of communication we're using.

I know how you feel. I often write nasty quips about catholic priests and altar boys online in passing. Catholics read me out of context and get upset. They clearly have an inability to understand the humour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Zelare

[Which is also why so many atheists can't engage Christians in real life. The internet is where atheism has grown, but you can't attack religion to people's faces in real life and still look like you won the debate. IE: you look like a jerk when you say "you're praying to somebody in the sky" if you say that in public and not online.

Is this another attempt at humour?

toosan1967 · #68 Jun 17, '12, 3:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

Not as the mandate stands now. The implementation of the mandate is entirely based on the type of organization, the size of its employee base and the community it serves. Where its funding comes from has no bearing on the HHS mandate, although it does with some other laws and rules.

For example, as the HHS mandate is currently written, an order of religious sisters that operates entirely on donations and receives no federal, state or local government funds bu which serves the poor regardless of their religion would be covered under the mandate.

Thanks for the clarification, Corki. That being the case, the mandate is more insidious than I thought. May God Bless Us All.

Seeker1961 · #69 Jun 17, '12, 5:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corki

Not as the mandate stands now. The implementation of the mandate is entirely based on the type of organization, the size of its employee base and the community it serves. Where its funding comes from has no bearing on the HHS mandate, although it does with some other laws and rules.

For example, as the HHS mandate is currently written, an order of religious sisters that operates entirely on donations and receives no federal, state or local government funds bu which serves the poor regardless of their religion would be covered under the mandate.

Thank you for answering.

didn't mean to derail the train but I really did want to know that.

Crescentinus · #70 Jun 17, '12, 5:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

That's right. I heard a priest on Catholic radio say that, at first, homosexuals wanted to be left alone, have their gay pride parades and so on, but it's now clear; you must accept our sexual behavior, which we will display in open ways, and agree that we are right.

And they'll keep getting donations from places where we buy things to pay for advertising what they want. I'm not interested in your sexual activities, or anybody's else's for that matter.

Peace,
Ed

They love using such idiotic cards such as the victim card and the persecution card against those who oppose their idiocies. Acting like the perennial victim never helps anyone, really.

**edwest2** · #71 Jun 17, '12, 10:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker1961

You didn't answer the question. If religious organizations stopped taking Federal funding, would they then be exempt from the HHS regulation? If yes, the solution is simple. Stop taking the money and let the faithful make up the difference.

That's not the issue. Have you read why the Church is against the HHS mandate?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...date-revision/

Some Catholic entities have simply dropped all insurance coverage for their employees.

Peace,
Ed

DoGodsBidding · #72 Jun 17, '12, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alder

I know how you feel. I often write nasty quips about catholic priests and altar boys online in passing. Catholics read me out of context and get upset. They clearly have an inability to understand the humour.

Sometimes the humor is just not funny. Substitute the name of a close relative into the joke and see if it is funny or if it is offensive.

DGB

RobbyS · #73 Jun 17, '12, 4:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Roberts

Yup a disorder, just like divorce, in fact the Catechism uses the word inordinata to describe both (along with masturbation). They are all ordered away from order, id est disordered. I have to admit I've never seen someone try to deny divorcés and divorcées marriage.

Divorcees seldom claims that divorce is in their DNA.

Divorce is an action, and what homosexuals are judged upon are their actions. They have bought the idea that it is part of their identity. That biologic ally they are “programmed”/“wired." to prefer members of their own sex. Who knows? This is an unproveable proposition.

Seeker1961 · #74 Jun 17, '12, 5:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobbyS

Divorcees seldom claims that divorce is in their DNA.

Divorce is an action, and what homosexuals are judged upon are their actions. They have bought the idea that it is part of their identity. That biologic ally they are “programmed”/“wired." to prefer members of their own sex. Who knows? This is an unproveable proposition.

I have straight friends and I have gay friends and the one thing we all seem to have in common was that there wasn't a process of choosing who we were attracted to. I've yet to meet anyone who can explain the process of choosing who they were attracted to-the choice part for everyone seems to come when the time comes to act on that attraction.

If there is anyone here who can describe that process of choosing what gender is going to cause you to have that special feeling, I'd really be interested in hearing it. Not the part about choosing to act...the part where you WANT to act.

Semper Zelare · #75 Jun 17, '12, 6:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alder

Is this another attempt at humour?

No, that's an absolutely legitimate point. Atheism has found a breeding ground on the internet. I mean, it's not like y'all have a weekly gathering space where you meet each other...

No, the vast majority of atheist discourse takes place online, so it is by necessity inferior. Because only 7% of what you convey is through the words you use, and 93% is through body language, tone, etc. Furthermore, you can be far nastier online than in real life. If you said that stupid little comment you just made about Catholic priests and altar boys in real life, everyone that heard you say that would probably write you off as a hate-filled atheist. And move on.

Perfectly legitimate point I made there.

Anyways, what you did there also gave you the ability to "gutter snipe" from your computer at home. You could be as vile as you want... thank God we have moderators here. But, the point is, in real life you probably wouldn't say that to someone's face. They could tell you off after it so bad... so you'd probably factor that in and not be that nasty in person.

Am I wrong?