Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests

[Kerdy]

Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

Anti = Against or in opposition to

Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)

[Michał Kalina]

Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church.

Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

"In favour" is not equal to "not in opposition to".

Anti = Against or in opposition to

"Against" is not an opposition to "in favour".

Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)

"Homosexuality" does not equal to "homosexual acts".

Your definition is dumb. Make it more precise.

[Kerdy]

Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church. (That's you, not Catholics)

Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

"In favour" is not equal to "not in opposition to". (Yes it is.)

Anti = Against or in opposition to

"Against" is not an opposition to "in favour". (Yes it is.)

Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)

"Homosexuality" does not equal to "homosexual acts".  (There is a little word I placed in there you apparently skipped over.  Its "or", and Yes it does.)

Your definition is dumb. Make it more precise.

Then perhaps you should have posted YOUR definitions.

Because you do not like it in no way makes it dumb. (bolded portion reference).  

Did you forget what this thread was discussing?  (blue portion reference)

[Nephi]

I think "pro-homosexual" and "anti-homosexual" may be too vague, and any other similar words are going to be loaded.

Maybe say the "opposition of legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior (e.g. marriage)," the "encouraging of legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior," or the "indifference to legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior."

In each case, "legal or moral" may be contextual as an either-or situation, or a both-and.

[Charles Martel]

"How does the Church (what Church?) define it?


Church: One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Here's some help for you;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqKOUqy9OM

Homosexuality: "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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.


"Define "anti-homosexual".


Anti: an·ti/ˈæn taɪ, ˈæn ti/ Show Spelled [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural an·tis. 
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual?s=t


Are we clear now?

Or do I have to define "clear".

[Charles Martel]

"I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church."


It doesn't matter what you consider outside of the  Michal Kalina-kingdom.

2000 yrs of history says different.

[Nephi]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

[Michał Kalina]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

You do have a point, after all, in the words of Our Lord: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you hate teh geyz.

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

You do have a point, after all, in the words of Our Lord: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you hate teh geyz.

What "Lord" might that be?

My God said to despise sin.

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

I see you hate me James.

Is there anyway you can stick to a topic without calling someone a "hater"?

Are we projecting again?

[theistgal]

Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight? 

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

Are you saying, if a person has a same sex attraction but NEVER acts on that attraction in a physical way, that person is not a homosexual?  But when that same person acts on the attraction in a physical way, that person then becomes, by definition, a homosexual?  Charles, you can’t say things like this.  It makes too much sense.

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

This carries us back into the realm of “words no longer have meaning”.  When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.  In this instance, a person is not a homosexual until that person engages in homosexual activity.  Let me provide a couple of examples to explain.

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

What if I think someone is so bad the world would benefit if that person was killed off?  Does that make me a murderer?  No, not until I entertain this thought resulting in an overt action on my part. 

So, if someone finds the same gender sexually appealing, does that make the person a homosexual?  No, not until that person entertains those thoughts resulting in an overt action on their part.

Now, if a person has engaged in homosexual acts, by definition, that person is a homosexual and is wrong…in the same manner as if I were to have an adulterous affair on my wife or murder someone in cold blood. 

Homosexuality does not get its own rules and definitions due to political correctness.  It is still restricted by the same standards as everything else in the world.

Life is not as complicated as people pretend.

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Let me ensure I understand you correctly.  As long as a person does not engage in homosexual activity they are ok, but if they do they are wrong.   Yes?  If so, it’s the same thing everyone else is saying.

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.

""One is activity and one is a person."  Can you separate one from another?"

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.

""One is activity and one is a person."  Can you separate one from another?"

I already did.

[choy]

Funny how in the US it is MLK Day and half of the conversations I watch on TV about it talk about "Gay Rights".  I think it is only a matter of time before we win the debate on abortion, but this is one thing that we will lose and at some point the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will be considered "hate organizations".

[choy]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Kerdy]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

[Michał Kalina]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

...and thanks for showing what I said was accurate.

[Michał Kalina]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

Never heard of any Orthodox Church being "attacked" by gays.

[Kerdy]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

Never heard of any Orthodox Church being "attacked" by gays.

Then you aren't "paying attention."

I truly enjoy your selective understanding and word usage.  It makes for such invigorating dialogue. 

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

[Charles Martel]

Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight? 

Woman what does your concern have to do with me? 

[Charles Martel]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?

Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

'Gay' hate vandalizes church, threatens even more violence

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356361/#U2Z7ITAsSfJVD90P.99


In the early morning hours, on the eve of a banquet designed to expose the homosexual activist agenda, security cameras on the campus of the Christian Liberty Academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights, Ill., captured what may be a prominent example of an anti-Christian “hate crime.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356361/#U2Z7ITAsSfJVD90P.99

Threat to burn down local Catholic church & profane attacks after pro-traditional marriage sign is posted on church property.
But the Catholics aren't backing down!

Flood of hate and profanity targeting churchHomosexual activists also came and put hateful signs on the Church property. One sign said "Holy Mother Virgin Whore" and another said "Jesus freaks pray for death." Two activists stood outside the church for about an hour.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/index.html

[stavros_388]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.

[choy]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism.  Lustful reaction is not natural, therefore it is not okay to have them even if you didn't will the initial thought that popped into your mind.  You mean not have a tree of lust in your heart, but you certainly have the seeds of lust in there.  Many writings by saints say this.  I forgot which monk was it who was with brother monks and there was this parade of a pagan queen where she paraded around naked.  They were in the crowd and the other monks turned around so as they will not see the woman and be tempted into lustful thoughts.  While the one monk (who is a saint, I wish I have better memory) just stood there and watched.  Because he was pure in heart, he didn't even had that involuntary thought, entertained or not.  That was the point of the story.

[choy]

Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil.

This is why I believe the so-called traditionalist movement in the Roman Catholic Church is bogus.  It is spearheaded by people who mask their hate and bigotry with grandeur of Roman Catholic ritual tradition.  All they clamor is traditional externals, the traditional Mass, Latin, vestments, incense, etc.  But I have never heard of them talk about traditional Christian values of love.  Its all about judging someone for their sins or even for the type of Mass they attend.

By their fruits you will know them.  That is why I became Orthodox.

[theistgal]

Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight? 

Woman what does your concern have to do with me? 

Since you're not Jesus Christ, you don't get to use that line. 

[Hiwot]

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.

Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

I see you hate me James.

Is there anyway you can stick to a topic without calling someone a "hater"?

Are we projecting again?

Mr Charles , that was a legitimate question, if you say all sinners are evil and we are to hate evil, then pray tell, WHO are we told to love? and most importantly WHO are WE? are you not a sinner like me? then we should hate one another, declare war against sinners, oh ye holly folks who declare yourselves followers of The Christ! by your definition Perhaps Christ was wrong in eating and drinking with sinners in being friend of harlots and tax collectors,perhaps he should have become like one of those androgynous palace peacocks ,who have decked themselves with the symbol of Christ's infinite Love for Mankind and yet have drunk themselves into intoxication with the theocratic dynasty they have built forthemselves in the name of the Creator. perhaps He should have accepted Pilot's proposal when He was facing his Cross, perhaps His Church today should espouse herself to the power of the State so she may not face her Cross.

your insist that the Church is in danger from the civil liberties of homosexuals. pray tell me, what kind of danger is being talked about? is it the church abandoning her Faith and condoning sin of anykind? if you believe that then you believe heresy. the gates of hell shall not prevail upon the Church of Christ. now so what is your fear you want everyone infected with? that Christ's Love is not enough to bring men to repentance? that Christ's arms are not stretched on the cross to bring all men into himself in the Spirit for the Glory of the Father? that if Christians can not live in a christian state, Christianity becomes crippled? this is a new Gospel to me. the church will have enemies , men and women of varying degree of brokenness will lash out against God against the Church of Christ, this will not change, however if the Church starts to stop being the hospital to sinners, where they get her motherly compassion, guidance in wisdom, faithful with steadfast unshakable love for all mankind, where Christ's love and mercy trumps all other human reservation, where the harlot and the virgin stand together before God who loves them alike. Where Christ the humble Physician who labours to care for the sick and the wounded, the labored and the dying. where He is touched by those covered in shame more than by those who accompany him out of their perceived importance. I assure you the Church survives because the Church has managed to Speak the Truth with LOVE at all times, this is the key that makes her different from all the heterodoxy out there, which either embraces sin as glory, or turns around and declares hate towards men and becomes a bully claiming Divine Authority.  both cups of madness the Church has seen there were those who among her chose to drink from each and they are remembered for how far they have fallen from being the Faithful Witness of Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected. The Messiah has rejected the offer of Pilot, His Church also will reject it and will trust in the Love of God for All Mankind : Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected to heal mankind of its infirmities and will Pray for those who will persecute her with compassion and love, never hate and will say with the very prayer of the Son crucified for the Love and Life of Mankind ' Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!'

I have seen you mock the trust of others in the POWER of God's Love, you forget me and you exist even now because of that Love, that Mercy. if God had judged us according to our sins, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah the both of us. But we are here because of that Love that sustains all and is patient with all. the level of hate we have for other human beings after we profess Christ with our lips after we have claimed to be His followers, makes our sin even worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ was not loving the sin when He gave His VERY LIFE for US Sinners! He did not love us because we were saints, He loved us when we are sinner and loved us with the full measure of Love, and died for us sinners. I am one such sinner here to tell you that Such Love SAVES the condemned such love Regenerates the old, Vivifies the dead and with insurmountable generosity Exalts the lowly!

It is that very Love that will judge us at the end, and He goes through our heart looking for Love, saying if you have done it to one of the lowly you have done it for me. perhaps some of us are prepared to tell him how we have seen how cruel he can be, and we were afraid and we buried the talent he has given us. perhaps some of us will remind him how zealously we have campaigned for the abolishment of all sinners in his Name. how he was not there when we tolerated those lazy poor with our money and time, how even though our hearts were moved by disdain we made ourselves give that coin the homeless asked of us because it was our christian duty.what more are we supposed to do, we might say many many things, yet we will see our loquacious reason be silenced while those who Loved and showed Mercy trusting in His Mercy hear from His Pure Loving Lips,in the language of Infinite Love, the Infinite Joy of being called 'Beloved of My Father!'

Lord have Mercy!

[Kerdy]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism.  Lustful reaction is not natural, therefore it is not okay to have them even if you didn't will the initial thought that popped into your mind.  You mean not have a tree of lust in your heart, but you certainly have the seeds of lust in there.  Many writings by saints say this.  I forgot which monk was it who was with brother monks and there was this parade of a pagan queen where she paraded around naked.  They were in the crowd and the other monks turned around so as they will not see the woman and be tempted into lustful thoughts.  While the one monk (who is a saint, I wish I have better memory) just stood there and watched.  Because he was pure in heart, he didn't even had that involuntary thought, entertained or not.  That was the point of the story.

Such is the struggle of a Christian, the weakness of humanity and the stain of the flesh.

[Shanghaiski]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism. 

Maybe. It depends.

[Shanghaiski]

People do not become their sins.

[serb1389]

Tell that to satan

[Kerdy]

People do not become their sins.

People don't have to, but some choose to become their sin.

[augustin717]

People do not become their sins.

People don't have to, but some choose to become their sin.

I haven't cracked open a theology book in many years now but still something sounds really off in this saying of yours; you tell that to the whatever chanters that sing at say a drunkards burial " I am an image of your ineffable glory  even if I bear the wounds of sin etc" ; they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests