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

[Kerdy]

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

My apologies, but you lost me somewhere.    Are you saying a drunkard is not a drunkard?  That this drunkard did not allow himself to become his sin?

[Romaios]

they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.

[augustin717]

they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.

Well as he was unable to speak with throat cancer and a sectioned trachea it would have made confession somehow difficult. The only biography I read of him says he received the last rites whatever that included.

[Romaios]

they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.

Well as he was unable to speak with throat cancer and a sectioned trachea it would have made confession somehow difficult. The only biography I read of him says he received the last rites whatever that included.

I remember reading something about 'last rites' too. I assumed that included confession. Under such circumstances, a nod of regret would do, I guess...

I hope he made it to heaven. It sure would be a pity if he didn't.

[augustin717]

Fair enough although Cavafy like most people I am sure would have rather stayed her on Earth  a bit longer. Anyway my point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.

[Romaios]

My point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.

I agree.

[Kerdy]

Fair enough although Cavafy like most people I am sure would have rather stayed her on Earth  a bit longer. Anyway my point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.

But I didn’t de-humanize anyone?  People usually are what they choose to be and if the sum of their life is following fleshly and sinful desires, they de-humanize themselves (or for that matter, prove their humanity and ignore their spirit).  Please do not put the burden of their choices on me for speaking the truth of the matter.  If you will notice, I said some people, and for some people, this is true.  Folks often become what they aspire to be, no matter how low they set the goal.

I will use the example you provided.  If a person chooses and allows himself to become a drunkard, that is what he is…a drunkard.  That does not mean it is the sum of who he is, but the fact of the matter is, he is a drunkard and has become his sin.

[Andrew Crook]

If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.

[Andrew Crook]

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.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

[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.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

Two things I wish to correct you on from your post.

1)   Rallying to make something legal or illegal is not hate work.  You didn’t just fall for the propaganda, you drowned in it.  Look at it this way, and I will use your example of abortion, someone rallied to make it legal.  Would you consider that a hate group?  If not, you shouldn’t consider people attempting to make it illegal a hate group.  The sword cuts both ways.  Not only that, but homosexual marriage has never been legal, so no one is trying to make it illegal because it already was.  People are trying to make it legal and people are trying to prevent it, very simple.  Additionally, Congress has nothing to do with marriage.  It’s always been state level and I suspect, even with the two cases SCOTUS is looking over, it will remain a state level issue, unless SCOTUS chooses to be unconstitutional.  Disagreement, even great, is not hate.  Propoganda!

2)   This nation was founded on religious freedom and freedom from tyranny, period, not secular principles.  More propaganda you have fallen victim of.  Do some serious US history study.  I say serious because they don’t teach it in schools anymore.  They did, but no longer, so you will have to most likely look outside your classroom for the truth.

Additionally, what do you expect Christians to do?  Nothing?  If that is what people expect Christians to do, I suggest they show us how by doing nothing first.

Finally, there is a way to stop, avoid and end the “hate group” label.  People could always stop lying about it and using it.  I think that would work splendidly.

[Kerdy]

If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage.  Why was that not enough?  I know, they wanted to infiltrate the Church and force the Church to recognize their mockery.  So, if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with), why do non-Christians feel the need to tell Christians what to do?  Again, the sword cuts both ways.

[Andrew Crook]

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.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

Two things I wish to correct you on from your post.

1)   Rallying to make something legal or illegal is not hate work.  You didn’t just fall for the propaganda, you drowned in it.  Look at it this way, and I will use your example of abortion, someone rallied to make it legal.  Would you consider that a hate group?  If not, you shouldn’t consider people attempting to make it illegal a hate group.  The sword cuts both ways.  Not only that, but homosexual marriage has never been legal, so no one is trying to make it illegal because it already was.  People are trying to make it legal and people are trying to prevent it, very simple.  Additionally, Congress has nothing to do with marriage.  It’s always been state level and I suspect, even with the two cases SCOTUS is looking over, it will remain a state level issue, unless SCOTUS chooses to be unconstitutional.  Disagreement, even great, is not hate.  Propoganda!

2)   This nation was founded on religious freedom and freedom from tyranny, period, not secular principles.  More propaganda you have fallen victim of.  Do some serious US history study.  I say serious because they don’t teach it in schools anymore.  They did, but no longer, so you will have to most likely look outside your classroom for the truth.

Additionally, what do you expect Christians to do?  Nothing?  If that is what people expect Christians to do, I suggest they show us how by doing nothing first.

Finally, there is a way to stop, avoid and end the “hate group” label.  People could always stop lying about it and using it.  I think that would work splendidly.

1.) I never said rallying is hate work.  You are allowed to protest, that is your right.  "Homosexual marriage has never been legal" does not automatically mean it was illegal, it was simply not discussed.  For example, in many states you could commit beastiality -- even though it was frowned upon, there was nothing against it.  Now many states are trying to change that by making it a felony.   There were no laws saying that it was "okay to commit beastiality".   Just as there were no laws saying it's okay to have a homosexual marriage.  Not that I'm equating the two, it's just what I thought of -- off the top of my head.

2.) I haven't been in school for awhile, thanks for the compliment.  I have seen no evidence to suggest the Protestant claim that this nation was founded upon "Christian principles", although there were in fact many Christians who came here to escape religious persecution.   It was the Protestants who first made this claim, and now the burden of proof is on them because I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise.   I'm well aware that Jefferson had his own ideas, and so did Paine, and Deism was a philosophy that was attractive in that time period -- although it is questionable to what extent the others agreed or disagreed with Christianity.

[Andrew Crook]

If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage.  Why was that not enough?  I know, they wanted to infiltrate the Church and force the Church to recognize their mockery.  So, if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with), why do non-Christians feel the need to tell Christians what to do?  Again, the sword cuts both ways.

I agree it should be enough.  The Church shouldn't have to recognize anything, and neither should they feel that they must be "accepted" -- and instead should learn to accept themselves. 

[Jetavan]

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage. 

Are you sure about that?

In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship between two people — either of the same or different sex — providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples. But a civil union is not a marriage; a civil union does not provide federal protections or responsibilities to couples who enter into one, and a civil union will be recognized only in certain other states, not by all states.

[Shanghaiski]

The image of God is marred and obscured, but not destroyed through sin.

[William]

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.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

And why should Christians care what libertine apostates and heathens think of them?

[Cyrillic]

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.

If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you. (John 15:18)

[dzheremi]

Yeah, maybe I'm an extremist or something, but I don't particularly care if I'm considered "hateful". God knows what's in my heart (both good and bad), so the judgments of others might hurt temporarily, but they don't actually matter in the long run.

[Ashman618]

Psalm 2, to me at least, seems like a warning to Leaders of nations to conform the law of the land to Gods teachings.

[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.

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

[TheMathematician]

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

But, is that not when they would need our love the most? Instead of despising them, should we not offer them our love and compassion? I am not saying you need to accept their lifestyle, but showing compassion and love will change their actions more than passing harsh judgement and treating them as outcasts.

"Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Even though I may not struggle with this particular sin, i know that my own sins are countless, and need to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and the sum of my own sins is greater than their sins.

Call it a sin, you can back that up, I am not arguing that, but love and compassion(while not tolerance per say) is what will cause them to be repentant and change their ways, instead of harsh judgement and leperizing them, which only serves to harder their hearts to God.

[Charles Martel]

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.

And you're judging me.

I don't get why calling sin evil and those in the act of doing it are evil in God's sight is somehow construed as "hate" and "bigotry".


And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.

Christian phoneys......the worst.

[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.

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

But, is that not when they would need our love the most? Instead of despising them, should we not offer them our love and compassion? I am not saying you need to accept their lifestyle, but showing compassion and love will change their actions more than passing harsh judgement and treating them as outcasts.

"Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Even though I may not struggle with this particular sin, i know that my own sins are countless, and need to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and the sum of my own sins is greater than their sins.

Call it a sin, you can back that up, I am not arguing that, but love and compassion(while not tolerance per say) is what will cause them to be repentant and change their ways, instead of harsh judgement and leperizing them, which only serves to harder their hearts to God.

Maybe I missed something in the thread--I haven't read it all. But I think it's hard to generalize. We are commanded to love everyone. And the saints show us by their example that even the most sinful person is still better than I am. Moreover, as long as we are in this life, repentance and redemption is possible--indeed God is working toward this.

So, how do we show love? It can be done in many ways and usually depends on the situation and the people involved. This takes discernment, which is a rare virtue.

Not having discernment, we need to do the best we can with what we have. It is likely that, whatever we say, we will not be listened to. Particularly if in this case the homosexual person has fallen for the lies coming from those who promote the lifestyle. I think that's why a lot of people simply fall back on stating it is sinful and then leaving it at that.

Now, there are many people with temptations who have taken up the valiant struggle against them in the Church--which is as it should be. Every day, they have to put up with people in the Church saying that what they're bravely fighting is not sin, and that they should just give up, because some of these so-called Christians are motivated by what they call love, but is in fact hatred in disguise.

In the battle with this particular sin--given the general climate--showing love to the sinner is standing with him in his fight against the sin, encouraging him to keep fighting, not to give up and give in. This is the case with any other sin, actually.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I've heard the word in Greek apparently translates to "wanting to throw up." So there you go.

[stavros_388]

And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.
Christian phoneys......the worst.

If you do know the scriptures so well, you may have taken notice that Jesus, too, pontificates about "Christian luuuvvve" while barely containing his contempt for nasty ol' judgmental folk. Perhaps you skimmed over those parts in order to find reasons to justify your contempt for those wicked sinners that you look down upon and "despise" until they are repentant to your satisfaction.

[theistgal]

And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.
Christian phoneys......the worst.

If you do know the scriptures so well, you may have taken notice that Jesus, too, pontificates about "Christian luuuvvve" while barely containing his contempt for nasty ol' judgmental folk. Perhaps you skimmed over those parts in order to find reasons to justify your contempt for those wicked sinners that you look down upon and "despise" until they are repentant to your satisfaction.

Isn't it judgmental to show contempt for people you deem "judgmental"?

[lovesupreme]

I love homosexuals so much.

[Shiny]

Don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage.

It's not like heterosexual marraiges mean anything anymore either.

[theistgal]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

[JamesRottnek]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

[William]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.

[Shanghaiski]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.

And twice over, getting married after being made a bishop. 

[Shiny]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

[William]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.

And twice over, getting married after being made a bishop. 

I mean once you've had an atheist bishop there's really no more room for the floodgates to open anymore. Maybe an axe-murderer wouldn't qualify.

[Kerdy]

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage. 

Are you sure about that?

In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship between two people — either of the same or different sex — providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples. But a civil union is not a marriage; a civil union does not provide federal protections or responsibilities to couples who enter into one, and a civil union will be recognized only in certain other states, not by all states.

Yes, very sure.  The states which provided this ensured it was legally equivalent.  Of course, each state has its own provisions, but it's the same.  In what you cited, you seem to forget marriage is controlled by state entities, not federal, as described multiple times by SCOTUS.  I have never seen a federal marriage certificate.  They are issued by each state.

[Kerdy]

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.

If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you. (John 15:18)

WAAAAAY out of context.

[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.

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.

I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I have learned there is always more than one definition to ancient words and context is how we figure out which one to use.

[Maria]

From the Telegraph as quoted by a government official at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html

Schools have a requirement to ensure they do not teach anything that would be considered inappropriate to a pupil’s age, religious or cultural background and they must ensure pupils are presented with balanced, factual information about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.

Down the slippery slope into hell.

Oh, yeah, California said the same thing as the UK government official, but with California's new laws, homosexual marriage must be presented as part of the normal lifestyle. Thus, teachers in public schools have great difficulty presenting a "balanced view." Those "tolerant" of gay marriage are very "intolerant" of marriage as presented by Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

[Kerdy]

I love homosexuals so much.

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do.

[Kerdy]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.

[Shanghaiski]

I love homosexuals so much.

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do.

Could remake it. Change "gay people" to Nazis and watch people squirm.

[Kerdy]

From the Telegraph as quoted by a government official at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html

Schools have a requirement to ensure they do not teach anything that would be considered inappropriate to a pupil’s age, religious or cultural background and they must ensure pupils are presented with balanced, factual information about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.

Down the slippery slope into hell.

Oh, yeah, California said the same thing as the UK government official, but with California's new laws, homosexual marriage must be presented as part of the normal lifestyle. Thus, teachers in public schools have great difficulty presenting a "balanced view." Those "tolerant" of gay marriage are very "intolerant" of marriage as presented by Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

This is why I will never reside in any state even similar to California.

[Shiny]

Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.

No it does not. But that requires a reconstruction of society from what I can see.

[Kerdy]

I love homosexuals so much.

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do.

Could remake it. Change "gay people" to Nazis and watch people squirm.

It’s as if they believe one liner quips make doctrine.