So... to some level, you do agree with me on the notion of tolerance v. acceptance in relation to religion. Or you don't. At some point, Fabio, my eyes started shaking while reading your entry, which was no doubt excellent and no doubt deserves a closer read tomorrow.
At any rate, it does bring Whosoever to mind. I'd be interested to see your response to that site, though of course on the understanding that the Christianity they follow is not of the Catholic variety. There's an article within that site discussing the exegetic reading of St Paul's comments on homosexuality and sin (forgetting the link - apologies!) which might interest you as a counter to this post, but once again I might point out that it has been submitted with a bias
( ... )
I hope you are clear on the fact that I made the following statements: 1) Jesus taught that marriage is between a man and a woman,is indissoluble, and that the couple of man and woman is the image of God on Earth; 2) The Church teaches that homosexual practice is a sin, and I certainly do not disagree; 3) I regard the desire for one's own sex as a misfortune, not as something to be proud of: 4) Militant PC and homosexualist advocates are in my judgement as bad as queerbashers, and for much the same reason - theirs is a hate-ridden doctrine designed to silence self-doubt and deny diversity and difficulties.
The post is recast from a couple of previous writings, with the examination of Gospel and NT doctrine much extended, and a couple of other new items.
This is a great, well-thought out and well-researched essay. WOW! Could I have your permission to copy it, hang on to it, and/or quote from it? There are a lot of ignorant "liberal Catholics" who need this sort of explanation.
Agreed. It made me shake my head at the 'gay marriage birthday party' at Wellesley yesterday. If I explained my disapproval of homosexual behavior, I doubt I would be alive.
Please do, as long as you credit me with the authorship. Anyone who wants to reply (trolls and brain-deads excluded) can do so either at my e-mail address (fabiopaolo_barbieri@yahoo.it) or here on the LJ.
We will see that Paul also made his own comment, and not a favourable one, on the bitter Jewish polemic against Greco-Roman pederasty
As I said, this essay is partly cast from previous pieces of writing, and, apart from a few grammatical errors, this is the result. I have left no discussion of Paul's famous passage on sin in Romans, and I apologize. I have no time to correct this, and at any rate I think it will be better if I insert, in a forthcoming comment, the passage I meant.
I think now I have official time to do so I'll make my official response to this post, seeing as the effort I put in previously was lazy at best and half-arsed at worst
( ... )
I am very unhappy at having to respond to this, but this being my blog, to leave it unanswered would be tantamount to some sort of approval; and that I cannot do. I do not think this counts as a proper answer at all. First, it does not deal with the core of my argument: that the teaching of Jesus centred on the monogamous, lifelong straight married couple, from which any deviation is a descent away from Divine order. You talk about your feelings about "homophobia" as though they were an answer. They are not even an argument. And you talk as though the teaching of Jesus were normative only for Catholics, and as though you could allow yourself to claim a Christian identity while wholly ignoring what He and His disciples taught on the scarcely secondary matter of human identity, sexuality, marriage, and likeness to God. I do not care whether this is Aussie or not, it is dishonest. I mentioned faithless groups such as the Scots Presbyterians exactly in order to underline that this is not a matter of concern to Catholics alone, but
( ... )
Comments 21
At any rate, it does bring Whosoever to mind. I'd be interested to see your response to that site, though of course on the understanding that the Christianity they follow is not of the Catholic variety. There's an article within that site discussing the exegetic reading of St Paul's comments on homosexuality and sin (forgetting the link - apologies!) which might interest you as a counter to this post, but once again I might point out that it has been submitted with a bias ( ... )
Reply
1) Jesus taught that marriage is between a man and a woman,is indissoluble, and that the couple of man and woman is the image of God on Earth;
2) The Church teaches that homosexual practice is a sin, and I certainly do not disagree;
3) I regard the desire for one's own sex as a misfortune, not as something to be proud of:
4) Militant PC and homosexualist advocates are in my judgement as bad as queerbashers, and for much the same reason - theirs is a hate-ridden doctrine designed to silence self-doubt and deny diversity and difficulties.
The post is recast from a couple of previous writings, with the examination of Gospel and NT doctrine much extended, and a couple of other new items.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As I said, this essay is partly cast from previous pieces of writing, and, apart from a few grammatical errors, this is the result. I have left no discussion of Paul's famous passage on sin in Romans, and I apologize. I have no time to correct this, and at any rate I think it will be better if I insert, in a forthcoming comment, the passage I meant.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment