Catholic radio is full of kooky stuff regarding sexuality.

[Glaurung]

I shall believe as I wish. I still take the side of the gay-affirming churches.

Firstly, that post was not addressed to you. You should re-read the conversation.

Secondly, no one is denying you the right to your own conscience. It is yours and no one can compel it. It is you at the end of your life who will stand before God with your decisions. As will I at the end of my life stand before God with mine. And if you truly wish to take the stance that sodomy is not a sin then that is your decision. It is your conscience. I on the other hand will accept the two-thousand year testimony of Christian teaching on this matter, no matter how much that may offend the gatekeepers of secular opinion. Because it is not they whom I fear to offend in the end.

I get tired of hearing Catholic radio gay-bashing day after day in my kitchen while cooking or doing dishes. Catholic radio seems so fixated on ex talk. How impressive and "refreshingly-non tiresome" is that? Trying to get me to side with the gay-bashers is about as productive as beating a dead horse. Lately, I've been turning off my radio more and more and putting hunting and gun videos on my TV as well as CNN and Fox News. I hate CNN's gun-rights-bashing as well.

If you would re-read the context of what you're replying to, you would see that I was talking about a certain poster whose main topic of conversation on this forum is almost always related to sex.

Anyway, in its two-thousand years of existence only a minute amount of content produced by Catholics and the Catholic Church has anything to do with sex. The reason why those who uphold the traditional moral teaching are talking so much about sex these days is because that is where the current battle lies. There is no concerted effort to get the Church to deny the divinity of Christ or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but there is a concerted effort to pressure everyone including conservative Christians into acquiescing to the progressive sexual ideology of the current moment.

I wish the rainbow churches would have their own pro-gay radio programs.

There is nothing stopping them. Although it would be kind of redundant when the secular culture all around us is overwhelmingly 'pro-gay'. Heck, we've just had an entire month dedicated to the affirmation of homosexuality. Which is conceptually ludicrous but we live in ludicrous times.

Nobody here wants to comment on what I said about II Samuel. The hypocrites censor unfavorable parts of the Good Book as always.

The plain reading of the Bible is clear. God punishes sexual immorality and homosexuality is clearly implicated as a sexual immorality. No amount of sophistry is going to make that go away because it is suddenly inconvenient.

The same hypocrites will eat shrimp cocktails and crab salad ignoring the OT laws against shellfish consumption. I believe Paul says in the NT that we are dead to the old law but alive in the Spirit under the new law of love.

No, Saint Paul says that Christians are not under the ceremonial and judicial requirements of the Old Law. (Such as circumcision and dietary law). The moral law still stands as he makes very clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

[Neuropteron]

II Samuel reveals a love between King David and Jonathan. King David favored the love for Jonathan over the love of women. There is nothing false about King David's love for Jonathan.

.

The love you mention is not referring to errotic love but to Agape love, which is based on principles and that is in effect stronger than love based on emotions.

This is the type of love that God has for us, that a parent has for his children and that a person can have for a very close friend. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or depravity of any sort.

 

[JJ50]

The love you mention is not referring to errotic love but to Agape love, which is based on principles and that is in effect stronger than love based on emotions.

This is the type of love that God has for us, that a parent has for his children and that a person can have for a very close friend. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or depravity of any sort.

I don't know how anyone can describe the deeds attributed to the Biblical god character as 'love', it doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Homosexuality is NOT depravity!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The two cities of Sodoma and Gomora were destroyed because of the homosexual acts that was taking place there over many years, and if the bible is correct they did get warnings many times before they actually were destroyed.
I am aware of that the bible has been translated differently from the time it first was written down until today. But the main teaching is still there.

Ezekiel 16:49-52 says nothing about sexual matters at all and that is supposed to be the Jewish deity himself speaking there. If it (homosexuality) was so disturbing to him, I'm sure he would've mentioned it as one of the reasons why he destroyed them (in the myth, since it's not literal history).

Besides, the bigger sin would've been against violating the norms of hospitality as Lot is never condemned for offering his daughters to the mob to be gang raped. It is rape we're talking about, after all, not consensual gay sex. And rape of angels who are guests on top of that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ezekiel 16:49-52 says nothing about sexual matters at all and that is supposed to be the Jewish deity himself speaking there. If it (homosexuality) was so disturbing to him, I'm sure he would've mentioned it as one of the reasons why he destroyed them (in the myth, since it's not literal history).

Besides, the bigger sin would've been against violating the norms of hospitality as Lot is never condemned for offering his daughters to the mob to be gang raped. It is rape we're talking about, after all, not consensual gay sex. And rape of angels who are guests on top of that.

A lot of what was done in the two cities was wrong according to the Christian God. Of course, rape is on the same level as homosexuality in the way sin is seen in Christianity. By the way, both Sodoma and Gomorrah has been found by Archeology. So even you do not believe it is a true story they do have evidence of both cities

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A lot of what was done in the two cities was wrong according to the Christian God. Of course, rape is on the same level as homosexuality in the way sin is seen in Christianity. By the way, both Sodoma and Gomorrah has been found by Archeology. So even you do not believe it is a true story they do have evidence of both cities

Except that rape and homosexuality weren't mentioned in the verses I cited. According to Yahweh, those two cities were depraved in that they were rich, arrogant and neglected the needy (sounds a lot like aspects of modern America, actually). Nothing about sexual matters in his given reasons for destroying them.

Sodom and Gomorrah may have actually existed but the story in the Bible is a myth, much like with Troy in Greek myth. The destruction of it in the story sounds a lot like a volcanic eruption, which might have been what happened.

 

[metis]

Well this is a "Catholic" radio station in Oakie-homie, so it might be bunk broadcast material modified by the redneck Christian Right movement.

Walters / Lawton OK KOEG 88.3 FM English (EWTN network)

Oklahoma Catholic Radio

Those within the Church are quite diverse, so many of them will have different takes on different issues. Even popes have differed in their approaches on some issues.

Also, the Church tries to blend reason in with what the Church stands has stood for, and "reason" implies taking in new information and trying to utilize what we may discover. Therefore, there has been a gradual change involving homosexuals within the Church but, as you probably are aware of, the Church tends to move theologically very s-l-o-w-l-y. .

 

[leov]

There's nothing kooky about Catholic sexual ethics. Ethics that were more or less universally accepted by all Christians until the 1930's. This universally accepted ethic can be boiled down to this:

That the only legitimate place for sex is within the marital bond between a man and a woman. The purpose of sexual union is both and inseparably unitive and procreative. Any and all deviations from this constitutes grave sin.

You don't have to like it, but your personal opinions are frankly not a factor. Nor are tortured, agenda driven readings of the Scripture designed to avoid its face value condemnations of sexual perversion. Especially in regards to homosexuality.

God wants for people to care, agape, the greatest teacher of agape in this world is family and children.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

People need to be honest with themselves and accept the fact that some parts of the Bible do in fact condemn homosexuality. Is it right or correct for the Bible to do so? That is a question each and everyone of us who look to the Bible for our spirituality have to ask ourselves.

 

[metis]

People need to be honest with themselves and accept the fact that some parts of the Bible do in fact condemn homosexuality. Is it right or correct for the Bible to do so? That is a question each and everyone of us who look to the Bible for our spirituality have to ask ourselves.

IMO, we should put the Bible in perspective of the time period and the culture, thus not blindly accept every thing that is written in it.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

IMO, we should put the Bible in perspective of the time period and the culture, thus not blindly accept every thing that is written in it.

And I would agree but to whitewash it is wrong.

 

[metis]

And I would agree but to whitewash it is wrong.

I don't imply to whitewash it but only to put it into perspective. And this is true of any historical endeavor as well since when we read history we are reading people's take on what supposedly happened that's been filtered through their brain.