Freedom To Sin?

[Foreigner]

"I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage." - Aspen, 7/25 11:51am

I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on homosexual marriage - it is a sin. Are you trying to claim that a comment from the Pope changes Catholic doctrine to include secular homosexual marriage? Unless he is speaking ex cathedra it is just an opinion.

-- So, unless the Pope "is speaking ex cathedra it is just an opinion."
And the Pope is somehow condemning homosexual marraige within the church......but NOT in the secular world?
Uh huh.....
And you feel that if the leader of your church voices a strong stance on what he believes is right and wrong and where he feels God stands....unless he says it ex cathedra, it is just his "opinion" and people within the church can just take it or leave it? Wow.......

The Catholic church believes that gay marraige is a sin, both inside and outside the church.
The Vatican has protested the world over the moves to make gay marraige legal.
The Pope speaking out against gay marraige in all cases is confirmation of the Catholic church's stance, not a contradiction of it.


And the Pope didn't just "comment" on the fact that gay marraige is a direct threat to the future of humanity.
He said it in a speech in front of the Vatican Diplomatic Corp (representing 180 different countries).
Kind of hard to claim he was just giving an opinion in passing that has nothing to do with the Church's stance.


And as far as your "Unless he is speaking ex cathedra it is just an opinion"...
And it is again rather arrogant to argue that YOU need an "ex cathedra" pronouncement from the Pope when you consider it has only been used twice before in the history of the church, both having to do with Mary. First was about her Immaculate Conception and the second was about her bodily Assumption into heaven......(You forget, I WAS a Catholic longer than you've BEEN a Catholic.)


So again we come back to your practice of being a Cafeteria Christian....in this case, Cafeteria Catholic.
You set YOUR personal standard as to what you have to obey or support as far as the church you are a member of.

That means, according to your standards, that every other rule or regulation within the church that wasn't given Ex Cathedra is up for personal opinion as to whether it should be followed by Catholics.

However...
Ex cathedra was not used to confirm the Church's stance against Abortion. Does that give Catholics the okay to support abortion?
Ex cathedra was not used to declare that the communion becomes the actual body of Christ. Does that mean you don't have to believe it if you are a Catholic?
Ex cathedra was not used to support the rule that only members of the Catholic church can take communion within the church.
Ex cathedra was not used to confirm the teaching of Purgatory.
Not used to confirm the right to pray to the saints in heaven.
Not used to justify the use of the Rosary.
etc.
etc.
etc.

That means, again using YOUR line of reasoning, that none of these things I have listed need to be taken seriously, even within the church, because the Pope hasn't sanctioned them ex cathedra.

But if you believe that communion becomes the ACTUAL body of Christ (as you have claimed before) or any of the other above-listed beliefs, then ex cathedra is not necessary to establish what is God-supported or God-required in your eyes.

Translation: You want to have it both ways.



And here is where your obfuscation comes in again.

You simply cannot say "I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage" and then actively work to increase the right and availability of homosexual marraige in CONTRADICTION of the Catholic Church's position....especially to the point of condemning those that do not support homosexual marraige.

And you seem incapable then of realizing that if you support gay marraige for people, you are guaranteeing that they will never be able to join the church that you belong to (a church Catholics are taught is the only real church) because it won't accept their "marraige" and lifestyle.
Tell me again, how is that NOT undermining the church and/or the homosexuals you are claiming to want to help?

Or are you truly unable to see the difference between being impassive towards sin (which is wrong in the first place) and actively working towards the legalization and acceptance of that sin (which is even worse)? And no, working to encourage and legalize that sin isn't minimized because you only want it legalized in the secular world.

You are actively working to harden and embed sin in the secular world instead of trying to help the secular world realize the danger of that sin.

By your actions you are actively working to REDUCE the chance that someone will become a member of your church (or any other God-based denomination).

Sorry, but there is no way to sell that turkey.






.

 

[aspen]

Why would I care what you think about how my church works? I am following my church and under their instruction, my conscience, and I certainly do not have to answer to you about it.

 

[Foreigner]

Yeah, it's pretty simple:

1. You claim to support your church's stance on gay marraige
2. You are shown to be doing just the opposite, actually proactively undermining it.
3. You try to justify it by using "ex cathedra"
4. You are shown in no uncertain terms where that doesn't wash and that you are actually hypocritical in claiming that requirement.
5. You respond to being shown you are wrong on every level with: "What do you care?"


Got it. Thanks.

 

[aspen]

I don't care what you think on this topic - you are right about that. It is a complex issue and apparently, your obsessive need for black and white reasoning just doesn't cut it in this situation. I see that according to your reasoning, I am guilty as charged - Christ would of been too for working on the Sabbath. Go ahead and condemn me - I will continue to love the sinner and hate the sin, just like my church - I will also continue to hold Christians to a higher standard than the world.

 

[Foreigner]

Claims of 'complexity' rings false.

You state "I am in agreement with the Catholic Church on Homosexual marriage" even as you are pushing to increase the very practice that the church opposes. A practice that if homosexuals embrace, will prevent them from ever being allowed to join your church.

It is as simple as it is irrefutable:
You can't say you are in agreement with your church by encouraging something that will prevent others from ever being a part of that church.

More importantly, you are working to ensure that homosexuals can more easily embrace a practice that will ensure their eternal damnation.

That is NOT loving them.

You want to talk invoke Christ and His love, but ignore the fact that even as He loved the sinner, He told him emphatically "Go and sin no more."
You are saying to them, "Go and sin SOME more."

Your actions will like likely increase the number of people that will die in their sin and go to hell.

Aspen, you are a good man, and I can understand from what little I know about you how personal experience may color how you see this issue, but by helping homosexuals indulge in sin, giving the impression of legitimacy that will give them a happier life here, you increase the chance they will likely die in their sin and spend eternity in hell.

If you truly loved them, you wouldn't increase the chance they will participate in the sin that could cost them their very souls.

 

[Episkopos]

om 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This does not say...justified or condoned sin...

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There's that pesky reality of God again... Many think that Jesus condones sin by fulfilling the law instead of us. This is the opposite of the truth. Jesus Christ indeed fulfilled the law but this was in order to create a higher law and this in order to fulfill the law in US who walk by faith.