Well I had a bit of a blonde moment last week. I ventured to the movies and in all my ditsyness we ended up going to “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry”. I don’t know what made me think that it would be morally ok, I mean seriously? In my defence, I don’t watch too much TV and hadn’t seen the pro-mos, which were apparently quite explicit. As the movie went on, I grew gradually more disconcerted. My boyfriend noticed my unease and asked if I wanted to leave. So we did, although I’m pretty sure he didn’t quite understand why we were leaving or why I was so frustrated. To cut a long story short is that we ended up walking out of the movie because it was nothing less than morally repulsive and offensive.
Well here we go:
Reason number 1: To my surprise (in hindsight), it wasn’t so much the treatment of gay marriage that got me so angry, it was the sexualisation OF EVERY SINGLE female character in the film. No female actress had a role that extended past being a play thing for the two guys in the film; ALL scantly clad and ALL treated by the male actors as mere objects. It was like the guys could have a personality but the girls we just faceless sex objects. Now having just read Wendy Shalits “Girls gone Mild”, I realise I was in a rather vulnerable state; one aspect of her book discusses the influence popular culture, particular media, is having on young girls, their sexual activity and consequently their unhappiness as a result of confusing sexual objectification with love. As an ardent feminist, I completely objected.
Reason number 2: The nice scene that stereotyped all Christians as homophobic and uncompassionate human beings. The scene consisted of a group of protesters outside a gay pride meeting yelling obscenities and telling those involved that they were going to burn in hell). Nice, real nice.
The funny thing is though, as I walked out of the movie, I felt quite empowered although not that empowered; our tickets we free so I was deprived of the satisfaction of storming up to the counter to ask for my money back!. I have to admit that was the first time I had walked out of a movie and I’m kind of happy it was on moral grounds (well as happy as one can be).
I have a feeling for Christians its only going to get a lot worse before it get better, so I suppose we have to be ready to take a hard stance. You know, be countercultural and all; if it was good enough for the first Christians….
Good on you for walking out! I’ve walked out of two movies in my time, that I paid for. Though I admit I never thought of asking for my money back. The first was The Last Temptation of Christ and Revenge of the Nerds II.
Recently I’ve managed to stop watching Boston Legal, which is finished now, but I was having a lot of problems watching it. I enjoyed the stories, but decided in the end that I need to stop allowing my mind to be filled with the rubbish they were selling.
Apparently, people who watch a lot of TV are more prone to being liberal with their attitudes in life and voting patterns. Who would have thought?
I’ve only walked out on one film in my life.
It was many moons ago while living in the US, and my belle at that time and I went to a mall (think St Lukes or similar) for dinner. Afterwards, we decided to go to catch a movie in said mall. Because it was a spontaneous decision, we were at completely the wrong time to catch the start of movies.
There was one flick starting about 15 minutes later that neither of us had heard of. It was touted as the “love story of the summer” and called “Kissed”, so we figured it was a safe bet. I seem to recall it may even have won one of those film festival awards.
WARNING: IF YOU’VE JUST EATEN, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ ON.
The problem? One side of those being kissed, and having more done to them, were dead people. Talk about GROSS. There were only about a dozen people in the theatre; not sure how many of the others would have made it through the film. The “mature themes” warning with the M rating certainly didn’t give any indication of what we were going to see on a three-storey high screen.
Good on you Filia!
interesting
would like to hear more of the story
I must admit to surprise that Filia would go to a movie entitled “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry” although it does give the lie to the notion that faithful Catholics are knee-jerk homophobic !
Good on you for walking out.
God Bless
I myself didn’t find the movie too bad…
I absolutely agree with the fact that all the women were portrayed in a sexual manner and found it demeaning as well. And yes the film was sexually explicit in many scenes, but it was always going to. It is an Adam Sandler movie after all
But if you took away all the little scenes that were a tad “cring-worthy” I thought that there were a few themes that got me thinking. For instance the treatment of homosexuals in our society is quite inhumane. I’m not suggesting open acceptance but maybe a realization that one’s personal life and how they live it is not there for another to discriminate against (provided it isn’t hurting anyone) The scene with the Christians may have been a bit extreme but was it completely untrue or just slightly exaggerated?
People who decide to delve into homosexual relationships are still people are they not? I do think that sometimes people can forget that…
And movie cinemas do not offer refunds if you don’t like a movie. If something goes wrong or you have to leave for an emergency then they do. But if you simply didn’t like a movie then you’d be hard pressed to find a complex that would give you a refund
I’m not suggesting open acceptance
Why not ?
Christ always openly accepts every person.
It only their sins he rejects because in his love he knows how much our sins wound us. And homosexual sex does wound people, not only physically but also psychologically and spiritually.
And anyway, few non-homosexuals are any better than homosexuals in the sinning department.
God Bless
Questionable, I was talking to a friend who walked out of 40 Year Old Virgin who complained that the movie was morally offensive and the cinema offered her the choice of a refund or to go to another movie.
- I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry -
I would have to agree with Questionable here. Filia the title itself indicates that this film would be morally offensive especially to those who take moral stands seriously enough to write a blog about it. I congradulate you for taking a stand and walking out but that is where I would have to draw the line.
Question Filia: Is it possible for one to enjoy the movie for what it is -a comedy-. Is it possible for one to put aside their indifference on these issues as this film was made to make you laugh (as it did for me). I sympathise with your ideas (you seem pretty strong in your beliefs) but is it really that bad to relax in a cinema and laugh at these “cringe worthy” moments?
Prophet,
Two questions:
1. Do you really think that Christ would sit through a movie promoting immorality and just laugh at it?
2. What comes next? Should we just relax our moral standards and sleep with someone at a party just because it’s a party and everyone else is doing it?
“For instance the treatment of homosexuals in our society is quite inhumane”
Well it seems that the Hollywood propaganda machine has worked its magic once again.
Currently, those who identify as homosexual are afforded more special considerations and clauses in legislation than any other group within our society.
Your comment endorses what Filia was saying, and it makes me even more certain that she was right to walk out of this film when she did.
I wonder how many other people brought the lie that homosexuals are treated inhumanely by society?
Maximus
I never said anything about relaxing moral standards. There is a difference between laughing at something that pushes the boundaries and actually stepping over it with action.
The fact that Filia walked out of the movie achieved what exactly? I mean Filia did not even pay for the movie.
As for your first question I think Christ would not sit through a lot of things in this world yet we so freely enjoy the fruits of immorality daily. Why is this so different to the rest?
Prophet, some good questions.
I think Filia walking out certainly acheived something for her. Not exposing oneself to something of a questionable nature is a good thing. It may have been injudicious to attend the movie in the first place but, having found it not to be consonant with her beliefs and standards, she did the right thing and left.
And who knows, the effects of her walking out aren’t necessarily tangible – she won’t ever see the people who were there again, in all likelihood, but who knows what seeds were laid by her actions?
Plus, I think this is different because she freely chose to go; upon discerning the movie’s questionable content, she freely chose to leave. As you say, there are many fruits of immorality that we endure (in a sense of being compelled) because they are hard to change – abortion, awful tv standards etc – however Filia was making a stand for morality, which is all to the good. The refund or lack thereof is not really relevant.
he he he he
My peples my peples
You knows yous haf reminded my of the tymes when i was had walkked out of sinema. It was called my wives wont stop talking. I was had founded myself come home late one nyte and i was haf forgot to baint the house. I was like I cant Belive it!!! My wives was like a shouting at me an i was like – wive shutup – and she was like frow a jandal at me. Now is not walkked out anymore.
B.S I loves you my wive, i am is very sorri, let me come back homes
“I never said anything about relaxing moral standards. There is a difference between laughing at something that pushes the boundaries and actually stepping over it with action.”
That’s a strange distinction that you’re making Prophet, and it runs counter to what Christ Himself tells us about morality in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospels.
You seem to hold the opinion that one has only crossed the line into immorality if one engages in an immoral act.
However, Christ Himself tells us that morality begins in the heart and mind when he tells in the Gospels that even if a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
In other words – the immoral act begins in the heart and mind, and it doesn’t suddenly become an immoral action only if it results in a physical deed.
This is Christian morality 101.
A person who knowingly sits and watches immoral content to be entertained and tiilated by it, has already crossed over and is in fact doing something immoral themselves.
Whether you like it or not, you are what you eat – and if you’re consuming a regular diet of sexual immorality and lies about human personhood, then those very things are feeding your soul.
Not only did Filia do something very courageous and holy (and I wish I had the guts to do more of that myself), but she also did something that shows a powerful, and very real, love for Christ.
You she is simply following the command of the Holy Spirit who told us through St Paul’s letter to the Romans to “cling to what is good and flee from all that is evil”.
Also, I still think that you haven’t really answered my earlier question – what comes next?
Today it’s images, words and ideas that reduce females to sexual objects, and present serious lies about human sexuality.
What sort of content will be considered “just pushing the boundaries” in future years, and will you just unquestioningly put yourself before those things as well and allow them to saturate your heart and mind?
interesting
Maximus
I am quite comfortable in my beliefs. I can handle these sorts of situations and I am definitely able to laugh at them. Because I may watch this type of humour that (unfortunately) may objectify women, homsexuals etc if it is funny it is funny. When it comes to humour you take what you have and see the funny side in it.
However I see your point, really I do. I am not at anytime condoning these moral acts but wake up mate. In the words of John Mayer welcome to the real world. How can you not expect not to see this type of humour in today’s world. I stand by my point in #12. If you yourself Maximus believe in this then I would expect that you yourself would not be watching anything on tv as well as the movies. If you can tolerate what you watch on tv or movie screens, then I have every rite to feel comfortable about laughing at things that push the boundaries.
As to your question for what is next. I would hope that it swung the other way.
How will it ever swing the other way, if you, and others in the same boat as you, keep paying and supporting entertainment that pushes the boundaries and presents immorality as something entertaining and comedic?
As Edmund Burke once famously said – “All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.
Change doesn’t happen without their first being a catalyst – and everyone sitting around and participating in entertainment that promotes immorality for our entertainment is certainly not going to lead to any sort of change – it just makes the problem worse.
Are you one of those good men maximus?
“I am not at anytime condoning these moral acts but wake up mate. In the words of John Mayer welcome to the real world.”
Interesting statement Prophet, but it creates more problems:
1. It runs counter to what Jesus teaches us in the Scriptures, when He tells us to avoid any and all sorts of immorality – do you think that those Scriptures are also out of touch with the “real world”?
2. What about all those great Saints who have dedicated their lives to holiness and who lived the very things that you think are unrealistic – were they also out of touch with the “real world”?
3. It is only in Christ that we can live in the “real world”, but here you are suggesting that anyone who tries to live up to the very life that Christ calls us all to live in Him is actually not living in the real world – once again; without a life in Christ, you don’t have true reality, just an imitation of it.
“Are you one of those good men maximus?”
I don’t think I understand your question Prophet.
I don’t consider myself to be a Saint, or to be prefect or more better than anyone else, but I certainly strive to be one of those good men that Edmund Burke is talking about.
I’m still human though, which means that I make mistakes and choose evil when I know I should choose good – but that’s the struggle that all of us face, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we should stop striving to do the good and just give in to evil.
“How can you not expect not to see this type of humour in today’s world.”
But isn’t that precisely what personal choice is all about?
Everyone has the freedom to choose what they will watch, or how they will react if immorality is presented to them in an unexpected manner (such as what happened in Filia’s situation).
We have the choice as to whether or not we will watch, read or listen to something we know to be immoral.
Ok so this has completely turned around from the simple point that I had originally made which was don’t go into a movie titled I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry without expecting to view immoral attitudes. Phew got that out of the way.
Maximus two things
- John Mayer is the man. I recomend that you listen to him
- This is the old argument of the Church vs Society. Don’t really want to delve too much into this debate. However with regards to your statement that I am suggesting anyone who tries to live up to the very life that Christ calls us all to live in Him is actually not living in the real world. Rubbish mate, that is not what I am saying at all. All I am really trying to say is (simple as it seems) what is wrong at laughing at something that is funny. If i create a scenario where a Jehova’s witness knocks on my door trying to persuade me to convert to their beliefs, i’m not going to write a blog about it, I am going to laugh at the situation. Thats all i’m saying. I’m sure you would do the same thing (only after you try to convert them, and even that idea is funny as well, do you get what I am saying).
But in saying all of this thankyou Maximus for your input. You are right in saying that
- Change doesn’t happen without their first being a catalyst – and everyone sitting around and participating in entertainment that promotes immorality for our entertainment is certainly not going to lead to any sort of change – it just makes the problem worse -
I realise I am arguing a lost and poor argument (and not that well either).
Peace Brother
Just to clarify
- said boyfriend knew exactly the reason why Filia wanted to leave
sorry filia I hope we are alright after this
For all the guys who go unnoticed
“John Mayer is the man. I recomend that you listen to him”
Prophet,
I actually have several of John Mayer’s CDs, he’s not bad.
“This is the old argument of the Church vs Society.”
Actually Prophet – there is no such thing as “Church vs Society” – such an idea is something more at home in Protestant or atheist circles.
As Catholics we are called to be counter-cultural, not anti-cultural or pro-cultural (for want of better terms).
Someone who is counter-cultural is someone who engages the culture in which they live, accepts the goodness and truth that is present in that culture, but rejects the evil (in whatever form it takes) and strives to live a life that witnesses to the truth of Jesus (in EVERYTHING that they do) because this brings them closer to Christ, which in turn helps to lead the culture towards the truth.
The other two approaches one can take are not actually what we are called to by Christ – one is anti-culturalism; which is where we write off everything about the secular culture and then segregate ourselves from it.
The other wrong approach is pro-culturalism; which is where we simply accept everything that our culture presents to us without measuring it against the truth taught by Christ and the Church – the end result is a form of faith that conforms itself to the culture rather than being a witness to truth.
I blame the reformation.
I blame the celibate male-only priesthood
*jokes*
And Ockham.
I blame Gollum :twisted:
I blame Henry Vthe III…(evil man)
Henry the VIII…(d’oh)
Who’s John Mayer???
And who’s Henry Vthe III ????
Is he the American Henry bloke who built the Volkswagen
“Well it seems that the Hollywood propaganda machine has worked its magic once again.”
I’m interested to know then Maximus, do you think that homosexuals are treated with as much dignity and respect as any other human being in our society? If so do you know any homosexual people and would they agree with you? If you agree that they are not treated with as much respect as any other human being, why is this so? Do their acts mean that they should be shunted and looked down upon?
I must admit that I find great difficulty drawing a line between the sin and the sinner. There is always an element of choice in what you decide to do and so you are responsible for your actions. So then how can you hate what someone does and yet still love them? Are we not meant to hate the sin but love the sinner? (Not rhetorical questions, I would love some advice from all of you out there)
I see it everyday how homosexuals are treated differently. Simply because they enjoy the company of the same sex more so then the opposite (and for this argument’s sake, in a non sexual manner) they are blatantly ignored, ridiculed and treated as outcasts. No Hollywood-take here, just the facts.
And what I struggle with is why God would put the desire to be romantically, emotionally and sexually involved with a member of the same sex into certain people. Does anyone out there believe that homosexuality is a choice? That they wake up one day and think to themselves, ‘You know what, I’m going to be gay just for kicks’?
And this may be way off topic but it’s a thought that I wouldn’t mind an answer to. If one were homosexual but never delved in any sexual act, would he/she still be a sinner? Didn’t Jesus say that those who commit adultery in the mind have already sinned? And so would this mean that a homosexual merely thinking of his’her desires is committing a sin?
Would love some feeback
would this mean that a homosexual merely thinking of his’her desires is committing a sin?
No.
A thought that pops into ones head, even constantly, is never a sin.
If one makes a concious decision to indulge and pursue that thought as a fantasy then that can be a sin.
A sin is always a conscious decision.
God Bless
“I’m interested to know then Maximus, do you think that homosexuals are treated with as much dignity and respect as any other human being in our society? If so do you know any homosexual people and would they agree with you?”
In my country people who are affected by same sex attractions are treated with the same dignity as people who don struggle with same sex attraction.
And yes, I do know people who are same sex attracted, and yes, they are treated just the saem as anyone else I know.
Also, in my country, people with homosexual attractions are being given special status in all sorts of legislation and policy documents – this status is not given to other groups.
“So then how can you hate what someone does and yet still love them?”
It’s actually quite easy to do Q, because a person is not their sin – sin is an action that they choose to engage in, but it isn’t who they are as a person.
If you don’t make this important distinction between a person and their sins then you have huge problems and you will either end up loving sin (something that is totally counter to Christ and Christianity), or alternatively, if someone commits a vile and heinous sin then you will end up hating them as well as their sin (this is also totally counter to Christ and Christianity).
Love the person, but never their sin.
“I see it everyday how homosexuals are treated differently. Simply because they enjoy the company of the same sex more so then the opposite (and for this argument’s sake, in a non sexual manner) they are blatantly ignored, ridiculed and treated as outcasts. No Hollywood-take here, just the facts.”
Actually Q I think that the real reason that actively homosexual people are treated wrongly by some groups, is because those groups instinctively know that there is something terribly unnatural about two people of the same sex engaging in pseudo-sexual intercourse with each other, but at the same time without a proper relationship with Christ they also struggle to differentiate between the sin and the sinner – so they end up mistreating the person based on the sins they engage in.
“And what I struggle with is why God would put the desire to be romantically, emotionally and sexually involved with a member of the same sex into certain people. Does anyone out there believe that homosexuality is a choice? That they wake up one day and think to themselves, ‘You know what, I’m going to be gay just for kicks’?”
Firstly Q, some people do actually choose to engage in homosexual acts with others, and there are several OPENLY GAY researchers who actually claim that exclusive homosexuality is a myth (they believe that people are instead bi-sexual and that they could just as easily embrace homosexual relationships as heterosexual ones).
Having said that, there is no doubt that there are also many people who are trapped by their homosexual attractions and would love nothing more than to be free of these desires.
There are many complex reasons for this, but this still doesn’t make homosexual attraction a natural thing that should be engaged in.
There is pretty strong evidence that some people are born with a biological disposition towards alcohol addiction, but I seriously doubt whether any sane person would say to those people “hey, don’t fight your alcohol addiction! You were born that way, it’s perfectly natural, you should enjoy your attraction to alcohol and indulge your desires, after all; that’s the way God made you. How dare anyone tell you that alcoholism is wrong – you’re not hurting anybody else, as long as your happy what you do in the privacy of your own home is no one else’s business. In fact, you should form a group and organise an alcohol pride parade to celebrate your alcoholic desires and activities.”
Also, God doesn’t make people with homosexual attractions, just as God doesn’t make people disabled or with psychotic desires.
“If one were homosexual but never delved in any sexual act, would he/she still be a sinner? Didn’t Jesus say that those who commit adultery in the mind have already sinned? And so would this mean that a homosexual merely thinking of his’her desires is committing a sin?”
Q,
A person with same sex attraction who didn’t engage in homosexual acts, or active homosexual fantasies, is NOT committing a sin.
Just as a heterosexual person who faces sexual temptation in the mind is NOT committing a sin by being tempted.
Like Chris said – an active decision has to be made.
Q,
I really recommend that you check out this website – it is an HTML version of a booklet on homosexual attraction that was put out by the Catholic Medical Association in the US a few years back.
The booklet is called “Homosexuality and Hope” and it is an excellent resource that is written by Catholic medical professionals and contains references to many studies about homosexual attraction and behavior.
I think you will find it quite helpful, and hopefully it will answer your questions.
You can read it online here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0039.html#01
Maximus
you said
- It’s actually quite easy to do Q, because a person is not their sin – sin is an action that they choose to engage in, but it isn’t who they are as a person -
Can I argue that you are what you do. Actions speak louder than words etc etc. You said previously you are what you eat
- Whether you like it or not, you are what you eat – and if you’re consuming a regular diet of sexual immorality and lies about human personhood, then those very things are feeding your soul -
Would not the end product of this be sin. If what is feeding your soul causes you to sin then is that not who you are, who they are as a person?
“Can I argue that you are what you do”
You are most welcome to argue that you are what you do – but it wouldn’t be right.
If I sleep in a garage and drink motor oil does that make me a car?
Or if I eat a Big Mac, and cover myself in lettuce and put on a hamburger bun am I now a hamburger?
Of course not – I am still a human person.
So if I engage in homosexual sex, or I have a homosexual desire – I haven’t become something new – I am still a human person.
Our actions can certainly help to form our thinking and our desires, e.g. – a person who constantly watches pornography is more likely to engage in immoral sexual fantasies and lustful thoughts – but that person is NOT their sin – they haven’t become a sexual fantasy just by engaging in lustful thoughts.
A person does not become their sin – their sin is an action that is totally distinct from who they are.
Thus we love the person, but not the sins they engage in.
The Prophet and Questionable,
Keep it up! Most of us who have expressed sentiments similar to your own feel so thoroughly brow-beaten and unnecessarily chastised over this topic, and others like it, we don’t even bother any more. Keep going while you can, because what you’re saying is important.
Maximus,
It won’t surprise you to learn I disagree with a lot you’ve said on this thread (like the good ol comparing of homosexuals with alcoholics, disabled people and psychotics…) but the only one I’ve got time to call you on is:
“Also, God doesn’t make people with homosexual attractions”
Excuse me? So you have a direct, two-way line with our maker now do you? Interesting that you feel yourself qualified to spout such baloney.
Homosexual people still face a barrage of discrimination in this country, without a doubt.
But so do Catholics.
Questionable,
“I must admit that I find great difficulty drawing a line between the sin and the sinner.”
I hear you. It’s not that I have a problem loving the sinner, I have a problem with the argument that says I can truly hate the sin without it affecting the way I treat the sinner. It’s a convenient excuse that allows people to discriminate and hate. In my opinion.
“It’s not that I have a problem loving the sinner, I have a problem with the argument that says I can truly hate the sin without it affecting the way I treat the sinner.”
Captain,
Aren’t you going to have a huge problem then when you come across someone who is engaged in a sin that you absolutely loathe – like say child sexual abuse.
If you can’t differentiate between the way you treat a person and the way you treat their sin, then surely you will have no choice but to hate a person who engages in a sinful action that you totally detest?
“Excuse me? So you have a direct, two-way line with our maker now do you? Interesting that you feel yourself qualified to spout such baloney.”
Captain,
So are you telling me that you think that God makes people homosexual?
If you believe that, then surely you must also believe that God makes people Paedophiles – after all many of them also don’t choose their sexual urges.
And if God makes people Paedophiles, then surely we should stop prosecuting them, or trying to treat their desires, cause after all: that’s how God made them.
“It won’t surprise you to learn I disagree with a lot you’ve said on this thread (like the good ol comparing of homosexuals with alcoholics, disabled people and psychotics…)”
Captain,
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am trying to explain with such comparisons.
I am NOT suggesting that persons with same sex desires are on a par with psychotics (in that they are dangerous, etc) – I am simply making a valid comparison between homosexuality – which is a disorder or dysfunction of the sexuality – and other afflictions (like alcoholism) which are also dysfunctions or disorders that can effect the human person.
The funny thing is that it ends up coming across like you think that a person who has an alcoholic addiction is somehow sinister or less of a person, and someone with homosexual desires is superior to someone with an alcohol addiction, or a mental illness.
The fact is that I (Maximus), a person with alcohol addiction and a person with mental illness are all made of the same stuff – we are all human persons worthy of love and respect – it’s just that we all have different crosses to bear, and we all struggle with different types of disorders.
It’s not really that big a deal.
Bloody well said Maximus
Maximus
- If I sleep in a garage and drink motor oil does that make me a car?
- Or if I eat a Big Mac, and cover myself in lettuce and put on a hamburger bun am I now a hamburger?
Ok then,
If I engage in homesexual acts does that make me a homosexual?
If my daily actions were killling every one I see does that make me a murderer?
If I sin does that make me a sinner?
If i’m not wrong in saying you would suggest no we are still humanbeings. But is not what we do define who we are? When the day comes when I stand before God, I am pretty sure that He won’t be so kind in saying “well Prophet, because you are human and only human I will let you right in
because I made you and you are not sin” I have to disagree there mate. Because if (hopefully not) I had lived my life bombarding myself in these actions, then I have become these actions. I doesnt matter if I was a human being, I have saturated my life in these sins therefore turning myself into a mirror of these evils. Ok so a mirror only reflects but we not only reflect actions, we incorporate them into us.
A homosexual engages in homosexual acts, they ARE HORMOSEXUALS
Prophet,
1. You are confusing the issue.
A person who sins is quite obviously a sinner – but to be a sinner, one has to be a human person – animals don’t sin, and neither do rocks or vegetables.
You are not an act – you are a human person who engages in acts.
Some of those acts will be good, some will be evil.
But ultimately, whether you are a sinner or a saint – you are still totally a human being who has either engaged in good acts or in evil acts.
When a person has heterosexual pre-marital sex with another person, they are doing something sinful that has consequences, but they haven’t become that sin, and they certainly didn’t become a heterosexual by having heterosexual sex.
2. I NEVER once stated that sin does not have eternal consequences, or that sin doesn’t matter to God.
I know that sin has both eternal and temporal consequences for those who freely choose to engage in it.
I simply stated that sin is an action that is engaged in by human persons, and that our actions do not change the fact that we are human persons.
They may define our eternal destiny however, and they most certainly do matter to God.
Captain.
Do you consider homosexuality as being okay?
Maximus and Prophet,
I kind of agree with you both. I see what you are saying Maximus…
I would counter with the following…
No, but doing these things certainly makes you an idiot…! :mrgreen:
I think there are distinctions required here…if I play rugby does that make me a rugby player, or just a human being? Or is it that I am a human being who happens to play rugby, and is labelled as such?
The label doesn’t capture the essence of who I am, but it does help to define me as a person.
Although, lastly, why would anyone play rugby when one could play football?
I think we have to distinguish being ‘being’ and ‘doing.’ Yes, sin affects us, and yes, if you practice a homosexual lifestyle, that makes you a homosexual. However, it is not at the essence of WHO YOU ARE, a person created and loved by God. What we do can effect us in negative ways; but ultimately sin is something we DO not something we ARE.
Because ‘being’ is an ultimate good (’being’ means the act of existing), then necessarilyy a person who practices homosexuality is good in of themselves. Their acts are sinful, and yes, perhaps one day when the stand before the almighty their sin will condemn them; but perhaps not. We cannot judge. Even in hell though, their sin is not THEM; their sin lead them away from God but it is still not the essence of WHO THEY ARE. Otherwise, me a sinner, is screwed.
Also to remember, God does not ‘create’ homosexuals, although he does allow bad things to happen and ultimately uses them for his good. I can’t imagine the cross of having homosexual inclinations, and have deep empathy for those that do, especially those that genuinely wish to reject such feelings. Thats why I have so much respect for groups like COURAGE who try to live a chaste lifestyle. I have had homosexual friends and am comfortable being around them, loving them but of course they know how I feel. Just as I have friends living an unchaste lifestyle; I am still their friend, still hang out, laugh, dance etc, but they know where I stand and if they come to me for advice, they know my advice will err on the side of Catholic teaching, rather than what they want to hear because its easier. That is loving the sinner, hating the sin.
Thats why Christ did. He NEVER condoned immoral behaviour and told sinners such; but at the same time loved them, talked to them.
Homosexuality is just one of the many sexual perversions in our society; make no mistake that homosexuality is just the beginning of a slippery slope. In the Netherlands there is a political group who are pushing to make pedophilia legal, arguing its within their rights, and the rights of a child. In some parts of the USA, poligomous groups are pushing to have multiple marriages recognised because if the USA constitution stops defining ‘marriage’ as between a man and a women, why can’t someone have multiple wives (something many homosexual groups are upset about and disagree with while still holding their position)). Once you open the floodgates you are in real trouble.
Sorry for all the spelling mistakes guys. Late night
Speaking of movies — which was where this thread started, in case you’d forgotten — it might be B16 to the rescue again: http://www.zenit.org/article-20463?l=english
Well said Gianna.
(mutter: stealing thunder:mutter)
Captain.
Do you consider homosexuality as being justifiable
:
Do you Don?
Thank you for your inputs everyone
Questionable.
No I don’t. The reason why I asked the question of Captain is that she appears to defend homosexuality. I was not trying to be funny, just exact a response.
IMO, Maximus and Gianna present the case succinctly – a position to which I subscribe.
Don, I don’t post as much, so when I do it better be good
Gianna
With regards to #56
Very well said, very well said indeed. Thanks