In article <yVTKj.8836$Ug4.7517@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, A Brown says...
>
>>>>>While I don't deny the words of Scripture nor the Church Fathers on
>>>>>the subject, I never did understand why many seemed so inordinately
>>>>>disgusted by this particular sin and so tolerant of other ***ual
>>>>>sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures consider homo***ual
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>*** to be simply one of many forms of fornication, no worse than
>>>>>others.
>>
>>>> I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
>>
>>>Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not
>>>base their theology on Canon Law.
>>
>> You just couldn't come up with a response that makes sense, could you?
>
>Well it makes perfect sense.
No, it does not, as I already observed.
>The writer above said "scripture".
Once more, you show your incompetence at quoting. She said not just
'scripture',
but "Scripture nor the Church Fathers". The difference is crucial. It
_was_ the
Church Fathers who wrote Canon Law.
>You state Canon Law as if every Christian accept it.
No, that is not what I assumed. That is _your_ bad assumption.
> Most of the Christians
>in the USA do not.
This is not even relevant. For as I already mentioned: she said not just
'scripture', but "Scripture nor the Church Fathers". The difference is
crucial,
whether you recognize its im****tance or not.
>
>>>Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
>>>home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".
>>
>> I can't imagine why you would believe this. It is just another false
>> generalization.
>
>No it's quite true. The sins we are more forgiving of are the ones that
hit
>home.
You are simply repeating the same bad false generalization, with no
evidence to
back it up.
>
>>>I assume that homo***uality was thought at the time to be affecting
>>>only a few perverts on the edge of society.
>>
>> But this is a _bad_ assumption.
>
>No, it is not.
Yes, it is. The do***entation of the Philippics and of St. Clement of
Alexandria
shows how false it is.
> Since there was no indication of the existance of
>responsible, charitable, humble, loving and dedicated homo***uals at the
>time.
Since there is not even any indication that such _ever_ existed, this is
irrelevant. It is not "responsible, charitable, humble, and loving" to
lead your
'beloved' into such terrible sin.
>..we can assume the "assumptition" is true.
Your conclusion does not even follow from your stated premise. And your
premise
is false anyway.
>
>>>The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than
>>>the sins of others.
>>
>> And here is another.
>>
>>>i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any
>>>surprise that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be
>>>stoned to death?
>>
>> You just had to dig yourself deeper into confusion, didn't you? We
>> were not _talking_ about the Mosaic Law. But it is the Mosaic Law, not
>> Canon Law, that called for her to be "stoned to death".
>
>No confusion....we are talking about Scripture.
No, we were not. You were, but only because you failed to understand:
Catherine
said "scripture AND Church Fathers".
>
>>>What happens to to the man involved? I guess the writers of the law
had
>>>much more understanding for him.....than her.
>>
>> Then you guess wrong -- again.
>
>No, I was correct, there is no death penalty for the man.
You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole. You were wrong,
you
are still wrong, for the exact reason already stated.
>
>> But for the sin _you_ are in favor of, the penalty is a much longer
>> period of excommunication. That makes it clear which is regarded as
>> the more serious, incurable sin.
>
>I am not a Catholic, so excommunication from "Rome" doesn't have any
effect
>for me.
It is not just Rome that excommunicates you.
>
>My faith is in Christ alone.
If it were, you would not be advocating and defending gross sin. But you
are, so
no, your faith is not in Christ. You cannot change this fact by repeating
the
same false assertions over and over.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
