hyperdulia again Posted December 21, 2004 Author Posted December 21, 2004 In which case what exactly was the Temptation of Christ?
qfnol31 Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 The would have the temptation to sin I believe, but they wouldn't have the temptation from concupiscence. Adam and Eve were tempted to sin, and they were without concupiscence.
Apotheoun Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Dec 20 2004, 10:26 PM'] Now we are making headway. Neither suffered from the inclinaton to sin, right? Does one have to be inclined towards what Satan tepts us with? I am not particularly inclined towards murder, but recently the temptation to the act has made its presence felt. Marry and CChrist can't have strggled to resist temptation, but why can they not have been tempted? Is homosexuality the only sin we feel this way about or have we decided that they were tempted with nothing by no one? [/quote] Temptation, in and of itself, implies no concupiscential movement of the will. Christ's human will was perfectly aligned to the Divine Will, and therefore His "temptation" involved no volitional defects.
hyperdulia again Posted December 21, 2004 Author Posted December 21, 2004 OK I get it. I'm wrong and the Church is right. See how simple that is.
Guest Aluigi Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 I like the idea that homosexuality is caused by martians! :alien:
hyperdulia again Posted December 21, 2004 Author Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:31 AM'] I like the idea that homosexuality is caused by martians! :alien: [/quote] There's a very frightening bioethics group that actually does believe homosexuality is caused by aliens--well kinda.
Oik Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Okay, hyper, I see what you mean by my drawing Sarced names into the fray. My only attempt was to show that if homosexuality in the way we have been discussing (claiming the identity, not fostering the actions) is "innate" or "caused" then it would be able to be applied to all. This was obviously a bad way to go, as it seems that my point was not understood. Raelly, I just want to know how one can claim an identity that is contrary to the nature of Christ and still be faithful.
Oik Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 We are all sinners. I am not pointing anyone out. I want to know, though, how one can turn ones back on something and at the same time claim that which one has abandoned. Sincerely want and answer, not an arguement.
Apotheoun Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 The homosexual condition is not an ontological reality, it is instead a privation of the good in the will of the creature, and therefore it is not, nor can it be, a basis for personal identity. As a disordered inclination resulting from the fall of man, it has its source in the defective will of the creature afflicted with it. Clearly, this disordered inclination, like all disordered inclinations, is not in itself a sin, but it must always be borne in mind that ". . . it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." [CDF Instruction [u]Homosexualitatis Problema[/u], no. 3] One must not try to make this pathological condition into a basis for [i]rights[/i] within law, because no one has a [i]right[/i] to commit sinful acts. God bless, Todd
Oik Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 [quote]...therefore it is not, nor can it be, a basis for personal identity[/quote] Okay, I follow this and I agree. [quote]this disordered inclination, like all disordered inclinations, is not in itself a sin, but it must always be borne in mind that ". . . it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."[/quote] I agree here too. So my question is then, how can one claim to be homosexual when they agree with what you have said. Clearly one can say "I struglle with homosexuality." However, to say that one is a non-praciticing homosexual seems to me to be in direct conflict with what you are saying here. This is what I need to be cleared up.
Apotheoun Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Oik' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:26 PM']Okay, I follow this and I agree. I agree here too. So my question is then, how can one claim to be homosexual when they agree with what you have said.[/quote] There is no such thing as [i]being[/i] homosexual. The homosexual condition is a disorder of the will, and so it is not a state of being. Instead, it is a negation of the good, and so those that claim to [i]be[/i] homosexual are simply misguided. [quote name='Oik' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:26 PM']Clearly one can say "I struglle with homosexuality." However, to say that one is a non-praciticing homosexual seems to me to be in direct conflict with what you are saying here. This is what I need to be cleared up.[/quote] Correct. The homosexual inclination is not an ontological category; therefore, no one [i]is[/i] homosexual.
Socrates Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 The Church has defined homosexuality in the Catechism as "intrinsically disordered" (not just the acts, but the very state of same-sex attraction). Our Lord and Our Lady cannot have an intrinsically disordered condition. They would not have same-sex sexual attraction, and therefore could not even be tempted in this regard. I rest my case.
Apotheoun Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:50 PM'] The Church has defined homosexuality in the Catechism as "intrinsically disordered" (not just the acts, but the very state of same-sex attraction). Our Lord and Our Lady cannot have an intrinsically disordered condition. They would not have same-sex sexual attraction, and therefore could not even be tempted in this regard. I rest my case. [/quote] Agreed, because Jesus and Mary had no disordered inclinations at all.
Oik Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 [quote]Agreed, because Jesus and Mary had no disordered inclinations at all.[/quote] Agreed. Again, I apologise if my comment about our Lord and the Blessed Virgin was taken wrong or misread. [quote]The Church has defined homosexuality in the Catechism as "intrinsically disordered" (not just the acts, but the very state of same-sex attraction). Our Lord and Our Lady cannot have an intrinsically disordered condition. They would not have same-sex sexual attraction, and therefore could not even be tempted in this regard. I rest my case. [/quote] Agreed. [quote]There is no such thing as being homosexual. The homosexual condition is a disorder of the will, and so it is not a state of being. Instead, it is a negation of the good, and so those that claim to be homosexual are simply misguided.[/quote] Agreed. [quote]The homosexual inclination is not an ontological category; therefore, no one is homosexual.[/quote] Agreed. I understand the reasoning hear. I think though, the people (who claim to be homosexual) that I deal with will (unfortunatly) need a more concise and to the point explanation. Thanks. Hyoer, still waiting to hear from you.
hyperdulia again Posted December 22, 2004 Author Posted December 22, 2004 I am a homosexual. I am an orthodox Catholic. We are not debating me.
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) [quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Dec 22 2004, 12:56 AM'] I am a homosexual. I am an orthodox Catholic. We are not debating me. [/quote] Bro... Sexual attraction does not make us who we are. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how it makes us who we are. Ontological deals with the nature of being, existing... You are an Orthodox Catholic. Hetro or homo - does not make us who we are. I am Catholic... Christ makes me what I am. To many people today are fixated on the carnal, I'm not saying you. I'm saying that the media, hollywood, NY, etc... all what us to get fixated on sexual issues. Why do you think that is? What purpose does it server for the world to be fixated on sex? It serves for the fall of man. It is what the devil wants... he wants us to be fixated on sex because it is one of the easists ways to cause our downfall. Bro... I commited fornication. I was a very bad man. Growing up I was programmed by TV, peers, my own father from about age 3, etc... to indulge in sin. Sin did not make me what I was or what I am. It had nothing to do with my "being". It was something I did or wanted to do... it didn't have anything to do with what I was. Does that help explain what he meant better? People are so much more than what they want to do. (this all is of course from an ontological level... to be something one must partake in something... I was a fornicator when I fornicated... I no longer fornicate and haven't in many years, therefore I cannot be a fornicator) God Bless Bro, Merry Christ Mass, and Keep up the good fight, max Edited December 22, 2004 by ironmonk
hyperdulia again Posted December 22, 2004 Author Posted December 22, 2004 Monk, I know what he means, but there is a problem. The Church herself does this kind of labelling. She uses the word homosexual. If she did not I would not. Besides I think it's dangerous to forget what dear little sins we are the most susceptble to. The word helps me remember. The word gives me a great deal more credibility when I speak with GLBT folk about Christ's will for them.
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Dec 22 2004, 01:25 AM'] Monk, I know what he means, but there is a problem. The Church herself does this kind of labelling. She uses the word homosexual. If she did not I would not. Besides I think it's dangerous to forget what dear little sins we are the most susceptble to. The word helps me remember. The word gives me a great deal more credibility when I speak with GLBT folk about Christ's will for them. [/quote] I understand bro... that's why I added the parenthesis tidbit at the bottom... I know the Church uses the labels... they were first used by the Apostles in Scripture. He italicized the "[i]is[/i]" and said on an "[i]ontological level[/i]", so that's why I thought you misunderstood what he was meaning. God Bless bro, max
Paladin D Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Hyper, no matter what you're struggling with: we love you. [b]H7p3R r0x0R$!!!![/b]
Oik Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Between Iron Monk's and Hyper's reply, I agree.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now