Posted on 11/17/2009 10:48:43 PM PST by malkee
Of course He does, because He's at least as smart as I am. To distinguish between two things does not imply APPROVAL of either one of them.
I will try and keep in mind your vast intellect when I am in need of Heavenly assistance. Exactly where can I find that the Heavenly Father distinguishes one sin as to another when it comes to pedophilia and homosexual abuse? Most especially when the sin is committed in using His Name. I can't wait for the answer.
You would be well-advised to keep in mind the resource that is my vast intellect.
Why WOULDN’T God distinguish between one sin and another? What is OBJECTIONABLE about the idea?
As I said, distinguishing between one sin and another doesn’t imply approval of either one. It doesn’t even imply that one sin is less grave than the other.
I just 'love' it when flesh need to lord it over those that are beneath them.
Why WOULDN’T God distinguish between one sin and another? What is OBJECTIONABLE about the idea? As I said, distinguishing between one sin and another doesn’t imply approval of either one. It doesn’t even imply that one sin is less grave than the other.
Why which would be the first 'sin' claiming the status of being sent of God or using said claim to take a prey? Or the shuffling said raptor off to another house to for fresh innocent prey? But hey philosophize away.
See I have Catholic in-laws, and some of them call me an 'outlaw' because I am not one of them in blood and 'spirit'. So I am quite familiar with the process of placing values on 'sin'. And there are just some in the 'spirit' are are NEVER ever able to 'sin' because they are earthly representatives of God. Apparently it is so ingrained that it is impossible to understand how it sounds to philosophize degrees of sin.
ping
First sin = The homosexual “raptor” who preyed on young men placed under his protection and over whom he was trusted with their supervision as a holy man representing the Church.
Second sin = The bishops, the fellow homosexual and liberal priests who did NOT force prosecutions and exposure on the homosexual predators. Regardless of their reasons or excuses, they too sinned.
Third sin = You. And others like this inane “researcher” who are trying to use the homosexual raptors to attack the remaining 95% of priests who are not homosexual with a single brush. The ones in the media and the Church who are covering up the remaining always-liberal, always homosexual priests and nuns who hide their sins behind further lies.
No it's textbook ebophilia and that has been identified as normal behavior for homosexuals.
LOL, I feeeeeel the love. See I got over 30 years of experience in this kind of judgment. What is as sure as the sun coming up every morning is the need to accuse anybody that does not voice the program is a sinner. Now how about you shuffle me off into some new village so I can repeat my sins?
Ephebophilia is a term originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century for a chronophilia in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19,[1][2] and recently revived by Ray Blanchard.[2] The term ephebophilia is used only to describe the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. In sexual ethics, it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old.[3]
In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1] hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent children, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children.[4] However, the term pedophilia has commonly been used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development.[5] Clinically, ephebophilia is not considered a mental disorder unless it affects the ephebophile's life in a destructive way.[6][7] Acting upon ephebophilic preference can be illegal, for example, when the adolescent is below the legal age of consent.
It takes time to dream up ways to obfuscate the obvious influence of faggotry.
Ah I forgot to retract my question, see just to ask questions makes me a sinner on the same order as the perps. I am waiting for my relocation orders so I can escape punishment.
“some friends of mine fled the seminaries in the 80’s because of rampant homosexuality among the faculty (priests). Wish it weren’t true. Then of course there was the stupid liberalism.”
Good thing for me my father did the same thing. But he quit during the late 60’s saying even back then over half the seminary was homo.
You, sir, have not conducted yourself after the manner of a rational person. In fact, your response to me is a giant non-sequitur.
You asked a question. I offered an answer.
Do you not like the answer? Do you disagree with the answer? Are you capable of discussing matters rationally? Are you limited in your responses to wild-eyed emoting?
The world wonders ...
You, sir, have not conducted yourself after the manner of a rational person. In fact, your response to me is a giant non-sequitur.
You asked a question. I offered an answer.
Do you not like the answer? Do you disagree with the answer? Are you capable of discussing matters rationally? Are you limited in your responses to wild-eyed emoting?
The world wonders ...
Well good on you.
You, sir, have not conducted yourself after the manner of a rational person. In fact, your response to me is a giant non-sequitur.
NOT a sir! I have NO issue with your response, but after being told that to asked questions I am 3rd in line same as the rest of the participants as sinner, how else can I respond?
You asked a question. I offered an answer.
And I did NOT argue with your answer.
Do you not like the answer? Do you disagree with the answer? Are you capable of discussing matters rationally? Are you limited in your responses to wild-eyed emoting? The world wonders ...
It is not whether I like or dislike your answer. Emoting you ask.... No IF you have read the thread then you would understand that I have been placed in the same holding pen as the perps.
I do NOT disagree with your post, but then obviously I do not have enough medical training to know the differences.
You got an answer.
Your reply to said answer was snotty. IMO.
I'll weigh in: trying to obfuscate the difference between pedophilia and homosexual predation is sinful. It is enabling the homosexual predators to hide the true nature of their crimes, and it is inhibiting efforts to prevent such crimes in the future. It is a form of "accessory before and after the fact."
I don't judge the state of your soul, nor do I suggest any motive for your actions.
Your actions on this thread have been of an obfuscatory nature.
When I took problems in Sociology admittedly some decades ago (1970’s) the professor taught that ebophilia was determined by whether the minor child was pubescent (ebophilia) or prepubescent (pedophilia). This certainly corresponds to the ages used in that Wiki article.
When I recently took a course required by our Diocese for teaching, they also tried to disassociate homosexuality from the abuse of minors scandal. When I challenged them on it, they found that the materials stated that sexual attraction to pubescent children is considered a norm in same sex attraction.
Even with that staring them in the face they could not associate homosexuality with the scandal.
Hey it is a ‘snotty’ proposition to be committing sin against children of any age in the name of the Heavenly Father.
You aren’t addressing the question at all.
Sins are of different kinds. And sins are of different gravity.
Noting this fact in no way implies approval of any sin.
You haven’t begun to explain why these points are objectionable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.