Homosexuals & Satanism

9czprbBKi

Occasionally, followers of the Natural Law struggle to explain why homosexual acts are so wrong. In fact, some so-called conservatives have given up altogether and now welcome homosexuality under the guise of tolerance. Perhaps a refresher is in order.

When asked why homosexual acts between two consenting adults are wrong, many will answer simply, “Because God said so.” This may seem like a cop out, but it’s actually the best possible reason one can offer. God has explicitly denounced this particular sin in no uncertain terms, and that should be enough to convince anyone.

But it is only natural for us to desire a deeper understanding, so we must be prepared to give a more-full answer. Perhaps the most effective argument runs thus. Homosexual acts are terribly immoral and detrimental because they divorce sexual relations from their intended purpose. These actions establish the principle, “If it feels good–do it,” which is nothing more than a synonym for Satanism’s only commandment, “Do what thou wilt.”

Why do people engage in homosexual acts? Because they think it feels good. Why do people engage in pedophilia, molestation, and bestiality? Because they think it feels good. And this “feel good” principle necessarily leads to the destruction of all society. For how can a nation–being logically consistent–punish a criminal who is only doing what feels good?

Sexual relations have a very definite purpose within a very definite framework. Anyone who deviates from this established order is choosing to worship Satan instead of God.

 

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Homosexuals & Satanism

  1. Fornication, adultery, and contraception likewise are sins that people commit because they think it feels good, but which actually go against the purpose for which God intended us to have those feelings. Modern psychology tells us that man is nothing more than an animal; if that is true, then it follows that there is no higher principle to govern our lives than pleasure and emotion. It leads directly to hedonism.

    But there is a hierarchy of sexual sin. The passions that lead to fornication between a man and a woman are natural passions, but the sin lies in acting on them outside of marriage or in a way contrary to that which leads to the conception of a child. Homosexuality is specifically different. To deliberately entertain an impure thought about a member of the same sex is already to commit something intrinsically contrary to nature. This generic idea, that it is always unnatural to consent to a kind of feeling of attraction, is more repugnant to the modern mentality than the Catholic attitude toward heterosexual relationships, namely, that the attraction is natural but ought to be controlled. This is because modern men, even when they base their actions on rationality, do so according to a subjective and autonomous rationality, which is susceptible to be governed by the passions. If we say with Kant that one must always act on a universal maxim, then the same law that seems to forbid a homosexual man from pursuing a romantic relationship would likewise forbid us all. However, from the standpoint of natural law, the difference is precisely that a homosexual attraction is incapable of being controlled and directed to a natural end. That is what makes it a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

    The satanic maxim, “Do what thou wilt,” is actually more insidious than base hedonism. The full law as written by Crowley is: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.” It is an explicit inversion of St. Augustine’s “Love, and do what thou wilt.” The latter means, of course, that whatever we will do in the love of God is pleasing to Him. By contrast, what Crowley means is something akin to “follow your bliss.” We are commanded (by the spirit who supposedly dictated this law to Crowley) first to discover our “true will,” which is revealed to us by our “higher self” which in Crowley’s magical system would seem to be a demonic spirit. Whatever that will commands is one’s law, and therefore one must love it above all things. My true will may differ from your true will; in fact, they may contradict, and in an Hegelian sense they must; therefore war is both inevitable and good, insofar as it fulfills the true will of the combatants. And so is every imaginable kind of transgression, on the same condition.

    Homosexuals actually suffer profoundly. Like degenerates of all kinds, they can never find true happiness so long as their lives are ruled by their vices. Why then do they advocate for their rights — why must they insist on going to war against God, making a mockery of marriage and of religion? Not merely because it feels good, but because they believe something to the effect that it is their true will.

    1. Now I think I know how St. Bonaventure felt when he compared his writings with those of St. Thomas Aquinas. He felt his writings were so inferior to St. Thomas’ that he simply threw them away.

      I must thank you for taking the time to write all of this out. I’ve benefited immensely from your explanation of things, and I absolutely agree with every single word.

      Could you please comment more often?

  2. For apologetics, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, molestation, and bestiality will turn many people away from you. Stay with “God doesn’t make mistakes.”

    Following only what the mind (or spirit) desires, regardless of the body, is Gnosticism. This heresy will never go away.

  3. Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no fee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wr6ote. If “OK” please let me know via email.

    Autumn
    AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com

    1. You don’t really believe that. Not all discrimination is distasteful. Should a murderer be treated equally with an honorable and productive citizen? Should we not discriminate against that murderer and treat him more harshly than his innocent neighbor?

      The question really has nothing to do with equality or discrimination. It has everything to do with morality. Pro- homosexuals know they can never win this battle, and that is why you’ll almost never hear arguments defending the morality of homosexual actions.

  4. Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Homosexuality and paedophilia are not synonymous. You can’t ignore laws just because they are inconvenient. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowed equal marriages. Religious conservatives claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage was Unconstitutional. Bullshit. Equal protection is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Business owners should be free to decide who they will serve. When you run for elected office, either uphold a law that grants same-sex couples equal marriage or fight from a legal standpoint to defend your views that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, which technically it is not. Marriage is defined specifically as an interpersonal union.

    1. It doesn’t matter if every court in the world codified gay marriage because it would be an unjust law. It would be a direct contradiction of God’s law, which trumps man’s law, and every reasonable person would be duty -bound to ignore such laws.

      1. So if you believe in God and Christianity and that homosexuality is a sin, there is a very simple answer: Then you don’t marry a man. And you don’t conduct homosexual acts. But let other people, that don’t believe in your religion and don’t believe that these acts are sins, do whatever they want (as long as they are not hurting anyone of course so don’t try to flip this argument to saying that murder should then also be legal). What is written in the bible, and therefore what YOUR religion tells you is moral and correct for you, is no more relevant than what is written in the Quran which tells muslims what is moral and correct.

      2. Oh that’s silly. I’m sure you don’t believe murder is morally acceptable, yet surely you’ll object if someone tries to murder your loved ones. Truth and morality are not subjective. I’m not opposed to homosexuality simply because I feel it’s wrong for me–I’m opposed because it is in fact objectively wrong.

      3. Tom Naegele, if you don’t have any desire to be around gays or lesbians, then try to avoid them. Just because something may be offensive to some people should not be cause for it to be outlawed. The Dictionary has already defined marriage. People who want laws to define marriage are dismissive of the fact that the Dictionary already defined it.

    1. Polygamy is objectively immoral–the natural law even teaches us that. That means that every reasonable man is required to abstain from polygamy regardless of any man-made laws. If his religion demanded polygamy, natural reason alone would tell him that his religion is false.

  5. Tom Naegele, I was using polygamy as an example. Now, if I recall correctly, King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines. By that logic, is polygamy not only a moral practice but something we should all actively practice?

  6. Tom Naegele, clearly you do not see the point. If polygamy is immoral, which is an opinion, not a fact, can you explain to me logically why those who live by and preach Biblical messages do not practice something that was specifically mentioned in the Bible?

    1. It’s a fact that polygamy is immoral. You keep saying that polygamy was “mentioned” in the Bible, but you can’t tell me that it was condoned or encouraged.

      As far as polygamy being immoral, it’s a simple matter of the natural law. Right reason tells us that a united family life is the best condition for children to be raised, and polygamy renders that impossible. Polygamy also destroys fidelity, and it is impossible for two to become one flesh–which is the true nature of marriage.

  7. Murder is obviously unacceptable. However, women who abort babies that they did not mean to have when they have them are guilty of murder. So are the physicians who perform the abortions. They just get away with it while an axe murderer gets life in prison or the death penalty.

  8. I said that I was against abortion, yes. However, I am not going to mandate my views on that topic be held by other people. This is the difference between me and other people who have views that are similar to my own that do want to mandate their views. On the matter of taxation, I oppose my tax dollars funding fruitless endavors like the war on drugs. Why not wage war on tobacco and alcohol as well as the other drugs that are around if you wage a war on drugs? Wage war on all of them. Problem solved. From the standpoint of taxation, I prefer a flat tax or a consumption tax over what we currently have. Am I opposed to taxation? No, because there is a cost to government. Am I opposed to excessive taxation? Yes, due to the fact that money is better spent by the individual that earned it than the government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s