Merry Christmas and love from the Pope

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ruu
The church's "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing really takes some getting used to....

In simplistic terms, yet accurate, yes. "Love the sinner, hate the sin". A distinction many posting here seem to be missing or failing to understand.

No, you seem to be missing that you cannot separate sin from sinner with regard to homosexuality. According to the church a homosexual is not a sinner unless he engages in homosexual sex, i.e. acts as his nature inclines. This only makes sense if you believe homosexuality is a choice. It took the church a few hundred years to accept heliocentrism as truth, eventually they may come around to the fact that a proportion of the population is, has been, and always will be homosexual, and that it isn't some whimsical choice people engage in like shoplifting or adultery. In the eyes of the church, a gay person who acts gay is a sinner who sins, and in order to stop being a sinner he would need to "fight" being gay. Might as well ask a black person to stop being black.

Yes,I can, because we are humans, intelligent creatures. We can decide what we do regardless of choice or genetic disposition. Engaging in a homosexual act is a choice. Engaging in hetersexual activity is a choice. If one chooses to engage in a homosexual act, then that act is immoral and a sin.

The Church is not condemning the person for being a homosexual unless they are choosing to be so, its the sin that is being condemned.

So when exactly did you choose to ignore your attraction to members of the same sex and opt to be straight?

The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

 

[Throckmorton]

I guess you never forget lessons learned in the Hitler Youth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

"Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

"Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

There IS no logical basis. It's based on the Old Testament saying that a man should not lay with another man. For one thing, that isn't a logical reason to consider something immoral. For another thing, by the same standard, eating shellfish is immoral

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

"Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral.

 

[Julius Shark]

I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral. - DealMonkey

This is not a logical or rational matter. It is a spiritual matter.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

"Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

Maybe centuries or millenia ago there was a legitimate concern that homosexuality was a choice and the church (or society) feared that if enough people opted to have same-sex relationships that the species would cease propagating over time and eventually disappear. So props to 2000 year ago philosophers working with what they knew to keep the species from going extinct.

But today we should pride ourselves on having a tad bit more knowledge about sexuality. We know a certain percentage of the population is born gay. We know that people cannot be "cured" or "lustrated" into the "correct" sexual preference, ask Ted Haggard. So continuing to label a perfectly natual human occurance as immoral for no other reason than 2000 years ago it seemed like a good idea is simply the religious dogmatic inertia of tradition working against modern scientific understanding of human nature.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
There IS no logical basis. It's based on the Old Testament saying that a man should not lay with another man. For one thing, that isn't a logical reason to consider something immoral. For another thing, by the same standard, eating shellfish is immoral

And how did you come to that conclusion? You have no idea how the Catholic Church formulates its moral teachings. Kindly keep your ignorance to yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral. - DealMonkey

This is not a logical or rational matter. It is a spiritual matter.

Claiming that it's a "spiritual matter" doesn't begin to respond to my query.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
Maybe centuries or millenia ago there was a legitimate concern that homosexuality was a choice and the church (or society) feared that if enough people opted to have same-sex relationships that the species would cease propagating over time and eventually disappear. So props to 2000 year ago philosophers working with what they knew to keep the species from going extinct.

But today we should pride ourselves on having a tad bit more knowledge about sexuality. We know a certain percentage of the population is born gay. We know that people cannot be "cured" or "lustrated" into the "correct" sexual preference, ask Ted Haggard. So continuing to label a perfectly natual human occurance as immoral for no other reason than 2000 years ago it seemed like a good idea is simply the religious dogmatic inertia of tradition working against modern scientific understanding of human nature.

:roll: It's amazing how ignorant the enlightened, anti-religious zealots are on this forum. You rail against a philosophy that you know absolutely nothing about. Congratulations.

 

[Julius Shark]

Claiming that it's a "spiritual matter" doesn't begin to respond to my query. DealMonkey

It is my answer and it is complete.

If you want something different, try this. The pee pee shouldn't go where the poo poo comes out. It's not designed for that and it's unhealthy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
Maybe centuries or millenia ago there was a legitimate concern that homosexuality was a choice and the church (or society) feared that if enough people opted to have same-sex relationships that the species would cease propagating over time and eventually disappear. So props to 2000 year ago philosophers working with what they knew to keep the species from going extinct.

But today we should pride ourselves on having a tad bit more knowledge about sexuality. We know a certain percentage of the population is born gay. We know that people cannot be "cured" or "lustrated" into the "correct" sexual preference, ask Ted Haggard. So continuing to label a perfectly natual human occurance as immoral for no other reason than 2000 years ago it seemed like a good idea is simply the religious dogmatic inertia of tradition working against modern scientific understanding of human nature.

:roll: It's amazing how ignorant the enlightened, anti-religious zealots are on this forum. You rail against a philosophy that you know absolutely nothing about. Congratulations.

Is that the same department that handles advocating combatting heliocentric theory? Face it, if the bible said "man that layeth with other man are of no threat to the men who lay with woman, look not with scorn upon them" then you'd be here defending that "philosophy." There is no logic behind their position on the issue, modern relationships just don't jive with the written word they have and therefore it's a sin. The Pope pretty much single-handedly dismissed the centuries long understanding that unbaptized babies linger in purgatory for eternity, so eventually one will come along who will "reinterpret" the scripture to find that gays are not TeH Evil. May take them some time, decades, centuries, whatever. They'll eventually come around, late as usual.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
There IS no logical basis. It's based on the Old Testament saying that a man should not lay with another man. For one thing, that isn't a logical reason to consider something immoral. For another thing, by the same standard, eating shellfish is immoral

And how did you come to that conclusion? You have no idea how the Catholic Church formulates its moral teachings. Kindly keep your ignorance to yourself.

I do have an idea because I grew up Catholic.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

One of the doctrine's of the Catholic Church is the idea that the Church itself is above sin and is without error.

Do we really believe that is the case? I don't. I think the Church's teaching, seeded in a long history and tradition, still will always have a lot to learn. Modern religion and modern religious freedom condemns many of the things that the Catholic church is associated with from the past. Inquisitions, sanctioned violence between Christians and Jews just to name a couple of examples.

You may rely on these Catholic teachings for now, but who is to say what the future of religion will bring for tommorow? One would hope that the Church's teachings on ethics and morality continue to grow as they always have.

As for a Religious logical basis for a counter argument to legal gay marriage. No, I do not believe such a thing exists. I'd love to see it though. My understanding is that the Catholic church believes marriage serves 2 primary purposes; Unity and Procreation.

Unity in that a man and woman are joined together. And Procreation in that a man and woman can make babies.

It is logical to state that since two men can't make a baby then they can't be married. That I can agree with. Therefore, dont marry in a catholic church wherein such logic exists.

This is a country, not a catholic church. The legal (logical) definition of marriage is NOT SOLEY dependant on the view of Catholics. Not when there are so many other different religions and creeds out there.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Claiming that it's a "spiritual matter" doesn't begin to respond to my query. DealMonkey

It is my answer and it is complete.

If you want something different, try this. The pee pee shouldn't go where the poo poo comes out. It's not designed for that and it's unhealthy.

No it's not. I demand a rational and/or logical answer. And besides I wasn't talking to you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
The resulting decree of church logic is that a homosexual person must either live a permanently celibate life, or have sex with members of the opposite sex, an act that such a person would find as unappealing as would a straight person being forced to have homosexual sex. If you accept that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is a choice and accept that both are inborn traits, but you condemn homosexual behavior as immoral "just because it is", then you are simply accepting tenets of faith over reason and there is no room for discussion.

"Just because it is" is simply your stated reason why the Church has declared homosexual acts immoral - it is not their reason. The common misconception that pervades this thread is that there is no logical foundation for the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. These foundations have been expounded over a long period of time and represent the culmination of thought on ethics by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Better yet, all of this explanation has been published, often for hundreds of years, in many languages so that people can read and understand the Church's teaching. Thus, your ignorance is the only faith entering into the discussion here - you believe that there is no logical basis for a couter-argument, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so on faith-based grounds. Wrong.

I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral.

Just one, CW, just one. I'm serious, I want to hear this.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
Is that the same department that handles advocating combatting heliocentric theory? Face it, if the bible said "man that layeth with other man are of no threat to the men who lay with woman, look not with scorn upon them" then you'd be here defending that "philosophy." There is no logic behind their position on the issue, modern relationships just don't jive with the written word they have and therefore it's a sin. The Pope pretty much single-handedly dismissed the centuries long understanding that unbaptized babies linger in purgatory for eternity, so eventually one will come along who will "reinterpret" the scripture to find that gays are not TeH Evil. May take them some time, decades, centuries, whatever. They'll eventually come around, late as usual.

If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground, you'd know that the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist, nor does it rely solely on the Bible for its teachings. But you don't. You're just an ignorant, anti-religious zealot.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I do have an idea because I grew up Catholic.

If you know, then why are you lying? Or did you forget? Or are you just another one of the very ignorant Catholics out there?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
One of the doctrine's of the Catholic Church is the idea that the Church itself is above sin and is without error.

Um, no it's not. Since the rest of your post is based on this bogus assertion, I'll leave it at that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral.

Just one, CW, just one. I'm serious, I want to hear this.

I know you're not actually interested - you're being disingenuous as always. But if you really are, you can google Thomas Aquinas and homosexuality. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time by just about any standard, so I'm sure you'll have little trouble refuting his ideas.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
One of the doctrine's of the Catholic Church is the idea that the Church itself is above sin and is without error.

Um, no it's not. Since the rest of your post is based on this bogus assertion, I'll leave it at that.

Seeing as you are so defensive about the Roman Catholic church I assumed you knew a few things about the church. I assumed wrong.

google "Infallibility of the Church"

and without getting into a long winded explaination of the point you quoted above, the Church holds the doctrine of Sacred Infallibility (Sacred Magistrerium) Papal Infallibility (established in Vatican I 1870), infallibility of ecumenical councils, and Ordinary Magisterium.
Again, without getting into a long winded discussion about it..these doctrines hold that after a certain point (and due to investigation and analysis) what is ordinary fact/teachings becomes sacred in the teachings of the church. Once 'sacred' teachings reach this level it is believed to be without error.

Also, the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" google that term too. Maybe google Vatican I...it seems like maybe you need to go back to the basics.

Since you need to learn a little more about the religion you subscribe to I will leave it at that. Which really wasn't my original point to begin with. The original point being that which you coyly avoided addressing.

I don't think you know as much of the church as you claim. And me being a former Catholic I am not surprised that the Catholic devout know so little of the religion itself.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd love to hear just one logical or rational reason why homosexual acts are immoral.

Just one, CW, just one. I'm serious, I want to hear this.

I know you're not actually interested - you're being disingenuous as always. But if you really are, you can google Thomas Aquinas and homosexuality. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time by just about any standard, so I'm sure you'll have little trouble refuting his ideas.

Googled it, got this http://www.freeessays.cc/db/18/eft6.shtml

Seems like BS to me.

And I would like to hear a reason too.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Googled it, got this http://www.freeessays.cc/db/18/eft6.shtml

Seems like BS to me.

And I would like to hear a reason too.

Wow. You went to a site devoted to plagiarism (FREE plagiarism, at that) for a critique of Aquinas' take on the theory of natural law. Not only that, but you dismiss said theory based on what you found there. Truly, you are an idiot.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Hey, you said to google it. If you want me to read a specific article on a topic I don't really care about then post a link.

-Edit- Oh, and I "I'm feeling lucky"ed it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Seeing as you are so defensive about the Roman Catholic church I assumed you knew a few things about the church. I assumed wrong.

google "Infallibility of the Church"

and without getting into a long winded explaination of the point you quoted above, the Church holds the doctrine of Sacred Infallibility (Sacred Magistrerium) Papal Infallibility (established in Vatican I 1870), infallibility of ecumenical councils, and Ordinary Magisterium.
Again, without getting into a long winded discussion about it..these doctrines hold that after a certain point (and due to investigation and analysis) what is ordinary fact/teachings becomes sacred in the teachings of the church. Once 'sacred' teachings reach this level it is believed to be without error.

Also, the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" google that term too. Maybe google Vatican I...it seems like maybe you need to go back to the basics.

It seems like you don't know what "ex cathedra" means, particularly not in this context. The pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, which is not the same as saying that he speaks ex cathedra. This simply means that the pope's word is the final authority on matters pertaining to faith or morals when stated in a definitive fashion (which is very rare indeed, since most of the social teachings of the Church are not put forth in this manner). Almost all of the "infallible" teachings of the Church are the dogmas, which are completely separate from social teachings. If you don't believe the dogmas, then you are not technically a Catholic, even if you were baptized. If you had read your own link, you would have realized that. Of course, the Wiki article has some flaws, but I'm not about to go into that much detail here, particularly since this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Since you need to learn a little more about the religion you subscribe to I will leave it at that. Which really wasn't my original point to begin with. The original point being that which you coyly avoided addressing.

I don't think you know as much of the church as you claim. And me being a former Catholic I am not surprised that the Catholic devout know so little of the religion itself.

Right. You're making my head spin, but it's with your ego, not your supposed demonstration of knowledge.