Merry Christmas and love from the Pope

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 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.

So you admit that you don't care about the topic and are just trolling? It only took you about 20 posts in this thread to do it. Congratulations.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 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.

So you admit that you don't care about the topic and are just trolling? It only took you about 20 posts in this thread to do it. Congratulations.

I don't care about what some random philosopher said. You want to change opinions, provide facts and try a little harder.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Also to explain why I don't vale the opinions of philosophers very much, I'll bring up one argument I recall making in some random religious thread a while ago.

If I say that god told me that you CycloWizzard are a homosexual, can you prove me wrong? The answer is no, and pubic opinion doesn't count.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you can get a good look at the bull shit beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality here.

Basically they argue that because homosexuality is bad gay marriage is bad. There isn't a shred of thinking there that isn't anything but bigotry. God created men and women to procreate. Marriage reaffirms Jesus. It's a pile of hog doo doo. It's noting but doctrinally opinion. Not an absolute in sight.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I don't care about what some random philosopher said. You want to change opinions, provide facts and try a little harder.

You're just ignorant all around, aren't you? Aquinas is hardly a random philosopher, and you wouldn't change your position no matter what was said in this thread.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I don't care about what some random philosopher said. You want to change opinions, provide facts and try a little harder.

You're just ignorant all around, aren't you? Aquinas is hardly a random philosopher, and you wouldn't change your position no matter what was said in this thread.

I can say the same to you.

And I'm still waiting for that reason.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you can get a good look at the bull shit beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality here.

Basically they argue that because homosexuality is bad gay marriage is bad. There isn't a shred of thinking there that isn't anything but bigotry. God created men and women to procreate. Marriage reaffirms Jesus. It's a pile of hog doo doo. It's noting but doctrinally opinion. Not an absolute in sight.

Still struggling with the whole literacy thing, huh? Allow me to assist you with some text from your own link:

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ?must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided?.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however ?objectively disordered?(9) and homosexual practices are ?sins gravely contrary to chastity?.(10)

I'll also include this, since no one believes that any possible justification for stating that homosexual acts are immoral could exist:

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They ?play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour?.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law ? like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy ? to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

Unfortunately, since few here can conceive of the millenia-old idea, supported by virtually any philosopher of note, of the state as a moral agent, I don't anticipate many here will read or understand anything said here. Please feel free to prove me wrong - I hope I am.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I can say the same to you.

Yes, you could, but that would just be yet another demonstration of your ignorance. I've provided plenty of reasons in this thread alone as to why you should question mine.

And I'm still waiting for that reason.

See above.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I don't care about what some random philosopher said. You want to change opinions, provide facts and try a little harder.

You're just ignorant all around, aren't you? Aquinas is hardly a random philosopher, and you wouldn't change your position no matter what was said in this thread.

Why don't you stop with the Aquinas or Pope crap and make your own points even if they are the same. I say these folks are bigots and you say they're famous philosophers or have thousands of years of thinking behind them. I don't care if they have tradition or are famous. They are full of shit. There is nothing natural about their bigotry. They speak as if they were God. They are just assholes. Homosexuality is completely natural. We see it all over the place. The church speaks of good and evil but there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of language. Homosexual chimps don't call each other evil. Language is memory of the past and is dead. There is no room for evil for those awake in the now. The present takes up all the room in being here. One can't be and have any thought. No thought, no past, no memory, no words, no sin. Those without sin cast no stones.

You are evil because you create it. Do you see?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you can get a good look at the bull shit beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality here.

Basically they argue that because homosexuality is bad gay marriage is bad. There isn't a shred of thinking there that isn't anything but bigotry. God created men and women to procreate. Marriage reaffirms Jesus. It's a pile of hog doo doo. It's noting but doctrinally opinion. Not an absolute in sight.

Still struggling with the whole literacy thing, huh? Allow me to assist you with some text from your own link:

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ?must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided?.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however ?objectively disordered?(9) and homosexual practices are ?sins gravely contrary to chastity?.(10)

I'll also include this, since no one believes that any possible justification for stating that homosexual acts are immoral could exist:

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They ?play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour?.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law ? like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy ? to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

Unfortunately, since few here can conceive of the millenia-old idea, supported by virtually any philosopher of note, of the state as a moral agent, I don't anticipate many here will read or understand anything said here. Please feel free to prove me wrong - I hope I am.

Just the bullshit I was speaking of.

 

[Moonbeam]

The bottom line, CW, is that you are infected with a disease. You are a bigot who believes in a Bible based prejudice against homosexuality and from that, and that alone you invent all kinds of reasons which justify that prejudice. You are an arrogant asshole who thinks that because some people were born with a sexual desire for people of the same sex, they should lead lives without sexual pleasure. How sick and disgusting of you. You and your little tin horned god are a pair of assholes. You care not that your thinking destroys the love of other people. You are a monster and you are evil. But you are forgiven because you know not what you do.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you can get a good look at the bull shit beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality here.

Basically they argue that because homosexuality is bad gay marriage is bad. There isn't a shred of thinking there that isn't anything but bigotry. God created men and women to procreate. Marriage reaffirms Jesus. It's a pile of hog doo doo. It's noting but doctrinally opinion. Not an absolute in sight.

Still struggling with the whole literacy thing, huh? Allow me to assist you with some text from your own link:

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ?must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided?.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however ?objectively disordered?(9) and homosexual practices are ?sins gravely contrary to chastity?.(10)

I'll also include this, since no one believes that any possible justification for stating that homosexual acts are immoral could exist:

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They ?play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour?.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law ? like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy ? to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

Unfortunately, since few here can conceive of the millenia-old idea, supported by virtually any philosopher of note, of the state as a moral agent, I don't anticipate many here will read or understand anything said here. Please feel free to prove me wrong - I hope I am.

Thank you, that was much more helpful believe it or not.

It seems that your justification of homosexual marriage being immoral and wrong is based on a combination of made up laws (eg, moral law) based purely on opinion to support your view, belief that homosexuality is purely a choice, unsupported assumptions, fear and religious beliefs.

It is your opinion which you and your church are entitled to, but you have no right to force your opinions onto others. There is no justification to force this on others.


-Are you condemning single parents, be it though death or choice? Is one mother alone better then two mothers? There is no male father figure in either, and both have the same ability/ease/trouble to bring in a substitute father figure. The only difference is that it is different from the majority in that there is a second mother.
-There is no shortage of humans on the planet, we in fact could do with less.
-Homosexuality occurs in nature, it has been widely documented in both the wild and captivity. To claim it is purely a choice flies in the face of reason. If you believe in a personal god then he must have made people homosexual on purpose.
-You fear, according to your beliefs, that by making homosexuality acceptable that heterosexual people will turn into homosexuals, such as your son.
-Your religion says that homosexuality is wrong because god or those who speak for god have said so. This is not proof, there is no reason to believe it, it is only the belief that it is true.
-And your religion did not invent marriage, you do not own it. Your church can define marriage for those who chose to be members, but you have no say over those who are not.

-edit- Oh and before you fly into a rage, this is a debate you are engaged in. If you think I am wrong, point it out and give a reason why.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bottom line, CW, is that you are infected with a disease. You are a bigot who believes in a Bible based prejudice against homosexuality and from that, and that alone you invent all kinds of reasons which justify that prejudice. You are an arrogant asshole who thinks that because some people were born with a sexual desire for people of the same sex, they should lead lives without sexual pleasure. How sick and disgusting of you. You and your little tin horned god are a pair of assholes. You care not that your thinking destroys the love of other people. You are a monster and you are evil. But you are forgiven because you know not what you do.

You are an illiterate, pseudo-intellectual who feigns enlightenment in an effort to gratify his need for superiority. This is most ironic because you can't grasp the simplest ideas or that someone else might contradict your own hedonistic beliefs without ever invoking any sort of religious document, let alone a theology-based argument. How sad that your only recourse is to attack me personally using a litany of fallacies since you are left mentally defenseless against the simplest statements with any logical foundation.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why don't you stop with the Aquinas or Pope crap and make your own points even if they are the same. I say these folks are bigots and you say they're famous philosophers or have thousands of years of thinking behind them. I don't care if they have tradition or are famous. They are full of shit.

The fact that virtually every other person who has ever lived values the opinions of these philosophers should indicate that perhaps you are the one who is full of shit.

There is nothing natural about their bigotry. They speak as if they were God. They are just assholes. Homosexuality is completely natural. We see it all over the place. The church speaks of good and evil but there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of language. Homosexual chimps don't call each other evil. Language is memory of the past and is dead. There is no room for evil for those awake in the now. The present takes up all the room in being here. One can't be and have any thought. No thought, no past, no memory, no words, no sin. Those without sin cast no stones.

You are evil because you create it. Do you see?

And here you go again with your idiotic claims of bigotry. Unfortunately, the claim is based on your own ignorance of what bigotry means or, if you do understand its meaning (which I doubt at this point), your reliance on moral relativism. Since you're an idiot either way, I'll leave it at that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
-edit- Oh and before you fly into a rage, this is a debate you are engaged in. If you think I am wrong, point it out and give a reason why.

This is why I'm done with you: you claim to be in a debate, but you've offered nothing of substance. You didn't read what I posted, then made up something that indicates zero understanding on your part. Either you're an idiot or a liar because either you read and didn't understand or you didn't read it as you claimed.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
-edit- Oh and before you fly into a rage, this is a debate you are engaged in. If you think I am wrong, point it out and give a reason why.

This is why I'm done with you: you claim to be in a debate, but you've offered nothing of substance. You didn't read what I posted, then made up something that indicates zero understanding on your part. Either you're an idiot or a liar because either you read and didn't understand or you didn't read it as you claimed.

You are running away, you know that don't you?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You are running away, you know that don't you?

Yes, I'm running away from the stupid. Have a nice life.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You are running away, you know that don't you?

Yes, I'm running away from the stupid. Have a nice life.

If my argument is so faulty, feel free to rip it apart.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, which is not the same as saying that he speaks ex cathedra.

So this is what you come back with? The Pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra which is not the same as saying that he speaks ex cathedra?? And so therefore I don't know wtf I'm talking about?

yeah...you got me there...really. :roll: Talk about arogant.

Get your 'big boy' shoes on I'm about to take you to school.

The Vaticans Commission on the 'faults of the past'

I quote from the Report:

From a theological point of view, Vatican II distinguishes between the indefectible fidelity of the Church and the weaknesses of her members, clergy or laity, yesterday and today,(12) and therefore, between the Bride of Christ ?with neither blemish nor wrinkle...holy and immaculate? (cf. Eph 5:27), and her children, pardoned sinners, called to permanent metanoia, to renewal in the Holy Spirit. ?The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of purification and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal.?(13)

Key words bolded. "Indefectible fidelity" and "Bride of Christ" are both terms used to describe the church. Both terms which signify the Church being free from sin and error. When I say that one of the doctrines of the Church is that it believes that it is free from sin and error this is what I am referring to. Or Lets try Ephesians 5;27

and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Again, free from sin and error. Do I need to go on?

Again, not really the point of the thread, but a thread on Catholicism (Or the Infallibility of Catholicism) would be interesting.

Back to my original point, which really wasn't meant to be a slam against Catholicism. The church claims it is above error, in many ways. But Pope John II, attempted to apologize for past sins made by men within the church (mind you not past sins of the CHURCH, nor past sins of the POPES, but past sins committed by the "Children of the Church") which shows me that the tradition and bank of knowledge that you faithfully protect and defend is itself not without mistakes and sin. AND that Pope John Paul II recognized this and sought to make amends....in his own way. It is worthy to note that he encountered resistance from within the church in making his apologies (starting in 1994 and up to 2000) geee...wonder why?

His Letter in 1994 (Tertio Millennio Adveniente) as well as his apology in 2000 show me its possible that the church can and will eventually change...with alot of hardwork and with people like John Paul II...whom I grew up idolizing and still have some respect for.

John Paul II sought forgiveness for the past sins made under the Roman Catholic church. Its possible that as the church continues to error (see its positions against women becoming priests as well as its treatment of homosexuals) that the church will one day apologize and seek forgiveness for these things too.

In the meantime, all we have are people arguing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
So this is what you come back with? The Pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra which is not the same as saying that he speaks ex cathedra?? And so therefore I don't know wtf I'm talking about?

yeah...you got me there...really. :roll: Talk about arogant.

I guess my expectations for peoples' mastery of the English language is simply way too high. I expect people to say what they mean so that I don't have to guess at what they meant to say. What you said means that when the pope speaks, he does so infallibly ("the pope speaks ex cathedra"), which is simply not the case. What I said is that the pope only does this under very limited conditions, which is correct. Perhaps in the future, you should take care to say what you mean rather than something completely different. Or maybe I should call Miss Cleo before responding so she can tell me how you will change your story at a later time as it becomes convenient to do so.

Get your 'big boy' shoes on I'm about to take you to school.

The Vaticans Commission on the 'faults of the past'

I quote from the Report:

From a theological point of view, Vatican II distinguishes between the indefectible fidelity of the Church and the weaknesses of her members, clergy or laity, yesterday and today,(12) and therefore, between the Bride of Christ ?with neither blemish nor wrinkle...holy and immaculate? (cf. Eph 5:27), and her children, pardoned sinners, called to permanent metanoia, to renewal in the Holy Spirit. ?The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of purification and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal.?(13)

Key words bolded. "Indefectible fidelity" and "Bride of Christ" are both terms used to describe the church. Both terms which signify the Church being free from sin and error. When I say that one of the doctrines of the Church is that it believes that it is free from sin and error this is what I am referring to. Or Lets try Ephesians 5;27

and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Again, free from sin and error. Do I need to go on?

You are missing the point of that passage. It describes the Church as a Platonic form, which is perfect by definition - something to be grasped at. The same passage goes on to say that in reality, its members are imperfect. This means that the idea of the Church is perfect, even if its members don't always live up to that standard, which they obviously can never do owing to the human condition. This is why people think Catholicism is so ridiculous: rather than attempt to understand the totality of the philosophy and theology behind it (which is admittedly very difficult, even under the best of circumstances), they cherry-pick bits and pieces, take them out of context, and use that to try to paint the Church into a corner.

Back to my original point, which really wasn't meant to be a slam against Catholicism. The church claims it is above error, in many ways. But Pope John II, attempted to apologize for past sins made by men within the church (mind you not past sins of the CHURCH, nor past sins of the POPES, but past sins committed by the "Children of the Church") which shows me that the tradition and bank of knowledge that you faithfully protect and defend is itself not without mistakes and sin. AND that Pope John Paul II recognized this and sought to make amends....in his own way. It is worthy to note that he encountered resistance from within the church in making his apologies (starting in 1994 and up to 2000) geee...wonder why?

His Letter in 1994 (Tertio Millennio Adveniente) as well as his apology in 2000 show me its possible that the church can and will eventually change...with alot of hardwork and with people like John Paul II...whom I grew up idolizing and still have some respect for.

See above. Part of the reason there was resistance towards him writing the apologies is because he represents the Church as a whole, so his writing could be construed as a failing of the form of the Church, which is philosophically strange. He wrote them anyway, perhaps because forgiveness is one of the greatest messages of the Gospel and actually appeals to the Platonic form of what the Church should be (IMO).

John Paul II sought forgiveness for the past sins made under the Roman Catholic church. Its possible that as the church continues to error (see its positions against women becoming priests as well as its treatment of homosexuals) that the church will one day apologize and seek forgiveness for these things too.

No one in this thread has yet addressed why its teachings regarding homosexuality should be changed, despite my having given abundant reasons for why they are what they are. Saying that the Church's "treatment of homosexuals" needs to be improved is simply falling back on a complete strawman, since the Church doesn't teach anything bad about homosexuals as people. It simply frowns on homosexual sexual activity, just as it frowns on most other sexual activity - no more and no less.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
the Church doesn't teach anything bad about homosexuals as people. It simply frowns on homosexual sexual activity, just as it frowns on most other sexual activity - no more and no less.

!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

No one in this thread has yet addressed why its teachings regarding homosexuality should be changed, despite my having given abundant reasons for why they are what they are. Saying that the Church's "treatment of homosexuals" needs to be improved is simply falling back on a complete strawman, since the Church doesn't teach anything bad about homosexuals as people. It simply frowns on homosexual sexual activity, just as it frowns on most other sexual activity - no more and no less.

Everything else you posted I think you and I can actually find common ground on. You are absolutely right that it is all difficult to comprehend even under the best of circumstances. A thread on the catholic church would be interesting. I would love to talk about John Paul II's apologies. But moving on...

IMO the church should change its opinion on homosexual activity because of inconsistancy and contradiction.

Homosexual activity is condemned in the bible (Romans 1: 26-27.) But says nothing of love between homosexual couples. You can't condemn a homosexual couple for their sexual activity but bless their relationship because they are in love with one another. Man being created in the image of God means that man has the capacity to love, but by condemning sexual activity we are limiting the expression of love for homosexual couples. I think once upon a time the church made an effort to make homosexuals celebate! but where is the freedom in that?

I think that homosexual activity outside of a loving couple can be condemned by the church just like premarital sex and sexual promiscuity. But when it comes to sexual activity between committed/loving homosexuals and committed/loving heterosexuals, only heterosexual sex is allowed..regardless of love.

Also, many other things God condemns in the bible. Envy, deceit, maliciousness, sexual immorality, covetousness. Again, consistancy should be the goal. How hard would it to be to condone sexual activity in loving relationships? and leaving homosexual and heterosexual out of the equation?

 

[ZzZGuy]

Now why did god chose to make some people homosexual then turn around and call what they do evil?

Keep your faulty logic inside your church, no one is forcing you to marry gays. Just don't shove your BS down the throat of everyone else.

-edited for clarity.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Now why did god chose to make some people homosexual then turn around and call what they do evil?

Keep your faulty logic inside your church, no one is forcing you to marry gays. Just don't shove your BS down the throat of everyone else.

-edited for clarity.

Why did God create murderer's or pedophiles or rapists? Or Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Do not misunderstand, I do not compare homosexuals to this list, but rather as a refutation of your question. The ethical/philosophical/religous arguments are well beyond what can be done in an Internet forum, but the reason sin exists is well documented.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Now why did god chose to make some people homosexual then turn around and call what they do evil?

Keep your faulty logic inside your church, no one is forcing you to marry gays. Just don't shove your BS down the throat of everyone else.

-edited for clarity.

Why did God create murderer's or pedophiles or rapists? Or Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Do not misunderstand, I do not compare homosexuals to this list, but rather as a refutation of your question. The ethical/philosophical/religous arguments are well beyond what can be done in an Internet forum, but the reason sin exists is well documented.

The problem is imposing your religious beliefs onto others.

And yes, why did god create murderer's or pedophiles or rapists? God created man in his image after all. I hope you see my point of keeping faulty logic in the church and not force it onto others.