Arguing with my Aunt

[Dtmccameron]

This seemed like the closest section towards what I’m asking for, but if isn’t, I apologize. This might be better suited for some region of Apologetics.

I don’t think she’s feeling well, frankly, she’s generally a bit more concise and a lot less SHOUT-y.

So this is what I got,

The idea of deciding their consequence from a desire as OLD as time itself; an innate biological desire that is a part of human nature and refusing to EDUCATE people because of some bu@#*@it made up by (supposed) abstinent priests - continent men is the definition of “misogyny, and antithetical to true and properly ordered feminism.” Especially due to the fact that these very men were at that time screwing anything that walked - boys, girls, men and women and did not allow them to read or educate themselves. They would make up stories and pretend to have “powers” and possess certain knowledge and abilities. The church remember use to kill the Jesuits (and others like them) simply because they believed in education of the masses. That is part of the reason the “tree of knowledge” was the forbidden fruit. With “knowledge” came responsibility and the temptation to “question” your “faith” or your “beliefs”. It is a NATURAL thing for a child going through puberty to WANT to have sex. It is for the best, to educate EVERYONE, and allow them SELVES to make their CHOICES. We as individuals, educated COMPLETELY then CHOOSE on our own to make a decision. Not having some man; because of his faith or HOW MUCH IT MAY COST him or his church - in followers or insurance costs whether we have sex - “sin” or whatever…

Do not tell me that you do not know that it was heresy, a sin to read the bible? That is how the Protestant Reformation began. It was sin to translate the bible from Latin and some Jesuits did so anyway. Martin Luther was reading and learning that many/most in the catholic church were not interpreting the religious teachings of the church and stating “whatever they wanted” was written, etc… HISTORIC FACT!! Not bul@$%*t made up by some uneducated doofus that can’t make up his addled mind.

It’s kinda cute how she censors herself.

Anyhow. Help? Oh, the doofus she mentions in the second piece was Mark Shea. Or, erm, she’s calling him a doofus, anway.

I don’t make much headway with these things. So…any…counters or maneuvers. Or ways out. I’d really like a way out. It’s just not fun, y’know? But some way without outright capitulation…if that’s…possible.

 

[po18guy]

Does she think as woman does, and not as God does? (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33). Ask her if those with same sex attraction should “naturally” have relations with others of the same sex, or if they should abstain. Jesus discussed abstinence when He addressed the Pharisees in:

Matthew 19:12
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

While the Pharisees were married, the Essenes were often celibate males - and Fr. Mitch Pacwa teaches that it is in the Essene section of Jerusalem that the Last Supper was held. That is why the Apostles were to meet a man carrying a jar of water (Mark 14:13, Luke 22:10). In that culture, the women carried the water, but those particular Essenes apparently had no women. That sect flourished during the time in which the 6 of the 7 Deuterocanonical books were written, coincidentally. You can see that their beliefs and practices were surprisingly similar - even prophetic - to the teaching and practices of Christ.

As well, Paul, a celibate Apostle, wrote exactly of this in 1 Corinthians 7. Ask her to read those passages.

 

[ccmnxc]

Could you please provide a bit more context? What was the arguments specifically about? Was she responding to something you said, and if so, what was it? Thanks.

 

[po18guy]

Anyhow. Help? Oh, the doofus she mentions in the second piece was Mark Shea. Or, erm, she’s calling him a doofus, anway.

I don’t make much headway with these things. So…any…counters or maneuvers. Or ways out. I’d really like a way out. It’s just not fun, y’know? But some way without outright capitulation…if that’s…possible.

Bottom line is that she harbors ignorance of, and anger toward the Catholic faith. There is nothing that you, I or anyone else on this earth can do to change her mind. The Holy Spirit, via your prayers, on the other hand…

 

[Dtmccameron]

Bottom line is that she harbors ignorance of, and anger toward the Catholic faith. There is nothing that you, I or anyone else on this earth can do to change her mind. The Holy Spirit, via your prayers, on the other hand…

This was my thought. There’s an anger here that goes beyond philosophy or politics; that is, except for the Spirit imparting the gift of faith, I don’t think any argument is going to make a difference.

ccmnxc, the arguments have sort of shifted. It started out with her posting about that recent Colorado case
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

I responded with a post by Marc Barns, the “Bad Catholic” patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/01/catholic-hospital-claims-fetus-is-not-a-person.html

Though I cast my aspersions on the integrity of that Hospital.

She then

When you are an adult - (past the age of knowing actually) the argument “I did not know what was happening” doesn’t cut it in Catholic theology, life or otherwise anymore. Just like when they let the molesters hide - scheming, lying, hypocrites - looking for the almighty dollar $. They DO NOT follow the “law of the state” - BULL@#$T!! then “they” the church - could abort a baby, provide, or take contraception, etc., etc. If you are a GOOD and decent person you follow the law of your supposed church.
NOBODY is forcing the fre@#ing church to provide contraception - Obamacare - the ACA - dictates what the employer has to do to JOIN their program. The church can “opt out” . NOBODY forces individual members, catholic women, to take pills, abort babies - NOTHING. It is up to the parishioner’s OWN conscience. IF THEY SIN, IT IS THEIR SIN. They try to say that about the fre@#$ing molesters then shouldn’t that premise apply to those catholic women, like your MOM & Grandmother that actually take/took birth control???

You can kinda see that when she really get’s going her grammar kind of slips. I feel as though it’d be easier to keep up if it was in person, but that the subjects change a bit too fluidly through this typed medium.

Bringing up my relations might be an argumentum ad hominem, but I’m not sentimental.

Went on fecklessly about insurance, I posted a link to the news of the, ahm, revisions that were made.
cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/religion-contraceptive-insurance/index.html

So you can kinda see how it slips around, from pedophiles to contraceptives to…what was it? Oh, and abortions

She has this idea that humans aren’t “ensouled” until their first breath. “Now who’s being unscientific?” is my retort. That’s, ah, that’s the only shot that’s seemed to have landed.