Beards and Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
frobert said:
My college logic is kinda rusty and with my dyslexia I often confuse relationships and need to check my work multiple times so I may be seriously off the mark.

Stated as they are all the above appear to me to be logical statements.
Click to expand...
They are all logical, in the strict sense that the conclusion would follow from the truth of the premises. However, if the premises are false, then the conclusion is not supported.

I would like to make two points, one related to Church teaching on homosexuality and the other related to theology.

(1) The Church does not teach that gay relationships are bad. The Church does teach that sodomy is bad. And the Church teaches that marriage relationships are sexual relationships.

(2) I have no problem with your insistence that God is good. God is good. The question is: is *our *idea of goodness the same as God’s idea of goodness? The second argument I mentioned above uses **your **idea of goodness as a constraint on God’s design for the world. But to the Catholic mindset, this is exactly backwards. It is saying, “The only God is the God who agrees with me about morality.”

You have, rightly, encouraged other posters in this thread to be humble. And, for the most part, I have found you to be quite humble. (Good on ya, mate!) But this particular way of thinking – thinking that God must agree with you about goodness – is not particularly humble.

I hope you will prayerfully consider what I say.
 
frobert said:
That is known as a dilemma which is quite common and is a good reason to have a trusted spiritual adviser.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a dilemma. There is no difficulty. Either the law of non-contradiction applies and only one, or neither is true. Both cannot be true. Else the law of non-contradiction does not apply, in which we have descended into an irrational state.

Dilemma =
noun
noun: dilemma; plural noun: dilemmas
a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.
 
So was there ever resolution on the argument about the natural end of a beard being to grow?
 
davidv said:
No, it is not a dilemma. There is no difficulty. Either the law of non-contradiction applies and only one, or neither is true. Both cannot be true. Else the law of non-contradiction does not apply, in which we have descended into an irrational state.

Dilemma =
noun
noun: dilemma; plural noun: dilemmas
a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.
Click to expand...
I have not heard of the Law of non-contradiction. It sounds like a puzzle and not something that interests me so I don’t think I can be much help. Good luck in finding the answer you are looking for.
 
frobert said:
I have not heard of the Law of non-contradiction. It sounds like a puzzle and not something that interests me so I don’t think I can be much help. Good luck in finding the answer you are looking for.
Click to expand...
It is not a puzzle, it is a principle of logic.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is a law in logic which states that for any sentence or proposition, it and its negation are not both true. In other words, the law states that there are no true contradictions. The Law of Non-Contradiction is often stated as the axiom: ¬(φ ∧ ¬φ).
The Law of Non-Contradiction is also important to reductio ad absurdum as a rule of inference in proofs and argument forms. This rule uses contradictions to proclaim that some earlier assumption is absurd, but if contradictions are not counted as absurdities, then the assumptions that generate them cannot be rejected so easily.
Some non-classical logics reject the Law of Non-Contradiction and allow some sentences to be both true and false.
Click to expand...
 
frobert said:
I know zilch about them. I believe Rumi was writing about religions he knew that had valued the goodness of God so my answer is I would proudly worship with followers of any church that valued the goodness of God. I can anticipate your next question about limiting my respect to an attachment. I admit it I have an attachment to the goodness of God.
Click to expand...
So you permit yourself to make some sort of assessment on what you consider to be worthy of whom you worship with, yet deny others this same right.

That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

You get to decide, “I will worship with this group, because they fit my criteria”.

but when Catholics do this you think this is being “disrespectful”.

 
ThinkingSapien said:
So was there ever resolution on the argument about the natural end of a beard being to grow?
Click to expand...
My proposal was that this whole “bodily organs only have one purpose” thing is a silly reason to oppose gay marriage. But that does not imply that all reasons to oppose gay marriage are silly.
 
PRmerger said:
So you permit yourself to make some sort of assessment on what you consider to be worthy of whom you worship with, yet deny others this same right.

That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

You get to decide, “I will worship with this group, because they fit my criteria”.

but when Catholics do this you think this is being “disrespectful”.

http://media.tumblr.com/7127396a53b05b1bd47d4bdb28a5b8b5/tumblr_inline_my3mdeJJn71r79k32.gif
Click to expand...
I believe Catholics worship the same God as I do.
 
frobert said:
I believe Catholics worship the same God as I do.
Click to expand...
That’s great.

However, let’s take your comment that you made here:

You said:
frobert said:
You are limiting your respect of other religions to the ones that coincide to your own attachments.
Click to expand...
And yet it appears that you do the same thing.

Why do you reserve for yourself this right but not me?

(Or are you going to say that you will respect a religion that declares that God hates homosexuals? Yes? or No?)
 
PRmerger said:
So you permit yourself to make some sort of assessment on what you consider to be worthy of whom you worship with, yet deny others this same right.

That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

You get to decide, “I will worship with this group, because they fit my criteria”.

but when Catholics do this you think this is being “disrespectful”.

http://media.tumblr.com/7127396a53b05b1bd47d4bdb28a5b8b5/tumblr_inline_my3mdeJJn71r79k32.gif
Click to expand...
I believe Catholics worship the same God as I do. As far as i know a catholic can worship with whoever they wish to. It is not up to me to deny them or anyone else who they choose to worship with. I frequent a locale Catholic Church sometimes several times a week because I get much from the service, l like the pastor and the parishioners .I think you are reading something other than my intent.
 
PRmerger said:
That’s great.

However, let’s take your comment that you made here:

You said:

And yet it appears that you do the same thing.

Why do you reserve for yourself this right but not me?

(Or are you going to say that you will respect a religion that declares that God hates homosexuals? Yes? or No?)
Click to expand...
I misread your post at first. I was simply pointing out that you and myself and most people use their attachments to decide who and where they worship. I don’t reserve any such right.

Why should I disrespect a church simply because I do not agree with one or more of their doctrines? I may not wish to be a member of such a church but I harbor no disrespect. My only criteria, for myself, is the same as Rumi, namely that the religion believes in the goodness of God.

Do you disrespect the United church of Christ or other churches that are more open to SS couples?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
My proposal was that this whole “bodily organs only have one purpose” thing is a silly reason to oppose gay marriage. But that does not imply that all reasons to oppose gay marriage are silly.
Click to expand...
Right, a body organ can have multiple purposes.
 
Stephen168 said:
I think you said like marriage Its end is determined by the government.
Click to expand...
I’ve not made any assertions about the purpose of bears. I think you have again attributed some one elses words to me. But okay.
 
frobert said:
My only criteria, for myself, is the same as Rumi, namely that the religion believes in the goodness of God.
Click to expand...
Oddly I notice Rumi [persian sufi] often comes up when in disagreement with Jesus Christ and His Church. I guess he’s more favored than Ghandi this year.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Oddly I notice Rumi [persian sufi] often comes up when in disagreement with Jesus Christ and His Church. I guess he’s more favored than Ghandi this year.
Click to expand...
I have loved the poetry of Rumi ever since I can remember, I think it when I was in middle school. His meaning of his poetry slowly seeped into my consciousness until I began to his understand the meaning of divine wine. Rumi wrote many poems and commentary on the holy family much of which any Christian can embrace. Sometimes St John of the Cross comes close to the splendor I experience with Rumi.I wasn’t aware that Ghandi was a poet.

Thanks for the comment, it is pleasant to recall my early experiences with Rumi.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Does it and what multiple purpose does the anus have? Two sphincters control the exit of feces from the body during an act of defecation, which is the “primary” function of the anus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_anus

Sex, thats the OTHER purpose?
Click to expand...
I don’t recall saying that the anus has multiple functions but I think Freud wrote quite a lot on erogenous zones. Not that I necessarily agree with him.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
They are all logical, in the strict sense that the conclusion would follow from the truth of the premises. However, if the premises are false, then the conclusion is not supported.

I would like to make two points, one related to Church teaching on homosexuality and the other related to theology.

(1) The Church does not teach that gay relationships are bad. The Church does teach that sodomy is bad. And the Church teaches that marriage relationships are sexual relationships.

(2) I have no problem with your insistence that God is good. God is good. The question is: is *our *idea of goodness the same as God’s idea of goodness? The second argument I mentioned above uses **your **idea of goodness as a constraint on God’s design for the world. But to the Catholic mindset, this is exactly backwards. It is saying, “The only God is the God who agrees with me about morality.”

You have, rightly, encouraged other posters in this thread to be humble. And, for the most part, I have found you to be quite humble. (Good on ya, mate!) But this particular way of thinking – thinking that God must agree with you about goodness – is not particularly humble.

I hope you will prayerfully consider what I say.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments. I to consider them for awhile before I could respond.

Your second point first: I agree that our understanding of goodness may not be that of God’s. There is a saying that the map is not the territory. It is in this sense that goodness is my map to God. If I reason and believe that God is all goodness then for me the will of God is that we do our best to imitate his goodness. I need a map to do that.

On your first point, I agree that Catholic doctrine tells us that sodomy is the sin and I believe that sodomy in the OT referred to all non-marital sex. I don’t want to say more because my belief is different that that of the CC and out of respect to the forum I do not think I should say more than that. Of course I will consider your viewpoint.

I appreciate your last comment. I was blown away by it and I am speechless that you would think that of me. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top