Britain’s human rights policies violate natural law, Pope says [Times-UK]

[StrawberryJam]

Yes…most of them were, but they were first and foremost fallen human beings…as we all are. btw…did you know that the US only consumed 3% of the slave trade. It was a terrible evil, but our portion of it is often overblown. Anyway, it is strange for you to focus so much on slavery and then question how edwest2’s post on discrimination was related to the topic at-hand.

You think it strange that I find that christian morals evolve over time?
You must not know me that well sir.

 

[rlg94086]

You think it strange that I find that christian morals evolve over time?
You must not know me that well sir.

No…you didn’t do a very good job reading my post. Try again, and perhaps you will see the irony.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No…you didn’t do a very good job reading my post. Try again, and perhaps you will see the irony.

Let’s forgo your attempt to brush this under the carpet.

Christian morality then= slavery is good and right with God
Christian morality today= depriving homosexuals of legal rights is good and right with God

Did I miss anything?

 

[rlg94086]

Let’s forgo your attempt to brush this under the carpet.

Christian morality then= slavery is good and right with God
Christian morality today= depriving homosexuals of legal rights is good and right with God

Did I miss anything?

Yes…any correlation between the two.

I wasn’t trying to brush anything under the carpet. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in questioning edwest2’s post about discrimination while you jabber on about slavery. Discrimination has much more to do with this topic than slavery does (which would be next to zero).

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes…any correlation between the two.

I wasn’t trying to brush anything under the carpet. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in questioning edwest2’s post about discrimination while you jabber on about slavery. Discrimination has much more to do with this topic than slavery does (which would be next to zero).

Exactly what did edwest’s post mean in context of this topic? I am still not understanding that.

Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination?

 

[rlg94086]

Exactly what did edwest’s post mean in context of this topic? I am still not understanding that.

Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination?

No. Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination.

For your edification, here is a decent website about the Catholic view of slavery:
medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

441 A.D. (censuring slavers)
549 A.D. (church buildings as refuges for escaping slaves)
566 A.D. (excommunication-of-slavers proviso)
583 A.D. (church issuance of freedom papers)
585 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
595 A.D. (freeing entrants to monastic life)
616 A.D. (liberty restoration proviso)
625 A.D. (ban new slaves, use church property to free current slaves)
666 A.D. (ban shaving slaves)
844 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
922 A.D. (defines slave-trade as homicide)
1102 A.D. (ban slave trade)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well put, Robert. Depending on the situation, we may or may not talk to a person in a public place. This is usually based on behavior. I’m not saying there is any evil in that. We all know, I hope, that if we are in certain situations, we should be cautious and sensible. We also avoid areas near where we live due to real reports of criminal activity. Once again, we avoid people and places whose behaviors place us in some level of jeopardy. On a spiritual level, we, as Christians, don’t want to encourage temptation so we avoid certain places that are known for lewd and immoral behavior.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed,

I asked for clarity on your post, and since others can not speak for you I will simply look at what you wrote.

We are talking about Homosexuals Ed. So, if your post has anything to do with Homosexuals, can you rephrase it so that it reflects that you are in fact talking about Homosexuals Ed?

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Ed,

I asked for clarity on your post, and since others can not speak for you I will simply look at what you wrote.

We are talking about Homosexuals Ed. So, if your post has anything to do with Homosexuals, can you rephrase it so that it reflects that you are in fact talking about Homosexuals Ed?

Oh, now I get it! All your slavery talk was about homosexual slaves. Thanks for clarifying that!

 

[StrawberryJam]

No. Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination.

For your edification, here is a decent website about the Catholic view of slavery:
medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination rlg94086?

You have a very unique view of discrimination. If there is “no jew or no greek” as your Paul tells us, then who can and who has the right to buy or sell a human being rlg94086?

Who? Where is the human dignity in this? For a person to buy or sell another person have they not violated your precious catholic beliefs about the value of every soul?

Or is that just limited to the ones in utero?

 

[rlg94086]

Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination rlg94086?

You have a very unique view of discrimination. If there is “no jew or no greek” as your Paul tells us, then who can and who has the right to buy or sell a human being rlg94086?

Who? Where is the human dignity in this? For a person to buy or sell another person have they not violated your precious catholic beliefs about the value of every soul?

Or is that just limited to the ones in utero?

We’re done. When you grow up, please let me know.

 

[StrawberryJam]

We’re done. When you grow up, please let me know.

When you can debate this, come back with more preparation. Avoid ad hom and you may even get an open ear.

 

[latin_rite]

the vatican takes its current stance on this issue from one paper written by a man thirty odd years ago **who had a very biased and prejudcial view on transsexed people and has refused to look any further into the matter **

and so yes there is the head in the sand because they take that view and disregard all of the evidence that has come out since then which shows the opposite.
And what of the research that doesn’t?

it seems quite clear that you will only accept natures mistakes of prebirth medical conditions only when they dont concern gender/sex so why are they immune to such mistakes of nature ?

What made you think that? Did i say any thing about “natures” mistakes? You see. With these people. I don’t believe nature made any mistakes. They were born the way nature intended them to be born… ie a man. It’s they who are refusing to accept what nature made them. Well and those who are pandering to their mental “ill” health as well.
You now you have a lot of pre set assumptions about people. Any one who doesn’t see things your way is biased and refuse to study anything to else that might be relivant I could go on. But it seems to me that you have been brainwashed.

 

[latin_rite]

No. Slavery has nothing to do with discrimination.

For your edification, here is a decent website about the Catholic view of slavery:
medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

Interesting how strawberry jam ignored this post. Especially after trying to blame the slave trade on christians.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

I asked for clarity on your post, and since others can not speak for you I will simply look at what you wrote.

We are talking about Homosexuals Ed. So, if your post has anything to do with Homosexuals, can you rephrase it so that it reflects that you are in fact talking about Homosexuals Ed?

In a civilized society, We, The People, make laws that prohibit certain behaviors - legally prohibit. We do this for the good of all. Gay Marriage is a violation of natural law. The bodies involved are incompatible. In Massachusetts, right now, the State has trampled on the right of parents by forcing young kids who are both intellectually and emotionally unprepared to deal with storybooks like King and King. This behavior is wrong. It cannot be legalized and gay indoctrination cannot be forced on kids without the ability for parents to opt out.

If gay people still want to live together then they should get irrevocable rights to assets and property. They don’t want to do that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

In a civilized society, We, The People, make laws that prohibit certain behaviors - legally prohibit. We do this for the good of all. Gay Marriage is a violation of natural law. The bodies involved are incompatible. In Massachusetts, right now, the State has trampled on the right of parents by forcing young kids who are both intellectually and emotionally unprepared to deal with storybooks like King and King. This behavior is wrong. It cannot be legalized and gay indoctrination cannot be forced on kids without the ability for parents to opt out.

If gay people still want to live together then they should get irrevocable rights to assets and property. They don’t want to do that.]

There are** tons **of morally offensive books out there, and if we are talking about books now that is another subject, I would personally move for the entire OT to be not approved for children, and many parts of the NT for the obvious issues of slavery, killing, rape,and baby head bashings. But, we will never see that day in my lifetime.
I don’t care what you believe the natural law to be as a US citizen, nor do I have to as a US citizen. I do care about what you believe when you try to make any human being have less legal rights than any other. In and out of utero (unlike your position)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Interesting how strawberry jam ignored this post. Especially after trying to blame the slave trade on christians.

Latin rite, I did not Ignore that post. I am reading it realizing that I am reading information written from a catholic view. Just as you would read the Book of Mormon carefully, I am doing likewise.

 

[aussie_jaz]

aussie_jaz;6253036:

the vatican takes its current stance on this issue from one paper written by a man thirty odd years ago **who had a very biased and prejudcial view on transsexed people and has refused to look any further into the matter **

You know this how?

going firstly by at whose advice was the only advice taken to construct the only thing the vatican has made its stance with and knowing the history of that man.

And what of the research that doesn’t?

i am yet to see any real modern research that hasnt come about by someone with preconceived ideas and have only one thing in mind and will not be swayed.

What made you think that? Did i say any thing about “natures” mistakes? You see. With these people. I don’t believe nature made any mistakes. They were born the way nature intended them to be born… ie a man. It’s they who are refusing to accept what nature made them. Well and those who are pandering to their mental “ill” health as well.

and you have said it all right there in your follow up to the question.now why do you believe this way and why do think it can not be a mistake by nature ?

You now you have a lot of pre set assumptions about people. Any one who doesn’t see things your way is biased and refuse to study anything to else that might be relivant I could go on. But it seems to me that you have been brainwashed.

when someone comes out with the kind of attack on the issue as you did in your first post then yes i do have assumptions on them and they are mostly correct as you have shown here. yes it is very easy to say someone is brainwashed when you dont agree with them but how about you , sticking to old ideas that have been shown to be false and not at all willing to look at anything that could possibly show to you the wrongs in those ideas to me that looks more like brainwashing.