D
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Booklover
Guest
Hi Laurie! Here’s something else for you to read. This is the response given by the Catholic priest who is one of the apologists on this site on a question about same-sex marriage. Hope this helps!D/J
‘Sin’ is a religious concept and is, I think, defined as disobeying God’s commands.
On another thread you sustain an attack on me and my motivations without any evidence beyond your own imagination. You end with the disagreeable and incorrect assertion that I have no conscience! Would you please substantiate this slander or withdraw it? Your fellow Catholics here are very polite and never resort to unpleasant attacks like this. It is a pleasure to talk to them. I hope it will be so with you.
And when you are about it would you be kind enough to explain why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong - plus using reasoning which would persuade a non-believer.
Thanks
Laurie
"Your take on gay marriage needs more thought. By discrimination, I assume that you mean racial discrimination. Certainly, there are situations when we are required to discriminate, e.g., between what is good and what is bad.
Simply being discriminating is a good thing. However, discriminating against someone’s basic rights is very much a bad thing. Do you think that people have a RIGHT to marry within their own sex? Do you also think that brothers and sisters have a right to be able to get married—or uncles and nieces, or mothers and sons? These are all instances of people who could say that they loved each other. Is saying that they love each other enough?
The situation of discriminating against persons because of their race is quite different from not recognizing marriages between people of the same sex. Natural law reveals the difference to us. Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person. It tells us which acts are good and rational and which are evil and irrational. Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right; nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong.
If, for example, many people began telling us that incest is a right and that to deny such a right is similar to discrimination because of race or sex, our first reaction would be moral outrage. For a parent and child to have sexual relations with one another violates the very nature of who they are in relation to one another. Something is out of sync.
Eventually we might be swayed by such argumentation because of the sheer volume and intensity of the propaganda—but not because of the rationality of the argument. This is what has happened with the so-called right to homosexual “marriage.” For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.
The problem is that in our culture we tend to put feelings before right reason. Reason would tell us that in such a situation, one ought to put feelings second. For rational creatures to make reason subject to feelings is to court disaster." Fr. Vincent Serpa
Cheers!
Vickie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hello Vickie,
It is very kind indeed of you to take the time to try and put me straight on the gay issue. I have indeed thought about what you said and have not been persuaded yet. Excuse me if I do not go into details but let me explain why I am not likely to be persuaded.
My views have come about in a very simple way. My daughter is the nicest person you could wish to meet. She has been in a loving gay partnership for over 20 years. By all ordinary standards their relationship is as loving, fulfilling, caring, life-enhancing as any married couple. In all respects, except their sexual orientation, they are just a happy couple. If you were to meet them you would like them and you would see how their love for each other helps them to flourish. You would, like me, be unable to put your hand on your heart and declare their love to be horrible and wrong. And that is why I am unlikely to change my mind. Whatever clever arguments are used cannot change the fact of their love nor bismirch it.
But thanks again for your concern.
Laurie
It is very kind indeed of you to take the time to try and put me straight on the gay issue. I have indeed thought about what you said and have not been persuaded yet. Excuse me if I do not go into details but let me explain why I am not likely to be persuaded.
My views have come about in a very simple way. My daughter is the nicest person you could wish to meet. She has been in a loving gay partnership for over 20 years. By all ordinary standards their relationship is as loving, fulfilling, caring, life-enhancing as any married couple. In all respects, except their sexual orientation, they are just a happy couple. If you were to meet them you would like them and you would see how their love for each other helps them to flourish. You would, like me, be unable to put your hand on your heart and declare their love to be horrible and wrong. And that is why I am unlikely to change my mind. Whatever clever arguments are used cannot change the fact of their love nor bismirch it.
But thanks again for your concern.
Laurie
A
Abu
Guest
“Sexual orientation” for those with the homosexual disorder does not mean that they must practice sodomy or lesbian sexual acts – the debasing prejudice which accompanies the utilitarian “ethics” – which feels that human love must express itself sexually regardless of the design and order in God’s creation.
In a culture which tends to marginalize and disrespect those with physical or psychological disorders, it will be useful to recall the admonition of the 1986 Letter that “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation…. Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.” (Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, CDF 1986, No. 16).
“[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…. are called to fulfill God´s will in their lives, and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition…. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” Catechism, nos. 2358, 2359.
As Dr Charles E Rice comments at catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35679
“Contraception, said Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *in 1968, is wrong because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. If, sex has no intrinsic relation to procreation and if, through contraception, it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any such relation, how can one deny legitimacy to sexual acts between two men or between two women? The contraceptive society cannot deny that legitimacy without denying itself.
“Further, if individual choice prevails without regard to limits of nature, how can the choice be limited to two persons? Polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), polyamory (sexual relations between or among multiple persons of one or both sexes) and other possible arrangements, involving the animal kingdom as well, would derive legitimacy from the same contraceptive premise that justifies one-on-one homosexual relations.”
Selfism ensures rejection of reason in favour of whatever suits the feelings.
In a culture which tends to marginalize and disrespect those with physical or psychological disorders, it will be useful to recall the admonition of the 1986 Letter that “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation…. Today the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.” (Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, CDF 1986, No. 16).
“[M]en and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…. are called to fulfill God´s will in their lives, and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition…. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” Catechism, nos. 2358, 2359.
As Dr Charles E Rice comments at catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35679
“Contraception, said Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *in 1968, is wrong because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act. If, sex has no intrinsic relation to procreation and if, through contraception, it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any such relation, how can one deny legitimacy to sexual acts between two men or between two women? The contraceptive society cannot deny that legitimacy without denying itself.
“Further, if individual choice prevails without regard to limits of nature, how can the choice be limited to two persons? Polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), polyamory (sexual relations between or among multiple persons of one or both sexes) and other possible arrangements, involving the animal kingdom as well, would derive legitimacy from the same contraceptive premise that justifies one-on-one homosexual relations.”
Selfism ensures rejection of reason in favour of whatever suits the feelings.
A
Abu
Guest
Facing Reality
The drive to destroy civilization continues among the utilitarian relativists.
**Same-sex adoption risks child’s rights
By Damir Govorcin
4 July, 2010 **
catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=7084&class=Latest%20News&subclass=CW%20National
The drive to destroy civilization continues among the utilitarian relativists.
**Same-sex adoption risks child’s rights
By Damir Govorcin
4 July, 2010 **
catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=7084&class=Latest%20News&subclass=CW%20National
D
djeter
Guest
Laurie:D/J
‘Sin’ is a religious concept and is, I think, defined as disobeying God’s commands.
On another thread you sustain an attack on me and my motivations without any evidence beyond your own imagination. You end with the disagreeable and incorrect assertion that I have no conscience! Would you please substantiate this slander or withdraw it? Your fellow Catholics here are very polite and never resort to unpleasant attacks like this. It is a pleasure to talk to them. I hope it will be so with you.
And when you are about it would you be kind enough to explain why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong - plus using reasoning which would persuade a non-believer.
Thanks
Laurie
I’m not “attacking” you, I am disagreeing with you. I wish I could say that I was persuading you of something but we both know that you cannot be “persuaded,” your protestations to the contrary. Short of my believing or accepting your atheism, persuasion is not something you are truly offering.
Your definition: “‘Sin’ is a religious concept and is, I think, defined as disobeying God’s commands.” means nothing to you (as stated). It is something you imagine might be found on Wikipedia (whatever). I asked you what it *means *to you. Interpolating from your response (which was expected), I would say nothing.
Of all the ways I know to define the concept of “wrong,” sin is perhaps the most reliable. Fr. Cantalamessa offers: "The basic sin and primary object of God’s wrath has been singled out by St. Paul as asebein, that is impiety or ungodliness. And he immediately explains what this impiety exactly consists of, saying that it is the refusal to glorify and thank God. In other words, the refusal to acknowledge God as God and not rendering him the respect that is his.
It consists, we could say, in “ignoring” God, not however in the sense of “not knowing he exists”, but, in the sense of “behaving as if he didn’t exist.” In the Old Testament Moses shouts to the people, “Know that the Lord your God is God!” (cf. Deuteronomy 7:9) and a psalmist takes up the same cry: “Know that the Lord is God! It is he that made us, and we are his” (Psalms 100:3).
Sin is basically the denial of this “acknowledgement”; it is the attempt, on the part of the creature to cancel out on his own initiative and almost with arrogance, the infinite difference that exists between himself and God. Thus sin infects the very root of things; it is “a stifling of the truth,” an attempt to keep truth the prisoner of injustice. It is something much more sinister and terrible than can be imagined or expressed. If the world knew what sin really is, it would die of terror." This is the wrong of your lived homosexuality and your attempt on these forums to promulgate Homosexualism (vocab: the worldview that homosexuality is normative)
“The biblical respect for conscience,” the fundamental sense of “being aware of sinning against our own conscience – deliberately doing what we know to be wrong, whether from weakness or from powerful desires that are out of control.” is what I accused you of not having – it’s a little more complex than saying you have no conscience. Your reply here hasn’t changed my opinion in the least. You offer up a bloodless definition of sin “as a religious concept,” you have no religion so, ipso facto, you have no experience of sin. I take you at your word.
As for “why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong” I have seen several reasons for this presented and would accept any one of them. I have offered numerous studies that show empirical evidence of the harm that comes from the risky behaviours of homosexualism. So beyond Christian anthropology and scripture (which, granted, non-believers would not accept) there is a body of scientific evidence that points to a basis for wrong. You have never deigned to reply except to point out that neither of us possess graduate degrees in statistics and are unable to judge whether the studies are correct. People argue things from evidence all day and never need to establish their expertise in whatever field to advocate. Adopting your rules would eliminate all human discourse. We may as well all go home.
You, on the other hand, have yet to prove (beyond your anecdotal experiences of “happy healthy and gay” narrative) that Homosexuality is a moral good. When Vicki tells you “What you’re advocating is something like stating that alcoholism is wrong if the alcoholic drinks and drives or gets violent when drunk, but it’s okay if he gets drunk as a lord and just sleeps it off,” she pretty much destroys what you are selling here. Wrapping it in a gauzy hymn to the loving, fulfilling, caring, life-enhancing gay partnership your daughter lives is just another anecdotal subjective factum that proves nothing, beyond establishing grounds for your resentment.
Your motivations for why you believe what you believe are found in your atheism (David Carlin has written about this here) and part of why you feel what you feel is probably under the heading of Libertinism which makes the living of your life morally and psychologically easier.
I see you are less and less able to respond to these exchanges without seeing them as attacks on your person. I truly mean you no harm, so I will just end my comments here. I apologize if you saw them as attacks or unpleasant – they were not intended as such but as simple Christian truth-telling.
Thank you for the exchange. I will pray for you.
dj
D
djeter
Guest
This may interest you: A collection of articles by Dr. Trayce Hansen impacting the issue of gay adoption with a news article on the shocking shutdown of Catholic Adoption Services in Boston back in March 2006. The latter basically shows you how concerned gay activists are with children. Their advocacy: If gays can’t adopt then we’ll shut you down. To hell with the kids…Facing Reality
The drive to destroy civilization continues among the utilitarian relativists.
**Same-sex adoption risks child’s rights
By Damir Govorcin
4 July, 2010 **
catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=7084&class=Latest%20News&subclass=CW%20National
payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/gay-adoption-issues/
dj
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
D/J
Thanks for your calm response.
Telling me that I have no conscience seemed like an attack. However you did not mean it as such and are sorry for any offence caused so let’s leave it there.
I have thought about religious matters for 50 years and do not think the evidence for God’s existence is very strong. Hence I do not believe. I would like to do so but I cannot. Therefore talk about sin etc has to pass me by. However I try to lead a good life and to some extent succeed and to some extent fail.
If there is a God who is good and reasonable I cannot see how he can condemn me. He can surely not expect me to think he exists when I cannot.
On to your views on gay sex.
I ask “why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong”?
You reply.
I have offered numerous studies that show empirical evidence of the harm that comes from the risky behaviours of homosexualism.
But this misunderstands my position. I quite accept that lots of gay people behave wrongly in being promiscuous and having unsafe sex. I am talking solely about those that are faithful and not engaging in unhealthy sex. But you seem, perhaps I am wrong, to want to say that ALL gay people are like the promiscuous ones. And I wonder what the evidence is for that. After all none of the studies purporting to show that gays are more promiscuous that straights, implies that ALL gays are like that.
Thanks
Laurie
Thanks for your calm response.
Telling me that I have no conscience seemed like an attack. However you did not mean it as such and are sorry for any offence caused so let’s leave it there.
I have thought about religious matters for 50 years and do not think the evidence for God’s existence is very strong. Hence I do not believe. I would like to do so but I cannot. Therefore talk about sin etc has to pass me by. However I try to lead a good life and to some extent succeed and to some extent fail.
If there is a God who is good and reasonable I cannot see how he can condemn me. He can surely not expect me to think he exists when I cannot.
On to your views on gay sex.
I ask “why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong”?
You reply.
I have offered numerous studies that show empirical evidence of the harm that comes from the risky behaviours of homosexualism.
But this misunderstands my position. I quite accept that lots of gay people behave wrongly in being promiscuous and having unsafe sex. I am talking solely about those that are faithful and not engaging in unhealthy sex. But you seem, perhaps I am wrong, to want to say that ALL gay people are like the promiscuous ones. And I wonder what the evidence is for that. After all none of the studies purporting to show that gays are more promiscuous that straights, implies that ALL gays are like that.
Thanks
Laurie
D
davidv
Guest
See bold.D/J
Thanks for your calm response.
Telling me that I have no conscience seemed like an attack. However you did not mean it as such and are sorry for any offence caused so let’s leave it there.
I have thought about religious matters for 50 years and do not think the evidence for God’s existence is very strong. Hence I do not believe. I would like to do so but I cannot. Therefore talk about sin etc has to pass me by. However I try to lead a good life and to some extent succeed and to some extent fail.
If there is a God who is good and reasonable I cannot see how he can condemn me. He can surely not expect me to think he exists when I cannot.
On to your views on gay sex.
I ask “why if something is unnatural it is therefore wrong”?
You reply.
I have offered numerous studies that show empirical evidence of the harm that comes from the risky behaviours of homosexualism.
But this misunderstands my position. I quite accept that lots of gay people behave wrongly in being promiscuous and having unsafe sex. I am talking solely about those that are faithful and not engaging in unhealthy sex. But you seem, perhaps I am wrong, to want to say that ALL gay people are like the promiscuous ones. And I wonder what the evidence is for that. After all none of the studies purporting to show that gays are more promiscuous that straights, implies that ALL gays are like that.
Thanks
Laurie
How does this indicate a misunderstanding of your position. Your position is quite clear. Based on one example of one apparently happy relationship you have declared same sex intimacy “not wrong”. The points made are a direct rebutal of this conclusion, and is based a far greater number of cases.
D
djeter
Guest
Laurie wrote: I have thought about religious matters for 50 years and do not think the evidence for God’s existence is very strong.
“Evidence” suggests a scientific approach to God; this is one of the weakest and perhaps least successful methods. If I had a nickel for every atheist who cited lack of “evidence” or “proof” I’d have my own NBA team and be in the LeBron sweepstakes with that Russian gangster from Brooklyn. Talk about a CAF scandal…If you drop the word evidence and switch to an “approach” to God – much softer and suggests maybe you’re not the one in charge of the relationship, you might find this reading of some help:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/09/approaches-to-god%e2%80%99s-existence/
Blaise Pascal once wrote: “The heart has its order, the mind has its own, which uses principles and demonstrations. The heart has a different one. We do not prove that we ought to be loved by setting out in order the causes of love; that would be absurd. Jesus Christ and St. Paul possess the order of charity, not of the mind, for they wished to humble, not to teach.” (Pensées 298)
Peter Kreeft has offered by way of interpretation: “It is a prejudice of rationalism (not reason) that rational order, the order of the mind, is the only kind of order. In fact, the heart’s order is just as much order, but a different kind. The head seeks truth, the heart seeks goodness. This is why reason’s order is that of a map or outline of truth, while the heart’s order is that of a journey to its goal, its heart’s desire….How can humbling be better than teaching? …**In regard to nature, the highest stage of knowledge is knowledge. But in regard to God and his images, the highest stage of knowledge is love. **We know God and man only by loving them.
St. Thomas says that it is better to know a stone than to love a stone but better to love God than to know God, because love conform the lover to the beloved, while knowledge conforms the known object to the way-of-knowing of the knower. When we love a dog, we become more doggy, but when we know a dog, we raise it up to our own level: thought. When we know God we drag him down to our anthropomorphic level, we make God more humanoid than he really is; but when we love God, we are raised up more closely to his level, we become more God-like than we were (for ‘God is love’).”
Don’t know if that makes any sense to you – it makes no sense to a materialist or a practitioner of scientism, I know that. I came to my knowledge of God existence through poetry, Scripture and Literature. The First Vatican Council, in the course of the document Dei Filius declared “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.” I prefer Gerard Manley Hopkins magnificent sonnet celebrating the beauty of all things great and small:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/01/drawing-closer-to-the-heart-of-the-lord-gerard-manley-hopkins%e2%80%99-pied-beauty/
Anthony Esolen gives an interpretation of it there. He seems to suggest in his intro some of what you have written in trying to be “good” or follow some kind of ethical humanism: "We are used to hearing the biblical verse, “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and nodding knowingly to ourselves. “Ah yes,” says the modern agnostic with a taste for religion (Laurie?) . “I don’t know whether God exists, but I do know that if he does, then He is love. So I will try to live according to love.”
That’s better than nothing. But we are too familiar with the verse. We no longer hear its thundering challenge to the entire Greek philosophical system.
For if God is love and not necessity (since what is determined or compelled cannot be an act of love), then none of this universe need have been. Nor need it have been the way it is now. The belief that God creates from nothing, freely, is a logical consequence of believing that he creates from love."
All sorts of things follow when you throw out the tired demands of scientism for demanding proof or evidence.
dj
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Your reply is very kindly meant I know.
However I have covered all these bases many times over the last 50 years and, forgive me, but I do not want to do so here now. I am, of course, contining to think on the matter.
But you have ignored my central question. Why am I condemned for making a mistake over the evidence/reasons/backing/justification [call it what you like] for existence of God - if indeed I have made such a mistake?
There a loads of different religions, there are a large number of different versions of Christianity and there are an increasing number of people who are agnostic or atheistic about the whole business. Many of the people who do not agree with your conclusion are clever, sincere and honest seekers after truth. [As are many Catholics of course]. It seems extraordinary that all of them [unless they repent on their deathbeds] are destined for eternal fire because of a genuine mistake on their parts.
Most of them tried to lead good lives and, if they had thought the god you believe in exists, no doubt they would have repented. Surely that would be good enough for a God whose whole nature is Love?
All the best
Laurie
However I have covered all these bases many times over the last 50 years and, forgive me, but I do not want to do so here now. I am, of course, contining to think on the matter.
But you have ignored my central question. Why am I condemned for making a mistake over the evidence/reasons/backing/justification [call it what you like] for existence of God - if indeed I have made such a mistake?
There a loads of different religions, there are a large number of different versions of Christianity and there are an increasing number of people who are agnostic or atheistic about the whole business. Many of the people who do not agree with your conclusion are clever, sincere and honest seekers after truth. [As are many Catholics of course]. It seems extraordinary that all of them [unless they repent on their deathbeds] are destined for eternal fire because of a genuine mistake on their parts.
Most of them tried to lead good lives and, if they had thought the god you believe in exists, no doubt they would have repented. Surely that would be good enough for a God whose whole nature is Love?
All the best
Laurie
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
In relation to Djeter’s post, the problem with today’s empirical society is that compelling conclusions are sought in that scientific conclusions prove the theory.
In philosophy and transcendent thought such as ethics or morality, relation to first principles are what make the theory “more probable”. We humans use this method of thought, except when we want something beyond reason.
When something is to be “proved” it must be compelling to those who reject the transcendental notion of “more probable from first principles”, contrary to that which has been preconceived as “good”, that which they want “beyond reason”. This compelling conclusion must convict them beyond themselves almost by force. Their will is set, and no principle (only a theory to them) contrary to their preconception will move them to change.
Homosexuality can be proved from first principles as being wrong. Unnatural is in itself wrong, as seen in those on both sides of the gay issue who are against: “man made” (unnatural?!?) pesticides, unnatural food such as genetically modified or irradiated, or in clothing, etc… Hair color ladies??? It is good to be natural in those issues!
But when it comes to concluding that unnatural sex is wrong and against the design of nature, it’s only when it hits some that their immune systems are failing, or their sphincter no longer works requiring wearing a diaper, or that the gay culture around them is far from moral, will they begrudgingly see an error. That is, when they can’t further conform reality to their error, such as in, redefining marriage, sperm donors instead of natural fathers, “turkey baster” or “petri dish” babies, surrogate mothers, or forcing agencies to let them adopt or be shut down. Not very natural to me.
It takes humility to see one’s error, and it requires God’s Grace to break free from the slavery to sin so please pray and sacrifice for those who haven’t seen their error yet.
In philosophy and transcendent thought such as ethics or morality, relation to first principles are what make the theory “more probable”. We humans use this method of thought, except when we want something beyond reason.
When something is to be “proved” it must be compelling to those who reject the transcendental notion of “more probable from first principles”, contrary to that which has been preconceived as “good”, that which they want “beyond reason”. This compelling conclusion must convict them beyond themselves almost by force. Their will is set, and no principle (only a theory to them) contrary to their preconception will move them to change.
Homosexuality can be proved from first principles as being wrong. Unnatural is in itself wrong, as seen in those on both sides of the gay issue who are against: “man made” (unnatural?!?) pesticides, unnatural food such as genetically modified or irradiated, or in clothing, etc… Hair color ladies??? It is good to be natural in those issues!
But when it comes to concluding that unnatural sex is wrong and against the design of nature, it’s only when it hits some that their immune systems are failing, or their sphincter no longer works requiring wearing a diaper, or that the gay culture around them is far from moral, will they begrudgingly see an error. That is, when they can’t further conform reality to their error, such as in, redefining marriage, sperm donors instead of natural fathers, “turkey baster” or “petri dish” babies, surrogate mothers, or forcing agencies to let them adopt or be shut down. Not very natural to me.
It takes humility to see one’s error, and it requires God’s Grace to break free from the slavery to sin so please pray and sacrifice for those who haven’t seen their error yet.
A
Abu
Guest
As realised from the beginning of this thread, his stated rejection of a creator, God, has been the problem all along resulting, as with all of like feeling, in the selfist design tendency of do as you feel. The fact of Original Sin in the beginning and the consequent ignorance, concupiscence, suffering and death with which we have been inflicted is lost upon such.Laurie Gibson
There a loads of different religions, there are a large number of different versions of Christianity and there are an increasing number of people who are agnostic or atheistic about the whole business.
The facts of many religions and some 30,000 Protestant sects bear eloquent testimony to this human degradation following Original Sin, but this has not prevented many people from searching for truth, and discovering Catholicism. Like the false assertion that “population in most European countries is actually increasing” (post #94), he also seems oblivious to the fact that many scientists do believe in God:
Scientists Don’t Hate God After All, Nov 25th 2009
“http://fusionfilter.com/?p=5036” http://fusionfilter.com/?p=5036
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year [2009], a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism:
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.
“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.”
V
verum_peto_1
Guest
We know that the notion of “Natural Law” is an anachronistic concept, at best. Genesis tells us the the Sun revolves around the earth. Hence, Gallileo, Brahe, et al. were heretics and espousing views in violation of “natural law”.
We also know that what seem intuitive or natural, often is not. Science tells us this, and our view of reality is modified over time as more evidence accumulates. Nobody but a lunatic or severely uneducated person would argue with the theory of evolution.
Sexuality and human behavior have historically been less “provable” in terms of biology and physiology, but much of that has changed in recent years. We know that while all sexual behavior is a choice, in the sense that we can choose to have a sexual partner or not. Similarly, we also know that sexual orientation is not a choice. There is mounting evidence that it is largely genetically determined, although this is not yet considered conclusive, it is supported by more and more evidence every year.
This brings into question the wisdom of condemning homosexual behavior. As with much of the OT, we view the many prohibitions and remedies to be contextual to the society at the time. For example, should a rape victim be required to marry her rapist? At the time, it made sense because of the societal issues surrounding a non-virgin’s viability as a marriage partner and her ability to support herself. It makes no sense today.
So, as our view of what is “natural” has changed, including our understanding of animal behavior, where homosexual acts are a normal part of the behavioral spectrum in the same percentage as with humans, then the notion of are historic understanding of what is “natural” in this respect must be questioned.
The teleological argument is relevant here. What is the purpose of marriage? This is the core disagreement between the proponents of traditional marriage and the proponents of gay marriage. I find it unlikely that these two opposing views will ever reconcile.
However, it is also probably a matter of time. Younger people today are more likely to not differentiate between interracial relationships or marriages than their parents. In the same way, they are less likely to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. They have grown up in a time when birth control seems to make the procreative significance of marriage less of an imperative to them. Therefore the teleology, the nature or purpose of marriage, is viewed differently. Because they are more likely to be better informed about differences in sexuality than their parents, they tend to see homosexuality in its proper and healthier perspective in that sense.
In the final analysis, the question, in my view, is whether the Church will prevail over time in its view of the essentially procreative nature of marriage, or whether the growing societal view that the teleological nature of marriage is one of love, affection, mutual support and companionship.
The Church now agrees that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Time will tell whether it will change its views on marriage. But the notion of “natural law” in our society is moving away from the view of the Church in that respect, based on the growing scientific evidence.
We also know that what seem intuitive or natural, often is not. Science tells us this, and our view of reality is modified over time as more evidence accumulates. Nobody but a lunatic or severely uneducated person would argue with the theory of evolution.
Sexuality and human behavior have historically been less “provable” in terms of biology and physiology, but much of that has changed in recent years. We know that while all sexual behavior is a choice, in the sense that we can choose to have a sexual partner or not. Similarly, we also know that sexual orientation is not a choice. There is mounting evidence that it is largely genetically determined, although this is not yet considered conclusive, it is supported by more and more evidence every year.
This brings into question the wisdom of condemning homosexual behavior. As with much of the OT, we view the many prohibitions and remedies to be contextual to the society at the time. For example, should a rape victim be required to marry her rapist? At the time, it made sense because of the societal issues surrounding a non-virgin’s viability as a marriage partner and her ability to support herself. It makes no sense today.
So, as our view of what is “natural” has changed, including our understanding of animal behavior, where homosexual acts are a normal part of the behavioral spectrum in the same percentage as with humans, then the notion of are historic understanding of what is “natural” in this respect must be questioned.
The teleological argument is relevant here. What is the purpose of marriage? This is the core disagreement between the proponents of traditional marriage and the proponents of gay marriage. I find it unlikely that these two opposing views will ever reconcile.
However, it is also probably a matter of time. Younger people today are more likely to not differentiate between interracial relationships or marriages than their parents. In the same way, they are less likely to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. They have grown up in a time when birth control seems to make the procreative significance of marriage less of an imperative to them. Therefore the teleology, the nature or purpose of marriage, is viewed differently. Because they are more likely to be better informed about differences in sexuality than their parents, they tend to see homosexuality in its proper and healthier perspective in that sense.
In the final analysis, the question, in my view, is whether the Church will prevail over time in its view of the essentially procreative nature of marriage, or whether the growing societal view that the teleological nature of marriage is one of love, affection, mutual support and companionship.
The Church now agrees that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Time will tell whether it will change its views on marriage. But the notion of “natural law” in our society is moving away from the view of the Church in that respect, based on the growing scientific evidence.
M
momor
Guest
You have just given us a definition of moral relativity which the RC rejects.We know that the notion of “Natural Law” is an anachronistic concept, at best. Genesis tells us the the Sun revolves around the earth. Hence, Gallileo, Brahe, et al. were heretics and espousing views in violation of “natural law”.
We also know that what seem intuitive or natural, often is not. Science tells us this, and our view of reality is modified over time as more evidence accumulates. Nobody but a lunatic or severely uneducated person would argue with the theory of evolution.
Sexuality and human behavior have historically been less “provable” in terms of biology and physiology, but much of that has changed in recent years. We know that while all sexual behavior is a choice, in the sense that we can choose to have a sexual partner or not. Similarly, we also know that sexual orientation is not a choice. There is mounting evidence that it is largely genetically determined, although this is not yet considered conclusive, it is supported by more and more evidence every year.
This brings into question the wisdom of condemning homosexual behavior. As with much of the OT, we view the many prohibitions and remedies to be contextual to the society at the time. For example, should a rape victim be required to marry her rapist? At the time, it made sense because of the societal issues surrounding a non-virgin’s viability as a marriage partner and her ability to support herself. It makes no sense today.
So, as our view of what is “natural” has changed, including our understanding of animal behavior, where homosexual acts are a normal part of the behavioral spectrum in the same percentage as with humans, then the notion of are historic understanding of what is “natural” in this respect must be questioned.
The teleological argument is relevant here. What is the purpose of marriage? This is the core disagreement between the proponents of traditional marriage and the proponents of gay marriage. I find it unlikely that these two opposing views will ever reconcile.
However, it is also probably a matter of time. Younger people today are more likely to not differentiate between interracial relationships or marriages than their parents. In the same way, they are less likely to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. They have grown up in a time when birth control seems to make the procreative significance of marriage less of an imperative to them. Therefore the teleology, the nature or purpose of marriage, is viewed differently. Because they are more likely to be better informed about differences in sexuality than their parents, they tend to see homosexuality in its proper and healthier perspective in that sense.
In the final analysis, the question, in my view, is whether the Church will prevail over time in its view of the essentially procreative nature of marriage, or whether the growing societal view that the teleological nature of marriage is one of love, affection, mutual support and companionship.
The Church now agrees that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Time will tell whether it will change its views on marriage. But the notion of “natural law” in our society is moving away from the view of the Church in that respect, based on the growing scientific evidence.
Even if science determines that homosexuality is genetically or hormonally defined before birth in X percentage of the population the RC still will not change it’s views on homosexual relations or marriage. The Church believes that an individual’s call to morality and chastity are greater than the urges of their sexual orientation. To understand this you have to accept that everyone is born with a cross to bear in this life and it is our duty to bear it using the example Jesus gave us to the best of our ability. For some homosexuals their cross may be to remain chaste and forego marriage and children. For other homosexuals remaining chaste and unmarried may not be a burden for them and their cross may be something else entirely.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Laurie wrote: I have thought about religious matters for 50 years and do not think the evidence for God’s existence is very strong.
“Evidence” suggests a scientific approach to God; this is one of the weakest and perhaps least successful methods.
What’s in a word? Evidence, justification for belief, reasons to believe, anything that backs up the belief… take your pick.After all if I said that I firmly believed in the Loch Ness monster, you would ask me for my ‘evidence’ ‘justification’ … You would think it seriously wierd if I just believed without any reason to think the belief true! I would not call this a scientific approach - just plain common sense
If you drop the word evidence and switch to an “approach” to God – much softer and suggests maybe you’re not the one in charge of the relationship, you might find this reading of some help:
But ‘approach’ [like the similar term ‘search’] implies there is a being to ‘approach’. Why should I assume that?
Blaise Pascal once wrote: “The heart has its order, the mind has its own, which uses principles and demonstrations. The heart has a different one. We do not prove that we ought to be loved by setting out in order the causes of love; that would be absurd. Jesus Christ and St. Paul possess the order of charity, not of the mind, for they wished to humble, not to teach.” (Pensées 298)
I do not understand the relevance of this quote. Until I believe there is a God the question of whether to love him or not does not arise. You cannot love a possibility.
Peter Kreeft has offered by way of interpretation: “It is a prejudice of rationalism (not reason) that rational order, the order of the mind, is the only kind of order. In fact, the heart’s order is just as much order, but a different kind. The head seeks truth, the heart seeks goodness. This is why reason’s order is that of a map or outline of truth, while the heart’s order is that of a journey to its goal, its heart’s desire….How can humbling be better than teaching? …**In regard to nature, the highest stage of knowledge is knowledge. But in regard to God and his images, the highest stage of knowledge is love. **We know God and man only by loving them.
Same comment, I am afraid.
St. Thomas says that it is better to know a stone than to love a stone but better to love God than to know God, because love conform the lover to the beloved, while knowledge conforms the known object to the way-of-knowing of the knower. When we love a dog, we become more doggy, but when we know a dog, we raise it up to our own level: thought. When we know God we drag him down to our anthropomorphic level, we make God more humanoid than he really is; but when we love God, we are raised up more closely to his level, we become more God-like than we were (for ‘God is love’).”
Same comment - until I am given some reasons to think there is a God, how can I consider how he might be approached?
Don’t know if that makes any sense to you – it makes no sense to a materialist or a practitioner of scientism, I know that. I came to my knowledge of God existence through poetry, Scripture and Literature. The First Vatican Council, in the course of the document Dei Filius declared “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.” I prefer Gerard Manley Hopkins magnificent sonnet celebrating the beauty of all things great and small:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/01/drawing-closer-to-the-heart-of-the-lord-gerard-manley-hopkins%e2%80%99-pied-beauty/
To convince me you would have to explain what it was that the poem or book said that convinced you. If you tell me that you just had a feeling, I would reply that I know of no reason to think that your feeling correspond to the truth.
Ah yes,” says the modern agnostic with a taste for religion (Laurie?) . “I don’t know whether God exists, but I do know that if he does, then He is love.Actually I do not know this. There seems so much natural evil in the world that I find it doubtful that a hypothetical God could be all love.
For if God is love and not necessity (since what is determined or compelled cannot be an act of love), then none of this universe need have been. Nor need it have been the way it is now. The belief that God creates from nothing, freely, is a logical consequence of believing that he creates from love."
I do not see the logical consequence at all.
All sorts of things follow when you throw out the tired demands of scientism for demanding proof or evidence.
This is a classic ‘straw man’. I make no such demand. All I ask is an answer to a very simple question which I would pose to any of the advocates of hundreds of different religions and ways of life - 'Please give me some convincing reason for me to conclude that your beliefs are true?'dj
Sadly D/J, as you can see I am a hopeless old reprobate! But thanks for trying.
Laurie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
.David V quote - Your position is quite clear. Based on one example of one apparently happy relationship you have declared same sex intimacy “not wrong”. The points made are a direct rebutal of this conclusion, and is based a far greater number of cases
Not one - lots! Not ‘apparently’ happy - actually happy.
And, if I am correct in my arguments showing that gay sex between faithful couples is morally acceptable, the number of gay people who are promiscuous is quite irrelevant.
Laure
Not one - lots! Not ‘apparently’ happy - actually happy.
And, if I am correct in my arguments showing that gay sex between faithful couples is morally acceptable, the number of gay people who are promiscuous is quite irrelevant.
Laure
A
Abu
Guest
Verum peto
- We know that the notion of “Natural Law” is an anachronistic concept, at best.
- Nobody but a lunatic or severely uneducated person would argue with the theory of evolution.
- sexual orientation is not a choice. There is mounting evidence that it is largely genetically determined, although this is not yet considered conclusive, it is supported by more and more evidence every year.
- Hardly, as “America’s greatest statesmen, from Thomas Jefferson, to Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr……and the central philosophic tradition of which they were in turn, our nation’s principal bearers – argued that the basis of civil rights and liberties was natural law and the natural rights that derive from the natural law….the proponents of natural law from Aristotle to St Thomas, from the Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, to Jefferson to Lincoln, and, not least King – would probably all have been appalled to hear that natural law thinking is irrelevant or dangerous….” (Dr Robert P George of Princeton, The Clash Of Orthodoxies, ISI Books, 2001, p 156-7).
- The theory of evolution is just that and the very sane Dr Benjamin Wiker and Dr Scott Hahn demolish the insanity of Richard Dawkins’ peddling of this theory against God in Answering the New Atheism, Emmaus Road, 2008.
- In *Dubious Psychology *Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals, writes from the Netherlands. Catholic World Report, November 1997]:
“…both therapy and self therapy may completely eradicate a fully homosexual orientation and restore normal heterosexuality.”
V
verum_peto_1
Guest
This condition is not genetically or biologically determined. This condition is not unchangeable. It is deceitful to counsel individuals experiencing same-sex attractions that it is acceptable to engage in sexual acts provided these occur within the context of a faithful relationship.
- Hardly, as “America’s greatest statesmen, from Thomas Jefferson, to Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr……and the central philosophic tradition of which they were in turn, our nation’s principal bearers – argued that the basis of civil rights and liberties was natural law and the natural rights that derive from the natural law….the proponents of natural law from Aristotle to St Thomas, from the Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, to Jefferson to Lincoln, and, not least King – would probably all have been appalled to hear that natural law thinking is irrelevant or dangerous….” (Dr Robert P George of Princeton, The Clash Of Orthodoxies, ISI Books, 2001, p 156-7).
- The theory of evolution is just that and the very sane Dr Benjamin Wiker and Dr Scott Hahn demolish the insanity of Richard Dawkins’ peddling of this theory against God in Answering the New Atheism, Emmaus Road, 2008.
- In *Dubious Psychology *Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, a clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of practice in therapy with homosexuals, writes from the Netherlands. Catholic World Report, November 1997]:
“…both therapy and self therapy may completely eradicate a fully homosexual orientation and restore normal heterosexuality.”
- I would refer you to the excellent book on social justice by Professor Sandel of Harvard, or equally interesting is his course in social justice which is the most popular course at Harvard. You can view some of the lectures at justiceharvard.org. This may clear up some of your misconceptions.
- The theory or Evolution was not proposed by Dr. Dawkins. Someone that you may have heard of, by the name of Darwin proposed it about 100 years ago. Since then, a mountain of evidence accumulated by tens of thousands of scientists has been amassed. An occasional crackpot comes forward to refute it with diminishing success at each attempt. The latest stunning discovery is the decoding of the genome of the neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. Since DNA mutates at a constant rate over time, we now know when homo erectus which became homo sapien diverged from neanderthal.
- What is your point about Aardweg, except that he disagrees with the the experience of thousands of other therapists, many of whom have more training and professional acumen than he?
V
verum_peto_1
Guest
Oh… and nowhere did anyone recommend that homosexual engage in same sex relations. There is a distinction between sex and sexuality. However your incorrect view of sexuality is not only outmoded, it is dangerous. You should consider becoming better informed on the topic, rather than trying to find fringe opinions to justify your point of view.
Try for example referring to the DSM IV, or any of the journals of the american psychological association. There you will find the consensus of scholars and thousands of professionals, not the opinion of a single eccentric.
Try for example referring to the DSM IV, or any of the journals of the american psychological association. There you will find the consensus of scholars and thousands of professionals, not the opinion of a single eccentric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.