M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Explain why. Or just admit that you’ve got nothing to say. You’ve got no argument.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
I am not arguing. I am simply labeling something for what it is. The evidence speaks for itself. I have in many other cases elaborated on many other purposes for our existence and purposes of our bodies and purposes of pleasure (even pleasure just for pleasure’s sake) and kinds of pleasure that we fully allow. I don’t repeat this argument every time.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Then I reject your assertion as fallacy posing as a refutation.
Any argument about pleasure for pleasures sake is false when viewed apart from the objective intrinsic whole that represent a human nature. Abstracting particulars and ignoring the intrinsic end of the whole form of a person does nothing but present illusions. In failing to treat a human person as a whole, you have become a victim of your own illusion.
L
larkin31
Guest
This is a series of unsupported assertions as well. And I am familiar with them. “Reproduction drives ethics when it comes to genitalia.” Yeah. I know. The problem is that you don’t apply this standard consistently about the entire body. The standard that genitalia can never otherwise be used for harmless pleasure’s sake (even between a married couple) is an absolute and incredibly narrow biological standard that the RCC does not apply to other body parts (well, excepting the anus, I suppose) nor to other behaviors. Sex (and defecation, I suppose) get this special narrow and restricted status.
Is this an “illusion”?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Can you please demonstrate why my argument is nothing more than a string of assertions instead of just stating your straw-man unsupported opinions?
L
larkin31
Guest
Well, simply note its brevity.This is becoming tedious. It is a thread about “proof” from “Natural Law”. “Natural Law” itself cannot even be “proven.” And you, certainly, have not even attempted to do so. We are ALL simply making brief assertions here. Take 'em or leave 'em.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
More dodging. More assertions. More straw-men. Why am i not surprised?
This is becoming tedious. It is a thread about “proof” from “Natural Law”. “Natural Law” itself cannot even be “proven.” And you, certainly, have not even attempted to do so. We are ALL simply making brief assertions here. Take 'em or leave 'em.
L
larkin31
Guest
Until someone actually presents here a “proof” from “Natural Law,” the answer to the question in the original post remains, “Not that we have seen yet.”
V
vsedriver
Guest
unexpected, but not necessarily a miracle. Women have conceived late in life on more than one occasion.
A
Abu
Guest
- We don’t take “hints” from the uncertain, we look to Christ’s Church to know God’s will. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexual perverts.
Answer by Fr. John Echert on Dec-23-2006 (EWTN):“Lot offered his virgin daughters to these men in the hope of saving his guests from their abuse. As modern scholars point out, the obligation of hospitality in the ancient world and the view of the sexual dignity of women may have mitigated culpability on the part of Lot, though he may not have been entirely free from sin. I believe that the more ancient view would regard this as, at worst, a venial sin on the part of Lot and not mortal. After all, he was not destroyed in the conflagration which followed, which destroyed the sexually perverse homosexuals who pounded at his door. God often tolerated some methods chosen by some of the ancient people, including some deceptions used by certain Patriarchs and Matriarchs—Jacob and his mother Rebekah in particular. Still, typically there was some consequence to such actions which fell short of a complete trust in the Providence of God. Rather than offering his daughters, Lot might have prayed to the Lord in that moment and found an immediate solution, as the angels of the Lord provided even without prayer. What consequence did Lot suffer from this? After escaping from the destruction, the two daughters of Lot—the very ones he offered to the Sodomites—got him drunk with wine and committed incest with him in order to conceive and live on in their offspring. And their offspring, in fact, were notorious sinners and later enemies of Israel. As we read in Genesis 19:30-38.” - In Mt 10:11-16 Jesus is equating the punishment for those of Sodom and Gomorrah with the punishment for those who deliberately refuse to listen to His teaching through His messengers.
- Any other sect teaching differently to Christ’s Church is offensive to that extent to Christ who built His Church solely on Peter the Rock, given exclusively the Keys of the Kingdom, exclusively to bind and to loose, exclusively promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.
- Romans 14 commands us not to judge anyone’s guilt before God.
We are commanded to judge words, writing and actions against the truth, so that we can know and show right from wrong; good from evil.
Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).
I
inocente
Guest
You may care to read Rom 14 again. It has nothing to do with guilt, it is about belonging to the Lord.
I live in a predominantly Catholic country. My main reason for joining CAF is that all of my Catholic friends are at best nominal in their faith and I wandered why.
Your post goes some way towards answering that question for me.
A
Abu
Guest
More good news on therapy. No one can change the natural moral law
Courage apostolate offers annual conference for Catholics who experience same-sex attractions
New York City, N.Y., July 24 (CNA) – Courage, the Church-approved ministry devoted to helping Catholics who experience same-sex attractions live in accordance with Catholic moral teaching, will hold its 22nd annual conference in Mundelein, Illinois next week.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/courage-apostolate-offers-annual-conference-for-catholics-who-experience-same-sex-attractions/
The weekend’s programs are aimed at strengthening chastity, religious devotion, healthy friendships, and a spirit of fellowship and support among Catholics who experience same-sex attractions. Courage incorporates a modified version of the “Twelve Steps,” traditionally used in the treatment of substance-abuse, in its work helping Catholics who struggle with homosexuality to lead chaste lives.
A group of psychologists, scholars, and pastoral workers will lead next week’s conference attendees in a series of workshops, along with times set aside for prayer and reception of the sacraments.
Courage apostolate offers annual conference for Catholics who experience same-sex attractions
New York City, N.Y., July 24 (CNA) – Courage, the Church-approved ministry devoted to helping Catholics who experience same-sex attractions live in accordance with Catholic moral teaching, will hold its 22nd annual conference in Mundelein, Illinois next week.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/courage-apostolate-offers-annual-conference-for-catholics-who-experience-same-sex-attractions/
The weekend’s programs are aimed at strengthening chastity, religious devotion, healthy friendships, and a spirit of fellowship and support among Catholics who experience same-sex attractions. Courage incorporates a modified version of the “Twelve Steps,” traditionally used in the treatment of substance-abuse, in its work helping Catholics who struggle with homosexuality to lead chaste lives.
A group of psychologists, scholars, and pastoral workers will lead next week’s conference attendees in a series of workshops, along with times set aside for prayer and reception of the sacraments.
A
Abu
Guest
Really? What a strange prejudice.
Rom 14:10: “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:13: “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”
There is no question that judging of right or wrong action is involved, and the judgment seat of Christ is specifically stated. So St Paul teaches, also, that we must not judge guilt before God, as does Our Lord – “Stop judging, that you may not be not judged.” (Mt 7:1; read 1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God) – but that we must judge everything against His truth (post #746).
Answers come only to those who seek truth, and Christ has given us His Church to infallibly each on faith and morals. The lax have only themselves to blame.
B
bingbang
Guest
What is your message here? That people don’t naturally do what gives them pleasure? Or that it isn’t human nature to seek pleasure? I honestly can’t decipher the meaning of this post.
I
inocente
Guest
There’s still no guilt involved. This debate is about disputable matters where God has accepted us both. Paul says that we must not pass judgment on one another, that we must act in love towards each other, and that we are condemned if we act from doubt rather than faith.
Paul is speaking to you and to me, in this debate, right now. I have asked questions and you want me to blindly go along with whatever you think the Church says, against my conscience and without using my brain.
You also seem to be looking down on me. If so I’ll raise you Luke 18:9-14 and ask which one you want to roll-play.
Follow your conscience but remember the stickies and Rom 14. Only reply if you can call me brother.
L
Leela
Guest
As I recall, Sara was something like 80 years old. I’d say that her conception must be understood as a miracle. Homosexuals can also conceive miraculously, so their sexual relations are no less ordered toward procreation than Sara and Abraham’s was.
A
antunesaa
Guest
In the end it’s all about prejudices. The point is that people should be careful about choosing their prejudices. I have never used Natural Law for obtaining guidelines on moral issues. I prefer resorting to good and (literally) old dogmas such as: “you will not kill”; “you will not steal”; “you will love your brother”; “you will love your Creator”, etc. Meanwhile I try to make it to some decent place in the afterlife by repenting, by confessing stuff I did that I think was not ok for me or others or the world, by trying to have an idea of what my Creator might be by receiving the sacraments of the Church. In essence, by leading an ordinary and sincere life, punctuated by too many sins and too few good deeds. The question itself of homosexuality is totally second order and, in the end, doesn’t interest me that much. Unlike abortion, for instance, which is to me the single most destructive practice of our smaller and smaller Western world.
E
edwest2
Guest
This question should not involve opinions. The natural order of sexual complementary is involved. Homosexual acts are not natural use. This is not a prejudice. It is simply the way things are. Sometimes people suggest that homosexual acts are worse (or regarded as worse) than heterosexuals who have sex with others and are not married, and heterosexuals who have sex with someone who is not their wife or husband. The fact that the West has been conditioned to shut up about cohabitation and “alternative lifestyles” after 40 years of being told to ‘mind your own business’ by those who insist on doing what they want, does not change unchanged Church teaching.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
From the beginning some people have chosen to ignore and defy the law written on their hearts. The precepts of the natural law, which can be gathered by reason from nature herself were known long before Moses wrote them down at the express command of God. This is the teaching of St. Paul — “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves: who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them” (Romans 2:14, 15).
St Paul specifically defines this mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: “Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” (In Rom. 1:26-27). St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”. And some perversely persist in fantasising that no guilt is involved – “men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18).
People smile and say amen…and feel quite justified in cultivating the deeds of the flesh until next meeting time when they can chime it again, like a mantra. Their attitude seems to be “ Let us sin so that grace may abound” because after all, we love God don’t we – Paul put that thinking in its place quickly – “Certainly not!” Romans Ch. 6.
So along with the natural moral law, St Paul recognises Christ in, with and through His Church, and taught that His Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15). That is the only way we can form our consciences – in the truth, and we are commanded to judge all actions, speech and writing against Christ’s truth. (Post #746).
St Paul specifically defines this mutual degradation among the Romans as the practice of homosexuality and stresses its unnatural character: “Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” (In Rom. 1:26-27). St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”. And some perversely persist in fantasising that no guilt is involved – “men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18).
People smile and say amen…and feel quite justified in cultivating the deeds of the flesh until next meeting time when they can chime it again, like a mantra. Their attitude seems to be “ Let us sin so that grace may abound” because after all, we love God don’t we – Paul put that thinking in its place quickly – “Certainly not!” Romans Ch. 6.
So along with the natural moral law, St Paul recognises Christ in, with and through His Church, and taught that His Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15). That is the only way we can form our consciences – in the truth, and we are commanded to judge all actions, speech and writing against Christ’s truth. (Post #746).
L
larkin31
Guest
This is a narrow view of human sexuality and its purpose and function.
- Status