A
antroji
Guest
Abu, are you awake??? I was simply observing that something occurs in Nature, no more or less. You are so emotionally involved you are not even reading straight. Are you protesting too much, or what?
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
This is the sort of “feeling” that bedevils activists
August 27th, 2010
ruthblog.org/2010/08/27/‘lower-age-of-consent’-says-gay-rights-campaigner/
‘Lower age of consent’ says gay rights campaigner
A high profile British homosexual activist wants the age of sexual consent lowered to 14, on the basis that currently underage sex “is mostly consenting, safe and fun”.
In the end, his case seems to rest on a view of sex as the driving force and highest achievement of human life — from “an early age”. It is a view that some adults may find convenient but which common sense rejects as contrary to the good of children and society. Thus the editors of Big Think conclude:
**Why We Should Reject This **
Of course there will always be underage people who have sex, but that doesn’t mean the law should condone it. Sex is a very complicated part of human behavior that is too nuanced for young people to understand. In fact, studies have shown that people, especially girls, who have sex at a young age often regret it. One study in New Zealand found that 70% of girls who had sex before the age of 16 wished they hadn’t done so. In a column for Telegraph, writer David Lindsay argues, “sex is for people who can cope with the consequences, physical and otherwise. In a word, adults.”
From the confusion of some Catholics, what would help are facts, reason and faith. Understanding human nature and the natural moral law cannot be evaded.
antroji
From the evidence of monumental errors (post #1380), readers are offered truth in post #1434 regarding judging.
August 27th, 2010
ruthblog.org/2010/08/27/‘lower-age-of-consent’-says-gay-rights-campaigner/
‘Lower age of consent’ says gay rights campaigner
A high profile British homosexual activist wants the age of sexual consent lowered to 14, on the basis that currently underage sex “is mostly consenting, safe and fun”.
In the end, his case seems to rest on a view of sex as the driving force and highest achievement of human life — from “an early age”. It is a view that some adults may find convenient but which common sense rejects as contrary to the good of children and society. Thus the editors of Big Think conclude:
**Why We Should Reject This **
Of course there will always be underage people who have sex, but that doesn’t mean the law should condone it. Sex is a very complicated part of human behavior that is too nuanced for young people to understand. In fact, studies have shown that people, especially girls, who have sex at a young age often regret it. One study in New Zealand found that 70% of girls who had sex before the age of 16 wished they hadn’t done so. In a column for Telegraph, writer David Lindsay argues, “sex is for people who can cope with the consequences, physical and otherwise. In a word, adults.”
From the confusion of some Catholics, what would help are facts, reason and faith. Understanding human nature and the natural moral law cannot be evaded.
antroji
From the evidence of monumental errors (post #1380), readers are offered truth in post #1434 regarding judging.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I meant exactly what I said, not making moral judgements as to acts. If God didn’t “make” Nature, please explain how it happened?
Please explain how what happened?
God certainly did make nature. What exactly is your point?
*You have the most excellent and exquisit way, CII, of misreading my words and turning them to your own agenda. *
And you have the most bizarre way of not making anything clear. Stop fooling around with the language. Come right out and say what is on your mind. Thank you.
What do you think, for example, is the Church’s official policy on homosexual acts? Do you agree with it or not? Try to avoid ad hominems, if you can.
Please explain how what happened?
God certainly did make nature. What exactly is your point?
*You have the most excellent and exquisit way, CII, of misreading my words and turning them to your own agenda. *
And you have the most bizarre way of not making anything clear. Stop fooling around with the language. Come right out and say what is on your mind. Thank you.
What do you think, for example, is the Church’s official policy on homosexual acts? Do you agree with it or not? Try to avoid ad hominems, if you can.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
antroji
I meant exactly what I said, not making moral judgements as to acts.
You can’t go to confession without admitting to moral judgments of your own acts, without admitting that you sinned because you committed certain acts or entertained certain desires. How can you make such judgments without being objectively convinced that you have sinned? Would you say that a homosexual should not confess to his homosexual acts because God made him do it?
Well, that’s progress, for sure. It used to be, “The devil made me do it.”
Not trying to put words into your mouth, old man. Just trying to figure out whether you are a traditional Catholic or a grenade-throwing Catholic.
I meant exactly what I said, not making moral judgements as to acts.
You can’t go to confession without admitting to moral judgments of your own acts, without admitting that you sinned because you committed certain acts or entertained certain desires. How can you make such judgments without being objectively convinced that you have sinned? Would you say that a homosexual should not confess to his homosexual acts because God made him do it?
Well, that’s progress, for sure. It used to be, “The devil made me do it.”
Not trying to put words into your mouth, old man. Just trying to figure out whether you are a traditional Catholic or a grenade-throwing Catholic.
A
antroji
Guest
“Old man?” 
Very cute, and humorous in its inaccuracy.
We are referring in all this silliness to a sentence in which I simply observed, without comment, that something exists. You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is a point where your thinking process gets entangled in that you and others assume that certain things go together where they may in actuality not. Simply naming something does not require a commensurate value judgment, pro, con, or indifferent. It is simply putting a factor “on the table.” It is the lens of your own agenda that adds meaning to my statement.
And really, are “traditional” and “grenade throwing” my only options? Is this again an example of the usually polar thinking on here?* Perhaps in addition to Adler’s book, one on general semantics is in order as well?
*Someone said “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”
Very cute, and humorous in its inaccuracy.We are referring in all this silliness to a sentence in which I simply observed, without comment, that something exists. You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is a point where your thinking process gets entangled in that you and others assume that certain things go together where they may in actuality not. Simply naming something does not require a commensurate value judgment, pro, con, or indifferent. It is simply putting a factor “on the table.” It is the lens of your own agenda that adds meaning to my statement.
And really, are “traditional” and “grenade throwing” my only options? Is this again an example of the usually polar thinking on here?* Perhaps in addition to Adler’s book, one on general semantics is in order as well?
*Someone said “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
antroji
And really, are “traditional” and “grenade throwing” my only options? Is this again an example of the usually polar thinking on here? Perhaps in addition to Adler’s book, one on general semantics is in order as well?*
I asked you a straightforward question and you give me a convoluted answer. Talk about semantics!
Let me try again.
Do you agree with the Catholic Church’s take on homosexuality, or do you not? Do you agree with Saint Paul on homosexuality in Romans, or do you not?
And why does asking these question for you amount to me advancing my so-called “agenda”? Since you call yourself a Catholic, how do we have different agendas?
And really, are “traditional” and “grenade throwing” my only options? Is this again an example of the usually polar thinking on here? Perhaps in addition to Adler’s book, one on general semantics is in order as well?*
I asked you a straightforward question and you give me a convoluted answer. Talk about semantics!
Let me try again.
Do you agree with the Catholic Church’s take on homosexuality, or do you not? Do you agree with Saint Paul on homosexuality in Romans, or do you not?
And why does asking these question for you amount to me advancing my so-called “agenda”? Since you call yourself a Catholic, how do we have different agendas?
L
larkin31
Guest
A
antroji
Guest
CII, your “straightforward” questions are loaded with assumptions. I am quite serious about you reading the material I suggested so you can see for yourself. Your main thrust in any instance is to self verify, a tendency of every human mind, particularly of one not self-examined to a degree of great thoroughness, and especially of one not having experienced awareness per se without contents. Such an experience puts the contents of one’s mind and the very premise of personhood as commonly understood in the subject/object awareness sense at very great and deep question. It is clear to me that you very likely have not had such an experience or you would not be so adamant in attempting third party verifications of your own emotions.
As for different agendas, there are Catholics on these fora who yet subscribe to the “young Earth” idea, as well as other ideas of similar certitude. You and I are not likely in similar positions on such a scale. Without being judgmental as to relative places, we can say that religion and spirituality have some degrees and kinds of learning curves and we are, none of us, in the same location on the several scales involved. And yet, by whatever criteria, we are yet Catholics. Go figure. Once again, I’m guessing that taking a part for the whole is at play here, your particular perspective being in your eyes, the entirety of the picture whereby all are judged. Hmmmm… Let’s think about that one. Though ad hominem is reprehensible, in this case it seems inextricably part of your stance and needs to be addressed.
As for Paul, what did he really say? The jury is still out, as attested here. However I answer, because you ask for a y/n I will be at best incomplete. You remind me of multiple choice tests that cover few of the actual possibilities.
As for the Church, it allows that homosexual tendencies, i.e. same sex attraction exists. It condemns the sex acts available to such individuals as avenues of affection or expression of love as might be used by heterosexual couples, though I have it on good authority that hetero couples do use those as well, having but one more option available to them. Of course, that option, because of its potential to precipitate propagation of the species is blessed in marriage. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Let’s say, first, that authorized representatives of the Church, from Popes to priests to lay people (heh, heh,) have contradicted the public teaching of the Church in these matters by their actions, often citing scripture as an out, or not. Indeed, the efficacy of the teachings and the Magesterium are therefore primarily idealistic, even if they are a criteria for judgment, righteous or not.
Next, here is what Jesus said, as far as our translating ability gets us, speaking about “protecting the sanctity of marriage”:
"Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry”
But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” (Matt 19: 8-12)
Now I know that some go so far as to use the definition of “eunuch” herein to include homosexuals. And we see here the difficulty of “normal” marriage as well. That, inclusion of defintition, though it may be possible, (I’m not a Biblical scholar,) is not my intention here. I wish to point to the words of Jesus where He said “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.” and “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
What I’m offering here is that this, from the Founder of our Church, is a far more merciful and compassionate attitude than I see on here from many. This difference may be why Gandhi said “I like this Christ of yours. I do not like his followers; they are so unlike him.” Now I don’t take Jesus’ quoted words here as permission, but I do take them as instructive as to attitude. IT IS NOT MINE TO JUDGE.
Why is it yours? If someone is a Catholic homosexual and is faithful and has the strength to abide by the ideals of the Church, that is wonderful and their choice. Such is one part of the picture. At another part, there are homosexuals who are not Catholics, who do not subscribe to our religion either as a Faith or an authority. Let those be in the hands of the civil law and their own conscience as any might have. As I pointed out above, it is pretty clear that members of our Church have no corner on the market for goodness. So we can be legalistic on here and play at being God’s lawyers, but really, it gets to throwing stones for some of us, and I don’t take kiindly to that. That is the sort of Catholic I am, if you need a definition for your position.
Absolute pitch is wonderful to have. But even the piano is tempered in order to make Music. That’s about all I wish to say on this.
As for different agendas, there are Catholics on these fora who yet subscribe to the “young Earth” idea, as well as other ideas of similar certitude. You and I are not likely in similar positions on such a scale. Without being judgmental as to relative places, we can say that religion and spirituality have some degrees and kinds of learning curves and we are, none of us, in the same location on the several scales involved. And yet, by whatever criteria, we are yet Catholics. Go figure. Once again, I’m guessing that taking a part for the whole is at play here, your particular perspective being in your eyes, the entirety of the picture whereby all are judged. Hmmmm… Let’s think about that one. Though ad hominem is reprehensible, in this case it seems inextricably part of your stance and needs to be addressed.
As for Paul, what did he really say? The jury is still out, as attested here. However I answer, because you ask for a y/n I will be at best incomplete. You remind me of multiple choice tests that cover few of the actual possibilities.
As for the Church, it allows that homosexual tendencies, i.e. same sex attraction exists. It condemns the sex acts available to such individuals as avenues of affection or expression of love as might be used by heterosexual couples, though I have it on good authority that hetero couples do use those as well, having but one more option available to them. Of course, that option, because of its potential to precipitate propagation of the species is blessed in marriage. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Let’s say, first, that authorized representatives of the Church, from Popes to priests to lay people (heh, heh,) have contradicted the public teaching of the Church in these matters by their actions, often citing scripture as an out, or not. Indeed, the efficacy of the teachings and the Magesterium are therefore primarily idealistic, even if they are a criteria for judgment, righteous or not.
Next, here is what Jesus said, as far as our translating ability gets us, speaking about “protecting the sanctity of marriage”:
"Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry”
But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” (Matt 19: 8-12)
Now I know that some go so far as to use the definition of “eunuch” herein to include homosexuals. And we see here the difficulty of “normal” marriage as well. That, inclusion of defintition, though it may be possible, (I’m not a Biblical scholar,) is not my intention here. I wish to point to the words of Jesus where He said “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.” and “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
What I’m offering here is that this, from the Founder of our Church, is a far more merciful and compassionate attitude than I see on here from many. This difference may be why Gandhi said “I like this Christ of yours. I do not like his followers; they are so unlike him.” Now I don’t take Jesus’ quoted words here as permission, but I do take them as instructive as to attitude. IT IS NOT MINE TO JUDGE.
Why is it yours? If someone is a Catholic homosexual and is faithful and has the strength to abide by the ideals of the Church, that is wonderful and their choice. Such is one part of the picture. At another part, there are homosexuals who are not Catholics, who do not subscribe to our religion either as a Faith or an authority. Let those be in the hands of the civil law and their own conscience as any might have. As I pointed out above, it is pretty clear that members of our Church have no corner on the market for goodness. So we can be legalistic on here and play at being God’s lawyers, but really, it gets to throwing stones for some of us, and I don’t take kiindly to that. That is the sort of Catholic I am, if you need a definition for your position.
Absolute pitch is wonderful to have. But even the piano is tempered in order to make Music. That’s about all I wish to say on this.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Hi antroji,
I seem to recall that you used that gag before. As I was the recipient on that occasion and let it pass, I feel I cannot do so now.
My question to you posted about 103 miles back in this thread (or was it another one?) still stands.
I let your evasive reply and gag go at that time.
Have you had a change of heart re said reply and, if so, would you care to answer now?
(BTW, I really feel that this topic has spent itself by now so the threat of some nanny crying “Off Topic!” should not hinder us one way or the other.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.
L
larkin31
Guest
And gays can REALLY dance! I wanna go to the “place” where the dancing is!
A
antroji
Guest
??? Gag? It is an illustration that the same symbol can be taken as having different meanings in different contexts. “10” is binary for “2” in base 10 counting which we ordinarily use. Your point is lost on me, it seems. Would you explain? Thanks.
L
larkin31
Guest
C
colmcille1
Guest
Hi antroji,
May I suggest, with respect, that you have perhaps become a little overwrought with all this debating? Take it easy!
I was not making a point (though I am sure a “point” can be inferred from even the most mundane of comments: and there have been several mundane comments floating about).
I was simply asking you if you would now feel in a frame of mind to answer my direct simple question; the queestion which merited the binary yadda yadda reply some 103 miles back.
If you don’t feel like answering, that, once again is fine but don’t bite my head off please!
God Bless,
Colmcille.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Fortunately, that is not the case at this time. Unfortunately, that could be the case at some future time. If you are at all interested in reading statistics, you’ll notice that we, as a human population on this planet, are still growing. So, you cannot ever say the two are equal. Perhaps, but only at that very slight point in time when it is so.
In America, it is a shame but, Negroes and Caucasians are statistically declining. Other groups, particularly Islamics, are growing fast. Not slamming Islamics, just bemoaning the demise of the other two important races
Do you not regard survival as a primary dynamic of all life?
But, even so, during the past several hundred years (until very recently) the population growth rate has been positive. Not a sufficient argument, my friend.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Antroji:
Be charitable, my friend. You know, you could just “give in!” You will find that Charles the Second is a good friend to have on your side, herein.
After all, we’re merely discussing . . . philosophically.
God bless,
jd
L
larkin31
Guest
You misunderstand me. Do you not know how I mean this? Of course, more people each day are being born than are dying–the RATES of birth and dying are not equal. But every individual who has ever lived either has or will die. It is a zero sum game. You must know how I meant this. And besides, my point was merely to say that death is as a big a factor in our existence as is life. The inevitability and permanence of bodily death informs ALL human endeavors, covering them with a most poignant shadow.
I am totally indifferent to growth rates of races. I can’t imagine how that is important to us nor to God (if there is one).
You can’t have “a” (as in “one of other”) primary. Of course, survival is one of the most important motivations universally shared by all species.
A
Abu
Guest
No.
The contorted assumption that there is a loop-hole for those who can’t accept the words of Jesus: “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it,” is false.
Jesus doesn’t have “attitude’. He teaches truth – dogma and doctrine.
His words as reported in Mk 10:11 et seq., in Lk 16:18, and used by Paul in 1 Cor 7:10 et seq., allow of no exception for adultery, and cannot permit remarriage even on the grounds of adultery. Jesus allows separation (see Paul 1 Cor 7:10). In ver 12, Jesus teaches that this doctrine can be fully appreciated by those alone whose understanding is of God, [See Mt 13:11], for such an understanding is not by birth, or malice of men (two classes of eunuch), because by free choice some can choose virginity like John the Baptist and Jeremias.
The forgotten reality that is Jesus of Nazareth is given by the great Frank Sheed:
“Certainly, some people who knew Christ in His lifetime would have been startled to find so much made of His loving kindness, indeed might have wondered if you were talking of the same person.”
He refers us to the Gentile woman who “must have felt His ‘Do you want Me to take the bread of the children and give it to dogs?’ as an assertion of her inferiority as a Gentile:…did she feel Him loving?” (Mk 7:25)
To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51). Apologist Frank Sheed remarks of Christ: “He seems not to have spread Himself to win affection.” (Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42).
“With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it. On the multitude, however, ‘He had compassion, for they were helpless and harassed like sheep without a shepherd.’ Yet one wonders how He showed it: for they too had to have the truth. His settled habit was terseness of speech.” (Ibid. p 40-41).
So much for the false “mercy and compassion” so often attributed to the Christ who told the woman taken in adultery to “sin no more” as she had breached the sixth commandment – which ensured that she paid more attention to the law. (Jn 8:3-11).
J
JDaniel
Guest
Larkin:
Thank you for clearing that up for me, and you spoke exceedingly well.
But, you should not be indifferent. That is how Islam will take over the world. Do you not get that?I am totally indifferent to growth rates of races. I can’t imagine how that is important to us nor to God (if there is one).
I’m sorry, I meant THE primary dynamic. I hope you understand that survival is a lot more than a puny “motivation.” Of course we are sentient-thoughtful creatures, and actually have the ability to think that way. But, survival is beyond a doubt the pinnacle of all dynamics on this earth. A simple look at all other species will confirm that for you.
God bless,
jd
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
antroji
*Absolute pitch is wonderful to have. But even the piano is tempered in order to make Music. That’s about all I wish to say on this. *
You said a mouthful … and you seem willing to judge my motives without seeing into my heart.
What I’m offering here is that this, from the Founder of our Church, is a far more merciful and compassionate attitude than I see on here from many.
The purpose for seeing homosexual acts as wrong and unnatural is not to be unmerciful and without compassion. Quite the contrary. The purpose is to discourage men and women from committing such acts, not because we like to seem superior (we all have our own crimes to deal with), but because we don’t want the devil to take them down to his fiery realm … which was the fate of Sodom and Gomorrha. Catholics know very well that homosexual acts oppose the will of God. We cannot be Catholics and not believe it. Nor can we use disagreement among theologians as an excuse to withhold judgment in the matter. There are good theologians and there are bad theologians with agendas of their own.
Whether people outside the Church believe it or not, for them hell is still in the offing, and that is because God gave us all a common sense and a conscience to be obeyed. We disobey at our peril. As Catholics the peril is multiplied a hundredfold if we try to persuade ourselves that the Church is ambivalent in this matter…
The Church in our time has been infected not only by perverse pedophile priests (try not to see this as unmerciful language, just the only truthful way to say it), but also by obstinately perverse theologians who will do or say anything to make a reputation for themselves … even if it means repudiating the ancient truths of the Church.
*Absolute pitch is wonderful to have. But even the piano is tempered in order to make Music. That’s about all I wish to say on this. *
You said a mouthful … and you seem willing to judge my motives without seeing into my heart.
What I’m offering here is that this, from the Founder of our Church, is a far more merciful and compassionate attitude than I see on here from many.
The purpose for seeing homosexual acts as wrong and unnatural is not to be unmerciful and without compassion. Quite the contrary. The purpose is to discourage men and women from committing such acts, not because we like to seem superior (we all have our own crimes to deal with), but because we don’t want the devil to take them down to his fiery realm … which was the fate of Sodom and Gomorrha. Catholics know very well that homosexual acts oppose the will of God. We cannot be Catholics and not believe it. Nor can we use disagreement among theologians as an excuse to withhold judgment in the matter. There are good theologians and there are bad theologians with agendas of their own.
Whether people outside the Church believe it or not, for them hell is still in the offing, and that is because God gave us all a common sense and a conscience to be obeyed. We disobey at our peril. As Catholics the peril is multiplied a hundredfold if we try to persuade ourselves that the Church is ambivalent in this matter…
The Church in our time has been infected not only by perverse pedophile priests (try not to see this as unmerciful language, just the only truthful way to say it), but also by obstinately perverse theologians who will do or say anything to make a reputation for themselves … even if it means repudiating the ancient truths of the Church.
L
larkin31
Guest
Are you serious? This is what white Protestants said in the late 1800s when darker Catholics were coming over in “hordes” and reproducing like “rats.” Have Catholics taken over yet?
Why is a motivation “puny”? I certainly did not say that nor suggest it. You need to get on with whatever point you want to make about survival. Gay marriage does not in any way prevent or effect the ability of heteros to marry or to procreate to continue the species. Heteros will keep taking care of sex among themselves, I am sure.
- Status