Chaperones lead Catholic schoolgirls out from "Nutcracker Suite" performance with same-sex roles, causing criticism, agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
40.png
Ender:
40.png
Freddy:
I’m not trying to be funny here, but that’s not my concern. I have no problem with gay people or what they do in the privacy of their own homes. How you manage it is your problem. Maybe treat them as if they were one of your family members.
Click to expand...
Not believing a particular act is a sin is not relevant to how sin - and the people who commit it - should be responded to. Pick anything you do think is sinful and explain how you would treat those who were blatant about committing it.
Click to expand...
That would vary significantly. If they were a paedophile I would reject them outright. If they had a drinking problem I’d make allowances.
Click to expand...
  1. Do you consider it a sin to have a drinking problem?
  2. What about someone who was an open polluter of a town’s water supply, and for some legal loophole he was able to keep polluting. What would your interactions with this person look like? Would you go out and have a beer with him?
  3. What if an employer openly paid his minority employees less than white employees, and was forthright that he thought that was okay. Through some legal loophole, he was able to keep doing so.
    How would you interact with this person? Would you go out for a beer with him?
  4. What if your neighbor protests at planned Parenthood, and holds placards with graphic abortion photos. Would this person be invited to a BBQ that you invite your neighbors to?
 
I said it is appropriate, not required. I notice that you troll my posts often to nitpick the faith and my comments, such as asking me to define common words or defend basic concepts such as that the Catholic Church considers abortion terrible.

What is your documentation that it is inappropriate for Catholics to loudly protest abortion in the public arena?
 
It is not honest when the answer is obvious and the question clearly intended to mock. Of course, you must know the Church is against abortion. It also is not honest to change the words of others. I never said that the church requires us to protest abortion.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
I am not sure why you classify Catholic teaching as “only a religious belief”…
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching is based on religious beliefs about God and what He wants. Catholics are meant to comply with this based on religious grounds. Arguments against it are based on religious principles. How else can I classify it…?
 
Jen95 said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
Ender:
40.png
Freddy:
I’m not trying to be funny here, but that’s not my concern. I have no problem with gay people or what they do in the privacy of their own homes. How you manage it is your problem. Maybe treat them as if they were one of your family members.
Click to expand...
Not believing a particular act is a sin is not relevant to how sin - and the people who commit it - should be responded to. Pick anything you do think is sinful and explain how you would treat those who were blatant about committing it.
Click to expand...
That would vary significantly. If they were a paedophile I would reject them outright. If they had a drinking problem I’d make allowances.
Click to expand...
  1. Do you consider it a sin to have a drinking problem?
  2. What about someone who was an open polluter of a town’s water supply, and for some legal loophole he was able to keep polluting. What would your interactions with this person look like? Would you go out and have a beer with him?
  3. What if an employer openly paid his minority employees less than white employees, and was forthright that he thought that was okay. Through some legal loophole, he was able to keep doing so.
    How would you interact with this person? Would you go out for a beer with him?
  4. What if your neighbor protests at planned Parenthood, and holds placards with graphic abortion photos. Would this person be invited to a BBQ that you invite your neighbors to?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what purpose this ‘twenty questions’ type of post might achieve. There’ll be different answers to any question you might ask based on the conditions you specify. But let’s play!

1: Depends.
2 - 4: No.

See? I don’t think that advanced the conversation at all. And now you have to decide whether to drop this or reroute the thread to a discussion about drinking or environmentalism.
 
The religious beliefs are not formed only out of thin air, arbitrarily. They are based on what is and is not healthy for the individual and community not only as relates to their relationship with God, but as regards the practical impact on themselves and others. You can learn about pretty much any sin or virtue and find practical reasons for these classifications. For example, pornography often victimized the featured parties, creates an unrealistic idea of sexuality in the viewer, cause emotional upset to the viewer’s spouse, and lead to other negative behaviours such as practicing/purchasing prostitution. That is just one example.

Many religious restrictions on sins are commonly reflected also in civil law, which certainly is not merely a religious principal, such as murder and theft.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
The religious beliefs are not formed only out of thin air, arbitrarily. They are based on what is and is not healthy for the individual and community not only as relates to their relationship with God, but as regards the practical impact on themselves and others. You can learn about pretty much any sin or virtue and find practical reasons for these classifications. For example, pornography often victimized the featured parties, creates an unrealistic idea of sexuality in the viewer, cause emotional upset to the viewer’s spouse, and lead to other negative behaviours such as practicing/purchasing prostitution. That is just one example.

Many religious restrictions on sins are commonly reflected also in civil law, which certainly is not merely a religious principal, such as murder and theft.
Click to expand...
All religious beliefs are based on religious concepts. That’s obviously why they are called religious beliefs. Yes, some religious teachings match what secular society has decided itself but they are considered to be what God wants first and foremost. Maybe you could nominate a Catholic teaching that is not based on religious beliefs in some way, but I don’t think so.

Someone on another thread was honest enough to say that he considers that restrictions on certain sexual acts are there to prevent spiritual harm and not for any practical purposes. Yes there could be some practical harm in some situations at some time but from a spiritual viewpoint it could be considered harmful all the time.

Which is where we have the problem. It’s when Christians say that (for example) sex between two unmarried people is always wrong. Well, no. It isn’t. It can be wrong in a practical sense on some ocassions but it’s only always wrong on a spiritual level and only then when you believe there is such a thing as spiritual harm.
 
The idea was to see how you would put into practice “hate the sin and love the sinner”. Thanks for playing.
 
Freddy said:
Hating the sin and loving the sinner is a requirement for you to fullfill.
Click to expand...
Why would you hold us to some of our religious positions but not to others? If we believe in love the sinner and hate the sin, it is because we are religious. If we believe homosexual activity is wrong, it is because we are religious.
 
Annie said:
40.png
Freddy:
Hating the sin and loving the sinner is a requirement for you to fullfill.
Click to expand...
Why would you hold us to some of our religious positions but not to others? If we believe in love the sinner and hate the sin, it is because we are religious. If we believe homosexual activity is wrong, it is because we are religious.
Click to expand...
I’m holding you to all your positions. If you think that gay sex is wrong then you must stick to it. I just don’t have to agree with you. And I am free to argue that you are wrong.

I think the requirement to hate the sin and love the sinner is nonsensical. You can’t separate the two. But it appears that that is what the church would require you to do.
 
In Catholic terms, love means “willing the good of the other”. So I can will the good of the other, but that doesn’t mean I want to go for a beer with them.
I think the concept of a repentant -vs- unrepentant sinner is helpful too.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Freddy:
I think the requirement to hate the sin and love the sinner is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
What would the alternative be?
Click to expand...
I am the sum total of my actions. If I do bad then I am a bad person. If I do good then I am a good person. And any combo in between. My deeds reflect who I am. You can’t separate the two.
 
Jen95 said:
I think the concept of a repentant -vs- unrepentant sinner is helpful too.
Click to expand...
It most definitely needs to be considered. Which again puts you in an awkward position because most gay people don’t think of themselves as sinning and so repentence isn’t a consideration. You are urged to love the unrepentant sinner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top