B
Benedictus
Guest
I smell the slippery slope fallacy in the vicinity…
- Status
B
BLB_Oregon
Guest
You know, I think it is okay to boycott Starbucks because you think they promote bad music. Of course it is okay to boycott Starbucks because your conscience and theirs cannot co-exist. That does not make you a bigot.
But to tell the rest of us that we are in some way lacking if we can see our way to judge Starbucks worthy to serve us a cup of coffee… tread carefully there. Warn of perils, but do not judge.
We live in the world. Our Lord ate with sinners, not the perfect. He commanded us to love, not to avoid mistakes. Loving is a much more difficult and subtle task than avoiding mistakes. We have no choice but to walk in the gray area. If attempting to love doesn’t humble us into the realization that we can’t eliminate ambiguity from life, I don’t know what will.
In other words… prophesy, prophesy, prophesy, yes! Do not keep your mouths shut and more to the point, let your actions talk always of the Kingdom of God. Just don’t throw stones at each other.
But to tell the rest of us that we are in some way lacking if we can see our way to judge Starbucks worthy to serve us a cup of coffee… tread carefully there. Warn of perils, but do not judge.
We live in the world. Our Lord ate with sinners, not the perfect. He commanded us to love, not to avoid mistakes. Loving is a much more difficult and subtle task than avoiding mistakes. We have no choice but to walk in the gray area. If attempting to love doesn’t humble us into the realization that we can’t eliminate ambiguity from life, I don’t know what will.
In other words… prophesy, prophesy, prophesy, yes! Do not keep your mouths shut and more to the point, let your actions talk always of the Kingdom of God. Just don’t throw stones at each other.
F
fix
Guest
I smell the loss of common sense and logical conclusions.
It is called desensitization.
A
Apathy
Guest
Starbucks is recruiting more for the plight of Homosexuality?
Why are gays always recruiting more people?
Why are gays always recruiting more people?
B
BLB_Oregon
Guest
It is hardly necessary to call someone else’s logic and common sense into question in order to debate this point.
The OP states that she intends to refrain from buying coffee from a place that she has witnessed taking acceptance of gays beyond the point of accepting their dignity as human beings and over into publishing an opinion stating that avoiding immoral behavior might rightly be considered a “repression” worthy of regret.
Personally, I’m willing to permit something I would not say to be printed on a disposable coffee cup that I drink out of, but only up to a point. Some wouldn’t suffer their coffee cup to bear a Mae West quote, with her aptitude for winking at sin. Others would think that something out of “Mein Kampf” is a quote of historical interest and nothing that poisons the coffee. Let’s face it: some wouldn’t want any words on their coffee cup not found in the Bible, while others would think Bible quotes too sacred to grace a disposable paper cup! I think that worker compensation is a real concern, while others think that workers are more than capable of defending their own interests in the marketplace of labor.
In any case, IMHO, this is a real question about how the land lies, and not a theoretical worry over the lack of traction on a slope that remains out of sight.
Does anyone think there is a parallel to this whole debate is St. Paul’s treatment of scruples concerning food? (1 Cor. 10:14-32 is one place he treats it.) In the end, his answer concerning what to eat and what to avoid seemed to have much less to do with the food than it did with the effect his actions would have on his own conscience and those in his immediate vicinity.
Comments?
O
otm
Guest
You are right, I went back and read it and must have missed it somehow, or lost the fact that you reported it.
I have had numerous cups, and never seen a statement about anything.
But then, thinking about it, I relize that I usually grap one of the corrugated insulators and slip it on the cup. maybe that is how I missed the fact that there is anything there - or possibly there are cups with and cups without.
O
otm
Guest
Well said!
O
otm
Guest
Yes. I suspect that St. Paul’s comment is one glided over rapidly by those who choose to see morality as a series of rules to be rigidly applied.
Christ ate with sinners - tax collectors, who violated several laws; among them, making their living by working for the enemey collecting funds the enemy used to maintain their strength; and applying a little “vigourish” to the collection process - collecting more than was owed, to line their own pockets (morally, stealing). He also ate with prostitutes; and I can’t find anywhere that it says they were ex-prostitutes; the implication is certainly there that while he told them (or at least the woman caught in adultery; not exactly the same thing, but certainly involving sex as the sinfual act) not to sin, there is no indication they succeeded absolutely.
In fact, He was called a glutton and a drunkard, as he apparently ate well and made enough wine on one occasion to float a rather large party. He was accused repeatedly of being in the company of sinners, which was itself considered to be giving scandal ( and it is evident some were scandalized).
And the people making the accusations were not your Joe Lunchbox country bumpkin, of no education; they were the most educated of the society, and their education was largely about the moral and legal codes of Judaism. They were quite accurate in detailing the failures of the moral and judicial codes, as they saw them.
I think they were called Pharisees.
F
fix
Guest
Let us be accurate. My post was referring to the claim we will not be desensitized by gay agit prop from places like Starbucks. The poster was claiming it is a logical fallacy and I pointed out it was not.
F
fix
Guest
Christ ate with sinners to call them to conversion, not to overlook sin and pretend it does not matter.
F
fix
Guest
If one wants to tear down a society it is best not to start out with armed revolt as that may not work. It is better to try to undermine morals through relativism and small things like advertizing "gay’ quotes that will help persuade folks into thinking bad behavior is really good behavior.
Additionally, it may help to use terms like Pharisee every time one points out vice and error and charge a false legalism when one defends the moral order.
Additionally, it may help to use terms like Pharisee every time one points out vice and error and charge a false legalism when one defends the moral order.
W
Wolseley
Guest
That’s how Hitler did it.
F
fix
Guest
Exactly.
F
fix
Guest
Catholic morality is the exact opposite of legalism.
F
fix
Guest
The last Pope called the homosexual agenda a new ideology of evil. I missed what he said about health insurance co pays for workers of large corps in the USA.
C
carol_marie
Guest
It looks like we have 2 different Starbucks threads going… this is my post from the other thread:
This is what I emailed to Starbucks:
The way I see it Jesus was the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe that any religion that does not recognize Jesus Christ as the Savior, regardless of the sincerity of the followers, is a false religion. While only God can judge the souls of men, it is my prayer that all will come to know Him through His Son Jesus Christ in order to have the hope of eternal life in Heaven.
There has been much discussion on a Catholic Forum (www.catholic.com) that I frequent regarding the “Way I See It” written by a homosexual. Some members of the forum were calling for a boycott of Starbucks because they felt that you were encouraging a sinful and dangerous lifestyle. Other members pointed out that the opinions from the “Way I see It” writers do not necessarily refect the views of Starbucks. Assuming that’s true, we wondered if you would be willing to print MY views on your cups - a view that, given our current society, is politically incorrect, yet shared by millions of Christians worldwide.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is what I emailed to Starbucks:
The way I see it Jesus was the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe that any religion that does not recognize Jesus Christ as the Savior, regardless of the sincerity of the followers, is a false religion. While only God can judge the souls of men, it is my prayer that all will come to know Him through His Son Jesus Christ in order to have the hope of eternal life in Heaven.
There has been much discussion on a Catholic Forum (www.catholic.com) that I frequent regarding the “Way I See It” written by a homosexual. Some members of the forum were calling for a boycott of Starbucks because they felt that you were encouraging a sinful and dangerous lifestyle. Other members pointed out that the opinions from the “Way I see It” writers do not necessarily refect the views of Starbucks. Assuming that’s true, we wondered if you would be willing to print MY views on your cups - a view that, given our current society, is politically incorrect, yet shared by millions of Christians worldwide.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
O
otm
Guest
You are absolutely right, and I would never pretend otherwise.
Seems to me the Pharisees were also pointing out sin and suggesting (that perhaps is politely put) that the one observed in putative, or objective sin, also come to conversion.
O
otm
Guest
Well said.
One can defend the moral order without resorting to legalism. Interestingly, the Pharisees were pointed out not for false legalism, but legalism.
Likewise, there is a tendency today to resort to a very legalistic approach to morality, sort of a “return to the good ol’ days” of not so long ago; or at least, not so long ago for some who were raised pre Vatican 2.
When it is pointed out that the approach is rather legalistic, the quick response is often that they are being accused of a false legalism, and they are just responding re: the moral order.
What they seem not to understand is that the moral order consists of something more than rules; not that it has no rules (as the liberals would posit), but that it is not well described by simply parroting the rules (as too many consevatives would have it).
I am well aware that in certain circumstances, boycotting has had a significant effect on businesses. I do not suggest that it is illegitimate; however, as an effective means, it needs widespread support. I would suggest that not drinking Starbucks will have no measurable impact whatsoever if it is limited to those who might be ofended by the comments on the cup.
I would suggest that there is at least the possiblity of a parallel between not drinking Starbucks and the Pharisees’ refusal to be caught anywhere near, for example, a prostitute or adulterer; they were quite quick to state the moral rule and then distance themselves from the sinner.
And while we are discussing the topic of calling sinners to conversion, I would suspect that there just might be a reasonable possibility that some of the sinners Christ ate with and called to conversion may have well continuted to sin; and I would suspect that Christ would continue to eat with them - and to call them again to conversion. Were that not the case - in other words, were He to reject one caught in habitual sin, and not further eat with them - it woud say something for those today who suffer the effects of habitual sin; it would leave numbers (and I would suggest large numbers) in outright despair.
So the question is not whether Christ called sinners to conversions - a point on which neither of us disagree - but rather, when one finds someone (an individual or a corporation) in sin, and possibly even habitual sin, whether the appropriate action is to immediately boycott, or to, perhaps write a letter and then boycott, or to take some other appropriate action and then boycott, or to not boycott.
As BLB has stated, Starbucks has made efforts in terms of dealing directly with coffee growers in terms of Fair Traded principles; they have some of the better, if not best, personnel policies in terms of health care (and for someone working the line in a fast food establishment, that is borderline not even heard of, let alone adequate). The have obviously made an egregious error morally in terms of their statements concerning sexual activity among gays. However, a number of their business policies would be very in line with Magesterial documents and encyclicals.
And so I agree with BLB that I, too, while not agreeing in the least with their commentary on cups about sexual activity by gays, will continue to drink their coffee.
I signed the petition to make a constitutional amendment to the Oregon cosntitution that marrriage is only between a man and a woman; I talked to anyone who would listen concerning the vote, and I voted for the amendment (which, amazingly for Oregon’s gay population and liberal attitudes passed).
And I will continue to suggest to those who immediatley react to Starbucks’ commentary by quoting Scripture or moral law, and immediately suggest boycott, that perhaps I hear a faint echo of a Pharisaical response. I am sure others will continue to tell me that they are only upholding the moral order.
The Pharisees said the same thing.
O
otm
Guest
Did I suggest otherwise?
O
otm
Guest
Catholic morality as it was taught prior to Vatican 2, and as it was understood by the great numbes of those taught was indeed not the exact opposite of legalism; it was in fact strongly tainted by a legalistic and minimalistic view of morality.
Morality was taught to s4minarians by the manual, as they neede to be trained to be confessors, and to understand what was a sin, what was not, and of what was, to what degree (venial vs. mortal). The difficulty was that moral theorlogy over the centuries had become focused narrowly on the parsing of sin. Vatican 2 wanted to return the sutdy of moral theology to a New Testament approach, which did not in the least deny the moral rules, but, as Christ taught, then focused on the virtues.
As a point, Christ’s longest discourse on morality is the Sermon on the Mount.
The difficulty is that moral theology got waylaid by Situational Ethics, the philosophical handmaiden of Relativism. And we fast-forward to today, with moral theology having gone into the toilet, and having reached up and pulled the handle, now finds itself largely in the sewer.
Sadly, some see the only option as a return to the legalistic approach of pre-Vatican 2.
There is no question that we need to return to a basic understanding of the foundation of moral law, which is found in the 10 Commandments (not, as some seem to treat them, the 10 Sugestions, and those of Medieval Understanding and Vintage).
However, resorting to an approach of “the Bible says so” or “the Church says so” will get one little or no hearing, as it too closely borders on a “God said it, I believe it, and that ends it” type of approach.
What we need to do is use the wisdom and insight of John Paul 2, who never backed down on moral right and wrong, but also took a much deeper approach than a simple “rules and regulations” response.
Moral theology was not incapable, prior to Vatican 2, of stating the fullness of the Gospel message of morality. It was, however, stuck in a rut somewhat of its own making with an overemphasis on rules. And sadly, all too many adults had stopped learning about morality somewhere on the level of a child. To say that Cahtolic morality is the exact opposite of legalism, therefore, needs to be distinguished between its essence, in which case this is absolutely true, and its practice, in which case an honest appraisal of the last several centuries of the history of moral theology would show otherwise (and God fobid the majority of the last 40 years).
- Status