Christ also never mentioned cannibalism, bestiality, abortion, incest, polyamory, as well a many other dysfunctions as well. Probably because those things were already understood to be extremely immoral. Such is the irrational flaw with morality by omission.
Indeed.
In fact, the Word isn’t confined to the other books as well.
Yeah, exclusively by heterosexual reproduction.
The larger question is: why are you reluctant to advance your moral standard when you are in the process of destroying all the traditional norms by some (as of yet) undefined standard of your own?
When you simply walk away from difficult explanations and questions directed towards your flawed reasoning, and then you come back around (repeatedly) to the same ground as if you never heard the responses or propositions in the first place; one can only conclude that you really have little interest in understanding.
That’s what I said…I notice he / she conveniently ignored that post, as well.
Perhaps we should remind you that you are on a Catholic forum and dangerously close to deviating from forum rules. But I get it - this is, after all, a culture war - an unbloody war just as vicious and disturbing as any other. Our “clumsy doctrine” is our rule of life and we would ask you to be respectful of our belief (not that you understand any of it.) You know, there was a word in today’s reading from the book of Wisdom that really is descriptive of what is going on here:
Does the word fit?
That is true, of course, even with the context of the ministry – spoken tradition – of Jesus Himself, naturally. The entire Word of God was a continuum to Him and to his fellow Jews in Palestine. That’s why it takes experts in textual analysis to unfold the many allusions Jesus makes to other texts, in order to appreciate why the allusions were integrated in the way they were, because for a Jewish audience, such interpolations were critical to the full message, which always had a much broader context of divine revelation within the history of the Jewish people. The modern understanding of discourse is anachronistic to the time period of the ancient Mediterranean and thus irrelevant to this discussion.
I’m admittedly weak when it comes to charitable responses. I’m not proud of that.
That is not quite right. In the post you took issue with, Fergalmyfriend specifically states her objection to how she perceives people on this thread talking about “gay and lesbian people”….
This would have been a great opportunity for you to clarify what is going on and explain to her that while Catholics oppose what we have been calling the new “normal”, we are also expected to respond to people with same-sex attractions with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
I quoted the Bishops, because in the context of her remarks about “gay and lesbian people” you responded by referencing a scripture passage that implied Jesus said we should hang stones around their necks and throw them into the sea!
Like I said - that is not what is happening here. Sometimes people get carried away in their opposition to homosexuality and get careless in their terminology - in which case it is appropriate to remind them that this is insensitive and can give people the wrong impression. That is all that’s going on.
Yes, a very good observation.
No need to apologize to me! I do not find your posts uncharitable at all, but rather shall we say, succinct?
But maybe I’m just biased - I, too, have been accused of being uncharitable on this very thread!Yes she says that but what was the context and did it refer to persons or the agenda?
I asked that particular question because it shows the deadly seriousness of misleading people.I quoted the Bishops, because in the context of her remarks about “gay and lesbian people” you responded by referencing a scripture passage that implied Jesus said we should hang stones around their necks and throw them into the sea!
Sometimes people get carried away and see every defense of normalcy as hateful. I think accenting the whole truth is important.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Your points have validity. Although in our love for Christ, it automatically evokes and “requires” a hatred of that which is morally repugnant to His teaching. The fine line is a condemnation of the lie which kills the spiritual life and an embrace of the sinner. But you must admit, our defenses are up and we are generally in fight mode because we see the destructiveness surrounding us at every level.That is not quite right. In the post you took issue with, Fergalmyfriend specifically states her objection to how she perceives people on this thread talking about “gay and lesbian people”….
This would have been a great opportunity for you to clarify what is going on and explain to her that while Catholics oppose what we have been calling the new “normal”, we are also expected to respond to people with same-sex attractions with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
Here’s a great quote you could have used:
"Some say that the Catholic Church hates people with same-sex attractions. This is not true. In fact, if there are any members of the Church who hate people because of their sexual orientation, they need to go to confession. " - Cardinal Seán, Archbishop of Boston, cardinalseansblog.org/2011/06/17/
I quoted the Bishops, because in the context of her remarks about “gay and lesbian people” you responded by referencing a scripture passage that implied Jesus said we should hang stones around their necks and throw them into the sea!
Like I said - that is not what is happening here. Sometimes people get carried away in their opposition to homosexuality and get careless in their terminology - in which case it is appropriate to remind them that this is insensitive and can give people the wrong impression. That is all that’s going on.
I think there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the wrong impression is quite common and I believe it is something we should all work to correct.
Ah, but you left out their ultimate and final tactic of dishonest deflection and misdirection:
That is right. Also, play the charity card. Instead of addressing the moral argument claim hate and bigotry.Ah, but you left out their ultimate and final tactic of dishonest deflection and misdirection:
When challenged to advance some moral objective standard of their own in order to establish some sort of societal boundary of moral norms, they always resort to the childish response of manufactured “moral” indigence and outrageous-outrage from some undefined faux concern over the challengers supposed “projections”:
Their response: “Geez you sure seem to be obsessed with (fill in the blank: incest, polyamory, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality etc) in here. You’re worrying me pal!”
But hey, they just want an “honest and open dialogue” … you know.
Masturbation is not the same as foreplay.Actually by that definition, I will concede one parameter towards your point of view that actually undermines your overall point:
Self stimulation within the bonds of the marital expressions of love is technically **NOT **masturbation at all; As long as the love act is completed in normal nuptial intercourse.
Thank you.:tiphat:
We learned something today.