Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Code:
Elizabeth502 said:
And “homophobia” is something you define as the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality? The Catholic Church is “homophobic” by having a specific doctrine defining same-sex attraction as disordered?
Click to expand...
To answer the first part the answer is no. Homophobia exists, whether or not the catholic church does. Homophobia is homophobia, whether it is found in catholic doctrine or not.
 
aprilfloyd said:
The church persecutes homosexuals in a very subtle way expressed to it’s large audience. It says that a homosexual is not a sinner, but if he/she expresses physical love it is wrong. That is cruel.
Click to expand...
How exactly is that “cruel”?
 
aprilfloyd said:
If religion explains why, then surely, we would have consensus on which religion and god is the true One. Why do religious people disagree so much?
Click to expand...
If homosexuality were normal, surely more people would be doing it and it would produce offspring…

So why do so few people do it? And why can’t they reproduce?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Code:
To answer the first part the answer is no. Homophobia exists, whether or not the catholic church does. Homophobia is homophobia, whether it is found in catholic doctrine or not.
Click to expand...
“Homophobia” is a fallacious, made-up term.

Just like Gay-“marriage”.
 
aprilfloyd said:
The church persecutes homosexuals in a very subtle way expressed to it’s large audience. It says that a homosexual is not a sinner, but if he/she expresses physical love it is wrong. That is cruel.
Click to expand...
And the Church, then, also “persecutes” – not so subtly 😉 – all of us with disordered attractions, such as the various non-approved, non-marital sexual attactions which are also condemned, It says that attractions to lying, stealing, gossiping do not condemn the person, but that indulging in those attractions is wrong. I guess that’s “cruel,” too. 😉
 
aprilfloyd said:
The church persecutes homosexuals in a very subtle way expressed to it’s large audience. It says that a homosexual is not a sinner, but if he/she expresses physical love it is wrong. That is cruel.
Click to expand...
Why do you care what the Catholic Church believes?
 
aprilfloyd said:
The church persecutes homosexuals in a very subtle way expressed to it’s large audience. It says that a homosexual is not a sinner, but if he/she expresses physical love it is wrong. That is cruel.
Click to expand...
I am curious, april. Do you believe that love is required for people to engage in sex?

The reason why I ask is because you seemed to equate sexual activity with a way of expressing “physical love”, so I just want to clarify.

Also, are you of the opinion that homosexual sex should only be between 2 people? Or do you believe you ought not tell others how and with whom and how many people they can have sex with?
 
Code:
Elizabeth502 said:
bellasbane,

Truth often hurts. When individuals in my life point out how I have offended them, it hurts, but my hurt and my initial denial of it (i.e., wounded pride) does not make their words untrue. Words do hurt, especially when they are true and we don’t want to face that truth. 🙂

Catholicism encompasses Truth. Now, the Church is what the Democratic Party used to be and now is no longer: a big tent. That is, the Church does not ratify opposing positions on doctrine, within the Church, and actions which eviscerate that doctrine, but the Church recognizes different gifts, different minds, different styles. The way that is seen, legitimately, is in the emphases lay, priests, and religious bring to the faith: Some spend more time doing X, Y, or Z; others less time: they don’t have those same gifts or interests.

Doctrine, however, is a different matter, because it proceeds from a single, unified authority, unlike political parties and other secular organizations. Truth cannot be divided. Something which is just an idea, and does not, or does not yet, come under the category of doctrine, is another matter. The Church welcomes ideas, as long as those ideas do not oppose doctrine.

I was a cafeteria Catholic for awhile. It never felt right and I never wanted to admit that that’s what I was doing. Rather, I repeated the refrain of most dissenting Catholics: *“I just don’t agree with the Church’s stand on X.” * What I was doing was setting myself on an equal plane with the Magisterium, by framing my position in that way. Within the absolutist religious context which is The Roman Catholic Church, that’s called dissent. It’s not called “[an allowable] progressive viewpoint.” 😉

Many cafeteria Catholics call themselves that, so it can’t be universally offensive. Or, they describe it that way without using that word. They’ll say, “I like to follow some portions of the Church’s statements, but I don’t like the other parts, so I pick and choose.” At least they’re being honest. Maria Shriver has been even more embracing of the idea, calling herself proudly a cafeteria Catholic.

Within the Democratic Party, you can have a contrary opinion to the majority, and to what’s stated in the Platform, and still be considered as legitimately Democratic as any lock-step MSNBC commentator. 😉 You can even agitate for change in the Democratic Party without compromisng that identity. Very different in the Church.
Click to expand...
I feel the church uses ‘truth’ in an Orwellian sense, that there position is ‘what we say is true and will never change’ even in the face of real truth. I wonder, why the fear of change?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Code:
I feel the church uses ‘truth’ in an Orwellian sense, that there position is ‘what we say is true and will never change’ even in the face of real truth. I wonder, why the fear of change?
Click to expand...
In the face of what “real” truth? The dysfunctional state of homosexuality?
 
aprilfloyd said:
I feel the church uses ‘truth’ in an Orwellian sense, that there position is ‘what we say is true and will never change’ even in the face of real truth. I wonder, why the fear of change?
Click to expand...
Well, april, that is a little bit ridiculous. You wouldn’t fault a geometry teacher for saying: “This, kids, is a circle! But I reserve the right to say that I may change my mind. Some day we might call it a square. I want you all to know I’m not afraid of change, ok?”

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...eJyZvWrD0x76BdbrIEbiO3RGBxL4OEUVexZqLZJ9lve7r
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I seriously doubt you have graduate credentials in Scripture Studies, and in the specialty field of Matthew specifically, which I do. If you did, you would not make ther previous remarks which you did.
Click to expand...
You make too many assumptions - not a good habit if you want to be a scholar. Even if you had “credentials” (M.S.?, Ph.D.? 🤷) you should know there is no reason why I should simply take your word for it. You are nothing more than an anonymous person who posts on a forum that is available to anyone who wants to join.

This is a very democratic place where we all must stand purely on the merits of our arguments. I’ve had many very lively discussions with people who do not claim to have any “credentials”, but who are clearly very smart. Unfortunately, nothing you have written is terribly creative or demonstrates any talent for thinking outside a very narrow conservative box. If you want to make a contribution to whatever field you are in - you will need to do better than this.
Elizabeth502 said:
You need to get oriented to this, because it’s not terribly useful for me to “go through the thread” to see what you supposedly meant, because what you said most recently is misleading, and is a common misconception about what Jesus did and did not promote:
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s bad form to cite yourself as a source. Second, what you wrote in that post has nothing to do with the point I was making earlier. You should have taken my advice and looked before leaping/posting. It only takes a few clicks to travel back through a thread.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Code:
I feel the church uses ‘truth’ in an Orwellian sense, that there position is ‘what we say is true and will never change’ even in the face of real truth. I wonder, why the fear of change?
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing scientific truth or “scentifically revealed truth” with moral truth. If moral truth changes, there’s no validity to it; it simply becomes an outgrowth of current culture, what’s popular, or what’s faddish. (Or all three.) The Church doesn’t “fear” change. The Church recognizes that moral truth does not change because it comes from God (who does not change), not “from” the Church. The Church merely speaks that truth, interprets it, disseminates it, because she was given the unchanging Holy Spirit by her founder, Jesus.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I think you’re confusing scientific truth or “scentifically revealed truth” with moral truth. If moral truth changes, there’s no validity to it; it simply becomes an outgrowth of current culture, what’s popular, or what’s faddish. (Or all three.) The Church doesn’t “fear” change. The Church recognizes that moral truth does not change because it comes from God (who does not change), not “from” the Church. The Church merely speaks that truth, interprets it, disseminates it, because she was given the unchanging Holy Spirit by her founder, Jesus.
Click to expand...
Do you suggest that morality, came from catholicism? Are you suggesting that the catholic church speaks a kind of absolute truth. There is no evidence for a holy spirit or that Jesus was the son of a god. It would be welcome if the church did tell the truth. A little less faith and a little more truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top