As you almost picked up on, these had very little to do with my imagination, and more to do with loose presentations of actual scenarios. However, as I noticed is your strategy, rather than answer, you attend to demonize me and my imagination.
It was in '89, a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. The name of the piece is offensive, so I’ll omit that. But, you stopped short - all three are “take offs”. Polygamous cults have had issues with young brides, and with the number of abortions we have each year, I don’t think scenario #2 is that uncommon at all.
Sure they do. The basic issues here are two. First, either the Church does or does not have the authority to define something as intrinsically evil. Since you questioned, in an earlier post, whether Paul even “got it right”, you are in essense questioning whether the Holy Spirit, who ultimately authored Paul’s epistles can be trusted. How can anyone suppose that you would obey the Church? The second issue is whether we should support those things we see as intrinsically evil. I proposed three scenarios where “loved ones” are doing disagreeable things. Your approach seems to be that we are “supporting the person”, not the action. So, why can you not give an answer as to why that approach would or would not apply here?
Many would. I asked you and Thomfra, though. At least Thomfra answered, albeit with a bit of humor as distraction.
Sure they do, and you failed to explain why they don’t. You are just backing down from the challenge.
Hmm. Since I didn’t call Thomfra “outrageous”, I gues you’re wrong. Anyway, how do you know my intent?
Honestly, you’ve avoided a lot of questions in this thread. I expected the same here. You have an indefensible position and you are presented with a challenge you can’t answer, you resort to avoiding the question or villifying the poster:
They are based on reality, and so is the ugly story of Satan being able to temp two men into a gravely offensive act of sexual rebellion against both natural law and God’s law. However, this is the proof in the pudding that, rather than give me a good explanation of why these scenarios are apples to your oranges, you prefer to try to attack the poster. I’m suprised at how judgemental this response is - you are, after all, doing the very thing you’ve accused others of doing, with is to act as the jury to another person’s actions. The difference is that, while my imagination came up with the “ugly stories”, the two guys at the wedding are acting theirs out.
I’ll ask you again if you would attend in situations one, two, or three. My prediction is that you’ll not only avoid answering again, but you’ll change the subject and launch another attack on my character.
