Homosexuality as sexist

[fix]

Has it possibly occured to you that you, as many others do, you use “faith” as an out from the responsibility of actual critical thinking?

No, because we are using critical thinking and faith is not opposed to that. In fact, faith is to reason as a telescope is to an eye.

When I hear such piety about “The Word of God” taken to be literalism in piety, I am again reminded of the woman who had good useful occasion to learn a foreign language. She refused on the grounds that “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me.” Is it possible that you can’t see beyond your own thought process to a larger, more inclusive picture, instead of userping the prerogative of God?

So, your confused position is that the Church founded by Christ is wrong, natural reason is wrong, common sense is wrong, but those attached to a particular sets of acts are right.

 

[Gaber]

No, because we are using critical thinking and faith is not opposed to that. In fact, faith is to reason as a telescope is to an eye.

Whose faith about what? Faith and belief are similar, and neither constitutes either reasoning from a scientific perspective from an objective premise. And to propose that believing something makes something arbitrarily taken as a premise so, or maginifes it into truth, is rationalization, not reason.
So, your confused position is that the Church founded by Christ is wrong, natural reason is wrong, common sense is wrong, but those attached to a particular sets of acts are right. I think that most of that statement is self descrioptive of you, especially the last, and especially in its semantic assumptions. Too much to go into here.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Don’t assume that everybody shares your characteristics.

Uh huh. If you show a Catholic how their understanding conflicts with objective truth they will change their position to align with truth.

That is not true of relativists.

Not if their devout and that understanding conflicts with Church doctrine:shrug:

Moreover, I don’t think you know what relativism means.

Someone who holds something as an absolute truth and absolutely refuses to change it is more or less the definition of someone who is not a relativist.

 

[fix]

Whose faith about what? Faith and belief are similar, and neither constitutes either reasoning from a scientific perspective from an objective premise. And to propose that believing something makes something arbitrarily taken as a premise so, or maginifes it into truth, is rationalization, not reason.
]I think that most of that statement is self descrioptive of you, especially the last, and especially in its semantic assumptions. Too much to go into here.

What is truth?

 

[fix]

Not if their devout and that understanding conflicts with Church doctrine:shrug:

Give an example to show us.

Moreover, I don’t think you know what relativism means.

Someone who holds something as an absolute truth and absolutely refuses to change it is more or less the definition of someone who is not a relativist.

You are confused here. Relativists reject the objective moral law.

 

[Gaber]

What is truth?

Truth is that which cannot be named and only pointed to, especially by Silence. Yours is the question that Pilate allegedly asked of Jesus after Pilate said to him, “You are a King then?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world: to testify of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” There is no record of a reply from Jesus, is there?

 

[davidv]

Truth is that which cannot be named and only pointed to, especially by Silence. Yours is the question that Pilate allegedly asked of Jesus after Pilate said to him, “You are a King then?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world: to testify of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” There is no record of a reply from Jesus, is there?

Oh, but there is. Not in this exchange though.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

 

[Gaber]

Oh, but there is. Not in this exchange though.

That is so, David, in Truth. But what that means has been so personalized, historicized, and mistaken due to a number of factors that its intent is lost, and it is taken as something that it isn’t, Therefore, as a statement, has become more of an obstruction than a pointer. Silence on this point is very often the best reply.

 

[fix]

Truth is that which cannot be named and only pointed to, especially by Silence. Yours is the question that Pilate allegedly asked of Jesus after Pilate said to him, “You are a King then?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world: to testify of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” There is no record of a reply from Jesus, is there?

Jesus said He is the truth. Truth is a person.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Well, you are right, I was in fact addressing Fix through that quote from the good Saint. I have no excuse for not inserting …, Fix, … in the first sentence. Should have had my coffee first.

And I don’t have exception to the quote, which could have two interpretations at least, but to how people use that or other quotes. or ideas. or anything that gets into their head, as having a 1/1 correspondence with absolute reality. Including the quote from William James. And many moght apply that quote to the process of religious inculcation. And in many cases with good reason, if we llok at some of the “outlying’” denominations. Others, not so much. But where there is so much emotionalism as there is in this issue for so many, it appears to me that there is a lot of use of Biblical sources to authenticate a stand that is both unnecessary and unwarented even on the claimed scriptural basis.

So, sorry for making a mistake in presentation. That is so rare on here, mine must really stick out. Thanks for landing so promptly and vigorously on it!

Thanks for clarifying. And please don’t let it trouble you further . It’s easy to get caught up emotionally in these threads ( I have a track record longer than Pinocchio’s nose in that particular category) , especially if we already feel provoked by a previous post. Maybe I could clarify for you now, when I responded in my post

NeedImprovement:

. . . or shall we simply be subjected to more abstract rant ?

• that reference was more a general one - not directed to your posts personally but to the overall thread ; actually, I’m still having a hard time even trying to wrap my mind around the plausibility of the topic of this thread as proposed by the OP.

I don’t usually give in-depth explanations Gaber, but since you came up with such an outstandingly candid reply -(), I’ll tell you why I posted St. Thomas Aquinas’ quote (in post # 136) :

I agree with an awful lot of what fix has to say on these threads . But Angry Atheist also comes up with some gems, and what I really appreciate about Angry Atheist’s posts is that almost every single one of them challenges me to think . Now we weren’t quite there yet, but it was coming close to name calling as posts were being exchanged between those two members when I began to read this thread, so I attempted to provide a pause - to inject a little stress reliever because when we get down to name calling (pretty common phenomenon in most internet forums) , nobody really ever benefits.

Thankyou for that reply - it was a refreshing read.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I think the opposite is more likely - that homosexuality actually increases female empowerment. The embrace of homosexuality by our culture is purely a result of the feminization of our culture, and the criminalization of all things masculine. Have you seen a flamboyant homosexual lately? They are effeminate, and go to great lengths to emulate female behavior.

The only group of people who are allowed to be manly, strangely, are women. And not only are they allowed to be manly, but they’re expected to be manly.

Men are responsible for the woes of this world… Yet… the modern woman wants nothing more than to dress, work, talk, walk, act, behave, and function like a man. God forbid a man want to be manly, he must be a chauvinist and a jerk if he wants to be manly, for by being manly he participates in the widespread evil that has oppressed not only women, but all peoples other than his own white men for the past several thousand years. And gay men, with a diminishing masculinity, help feminism accomplish its goal rather effectively.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I can appreciate that someone with such an adamantine stance will “authenticate” accordiing to their inculcation and emotions. But no one is asking you to accept for yourself; all that is being asked is that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s. And is it “lash out” or “lash back?” in defense?

No matter how you try to re-word it, you are still in fact demanding that we accept for ourselves “that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s.” You are indeed imposing this very idea onto those with whom you disagree. You think we should mind our own business. You are here telling us that we should mind our own business. In doing so, you are not minding your own business, rather you are demanding that we accept your view for ourselves.The only option you have in order not to violate your own rule would be to say nothing at all.

If you actually believed what you said, then you would not be here trying to impose your worldview of tolerance onto us.

I continue to push for my ideas and the ideas of the Church because I fully recognize that this is how the world works. No matter what you say, merely by showing up to the voting polls you are imposing your will onto other citizens. Those who gain the most support win. Do not try to rationalize your lashing out as anything else besides what it truly is: an imposition, a demand for us to succumb to your perspective, just as you criticize us for doing.

So let me fix your post for you:

I can appreciate that someone with such an adamantine stance will “authenticate” accordiing to their inculcation and emotions. But no one is asking you to accept for yourself; all that is being asked is that you accept for yourself that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s. And is it “lash out” or “lash back?” in defense?

 

[FaithBuild18]

And is it “lash out” or “lash back?” in defense?

You are not in the position of defense. Traditional moral theology is the position of defense, the position that people such as yourself are trying to uproot, reform, or scrap entirely. It is the city, and the LGBT social movement is the attack trying to rip down its walls, raze its foundations, and erect a new city in its place. Traditional moral theology had claim on this issue LONG before the post-modern LGBT social movement.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Gaber
Truth is that which cannot be named and only pointed to, especially by Silence. Yours is the question that Pilate allegedly asked of Jesus after Pilate said to him, “You are a King then?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world: to testify of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” There is no record of a reply from Jesus, is there?

Jesus said He is the truth. Truth is a person.

I am glad you admit that (for you at least) truth has nothing to do with facts or reason.
It puts your whole argument into the proper perspective.

 

[fix]

Jesus said that. That is a fact and is reasonable. What is not reasonable
Is relativism, hedonism, materialism, and all the rest that attempt to deny reality.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by Gaber
Truth is that which cannot be named and only pointed to, especially by Silence. Yours is the question that Pilate allegedly asked of Jesus after Pilate said to him, “You are a King then?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I have come into the world: to testify of the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” There is no record of a reply from Jesus, is there?

I am glad you admit that (for you at least) truth has nothing to do with facts or reason.
It puts your whole argument into the proper perspective.

Yet it makes perfect sense that without this Truth , personal (less objective, at least) reference points come into play ( to take its place) ; one consequence being that the new “truth” usually ends up being relative to some degree or another .

 

[NeedImprovement]

From : Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

**TRUTH. **

Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.

Link to MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

 

[Gaber]

Jesus said He is the truth. Truth is a person.

Was Jesus refering to His “person” or to His Self when he said that? Person, especially if you know the deirvation of that word, is itself the lie that needs to be seen through, not sounded through.

 

[Gaber]

I think the opposite is more likely - that homosexuality actually increases female empowerment. The embrace of homosexuality by our culture is purely a result of the feminization of our culture, and the criminalization of all things masculine. Have you seen a flamboyant homosexual lately? They are effeminate, and go to great lengths to emulate female behavior.

The only group of people who are allowed to be manly, strangely, are women. And not only are they allowed to be manly, but they’re expected to be manly.

Men are responsible for the woes of this world… Yet… the modern woman wants nothing more than to dress, work, talk, walk, act, behave, and function like a man. God forbid a man want to be manly, he must be a chauvinist and a jerk if he wants to be manly, for by being manly he participates in the widespread evil that has oppressed not only women, but all peoples other than his own white men for the past several thousand years. And gay men, with a diminishing masculinity, help feminism accomplish its goal rather effectively.

You might be interested in *Save the Males *by Kathleen Parker. Fascinaitng read. Also there is savethemales.ca

 

[Gaber]

No matter how you try to re-word it, you are still in fact demanding that we accept for ourselves “that we each are accorded what is fair, and that you stay in your business, not someone else’s or God’s.” You are indeed imposing this very idea onto those with whom you disagree. You think we should mind our own business. You are here telling us that we should mind our own business. In doing so, you are not minding your own business, rather you are demanding that we accept your view for ourselves.The only option you have in order not to violate your own rule would be to say nothing at all.

Ww. that would be very Zen of me. Now and zen I am.

If you actually believed what you said, then you would not be here trying to impose your worldview of tolerance onto us.

Jeez. You are according me a lot of power! Thank you!

I continue to push for my ideas and the ideas of the Church because I fully recognize that this is how the world works. No matter what you say, merely by showing up to the voting polls you are imposing your will onto other citizens. Those who gain the most support win. Do not try to rationalize your lashing out as anything else besides what it truly is: an imposition, a demand for us to succumb to your perspective, just as you criticize us for doing.

So let me fix your post for you:

But yours is better, because you are right. I get it. Sorry for the imposition…