The term “rapture” is generally describing a protestant heresy.Actually it is can, some people will not die as they will be alive at the rapture and some are born incapable of sin.
Peace
And if you believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven that also means can, not will.Depends. We will all die a physical death.
I’m not sure what the Church teaches about the rapture. I always thought that was a Evangelical Protestant concept.
The Church is silent on the death of Mary.And if you believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven that also means can, not will.
Peace
There are two options here.To put those into simple English:
Man can die and man makes mistakes. So what does that have to do with God punishing innocents for the sins of their fathers?
Peace
Why did Jesus heal the sick if it wasn’t to alleviate suffering?There are two options here.
So, portarica, tell me again what you believe.
- There are birth defects and other things in the world because of the Fall. We are not as God intended when he created us. Through free will, we lost ability to live with God forever in the ‘garden’. Because of that, we die from disease and old age and other things that were not originally intended, although God knew hoe it would play out.
- God created humans to have a finite life expectancy, and purposely put disease and death and birth defects into us. He never intended for us to have an eternal physical life with Him. He wants us to suffer.
Jesus healed the sick to demonstrate His divinity.Why did Jesus heal the sick if it wasn’t to alleviate suffering?
Adam and Eve were created free from sin.If He didn’t intend for us to have an eternal life with him he wouldn’t have originally made Adam and Eve free from sin and everything else.
This is a very haughty, proud and cruel thing to say.He wants some deaf dumb and blind kid who can only communicate through seizures of pain to suffer ? For whom and why?.
Then I will have to assume that you believe number 1, above, that God did not intend us to suffer, but, through the Fall, suffering entered the world.Why did Jesus heal the sick if it wasn’t to alleviate suffering?
If He didn’t intend for us to have an eternal life with him he wouldn’t have originally made Adam and Eve free from sin and everything else. He wants some deaf dumb and blind kid who can only communicate through seizures of pain to suffer ? For whom and why?
I’m sorry but your reasoning escapes me at this time.
Peace
Actually ‘theory’ is not short-hand for ‘don’t know for sure.’ (Why would you think that was the case? Are you really a sceptic about all ‘theories’?) ‘Theory’ indicates the existence of a rationally articulated conceptual structure. I’ve already told you one part that I do know for sure: that it’s not just about endorsing whatever the majority of people purpose to do. And that’s an idea that you share, so that’s your first step into understanding natural law theory. Seeing that we agree on this point, can you tell me if you have ‘solid facts’ to back up this point of view? If not, what is your epistemic attitude towards it?‘theory’. Meaning you don’t know for sure. SO tell me, what part of natural law DO you know for sure and what solid facts can you use to back it up?
So you feel that there is some kind of natural law about love needing to be ‘intimate love’? What do you mean by that? And another kind of natural law (or, please, call it whatever you like) that ‘experience’ leads to/results in(?) legitimacy of ‘choice-making’? How is that part of your theory supposed to work?That’s a complicated qurstion and kind of outside the scope of the thread. We’re talking about same sex attraction here, not incestuous attraction.
But just so I don’t look like I’m backing out of the argument, I’ll answer it anyway.
First of all it depends on the age of the daughter. We already have a vast array of laws telling us that children cannot do quite a lot of the things that adults can. The reasons for this are obvious - children simply lack the experience to make certain types of choices. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that the daughter is in her early 20s.
Since they are both female, the argument about deformed babies doesn’t apply here. What the couple would have to be careful of is knowing that the love they feel is intimate love, an that they are not confusing it with the type of love that mothers and daughters feel for each other anyway. The only other argument is, what happens when the intimate relationship breaks down? Unlike in non-incestuous relations, the parties are still tied by a family bond. I’m no psycotherapist, but I’d say that would probably throw a faily large spanner into the inner workings of someones wellbeing. But I digress, these things just don’t apply to same sex relations.
So you’re just not interested in having a general understanding of the harms that can arise from human sexual expression in general? It sounds to me like you’re a little too fixated on the homo/hetero divide. Do you think this might be possible? If you try to understand the general phenomenon, you just might grasp the particulars in an understanding way; if you refuse to try to understand the general, you’ll likely have trouble understanding the particulars (that’s just how all understanding works, isn’t it?).I’m not even considering it since it applies to heterosexual sex too. I’m looking for harm that fulfils the following criteria:
The harm must result directly from the fact that the two parties are of the same sex. By Direct, I mean that the only way it can be avoided is by having a partner of the opposite sex.
The harm must apply to only gay men and lesbians, and not be a risk factor in heterosexual relations.
Well, Natural Law is a very rational concept, but we have no “proof” that this is what God designed. There is a lot of empirical evidence that at least a flawed understanding of it is written on the hearts of men (flawed in the sense of incomplete, without Catholic instruction). We are Catholics, and Natural Law is taught by the Church, so there is a large measure of accepting Natural Law on faith. But we are also fallen, so there is absolutely zero chance that every human or even any human (except for fully human and fully divine Jesus, and His mother) will ever be 100% perfect in the observance of Natural Law during their lives. Which explains the need for a Redeemer.Actually ‘theory’ is not short-hand for ‘don’t know for sure.’ (Why would you think that was the case? Are you really a sceptic about all ‘theories’?) ‘Theory’ indicates the existence of a rationally articulated conceptual structure. I’ve already told you one part that I do know for sure: that it’s not just about endorsing whatever the majority of people purpose to do. And that’s an idea that you share, so that’s your first step into understanding natural law theory. Seeing that we agree on this point, can you tell me if you have ‘solid facts’ to back up this point of view? If not, what is your epistemic attitude towards it?
The modern tendency, alas, is to equate love with “having sex with”. There is a tendency to overlook other kinds of love, like filial love, parental love, deep but non-sexual friendship, etc. There’s a modern tendency that says that between non-related adults, if you aren’t having sex together, it isn’t love. This is of course nonsense.So you feel that there is some kind of natural law about love needing to be ‘intimate love’? What do you mean by that? And another kind of natural law (or, please, call it whatever you like) that ‘experience’ leads to/results in(?) legitimacy of ‘choice-making’? How is that part of your theory supposed to work?
I wonder… at the risk of being royally flamed… if gays are more inclined than heterosexuals to make their sexuality the centerpiece of their identities? Just a thought. I find, at least in forums like these, that gays do tend to wear it on their sleeves. That probably isn’t so true in the “real world” in most circumstances, but it is certainly something I’ve noticed in moral discussions on boards like this. I have no doubt that it is the result of a couple of millennia of persecution, that now that discrimination is outlawed, there is a sense of liberation and empowerment that is reinforced by affirming their sexual identity.So you’re just not interested in having a general understanding of the harms that can arise from human sexual expression in general? It sounds to me like you’re a little too fixated on the homo/hetero divide. Do you think this might be possible? If you try to understand the general phenomenon, you just might grasp the particulars in an understanding way; if you refuse to try to understand the general, you’ll likely have trouble understanding the particulars (that’s just how all understanding works, isn’t it?).
Obviously someone who is deaf dumb and blind has very little ability to share anything and cruelty is something one does to another, to describe a situation is of itself not cruel. To accuse others of cruelty for describing a situation begs a few questions, if a description of somebody in that state elicits a response such as yours, doesn’t that mean it touched some exposed nerve or sensitive spot about that situation? ( and if my description of a hypothetical condition offended you, I apologize )Jesus healed the sick to demonstrate His divinity.
Adam and Eve were created free from sin.
They CHOOSE to sin.
This is a very haughty, proud and cruel thing to say.
Those of us who are born with severe disabilities are created by God and allowed to share the suffering of Christ. This can be used to bring salvation to the world.
We have dignity and beauty.