Oh please. Your points would be well taken if posters on here were proposing to “call them what ever names you like to call people” or “shout” at them.
You are right, your technique is likely to be successful in almost every instance. I’m sorry.
I’ll just add to this: most Catholics don’t know the Church’s teaching, and they know they don’t know it; and that’s partly why they often ignore it, or even if they don’t ignore it, they are unable to explain it to anyone else and are scared to try. And there is a good reason for this: it’s not particularly easy to get right! The counter-arguments seem so common-sensical (although really they’re just common) that people just don’t know what to say. It’s like people used to think the earth was the centre of the universe - it seemed so obvious! It was the kind of thing people had to examine carefully before they could understand the truth of the matter.
God does not ask us to be successful, he asks us to be faithful.
Actually I think that the “hating the sin and loving the sinner” is very lukewarm as is the quote from Mother Therese. It is much harder to be both right and successful than to hold the correct views.
So in your view ‘lukewarmness’ somehow has a simple relationship of inverse correlation with ‘degree of difficulty’? That’s an odd view. Did you make it up yourself?
Oh, does it? I guess we should add that to the Catechism.
, His message was about successfully feeding Him when He was hungry and getting that foolish donkey out of the well on the sabbath.
? Foolish donkey? As opposed to the wise donkey? This is apparently a new parable I haven’t heard of!Its like what happened to those kids in Colorado who live with 2 lesbians, it is so much easier to kick them out of school to show …to show what?
So basically the message I’m getting from you is: anyone who disagrees with you is lukewarm, including Mother Teresa and Archbishop Chaput. We are supposed to treat everyone like they might be Jesus, whatever that means; and Jesus expects us to know all of the consequences of our actions and to be successful (we can’t just be faithful and trust in God to be the one with the real power).They were hungry for knowledge and that bishop taught them quite a bit. [Um, aren’t they like in kindergarten? Aren’t you totally missing the point and being a complete hypocrite to boot, throwing stones at the A-b like this? Or do you seriously claim to have the “almost inhuman ability to be aware of how every action or omission in [Archbishop Chaput’s life] impacts others and by extension Jesus”?] Imagine if they were Jesus in guise of those baptized kids.
Something that is “natural” is not neccesarily moral…nature is something that has to be taken control of… our bodies need to be disciplined. Take food & gluttony for example (people who are trying to lose weight understand what I mean)… it may be very natural for someone to just indulge in their favourite sweets,junk food etc but what are the consequences of that? Obesity, diabetes, heart problems etc. Thus in order to be healthy, I have to deny my body indulging/overeating (which is what it craves).
So if the negative consequences of over indulgance of food are obesity, can you enlighten me on the negative concequences of homosexuality? Can you tell me what harm comes to a person when I have sex with my girlfriend?
You harm yourself and the other person first and foremost by offending God, who created you and who sent His son to die for your sins.
I “ditto” “kage ar” who just responded you, but also, and this goes above and beyond any religion or whether you believe in God or not, the harmful thing of indulging in an homosexual act is that it goes against your own nature, it goes against natural law. The same way having sex with your dog is unnatural, then also having sex with someone of your same sex is also unnatural. Just look at anatomy, and how complementary the human bodies were created (by whomever you believe created them).
It is harder to answer this question when posed by a woman. When men ask the question, the answer is that there are a myriad number of health issues that gay men have due to their relationships. So much so, that certain jurisdictions actually report on those unique health issues. They are doing things the body wasn’t meant to do.
Ok, but since we are both Ateists, we have no imaginary friend to offend right?
Can you elaborate on this? Can you explain what, exactly, in nature it goes against? And if anything, whay that should cause harm and what exactly that harm is?
Can you explain to me what, exactly, ‘natural law’ is? And can you claim to know everything about it? Can you claim that your knowledge of natural law is absolute enough for you to know that there is no possible way in which what I am doing is natural? Because to me and my girlfriend, it feels VERY natural.
The dog can’t consent to having sex. My girlfriend can.
So just cos Part A fits into Part B it means that anything else is “harmful”? My Girlfriend and I detest the thought of a “Part A” coming anywhere near us! To us, that is unnatural. How can you dictate to us what is natural and what is not, when to us, it is the most natural thing in the world?
I didn’t say it was moral, I just said it was natural…The thing is that people are saying it is immoral because it is unnatural, which it is not.
Is it your usual behaviour to insult people when you are a guest in their living room?
Yes, when they attack my lifestyle, call me immoral, a sinner, disgusting, harmful, unnatural, etc. and attack my fundemental rights then yes, I do tend to make the odd quip.
Perhaps you do not understand, this is a Catholic board. People here will tell you what the Church teaches.
You are on a Catholic forum. I don’t go on gay and lesbian forums and tell them that they are sinners.
Actually I disgaree with alot of people whom I find courageous.So your generalization is false.So in your view ‘lukewarmness’ somehow has a simple relationship of inverse correlation with ‘degree of difficulty’? That’s an odd view. Did you make it up yourself?
Oh, does it? I guess we should add that to the Catechism.
What the
So basically the message I’m getting from you is: anyone who disagrees with you is lukewarm, including Mother Teresa and Archbishop Chaput. We are supposed to treat everyone like they might be Jesus, whatever that means; and Jesus expects us to know all of the consequences of our actions and to be successful (we can’t just be faithful and trust in God to be the one with the real power).
I must say, with all due respect, I suspect Mother Teresa and the good Archbishop probably know a little more about both faithfulness and success than do you, whoever you happen to be.
Actually I disgaree with alot of people whom I find courageous.So your generalization is false.So in your view ‘lukewarmness’ somehow has a simple relationship of inverse correlation with ‘degree of difficulty’? That’s an odd view. Did you make it up yourself?
Oh, does it? I guess we should add that to the Catechism.
What the
So basically the message I’m getting from you is: anyone who disagrees with you is lukewarm, including Mother Teresa and Archbishop Chaput. We are supposed to treat everyone like they might be Jesus, whatever that means; and Jesus expects us to know all of the consequences of our actions and to be successful (we can’t just be faithful and trust in God to be the one with the real power).
I must say, with all due respect, I suspect Mother Teresa and the good Archbishop probably know a little more about both faithfulness and success than do you, whoever you happen to be.
It think it is because there is a certain ambiguity to the word “natural”… 1)one could use the word “natural” to denote our fallen human nature after the original sin…i.e. that is subject to concupiscence( we have a tendency to lust, engage in perverse/disordered relationships etc)… or 2) one could use it to describe nature as it is intended/or as it ought to be (the natural law).