Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JohnMichaels]

Sounds like you have done a lot to help this couple (and likely others if you can approach people with such candor about very sensitive and volatile issues).

A good idea is a good idea. I don’t care where it comes from. As for helping them, I don’t know if I’d say that. But if something makes sense to me, I’ve no problems sharing the information I have on the subject.
If all people do is listen to what the people on TV tell them is right and wrong without looking into it, it’s ignorance. I oppose ignorance strongly! Heck, the media isn’t even required by law to tell the truth…

On the other hand…

In terms of "forbid(ding) others from doing so . . . ", you are likely far less cynical and much more optimistic than myself.
I see nothing of the kind ever happening in secular societies; perhaps when this world hits rock bottom.

What I meant was, protesting outside clinics, belittling women who plan to abort, etc. hardcore stuff. I can tell people I believe it’s wrong, not chastise them for thinking otherwise on a matter of her own body. Being a man makes it waaaay hard for me to do so. That’s all I meant

 

[JohnMichaels]

Did I say anything about what God thinks? No, I don’t think I did. I said that God is, by definition, omniscient, and therefore whatever He does think is the truth.

You don’t read my posts the way I intend you to read them. But, to me…

God loves all human beings, regardless of their behavior, and He desires them all to turn from their sin and come to Him
This does not mean God does not love them. He respects the free will He gave them and He will not force someone who does not want Him to be with Him

This reads like someone who knows God pretty well. Ok, it’s “The teaching” but it’s still claiming to know.
All I did, is also claim to know. In this exercise, neither of us know. I was trying to get you to define or clarify teachings, not assert claims of definitive knowledge. I understand, it would be impossible to exclude the Church’s teachings in a proper defense of said teachings…So, I can’t know but the Church can. I accept that, fine, move on.
(I really don’t, but its obviously an impasse)

Repeating a fallacious argument from a theist doesn’t make it not fallacious for you.

It was NOT presented to me as a fallacious argument. It was presented to me as factual, without question! I foolishly expected it accepted here also. I apologize, but deeply thank you for the quotes

I cannot accept you using it because it’s completely arbitrary and useless in a debate, just as it would be for a theist. It would be the same if we were having a debate about the possibility of time travel and I said, “I built a time machine and travelled to the future, so time travel is possible.” It’s silly, it has no logical basis and, thus, it is utterly useless in the pursuit of the truth. It’s utterly pointless to debate about completely whimsical imaginary experiences with no logical foundation.

Again, I love you sir.

Being “chaste” does not necessarily mean being “abstinent”. It would behoove you to learn something about your opponent’s stance before making ignorant statements such as this. Your current approach to this debate is not much different from a **Young Earth Creationist **who denies evolution without ever having cracked open a science textbook.

That was uncalled for! MEANY!!!

A) Chastity within marriage means remaining open to life. If there are morally sufficient reasons to avoid having children for a time (and “We only wanted one” is not a morally sufficient reason),

What is a morally sufficient reason? So, you’re saying the couple can have sex, so long as they are accepting of the consequences a child might be born. If they desire no more children for financial reasons, should they then abstain for the remainder of the marriage?

Marriage that is being discussed in the study is forced abstinence, e.g. “frigidity”, or withholding sexual relations against one’s spouses wishes. Huge difference.

I’ll need the above answered to explain my point. Maybe it’s a bad point?! Who knows!!! Oh the anticipation!!! :bigyikes:

(PS, I’m not making fun of you, I’m just trying to have a little fun with this, ya know?)

Yes, specifically when you start making claims about the causes of your findings/statistics, it is important to show how you obtained that information/came to that conclusion. In some cases, such statements are just the researcher’s hypotheses.

You make me so happy in this post…
I withdraw the conjectural link

Did you watch the documentary I linked to you? If you are really interested in “understanding” the other side, you should be willing to invest the necessary time to do so.

I’ve never had to watch a documentary for a debate, but sure why not. But, not tonight. The game’s on

 

[prodigalson2011]

You don’t read my posts the way I intend you to read them. But, to me…

I will admit I do find some of your posts a little vague and ambiguous.

God loves all human beings, regardless of their behavior, and He desires them all to turn from their sin and come to Him
This does not mean God does not love them. He respects the free will He gave them and He will not force someone who does not want Him to be with Him

This reads like someone who knows God pretty well. Ok, it’s “The teaching” but it’s still claiming to know.

I said this in response to your opening post in which you laid out your understanding of the different Christian positions on homosexuality. So in this case, I was only correcting a misunderstanding of the official Catholic position. I didn’t intend it as an absolute claim in that particular instance. There’s a lot of philosophizing to go through to get to that point. I wasn’t claiming to know that it was the truth about God just then; only claiming to know that it was the official teaching of the Church… which it is.

All I did, is also claim to know. In this exercise, neither of us know. I was trying to get you to define or clarify teachings, not assert claims of definitive knowledge. I understand, it would be impossible to exclude the Church’s teachings in a proper defense of said teachings…So, I can’t know but the Church can. I accept that, fine, move on.
(I really don’t, but its obviously an impasse)

No, I don’t think it’s an impasse at all. I think there are very good arguments for the truth of those claims, but our conversation has been diverted from those points several times.

In any case, I don’t base my belief in the Church’s teaching on the simple fact that the Church says it. Like I said, I have faith in the Church because I believe there is good historical evidence for its founding by a man who it is claimed died and came back to life, that there are solid arguments for the historicity of that event, and his life in general, that his coming had been foretold, not only throughout over 1500 years of Jewish prophecy, but even Gentile/pagan predictions as well, that there is overwhelming residual proof (much of a supernatural nature) of His birth, life and resurrection (the latest research on the Shroud of Turin, Frederick Larson’s research on the star of Bethlehem and various other astronomical events associated with Scripture, the Eucharistic miracles in which all the blood types match and which also match the blood types of both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, etc., etc.) and that there are wholly sound and persuasive philosophical arguments for the existence of the theistic God in general, as well as the natural law upon which Catholic morality is based (natural law, if you are not familiar, is a philosophical system by which moral absolutes are deduced through a process of reasoned observation. I clarify because many people who aren’t familiar confuse it with the laws of nature.)

Any argument for the truth of Catholic doctrine from me is going to touch on all of these points eventually, and I didn’t intend to convey the impression that I was making a definitive argument here.

It was NOT presented to me as a fallacious argument. It was presented to me as factual, without question! I foolishly expected it accepted here also. I apologize, but deeply thank you for the quotes

Well, to the person presenting it, it may well be factual. But as we’ve already agreed elsewhere, it’s foolish to expect someone to be swayed by unsupported testimony. I’ve had several deeply profound spiritual experiences, and while I do consider them evidence for myself, I would never expect anyone to believe me or the Catholic Church on the basis of my unobservable and unshareable inner life. If they were someone extremely close to me and knew me (and my mind) very well, I might expect them to give my testimony a little more credence.

Also, at the beginning of this post, I said that I find some of your posts a bit vague and ambiguous. And here’s a perfect example: what quotes are you talking about? I’m duly confused, sir.

Again, I love you sir.

:hug1: When in doubt, hug it out. That’s what I always say. Actually, that’s the first time I’ve ever said it, and I’m not entirely sure what I meant by it. But, there you have it…

 

[prodigalson2011]

That was uncalled for! MEANY!!!

I’m sorry, I guess that was a bit uncharitable. Just trying to drive the point home: I really think you’ve rejected the moral positions of the faith you were raised in without properly understanding them. Perhaps you’ve made the same mistake most people (present author included) have in thinking that since we were raised Catholic, we have a good understanding of Catholicism. I can’t speak for you, but I can say that personally (as well as for most people I know), I learned almost nothing about the Catholic Church in 17 years of Sunday mass (every week), Catholic school, youth group, CCD, etc. My Catholic education was so good that I was agnostic by the age of 12 and a professing atheist at 14.

What is a morally sufficient reason?

It could be many things, depending on the particular state of the family in question. Financial considerations could be sufficient if the couple really could not adequately provide for another child and still sufficiently provide for their family already living. The Church does not define specific reasons for the use of NFP; it is left to the couple to discern whether their reasons for avoiding children are just and grave, whether those reasons be financial, psychological, situational, etc. The expectation is that the couple will have formed their conscience, through the teachings of Christ and His Church, to an extent that they are morally competent to make these decisions themselves.

So, you’re saying the couple can have sex, so long as they are accepting of the consequences a child might be born. If they desire no more children for financial reasons, should they then abstain for the remainder of the marriage?

No, not at all. That is where natural family planning comes in. Assuming that their financial situation is truly dire and that it would truly be irresponsible, rather than just personally inconvenient, for them to have another child, the couple could use natural family planning indefinitely. The way this works is that the couple abstains from sexual relations during the woman’s fertile period, which is usually only a few days a month.

There are several different methods for determining when this is, but done properly, it is 99% effective. It differs from contraception in that it acknowledges and accepts the full meaning and goodness of the sexual act and works with the nature of the human body rather than against it, whereas contraception treats fertility as an inconvenience to be done away with and sex as a commodity to be available on demand. Further, NFP requires a great deal of communication and cooperation between the spouses, as well as patience and self-sacrifice, and it engenders a deeper respect of the other’s body and humanity. This is likely the reason couples who use NFP rarely divorce. In summary: Contraception says “I want it now.” NFP says, “I can wait.” It’s selfishness vs. selflessness. Vice vs. virtue.

I’ll need the above answered to explain my point. Maybe it’s a bad point?! Who knows!!! Oh the anticipation!!! :bigyikes:

(PS, I’m not making fun of you, I’m just trying to have a little fun with this, ya know?)

I hope that helped. And no offense taken. If anything, I’ve been pretty short-tempered and humorless throughout this thread, so I’m glad to see I haven’t soured your mood.

I guess I’ve just gotten a little too used to some of our resident non-believers being insincere and patronizing. The more we talk, I get that impression less. I’ll chalk it up to your very unorthodox methods of discourse and aforementioned ambiguity.

You make me so happy in this post…
I withdraw the conjectural link

I’ve never had to watch a documentary for a debate, but sure why not. But, not tonight. The game’s on

Really, I guess it is asking a little much. But, on the other hand, the information therein has a great bearing on my argument re: population decline and it presents it in a much more cohesive and exhaustive manner than I could do myself.

If you find yourself with an hour to spare and nothing else to do with it, I think it might make you reconsider a few things. Maybe not. Who knows? Anyway, enjoy the game!

 

[JohnMichaels]

:

Really, I guess it is asking a little much. :

Not at all. I’ve just never been presented with it, is what I meant. As a matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve ever watched any documentary on the given subject. Far be it for me to deny learning!

Beyond that I’m still gathering my thoughts on the rest of what you said.

Cheers!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Not at all. I’ve just never been presented with it, is what I meant. As a matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve ever watched any documentary on the given subject. Far be it for me to deny learning!

Beyond that I’m still gathering my thoughts on the rest of what you said.

Cheers!

Cool. Just fyi: if you do decide to watch it, for some reason the link I provided skips to about the 3 minute mark, but it will play from the beginning if you reset it.

And also, after rewatching it myself, I’ll have to put my tail between my legs and confess that I was mistaken on a key point earlier. But not in a way that effects the overall point, at least.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Cool. Just fyi: if you do decide to watch it, for some reason the link I provided skips to about the 3 minute mark, but it will play from the beginning if you reset it.

And also, after rewatching it myself, I’ll have to put my tail between my legs and confess that I was mistaken on a key point earlier. But not in a way that effects the overall point, at least.

Few things.
I always check the source of any documentary I’m about to watch.
Picked up this habit the first few times I took Michael Moore at his word :doh2:

Don Feder was the communications director and public spokesman of the documentaries Demographic Winter: the Decline of the Human Family
Feder has been criticized for calling homosexuals "a sorry collection of individuals, connected only by their carnal appetites, caught up in a perverted lifestyle

I’ve also read a few reports on the subject, and while birthrates have been in decline for the last 4 years, it did somewhat level off this year. Also, there are contributing factors.
However, comment pieces I’ve read (slightly) on this doc seem to indicate

But there’s hope, the film declares, in academics coming to revalue a “very old institution”: meaning the natural family, in its traditionalist, patriarchal fullness, from expectations of fertility and gender-appropriate roles to difficult divorces and abstinence promotion. It’s a religious right platform, minus its traditional center, God

This film isn’t going to blame homosexuals for an hour, is it? I may not wanna watch a propaganda piece…

 

[JRKH]

I use life and death in my analogy because the people involved are alive. It was the best way to get it across. I’d be silly to suggest “Leave out the other 2, and I will haunt your afterlife” would I not?

Understood. That is why my changes were not intended to remove the death aspect.

Altering my analogy is fine, I’ve still placed that evil which awaits the 2 gates I did not recommend. It does not exist without my placing it in opposition of the exits I disapprove of.
Have I taken your free will, no. I’ve presented you with a very one-sided situation, though.
My analogy cannot possibly reach the level of complication of it’s parent text, but I hope the point gets across of how I’m looking at it

The reason I suggested the alteration in the analogy was that it would remove the specific action (shooting) on your part. In my alteration, the deadly dog exists - the snakes exist. What you have done is to warn the person of their existence and the consequence of going through those gates. It might be as simple a statement as, “If you go through one of those gates, you will die. If you go through this gate you will live.” After this, no action is required on your part. (you don’t have to shoot them).

Have you commanded the person to go through the one gate? Have you forced him too?

If the person is reasonably smart, humble, and is willing to trust you then that person will likely make the good and proper choice. On the other hand if the person is not humble, does not trust you - says something like “you can’t tell ME what to do” and marches off to one of the other gates…who is responsible for the outcome?

I’ve actually met such people…the, “Don’t tell me what to do”,types. The type who speed in their cars and then get mad at the policeman for pulling them over. The kind who constantly complain about their job and their pay - but then refuse to put in any effort at making things better for themselves - and even put down others who DO try to better themselves.

Anyway - Not to get off topic.
I do like your analogy…and obviously there are some interesting variations and possibilities in it.

Huh? You don’t…what?

I don’t know why this should be confusing to you. Humility is a virtue. Pride (of self) is a vice.

(I’ll note you changed my mind, then changed it again all on the exclusion subject. While it still comes off slightly intolerant, magnificent debate, I admit I was wrong, if your words are true)

I’m glad that you are seeing things more clearly. If I may suggest - it is not “intolerant” for the Church to maintain it’s teachings - the same teachings it has held for 2000 years. The person seeking to be part of the Church has free will. Part of joining the Church is acceptance of her teachings. If the person wants the Church to change to fit them - is it not the individual who is being intolerant, not the church?

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

The reason I suggested the alteration in the analogy was that it would remove the specific action (shooting) on your part. In my alteration, the deadly dog exists - the snakes exist. What you have done is to warn the person of their existence and the consequence of going through those gates. (you don’t have to shoot them).
Have you commanded the person to go through the one gate? Have you forced him too?

If the person is reasonably smart, humble, **and is willing to trust you then that person will likely make the good and proper choice. ** On the other hand if the person is not humble, does not trust you - says something like “you can’t tell ME what to do” and marches off to one of the other gates…who is responsible for the outcome?

I’d agree with you completely if the outcomes of refusing my advice, however pure my intentions, did not result in harm.
The Impasse here is I still can’t see how I am giving them a reasonable choice.
In my eyes, only the fool would choose doors 2 & 3, yet they are options. Free to be chosen.
THEN, once they ‘accept’ me, & my situation presented, they must be without metal when they exit. A metal detector will be present out the gate with no harm, to be sure no metal objects leave my yard. (be without sin)
Alternatively if they choose to leave my yard with metal objects, they have to call me later and confess this to me, and ask my forgiveness.
(I’ve never tried to expand on this analogy. it’s fun for me heh)

I don’t know why this should be confusing to you. Humility is a virtue. Pride (of self) is a vice.

You never feel proud of yourself? When you do a good job? I don’t see how I could be without any sense of pride in myself

I’m glad that you are seeing things more clearly. If I may suggest - it is not “intolerant” for the Church to maintain it’s teachings - the same teachings it has held for 2000 years. The person seeking to be part of the Church has free will. Part of joining the Church is acceptance of her teachings. If the person wants the Church to change to fit them - is it not the individual who is being intolerant, not the church?

I only said it was slightly coming off intolerant.
I agree with you that the Church, if looked at as any other club, is free (even in my eyes) to hold it’s own rules and conditions of membership
I then further changed my mind when you informed me an individual who was gay could indeed attend your church, without communion but still, being offered this additional information made me see this as an incredibly fair compromise.

The last part is why it’s still slightly intolerant. Not that I haven’t already accepted it on the whole (per your explanations) I would just say that - of the 2 - only 1 can change. That’s why I’d still say slightly intolerant. But not too bad at all. Nowhere near my initial assumption or fitting with the information I had been provided previously.

 

[JRKH]

I’d agree with you completely if the outcomes of refusing my advice, however pure my intentions, did not result in harm.
The Impasse here is I still can’t see how I am giving them a reasonable choice.
In my eyes, only the fool would choose doors 2 & 3, yet they are options. Free to be chosen.
THEN, once they ‘accept’ me, & my situation presented, they must be without metal when they exit. A metal detector will be present out the gate with no harm, to be sure no metal objects leave my yard. (be without sin)
Alternatively if they choose to leave my yard with metal objects, they have to call me later and confess this to me, and ask my forgiveness.
(I’ve never tried to expand on this analogy. it’s fun for me heh)

Yes - I could see playing with this analogy being a whole thread unto itself.

You never feel proud of yourself? When you do a good job? I don’t see how I could be without any sense of pride in myself

Before we get too far down this road…Let’s be clear on how we got here. You had stated that:
That makes sense. I just couldn’t proudly tell it to another person. I’d have to be a closet catholic
The thing here is that you shouldn’t tell it proudly to another person. Rather we should share joy and happiness and humility. That is why I responded that we should eliminate “pride” from our thinking.

Of course the English word “Pride” has a rather broad meaning - and not all bad which is what you point out above…Of course we can use other words to describe how I feel about a job well done. I feel happy, satisfied, content - it could also make me feel good if someone else were to compliment the job that I did. All of things things could be seen as a form of pride.
But then there is another side to pride. A side that wants to call attention to ones self, to make ones self out to be better than others, to good to do certain tasks.
So when you wrote that you couldn’t “proudly” tell another and so would have to be a “closet Catholic”…I immediately saw the negative aspect of pride…a pride that would prevent one from humbly and graciously and lovingly share that which they embrace with their heart.

See what I mean?

I only said it was slightly coming off intolerant.
I agree with you that the Church, if looked at as any other club, is free (even in my eyes) to hold it’s own rules and conditions of membership
I then further changed my mind when you informed me an individual who was gay could indeed attend your church, without communion but still, being offered this additional information made me see this as an incredibly fair compromise.

The last part is why it’s still slightly intolerant. Not that I haven’t already accepted it on the whole (per your explanations) I would just say that - of the 2 - only 1 can change. That’s why I’d still say slightly intolerant. But not too bad at all. Nowhere near my initial assumption or fitting with the information I had been provided previously.

Fair enough.

Peace
James

 

[polytropos]

I’d hope you aren’t suggesting an atheist cannot be against abortion.
Actually none of any of what you said made any sense once you added that sentence in parenthesis

What? I explicitly stated that, when I was an atheist, I was against abortion. How could I be suggesting that an atheist can’t be against abortion?

(The parenthetical part was referring to the fact that I was an atheist against abortion for a few years, about 3, before becoming a Christian.)

 

[JohnMichaels]

What? I explicitly stated that, when I was an atheist, I was against abortion. How could I be suggesting that an atheist can’t be against abortion?

(The parenthetical part was referring to the fact that I was an atheist against abortion for a few years, about 3, before becoming a Christian.)

This is how you worded it " what largely led me to reconsider Catholicism was that I could not bring myself to support abortion (for a few years of my atheism, at least)."

End sentence. When I read this, it said to me “When I could no longer support abortion, I began to believe again”
This suggested many things to me (my assumption. I am not accusing you, I was only ever asking for clarification)
It suggest that, as an atheist you would be somehow required to support abortion
& that somehow it correlates with belief.
The only reason I brought it up, is that in fact this thread is somewhat changing my stance on abortion, but not overall. So I didn’t see the connection.

If I’m wrong, my apologies. It was not my intent to come off as mean-spirited in my initial reply

Cheers!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Few things.
I always check the source of any documentary I’m about to watch.
Picked up this habit the first few times I took Michael Moore at his word :doh2:

I can’t blame you there. The very name makes me nauseous. But I can assure this documentary is as far from the world of Michael Moore’s factually deprived form of infotainment as possible.

I’ve also read a few reports on the subject, and while birthrates have been in decline for the last 4 years, it did somewhat level off this year. Also, there are contributing factors.
However, comment pieces I’ve read (slightly) on this doc seem to indicate

But there’s hope, the film declares, in academics coming to revalue a “very old institution”: meaning the natural family, in its traditionalist, patriarchal fullness, from expectations of fertility and gender-appropriate roles to difficult divorces and abstinence promotion. It’s a religious right platform, minus its traditional center, God

In regards to Don Feder, I can’t vouch for him; I’m not familiar with him. I can’t find any official citation for his involvement in the project, but regardless, however distasteful his personal opinions may be, they have no bearing on the accuracy of the research presented in the documentary.

The informational material of the documentary comes from well-respected scholars: economists and demographers, some Harvard Ph.D’s and even Nobel Prize winners. They are definitely not “B list” fringe researchers culled from the peanut gallery.

If the review you’ve quoted is representative of the rest, I’d ignore them. It reeks of several fallacies: judgmental language, appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, appeal to motive, chronological snobbery. I say let the data speak for itself. Attempting to discredit it by appealing to such “progressive” trigger words as “patriarchal” is, in my opinion, an obvious attempt to discredit the opposing side by appealing to liberal sentiments.

The genetic fallacy also raises its nose: the implication seems to be that because the conclusion of the documentary supports the position of the religious right, it must be false.

This film isn’t going to blame homosexuals for an hour, is it? I may not wanna watch a propaganda piece…

No, sir. I can gladly say that, to the best of my recollection, homosexuals don’t even get a passing mention. If they are mentioned at all, it’s very brief. The focus is on the decline of the traditional family via the sexual revolution, and thus focuses exclusively on heterosexual couples.

 

[polytropos]

This is how you worded it " what largely led me to reconsider Catholicism was that I could not bring myself to support abortion (for a few years of my atheism, at least)."

End sentence. When I read this, it said to me “When I could no longer support abortion, I began to believe again”
This suggested many things to me (my assumption. I am not accusing you, I was only ever asking for clarification)
It suggest that, as an atheist you would be somehow required to support abortion
& that somehow it correlates with belief.
The only reason I brought it up, is that in fact this thread is somewhat changing my stance on abortion, but not overall. So I didn’t see the connection.

If I’m wrong, my apologies. It was not my intent to come off as mean-spirited in my initial reply

Cheers!

My apologies. The parenthetical part was added in slightly ad hoc after the fact, and as I reread it, it definitely could have been clearer.

I don’t think atheists are required to support abortion in any way. Most do, though, and the issue gradually came to be rather important to me, to the extent that I started to doubt the possibility of “social contract” sort of ethics, in that they might lead to what ultimately “solves” problems like poverty by killing those who would be impoverished, and “solves” the issue of killing by defining those who are killed as non-persons.

 

[JohnMichaels]

My apologies. The parenthetical part was added in slightly ad hoc after the fact, and as I reread it, it definitely could have been clearer.

I don’t think atheists are required to support abortion in any way. Most do, though, and the issue gradually came to be rather important to me, to the extent that I started to doubt the possibility of “social contract” sort of ethics, in that they might lead to what ultimately “solves” problems like poverty by killing those who would be impoverished, and “solves” the issue of killing by defining those who are killed as non-persons.

I’m still not getting it. Has to be my fault. I understand the issue became important to you, & why…its the leap I’m missing You said you mentioned it slightly ad hoc, but…it doesn’t click

If you…had a personal experience in there somewhere…it clicks instant
But it seems like you’re suggesting you always believed in God, even as an Atheist, but came back to the Church over your feelings changing on the abortion issue.
But this cannot be the case.
Kinda like saying “I couldn’t find my car keeps, then as I was driving down the road I heard these guys talking about…”
Yet, you didn’t mention how you found the keys lol

Cheers!

 

[JohnMichaels]

I can’t blame you there. The very name makes me nauseous. But I can assure this documentary is as far from the world of Michael Moore’s factually deprived form of infotainment as possible.

When I watch a documentary, I wanna learn something. I feel I’ve been exposed to truth. When I come to find out later I’ve been fed half-truths, or invented possibilities of truth, I get a little guarded moving forward lol

In regards to Don Feder, I can’t vouch for him; I’m not familiar with him. I can’t find any official citation for his involvement in the project,

Me either, just that it says so on his Wiki page. When I looked up the title one of the places it led me was there.

No, sir. I can gladly say that, to the best of my recollection, homosexuals don’t even get a passing mention. If they are mentioned at all, it’s very brief. The focus is on the decline of the traditional family via the sexual revolution, and thus focuses exclusively on heterosexual couples.

Good, then I’ll watch it & go back over some of your points before I reply to them. Might watch it tonight or tomorrow night

 

[polytropos]

I’m still not getting it. Has to be my fault. I understand the issue became important to you, & why…its the leap I’m missing You said you mentioned it slightly ad hoc, but…it doesn’t click

If you…had a personal experience in there somewhere…it clicks instant
But it seems like you’re suggesting you always believed in God, even as an Atheist, but came back to the Church over your feelings changing on the abortion issue.
But this cannot be the case.

I didn’t believe in God for a long time. It wasn’t even the abortion issue directly, but it lead me to reconsider the Church, since I thought they had a credible position on the issue while modernity did not.

 

[JohnMichaels]

I didn’t believe in God for a long time. It wasn’t even the abortion issue directly, but it lead me to reconsider the Church, since I thought they had a credible position on the issue while modernity did not.

better. still strange to reconsider the church as opposed to just changing your own views, especially if you did not believe. However it is open-ended so one can assume you found God somewhere along the way after rejoining
I shall assume it, since it’s quicker

Cheers

 

[Flimmy]

There is no… “evidence.”

 

[JohnMichaels]

The focus is on the decline of the traditional family via the sexual revolution, and thus focuses exclusively on heterosexual couples.

Did you view this as an unbiased piece? I’m about 30 minutes in, and I’m having to stop a lot to take notes. check facts & sources.
Did you do the same? just wondering. I’ll have my review soon. I didn’t see this as a religious piece though, like the other reviews i have seen of it