Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JRKH]

It is not a contradiction
I said God was confirmed, not that he confirmed his still undying endorsement of any specific book’s words. The exercise then becomes you defending your belief in what the scriptures say, not just “But, God wants it that way” that isn’t part of the discussion

I’d in this case be a deist. I’d believe (Because it’s confirmed) that he exists
I would not be a theist, because I wouldn’t follow a specific dogma

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense,* theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity’s relationship to the universe*** ← I’m not operating under the second part

I’ll agree it’s strange, but try to use your imagination

Thank you for the correction in terms…but I maintain that you would still be a “theist” since you would hold to a theology of your own…always comparing others to that which you hold to be true (unless convinced otherwise).

But - maybe I’m just picking the nits…

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

Thank you for the correction in terms…but I maintain that you would still be a “theist” since you would hold to a theology of your own…always comparing others to that which you hold to be true (unless convinced otherwise).

But - maybe I’m just picking the nits…

Peace
James

Interesting. I wouldn’t call it a theology, more an ideology.
a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I can rephrase that, sorry I got caught up in a technicality of “God hates” We’ll call that a rule change. I won’t assert God feels a certain way, instead in the future I’ll say “The Church feels God disapproves of…” is that more acceptable language?

Still doesn’t tell me what the Church wants them to do if they find themselves in this predicament. Onto the next…

I don’t understand what you mean by predicament. How is the Church in a predicament in this case?

1. I’m OK with that, I’ll accept the historical value of marriage.

Ok.

1. would a gay couple, without children, receive monetary assistance?

If gay marriage were legalized, yes. That is the entire point of legal marriage. It is also the reason why most gay couples want to be married (“why shouldn’t we have the same benefits as straight couples?”)

1. We do this ALL the time with heterosexual couples. 2 people who met each other yesterday can get drunk & have Elvis marry them at 2am in Vegas.
   Seems to me rather innocuous then excluding a couple because of their orientation

As I said, gay marriage is a symptom of a greater problem. And you’ve hit the nail on the head here: it’s the complete lack of respect for the sanctity and seriousness of marriage that has led to our cavalier attitude towards it.

The loosening of divorce laws is the first factor in this disintegration. As G.K. Chesterton said, “Allow people to divorce for no reason, and soon they will marry for no reason.” Vegas weddings are the absurd fulfillment of that prophecy. The second huge blow to marriage is contraception. When the sexual act is divorced from its procreative purpose, then having children or not having children becomes a matter of taste. As has already been pointed out, the entire point of marriage as a legal institution is to encourage the building of families.

While there have always been cases of couples wherein one partner is sterile, given the historical expectation of abstinence until marriage, the anomalous nature of such couples, the unfeasibility of screening out all such cases, and moreover the possibility that that condition may change either naturally or through medical intervention, there is no reason not to permit such couples from marrying (although, do note that the Church, but not the state, does prohibit marriage between couples who are inherently incapable of consummating the marriage–e.g. the man’s sex organs are irreparably damaged and nonfunctional). As Alan Keyes put it, sex between a man and a woman in principle is procreative. Sex between two people of the same gender is in principle and, moreover, always sterile. In a debate with then Sen. Obama, he said:

“The [phrase] in principle means “relating to the definition of,” not “relating to particular circumstances.” So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple; it doesn’t change what the apple is in principle. It retains… [mediator interrupts and laughs] To act as if concepts are laughable means you want to be irrational. Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions; we also make laws by means of definitions. And if you don’t know how to operate with respect for those definitions, then you can t make the law. And the individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle. Because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. And it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you’re talking about something that’s not just incidentally impossible; it’s impossible in principle. And that means that if you say “That’s a marriage,” you’re saying that marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation. You have changed the definition in such a way as in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from a social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So when you start playing games in this way you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis other than your arbitrary whim.”

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your closing paints a totality. It is to insinuate that it will bring about the end of civilization. The population is so many times greater today than it was when these rules were enacted.

Ah, well! If there’s one thing we know about appearances it is that they can be quite deceptive. The hard fact, also kept quiet by the mainstream media, is that the Western world is not only in decline, it is fast approaching what is called a “demographic winter.” A very enlightening (and frightening) documentary, featuring many prominent population researchers has been made about this. You can read more about the issue at their website (theneweconomicreality.com/) or watch it here: youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

The “baby boom” is well over; since the rise of divorce, contraception and abortion in our societies, people are having less and less children on average to the point where our replacement rate (the number of new people born to replace those already living) is in the negative (around 1 new child for every 2 living). The U.S. is just catching up to its European cousins. This has been a major contributing factor to the economic decline of Europe and we are starting to feel its effects here.

While it may not be the end of civilization altogether, it will certainly be the end of our societies as we know them. A prominent Muslim once said something to the effect of, “We will take over the world, not by the sword, but by the womb.” The rapidly growing Muslim population of Europe, paired with the ever diminishing native European population, suggests he is right. The face of Europe is due for a dramatic makeover.

scottmanning.com/content/year-by-year-world-population-estimates/

This is misleading. Most if not all of that population growth, in the last century at least, is coming from non-European civilizations. The West, as all the research shows, is rapidly shrinking.

I’ve read all the DOMA stuff I could get my hands on. My main opperating assumptions comes off this website
marriageuniqueforareason.org/religious-liberty-faq/
marriageuniqueforareason.org/faq/

The only things I was in agreement with, was the Church shouldn’t be forced to perform a gay wedding.

There is a slight chance this is going further than it needed to, you omitted a stance on civil union.
I said I couldn’t defend a position without knowing the clear position of the Church.

I was fine with Civil union.

“A rose by any other name…” The argument for “civil unions” is an argument for euphemism. It doesn’t take much to see that it’s calling the same thing by a different name. There is simply no logical reason for the state to sanction and benefit a romantic relationship in and of itself. The procreative factor is the entire reason for such a legal arrangement.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If you agree with that, I can’t argue. I can only disagree. You provided no rational explanation.

I didn’t really intend it as a discussion point, more as a personal observation.

 

[JohnMichaels]

I don’t understand what you mean by predicament. How is the Church in a predicament in this case?

The individual. Should a man find himself a homosexual, how does the Church advise him to proceed?

If gay marriage were legalized, yes. That is the entire point of legal marriage. It is also the reason why most gay couples want to be married (“why shouldn’t we have the same benefits as straight couples?”)

I think you’re confusing the argument. I was married. What would a gay married couple get that I wouldn’t?

As I said, gay marriage is a symptom of a greater problem. And you’ve hit the nail on the head here: it’s the complete lack of respect for the sanctity and seriousness of marriage that has led to our cavalier attitude towards it.

The loosening of divorce laws is the first factor in this disintegration. As G.K. Chesterton said, “Allow people to divorce for no reason, and soon they will marry for no reason.” Vegas weddings are the absurd fulfillment of that prophecy. The second huge blow to marriage is contraception. When the sexual act is divorced from its procreative purpose, then having children or not having children becomes a matter of taste. As has already been pointed out, the entire point of marriage as a legal institution is to encourage the building of families.

While there have always been cases of couples wherein one partner is sterile, given the historical expectation of abstinence until marriage, the anomalous nature of such couples, the unfeasibility of screening out all such cases, and moreover the possibility that that condition may change either naturally or through medical intervention, there is no reason not to permit such couples from marrying (although, do note that the Church, but not the state, does prohibit marriage between couples who are inherently incapable of consummating the marriage–e.g. the man’s sex organs are irreparably damaged and nonfunctional). As Alan Keyes put it, sex between a man and a woman in principle is procreative. Sex between two people of the same gender is in principle and, moreover, always sterile. In a debate with then Sen. Obama, he said:

“The [phrase] in principle means “relating to the definition of,” not “relating to particular circumstances.” So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple; it doesn’t change what the apple is in principle. It retains… [mediator interrupts and laughs] To act as if concepts are laughable means you want to be irrational. Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions; we also make laws by means of definitions. And if you don’t know how to operate with respect for those definitions, then you can t make the law. And the individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle. Because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. And it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you’re talking about something that’s not just incidentally impossible; it’s impossible in principle. And that means that if you say “That’s a marriage,” you’re saying that marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation. You have changed the definition in such a way as in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from a social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So when you start playing games in this way you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis other than your arbitrary whim.”

If I’m reading this correctly, you’re kinda saying that marriage itself should be reserved purely for couples who wish to procreate. Those couples who marry otherwise are moreso stamping a seal of approval on their romance.

This is, in affect, how you would be describing my marriage.
Almost like “We’ve already degraded the idea of marriage this far, I won’t accept one step further”
acceptable reasoning.

This is where you and I will have to decide to change subjects, or concentrate purely on homosexual marriage.
My position is: It IS what it is, we can’t go back to where it should be. Exclusion of one particular class of people then, is wrong

What I cannot do, is defend the current state of marriage or divorce. It is far too easy to do either. But that is reality. I’m working off it, nothing else I can do

In my eyes, to hold your view is to shout at the rain. What marriage should be, will never come to pass.
ALSO, what would that mean if a couple has a child outside of wedlock, should they marry (if marriage went to only being done for couples who procreate)

cheers

 

[JohnMichaels]

I didn’t really intend it as a discussion point, more as a personal observation.

I know. And as a matter of fact, we disagreed because I think the fact a couple can marry drunk in vegas at 2am a WORSE offense.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Ah, well! If there’s one thing we know about appearances it is that they can be quite deceptive. The hard fact, also kept quiet by the mainstream media, is that the Western world is not only in decline, it is fast approaching what is called a “demographic winter.”
Most if not all of that population growth, in the last century at least, is coming from non-European civilizations. The West, as all the research shows, is rapidly shrinking.

You may be right, but as you pointed out the issue is on a larger scale than homosexual marriage. a much larger scale. So I can’t really say this is something that keeps me from being a theist.

So as a matter of fact, the stance on what the institution of marriage SHOULD be, I’ve actually agreed with all my life. My contention is - it isn’t that any longer. (as I said in my other post. But you made 2, so I made 2 )

 

[JRKH]

Having dispensed with my “nit-pick” I would like to take another look at your OP and offer some comments.

I alluded in another thread that in searching for a theistic religion, any teaching I couldn’t bring myself to agree with immediately got disqualified for consideration.

So - are you saying here that if you disagree with one teaching - based on your current beliefs and/or understandings you reject the entire religion from further consideration?
If you cut yourself off from further consideration…you cut yourself off from growth. you cut yourself off from fruitful discussion and you cut yourself off from being able to evaluate an entire system as a whole because you dismiss it on some detail…
I find this to be a rather poor approach.

Of course - since you ARE here discussing and have started this new thread…we can assume that you don’t really hold to firmly to this approach - and that you have NOT disqualified Catholicism because you cannot immediately agree with every teaching…So - moving forward…

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

OK

While I expect this to spin into multiple directions ranging from morality to same-sex marriage to abstinence…I’m sure I can’t think of them all. Some of you feel free to bring something up & test how I’d feel.

I think that we can ably argue pretty much any teaching you wish to propose but there is really only one that counts…in so far as whether you should accept or reject a given “Christian” viewpoint. That teaching is on the authority of the Church.
If you accept that Scripture calls for there to be an authoritative Church - one that can “bind and loose” whatever (as it says in two places in Mt) then the other matters become less problematic.
If you do NOT accept this proposition then there are any number of teachings that can be problematic…Homosexuality and Same Sex marriage being but two…

Just a thought…

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them
2. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

As others have pointed out - neither of these really reflects the Church’s position on homosexuality.
In my own consideration of the issue, within the bounds of the authoritative Church, I arrived at the following.

1. Scripture clearly tells us that all the law and prophets stem from the great commands of Love. Love God above all else and Love neighbor as yourself.
2. When you Love someone (in this case God) you do not misuse the gifts that he has given you.
3. Our bodies are part of God’s creation and the sexual aspects of our bodies are designed in a specific way and for a specific purpose - male and female fitting together specifically and properly to accomplish this purpose.
4. The use of the sexual aspect in a way that is not ordered toward the proper - natural design is an abuse of God’s creation.
5. Such abuse is a sin - it is offensive to the one we love above all else.

Now - this is not about “hating” - it is about coming to understand the proper order of things and not acting outside of that proper order. To do so is to fail to properly Love.

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

This question is not really a theistic question. Rather it gets into the interplay of the civil and the religious aspects of society.
Regardless of whatever laws might be passed, the Catholic Church can never sanction “gay marriage”.
In so far as “civil marriage” or “civil unions” go - that is more a matter of contract law and I would be perfectly happy to see the state define it as such. I would not even mind if, like they do in Italy, two ceremonies were required…a civil and a religious…

now - as Catholics we have the right to make our views known in the legislature and the ballot box. If we are outvoted…then so be it…we will just have to deal with it.

These are my thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I know. And as a matter of fact, we disagreed because I think the fact a couple can marry drunk in vegas at 2am a WORSE offense.

The -only- reason that I didn’t put it above homosexual marriage is that at least the drunken Vegas couple is able to fulfill marriage’s intent. Personally, I view both of them as equally atrocious, and the Church teaches against both.

 

[JohnMichaels]

So - are you saying here that if you disagree with one teaching - based on your current beliefs and/or understandings you reject the entire religion from further consideration?

Absolutely am saying that.
Imagine a politician. Someone new. He says all these great things New things. The left & the right agree with him. Its the ideas themselves. Make you look at things in a whole new light
Then in closing he says “And I support child pornography! Thank you, goodnight!”

he is DISQUALIFIED. While I wouldn’t object to taking the BULK of the good ideas & putting them into practice, I could not find myself aligning with that man.
Kinda like when the Jehovah’s witnesses told me smoking sent me to hell, they got disqualified. In truth they weren’t really being considered.

Of course - since you ARE here discussing and have started this new thread…we can assume that you don’t really hold to firmly to this approach - and that you have NOT disqualified Catholicism

Hypothetical: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural <a hypothetical situation>
It’s in the title ffs
EDIT: I DID disqualify it, but you’re right that in this hypothetical, it doesn’t stay disqualified. You’re suppose to re-qualify it? heh

I think that we can ably argue pretty much any teaching you wish to propose but there is really only one that counts…in so far as whether you should accept or reject a given “Christian” viewpoint. That teaching is on the authority of the Church.
If you accept that Scripture calls for there to be an authoritative Church - one that can “bind and loose” whatever (as it says in two places in Mt) then the other matters become less problematic.

I don’t accept the scriptures outright. It wasn’t one of the operating assumptions. What this exercise promotes is your logical defense of a particular verse. Not “The scripture calls for authority, we follow authority”
this is unimaginative.

If you do NOT accept this proposition then there are any number of teachings that can be problematic…Homosexuality and Same Sex marriage being but two…

It’s like…you’re learning as you go Right on brotha!

1. Scripture clearly tells us that all the law and prophets stem from the great commands of Love. Love God above all else and Love neighbor as yourself.
2. When you Love someone (in this case God) you do not misuse the gifts that he has given you.
3. Our bodies are part of God’s creation and the sexual aspects of our bodies are designed in a specific way and for a specific purpose - male and female fitting together specifically and properly to accomplish this purpose.
4. The use of the sexual aspect in a way that is not ordered toward the proper - natural design is an abuse of God’s creation.
5. Such abuse is a sin - it is offensive to the one we love above all else.

Now - this is not about “hating” - it is about coming to understand the proper order of things and not acting outside of that proper order. To do so is to fail to properly Love.

Agree with your sentiment. But it is invalid.
I’m arguing, again, that even if God revealed himself - he did NOT say “Oh btw, this book is still how I feel”
So, I can still in this exercise completely question the teachings, and I do
If you’re only argument is the teaching says so - therefor we obey regardless of how we feel about it morally…It ends in disqualification
I’m telling you I feel certain teachings are wrong, you have to tell me why you feel I’m wrong in my understanding of them.

Regardless of whatever laws might be passed, the Catholic Church can never sanction “gay marriage”.

No issues there

In so far as “civil marriage” or “civil unions” go - that is more a matter of contract law and I would be perfectly happy to see the state define it as such. I would not even mind if, like they do in Italy, two ceremonies were required…a civil and a religious…

See how easy it is for us to agree? We just did again

now - as Catholics we have the right to make our views known in the legislature and the ballot box. If we are outvoted…then so be it…we will just have to deal with it.

Promise?

You do realize you’re probably slightly on my side right?

This is where I need everyone’s help
I’ve heard civil union as OK, and NOT OK. Which is the OFFICIAL stance of the Church?

 

[JohnMichaels]

The -only- reason that I didn’t put it above homosexual marriage is that at least the drunken Vegas couple is able to fulfill marriage’s intent. Personally, I view both of them as equally atrocious, and the Church teaches against both.

Not when they wake up not knowing the other’s name. They get it annulled. we agree on that part of it anyway

 

[JRKH]

I don’t accept the scriptures outright. It wasn’t one of the operating assumptions. What this exercise promotes is your logical defense of a particular verse. Not “The scripture calls for authority, we follow authority”

However your purpose here on a Catholic board is to have Catholics’ defend Catholic teaching…That is to present to you why Catholic teaching is correct…The Catholic understanding of Scripture and the Catholic understanding of authority cannot be separated from that.
So - whether it is part of the list of assumptions you generated in your OP or not…It remains a valid part of the discussion process.

Of course you have every right to not accept Scripture outright…but that brings in a whole other avenue of discussion.

this is unimaginative.

I didn’t know that “imagination” was a requirement in the discussion…

It’s like…you’re learning as you go Right on brotha!

Always.

Agree with your sentiment. But it is invalid.
I’m arguing, again, that even if God revealed himself - he did NOT say “Oh btw, this book is still how I feel”
So, I can still in this exercise completely question the teachings, and I do
If you’re only argument is the teaching says so - therefor we obey regardless of how we feel about it morally…It ends in disqualification
I’m telling you I feel certain teachings are wrong, you have to tell me why you feel I’m wrong in my understanding of them.

Your response here indicates that you did not read anything past point one and possibly nothing past “Scripture says”.
The point was that the teaching rests on a foundation of Love and not abusing that Love.
If you wish to ignore this just because I referenced Scripture…We probably will not be able to make any progress.

You do realize you’re probably slightly on my side right?

I’m not on a “side” except to try to be on God’s side.

This is where I need everyone’s help
I’ve heard civil union as OK, and NOT OK. Which is the OFFICIAL stance of the Church?

Speaking of invalid to the conversation…you are mixing civil law issues with religious teaching issues.

The Church’s (God’s) position is that two people of the same sex cannot get married. Marriage is historically understood in the Christian faith and historically defined in Civil Law in America and elsewhere as being between one man and one woman.
That is the religious teaching of the Church…and I thought that Church teachings is what we were discussing.

Now - to the civil issues…
When the term “civil union” began to gains some favor…I believe that one of the bishops stated that the Church could live with this (in civil law) since it did not redefine the term “marriage”. Instead it dealt with civil (contract) issues such as inheritance, insurance coverages etc. The Gay community rejected this solution.

Overall the Church tends to wait and look at specific pieces of legislation and then to comment (where needed) on the particular legislation in order to guide the faithful.

So - what do you want to discuss…
Church teaching…or civil law matters?

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

However your purpose here on a Catholic board is to have Catholics’ defend Catholic teaching…That is to present to you why Catholic teaching is correct…The Catholic understanding of Scripture and the Catholic understanding of authority cannot be separated from that.
So - whether it is part of the list of assumptions you generated in your OP or not…It remains a valid part of the discussion process.

I just don’t want it to be a fallback I guess. Take gay marriage. If the teachings say so, and you agree with the teaching that is the defense I am after.
If you’re instead saying that, the teachings call for an authoritative church, & even if I disagree I follow that first and foremost - disqualified
I could be reading all of this wrong, also. I’m struggling with it, I’ll admit

I didn’t know that “imagination” was a requirement in the discussion…

I just meant, you’re way kinda ended the need for a debate. it was a swooping kill.

Your response here indicates that you did not read anything past point one and possibly nothing past “Scripture says”.
The point was that the teaching rests on a foundation of Love and not abusing that Love.
If you wish to ignore this just because I referenced Scripture…We probably will not be able to make any progress.

I read absolutely everything you said word for word.
You aren’t grasping the concept is all. You are asserting these things ARE true. 1 after another you go down the list. You’re suppose to be telling me (and only if I disagree) why you believe each of these points are true. Not that you believe the scripture, therefor its true.

Example

1. Our bodies are part of God’s creation and the sexual aspects of our bodies are designed in a specific way and for a specific purpose - male and female fitting together specifically and properly to accomplish this purpose.

I disagree. I think God created us an the sexual aspects of our bodies were specifically created to feel intense enjoyment to encourage activity. One of God’s gift’s to his creation. This wonderful source of pleasure & release, free to all man and woman.

Now, prove me wrong. With argument. Not verse

Speaking of invalid to the conversation…you are mixing civil law issues with religious teaching issues.

The Church’s (God’s) position is that two people of the same sex cannot get married. Marriage is historically understood in the Christian faith and historically defined in Civil Law in America and elsewhere as being between one man and one woman.
That is the religious teaching of the Church…and I thought that Church teachings is what we were discussing.

Now - to the civil issues…
When the term “civil union” began to gains some favor…I believe that one of the bishops stated that the Church could live with this (in civil law) since it did not redefine the term “marriage”. Instead it dealt with civil (contract) issues such as inheritance, insurance coverages etc. The Gay community rejected this solution.

Then I agree with the Church. If the Church is accepting of civil union, I feel they compromised in accordance to my own moral compass. Next issue: What the homosexual is to do, according to your understanding, once he finds that he/she is indeed homosexual?

So - what do you want to discuss…
Church teaching…or civil law matters?

Both. Church teachings & Church teachings on civil law matters.

Cheers

 

[JRKH]

I just don’t want it to be a fallback I guess. Take gay marriage. If the teachings say so, and you agree with the teaching that is the defense I am after.
If you’re instead saying that, the teachings call for an authoritative church, & even if I disagree I follow that first and foremost - disqualified
I could be reading all of this wrong, also. I’m struggling with it, I’ll admit

From the OP…
While I expect this to spin into multiple directions ranging from morality to same-sex marriage to abstinence…I’m sure I can’t think of them all. Some of you feel free to bring something up & test how I’d feel.
Authority is one of the “directions” these sorts of conversations can “spin into”…
So I brought it up

I just meant, you’re way kinda ended the need for a debate. it was a swooping kill.

hhmmm…this sounds different than “unimaginative”…
I’ve been watched and also involved in many discussions on different beliefs and, in so far as understanding the Church’s position - Scripture and Authority are extremely important…everything else is sort of nibbling around the edge…

I read absolutely everything you said word for word.
You aren’t grasping the concept is all. You are asserting these things ARE true. 1 after another you go down the list. You’re suppose to be telling me (and only if I disagree) why you believe each of these points are true. Not that you believe the scripture, therefor its true.

Maybe you are right and I am not grasping the point…
Each of my points starts from the premise that everything stems from Agape Love…Something that I believe to be the very essence of God…the core creative force of and in the universe. The Bible also happens to describe God this way and also happens to ascribe to this type of Love a highly centralized role in everything else.
This view on only fits with the Biblical out look but the spiritual outlook of other faiths.

Is this somehow insufficient?

The reason that I believe these things is BECAUSE they are consistent with Agape Love.

I disagree. I think God created us an the sexual aspects of our bodies were specifically created to feel intense enjoyment to encourage activity. One of God’s gift’s to his creation. This wonderful source of pleasure & release, free to all man and woman.

I think this is a fair statement…but it is to encourage a specific type of activity geared toward a particular end.

Now, prove me wrong. With argument. Not verse

So far I have provided no verses at all…Though I have referenced Scripture…my arguments have not been “because the bible says so” they have been because of Love…

Then I agree with the Church. If the Church is accepting of civil union, I feel they compromised in accordance to my own moral compass.

The Church may be accepting of civil union in the law…Remember how I expressed that the Church tends to look at each particular piece of legislation?

Next issue: What the homosexual is to do, according to your understanding, once he finds that he/she is indeed homosexual?

The Catholic teaching is that such a person is called to live a chaste single life. To do otherwise would be to violate the law of Love.

Both. Church teachings & Church teachings on civil law matters.

Well things are apt to get very confusing…

I would suggest that, since your title and your OP lean much more toward the theism side…it would be better to leave the civil / political side alone… The bottom line in that aspect is simple…The Church holds certain theological positions. Catholics should likewise hold these positions. In the realm of laws / politics etc…Catholics have the same rights as everyone else. To make their views known and to vote their conscience.

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

The reason that I believe these things is BECAUSE they are consistent with Agape Love.

I read everything you wrote, & plan to reply in kind, just had to look this up and clarify. I’m getting this:
Agape received a broader usage under later Christian writers as the word that specifically denoted “Christian” love or “charity” (1 Corinthians 13:1–8), or even God himself (1 John 4:8, “God is Love”).

Are you suggesting to me that God is Love itself?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The individual. Should a man find himself a homosexual, how does the Church advise him to proceed?

Same thing the Church asks any single person to do: either abstain from sex or get married to someone of the opposite sex.

As for the latter option, it is possible. Personal example: if I were not Christian, I would call myself gay, since I’m definitely attracted to men, and I’m somewhat less attracted to women. But I am currently married (to a woman ), and we have a wonderful relationship.

 

[JRKH]

I read everything you wrote, & plan to reply in kind, just had to look this up and clarify. I’m getting this:
Agape received a broader usage under later Christian writers as the word that specifically denoted “Christian” love or “charity” (1 Corinthians 13:1–8), or even God himself (1 John 4:8, “God is Love”).

Are you suggesting to me that God is Love itself?

In my view - my understanding of God as He has revealed Himself - - - yes it can be said that God is Agape Love.
This is the core belief that I hold to. That God is a creator God and that the motivation to create stems from Love. That the interplay between lovers (in this case creator and created) is one of mutual desire for the other’s highest good.
This belief provides the foundation for all other beliefs…such as how one is to view homosexuality.

This is a poor explanation - but it is the best I can provide at the moment.
When it comes to expressing who or what God is…how does one describe that which is indescribable…

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

Same thing the Church asks any single person to do (other stuff, etc etc).

disagree. disqualified.

While this alone would (based on how I handled this at the time, & currently) in and of itself eliminate this religion from consideration, I still do want to go over other issues. So I’ll leave this issue at 99,9% closed.

Argument was closed on civil union, also

I’d like to shift focus slightly to abstinence. I am in favor of not waiting, and believe it provides benefits to married couples
From my personal experience you don’t really know the kind of crazy another is going to develop until you’ve entered into a sexual relationship.
I feel abstinence leads to higher divorce. I believe it to be true.

Cheers

 

[JohnMichaels]

In my view - my understanding of God as He has revealed Himself - - - yes it can be said that God is Agape Love.
This is the core belief that I hold to. That God is a creator God and that the motivation to create stems from Love. That the interplay between lovers (in this case creator and created) is one of mutual desire for the other’s highest good.
This belief provides the foundation for all other beliefs…such as how one is to view homosexuality.

This is a poor explanation - but it is the best I can provide at the moment.
When it comes to expressing who or what God is…how does one describe that which is indescribable…

Peace
James

So then what is Love called between created and created?