lol you are! Yes I accept that Jesus died for our sins. I accept him as part of the divine trinity and I accept the bible as man’s interpretation of messages. I find that my dogs are much more charitable than many humans I know.
You appear to accept just so much of the faith as not to cramp your style! For then there comes a point when you switch to follow the guidance of animals. You have told us you love the Church, for it has brought you to God. Why not let her bring you the rest of the way to Him?
My intellectual curiosity does not go away because the Church tells me. I have researched extensively about history, cultural context, and scientific advancements. We have so much knowledge about psychology, sexology, sociology, biology, etc, that it would be a crime to ignore them. I think you guys are twisted my examples of animals.I don’t ask my dog for moral guidance lol but I do notice how empathic she is with people in sadness. I believe a Church of men will always get some things wrong and I am happy to debate said things! Thankfully we don’t leave in a age where my thoughts would get me house arrested. God gave us a wonderful brain and I love using it.
Scientific advancements are not ignored. It is merely that they do not bear on, or dictate change to, the moral teachings surrounding marriage and sexuality.
You mother’s entire purpose for existing is not to guide you. The Church has no other purpose.
I can believe that, no doubt you’ve been “high maintenance”.
Dogs also eat their and other’s feces. Should we do that. I think there is a fetish related to that or something. Someone exploring their body I guess.
We are? I’ve heard of migrations and plagues. But I didn’t know we were killing bees. I did destroy a yellow jacket’s nest once though.
Well, that’s a discussion for the philosophy and main apologetics forum.
You say that as if we and the Church are against that.
Sexology is very, very new. It and Psychology I would doubt speaking in philosophic terms quite fit the philosophic definition of a science, scientific method. Psychology has changed much over time. Homosexuality was once considered a disorder. It was removed from the DSM and it was yes quite politically motivated.
Very true. The removal from the DSM reflects a pragmatic stance about the (lack of) demand for treatment, not to mention the lack of a treatment, and, unlike (say) pedophilia - the lack of a direct threat to anyone. * Important to note is that it was not a logical consequence of some discovery about the etiology or some conclusion that SSA is as unremarkable as brown hair. Science continues to explore the cause of SSA (somewhat cautiously in view of the ‘sensitivities’) and were that to be understood, would no doubt look to understand whether the condition is preventable or treatable.*
Okay this suggests that you are a very young “know it all”! That explains why your arguments are so flippant and trite. I was going to tell you to “grow up” but I guess you just need to grow up. Really, as you get older, you will see that the elders of the Church make true sense. But right now, you know everything!
Ha! I would never this that at the age of 26 I know everything. In fact, it is my ability to to critically consider multiple factors that gets me in trouble with the Church, but like a good scholar I am always open to being wrong.Okay this suggests that you are a very young “know it all”! That explains why your arguments are so flippant and trite. I was going to tell you to “grow up” but I guess you just need to grow up. Really, as you get older, you will see that the elders of the Church make true sense. But right now, you know everything!
Psychology is not dogmatic. Once a consensus of studies arise that prove its old position to be wrong, it must change its stance and that is wonderful. Now I will grant you that the social sciences are in their infancy but psychology as a field has matured very rapidly and with its focus on cognitive issues/ biology, it has become a great scientific force.
Circular reasoning. If a consensus of studies arise that * prove a position wrong* that philosophy is not scientific. Scientific method requires ALL studies ALWAYS get the same results. Or you’re not dealing with a science. But indeed another philosophic doctrine. That doesn’t mean there’s not some validity. But it’s not science.