S
- Status
D
Digger71
Guest
S
setter
Guest
My sage advice to any would be “neutral good character” attempting to straddle the fence in the battle over souls: Watch out that you do not end up impaling yourself for all eternity.
M
MikeinSD
Guest
Maybe he is just a decent man. Decent folks are Catholic, Christian, and belong to other faith traditions or none at all.
D
Digger71
Guest
Half-decent…half-indecent
S
Steve_Dennehy
Guest
It seems to me we are forgetting that love is the ultimate virtue, that God is Love/Love is God; Love is Someone, not something.
Jesus is Love. Any form of genuine love is of God: man-woman, man-man, woman-woman. People often don’t separate their own biases and neurosis from religious beliefs. This is what leads to the : “God hates fags” and “Fags burn in hell” manifestation of hatred as religion. It’s religion all right-it’s Satanism.
Clearly all forms of Christianity, until very recently,taught sex was evil; even in marriage it was presented as a necessary evil in order to pro-create and prevent fornication (pretty much St. Paul’s view as well as that of Augustine of Hippo). The primary purpose of making love (which requires 2 people to be in love and committed) is to deepen the union in spirit-mind-heart-body between the 2, to deepen their love. With a man and a woman, occassionally and fairly rarely, even without contraception, did this result in the conception of a child.
The Roman Catholic Church didn’t accept this view until the late 1960’s; even then they tended to put the pro-creative aspect first.
In fact the unitive has to come first and is far more important. Otherwise you have a child concieved outside of love , even in marriage. For a married couple to have love-less sex in order ro concieve a child is a sin. Couples in trouble often take this approach thinking it will solve the problem; 99% of the time it makes the problems far worse.
When people speak about sexual love when they have had no experience of it, it’s VERY obvious they don’t really know what they’re talking about. It’s too abstract, too removed from human reality. This is why celibates have no credibility on issues of sexual love.
I will say though that Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” is the first attempt in the history of Christianity of a Christian leader to try to come to a deeper appreciation of sexual love in marriage. But it is only a beginning.
Jesus is Love. Any form of genuine love is of God: man-woman, man-man, woman-woman. People often don’t separate their own biases and neurosis from religious beliefs. This is what leads to the : “God hates fags” and “Fags burn in hell” manifestation of hatred as religion. It’s religion all right-it’s Satanism.
Clearly all forms of Christianity, until very recently,taught sex was evil; even in marriage it was presented as a necessary evil in order to pro-create and prevent fornication (pretty much St. Paul’s view as well as that of Augustine of Hippo). The primary purpose of making love (which requires 2 people to be in love and committed) is to deepen the union in spirit-mind-heart-body between the 2, to deepen their love. With a man and a woman, occassionally and fairly rarely, even without contraception, did this result in the conception of a child.
The Roman Catholic Church didn’t accept this view until the late 1960’s; even then they tended to put the pro-creative aspect first.
In fact the unitive has to come first and is far more important. Otherwise you have a child concieved outside of love , even in marriage. For a married couple to have love-less sex in order ro concieve a child is a sin. Couples in trouble often take this approach thinking it will solve the problem; 99% of the time it makes the problems far worse.
When people speak about sexual love when they have had no experience of it, it’s VERY obvious they don’t really know what they’re talking about. It’s too abstract, too removed from human reality. This is why celibates have no credibility on issues of sexual love.
I will say though that Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” is the first attempt in the history of Christianity of a Christian leader to try to come to a deeper appreciation of sexual love in marriage. But it is only a beginning.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Steve Dernnehy:
You seem to be equating sex with love. Though sex should be in a context of love, not all love is or should be sexual.
U
uther
Guest
Steve Dernnehy:
If that’s the case we would have to eliminate most of the experts in the world, professionals of all types, medical, psychiatric, etc. as well as the moral teachers, preachers, priests, and so on. In fact, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of activity on these forums if everyone adhered strictly to that kind of rule.
It is either that or admit that we can learn from other’s experience as well as the direct public revelation from God.
Are you saying that someone who has not personally experienced something cannot legitimately and credibly speak on an issue?
If that’s the case we would have to eliminate most of the experts in the world, professionals of all types, medical, psychiatric, etc. as well as the moral teachers, preachers, priests, and so on. In fact, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of activity on these forums if everyone adhered strictly to that kind of rule.
It is either that or admit that we can learn from other’s experience as well as the direct public revelation from God.
T
trustmc
Guest
Steve Dernnehy:
Steve Dernnehy:
Mike
The Catholic Church has never, ever taught that sex was evil, but rather that only the abuse of sex is evil. Yes, St. Augustine was overly cautious with non-procreative sex between a husband and wife, but even he never said that sex was evil. And unlike St. Paul’s, his writings aren’t inerrant. Further, I defy you to quote anything from St. Paul’s writings that would back up your claim.
Steve Dernnehy:
For now, it’s your credibility that is at stake, not the credibility of objective celibates.
Mike
M
MikeinSD
Guest
T
trustmc
Guest
setter:
When one’s argumentation is ultimately found lacking in sound reason, one’s only recourse is to vilify one’s adversaries as bigots. This is the transparent, but predictable, tactic of a frustrated and failed opponent.
Mike
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Where did you see that?
Don’t the terms “gay” and “straight”, “African Americans” and “homosexuality” and “Christian southern folks” also distinguish between “types” of human?
I’ve said it bafore, but “SSA” stands for “same sex attraction” and is used because, unlike “gay”, it makes a distinction between feelings (attraction) and behavior. “Gay” and “homosexual” refer both to the attraction and the behavior, and therefore “frame” the issue by implying that people who feel attraction have no choice but to act on it.
R
rlg94086
Guest
We all have the same rights. A “gay” man has the right to own property, invest, live, etc. A “gay” man has the same right to marry a woman as any other man does.
If a “gay” man decides to live with another “gay” man for their lifetimes, they have that right. What is currently being asked from society is a new definition of marriage or the addition of civil unions to create a new class of people.
SSA is an acronym, and it is not slang term used by anybody I know. It is used by Catholics to describe the disordered desire for someone of the same sex. “Gay” is a slang term. Why do I say that? If someone at my children’s schools calls someone “gay”, they will win a one-way trip to the principal’s office.
Biological science is not the same as psychological or anthropological science. We know the cause of skin pigmentation and that it is just one genetic component that makes up a human being. We don’t know scientifically the “cause” of homosexuality. We don’t know that it is just a component of a human being, as opposed to a disorder.
Comparing Christians who oppose gay marriage to Christians who approved of slavery is basically calling us bigots in a round about way. If you can’t stand the heat of logical argument, stay out of the CAF kitchen.
MikeinSD:
If a “gay” man decides to live with another “gay” man for their lifetimes, they have that right. What is currently being asked from society is a new definition of marriage or the addition of civil unions to create a new class of people.
SSA is an acronym, and it is not slang term used by anybody I know. It is used by Catholics to describe the disordered desire for someone of the same sex. “Gay” is a slang term. Why do I say that? If someone at my children’s schools calls someone “gay”, they will win a one-way trip to the principal’s office.
Biological science is not the same as psychological or anthropological science. We know the cause of skin pigmentation and that it is just one genetic component that makes up a human being. We don’t know scientifically the “cause” of homosexuality. We don’t know that it is just a component of a human being, as opposed to a disorder.
Comparing Christians who oppose gay marriage to Christians who approved of slavery is basically calling us bigots in a round about way. If you can’t stand the heat of logical argument, stay out of the CAF kitchen.
setter:
R
rlg94086
Guest
And I am a halfling thief, but then there is reality. 
Digger71:
setter:
wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_good
Neutral Good
“Benefactor”
A neutral good character does good for goodness’ sake, not because he is directed to by law or by whim. Such a character will obey the law, or break it when he sees it will serve a greater good. He isn’t bound strongly to a social system or order. His need to help others and reduce suffering may take precedence over all else.
This alignment desires good without bias for or against order.
A doctor who treats both sides in a fight and an aid worker who feeds the starving in a war zone are both examples of neutral good characters.
Examples of neutral good characters include Mystra and Cadderly Bonaduce. Hawkeye Pierce and Gandalf are examples of the Neutral Good type in wider fiction.
D
Digger71
Guest
And I am a halfling thief, but then there is reality.
Digger71:
I never touch the stuff. Interferes with my hallucinations
- Status