This sounds a little mean to me. Some people are profoundly lonely for whatever reason and find some peace in other creatures that God has made. Some people would rather be with other people but cant for yet various other reasons, and so caring for something brings them some comfort.
I. It it detracts from the dignity due to all humanity to give that dignity to a brute animal. (One oughtn’t cast pearls before swine or give holy things to the dogs.) This is all the more true when one considers that Christ, by becoming man, has given humanity a share in divine dignity.
My logic tells me that you **could **not answer the questions, so you chose an ad hominem attack instead. Wanna try again?
Especially a Pope who took on the name of St. Francis of Assisi.
Really.
My speculation would be: no he wouldn’t. He certainly hasn’t said anything quoted in this thread that suggests he might.
How exactly am I—personally–“detract[ing] from the dignity due to all humanity”? If you want to throw the stone, you have to back it up with something specific, not some vague statement given in place of answers to my questions. But if you can’t answer the original questions, give somebody else a chance.
Attention theologicans: Are we part divine?
So you admit to the insult, but don’t apologize because, in your mind’s eye, I have wronged in the manner in which the Holy Father spoke? Wow. Just wow.
Pope Francis would be horrified to know that you have a Priest who is actually married and has chosen through free will to substitute children with a pet!.. as am I.
Considering Pope Francis specifically referenced “couples” in “married life”… I think he would see this type of feigned offense about a single, committed to celibacy Priest… as typical Church bashing rubbish.
By giving a brute animal the status and dignity of a human child.
In the incarnation humanity was taken up into divinity not the other way around, but as Christians in a state of grace the very life of God is in us.
For a second time you misunderstand me. The poster you quoted expressed shock at people who treat animals as children, your response was essentially “Yeah I treat animals as children; wanna make something of it?” I was pointing out that you didn’t explain why this was an acceptable behavior, you merely flaunted that it is a behavior you engage in.
You’re silly.
He has blasphemed against Captain Snuggles; don’t expect the God fearing Christians of the world to take this sacrilege lightly.
You still can’t answer! How EXACTLY am I giving my pets the “status and dignity” of children? And, btw, cats would disagree that they are “brutes”.
Not exactly what you said, but I won’t pursue it. It’s OT.
Yes, the poster expressed shock. I asked him/her why, and no one has answered the question yet. I asked why I should be “ashamed”. No one has answered that question either. Why is calling my cats furbabies “unacceptable behavior”? Someone answer the darn questions!
So what then do you mean to express when you call them “furbabys”? How does a furbaby differ from a pet?You still can’t answer! How EXACTLY am I giving my pets the “status and dignity” of children? And, btw, cats would disagree that they are “brutes”.
The questions have been answered even if not to your satisfaction. You can’t just make a counterpoint and use that as your soapbox to cry out that no point has been made to begin with.
I’m afraid I haven’t let you off the hook though. In a real debate you define your terms. What does furbaby mean and how does one differ from a pet? Your condescension does not equate to a victory; I’ll let you know when I’m getting tired of the discussion, and I haven’t said uncle yet. (Though it seems you may have.)
.
“Condescension”? I will not engage you any further in this thread. I don’t need the insults.
Your indignation doesn’t equate to victory either. Last post you were “letting me off the hook” because I wasn’t capable of a real debate, and this post you won’t answer because you can’t bear the insult of being called condescending. Same question as the last two times.