Pope's stance on gays 'like Hitler'

[Digger71]

gilliam:

God did not come down to earth to give you the authority to interpret Natural Law. He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, not to you.

This is all very well and good. But what is significant is that it is an ‘attack’ on my faith not my facts.

It is rhetorical, which is OK. But the claim words are twisted is interesting. My experience is that this argument is deployed only because an interpretation has validity and is not readiliy answered.

Please focus on the facts of my argument, the meta-level debate is a distraction from this, and might I add, and easy way out.

 

[gilliam]

Digger71:

This is all very well and good. But what is significant is that it is an ‘attack’ on my faith not my facts.

It is rhetorical, which is OK. But the claim words are twisted is interesting. My experience is that this argument is deployed only because an interpretation has validity and is not readiliy answered.

Please focus on the facts of my argument, the meta-level debate is a distraction from this, and might I add, and easy way out.

Sorry, I am a bit clumsey at this, and that is why I usually stay out of this forum. But I am trying to point out a VERY IMPORTANT POINT:

You and I are not the authorities on faith and morals in the Catholic Church. The Magistarium is. It is NOT up to us to interpret what Leviticus says or does not say to our present generation. It is by the authority given by Christ to the Magistarium and they have interpreted it the same way they always have in our Church, that it condemns homosexuality.

Individual interpretation of Scripture that enables a believer to pattern their faith differently than what the Church teaches on faith and morals is a heresy. It is what the Protestants do.

If we Catholics don’t understand a teaching of the Magistarium, we, respectfully, ask questions about it and try to understand it (and we pray to God for understanding). We don’t push our own interpretation and say we simply disagree with the Magistarium and 2,000 years of tradition.

Yes, it requires faith and faith is very hard for our generation. But that is the structure that Christ gave us to live by and we are obliged to live by it.

OK, time for me to wonder back to the Secular News forum where I belong. I wish you a good Sunday. If you find it in your heart, pray for me.

 

[Kristopher]

Just a point for future reference: rhetoric concerns only matters of prose, and of poetry as I understand it.

Arguements belong outside of rhetoric, because they concern matters either to be affirmed, or to be denied.

The claim about what is authoritative in the Catholic Church is not moot, argueable, as it concerns Catholics, but they are arguements reasoned and to be either affirmed, or denied.

I hope this contrasts adequately rhetoric, as opposed to propositions.

 

[gilliam]

Kristopher:

Just a point for future reference: rhetoric concerns only matters of prose, and of poetry as I understand it.

Arguements belong outside of rhetoric, because they concern matters either to be affirmed, or to be denied.

The claim about what is authoritative in the Catholic Church is not moot, argueable, as it concerns Catholics, but they are arguements reasoned and to be either affirmed, or denied.

I hope this contrasts adequately rhetoric, as opposed to propositions.

We are not here in this forum to debate the authority of the Catholic Church. They debate that in the Apologetics Forum.

 

[Digger71]

Kristopher:

Just a point for future reference: rhetoric concerns only matters of prose, and of poetry as I understand it.

Arguements belong outside of rhetoric, because they concern matters either to be affirmed, or to be denied.

The claim about what is authoritative in the Catholic Church is not moot, argueable, as it concerns Catholics, but they are arguements reasoned and to be either affirmed, or denied.

I hope this contrasts adequately rhetoric, as opposed to propositions.

My understanding is that rhetoric is a technique applcable to any language exchange.

I was asked specicfially why I do not recognise Leviticus 18:20 as an injunction against homosexual acts in general (posts 180-184) and so I did (post 188).

Certainly I recognise that rejection of Church authority is a difficult and important topic, but that is a different topic to the one I was asked about and responded too.

The charge I am ‘bending over backwards’ to get the answer I want is a direct response to the arguments presented, but it is not a rebuttal of my interpretation.

 

[Kristopher]

The word “rhetoric” is applicable not to all exchanges in communication, but to those exchanges effectively persuading, or effectively pleasing an audience; however, Aristotle in one book differentiated rhetoric against propositions: rhetoric as mentioned earlier being both prose and poetry, and propositions being what either are affirmed, or denied.

My usage of the word “rhetoric” was too esoteric.

I am glad that we are aware of the lack of arguement Catholics have against what is authoritative in the Catholic Church, the Roman Rite in particular.

 

[Kristopher]

…All condemnations (including the story of sodom) of homosexuality are actually injunctions against paganism. …

Dear Digger71:

It is absolutely ludicrous that any condemnation of homosexuality would actually be a condemnation against paganism, or an injunction against paganism.

Paganism was something, which for all intents and purposes meant absolutely nothing until the time after Jesus Christ, had ascended, bodily into Heaven.

Pagans were those whom resided in the country. It was in the cities people, by-and-large, had become familiar with Jesus as the Messiah. It was something that had not reached many in the country, but as a consequence of this, those not Catholic, but pagan–were synonymous with those who had lived in the country, because they simply for the most part, had not heard much about Jesus to follow Him.

This understanding of the word “pagan” cannot remain altogether consistent with your quote, but must mean something altogether different. It was in the city, where Lot and his family were visited by angels; whom the homosexuals attempted to take for themselves, sexually, to whom Lot said, do not do this thing to those whom he recognized as of God, but instead, he said to the men, take my daughters.

So, how can it be an injunction against “pagans” as you label them? One, they were in the city–no country people there. Two, the Messiah had not arrived, but the promise did exist of a Messiah at the time; nonetheless, this would constitute no difference between Catholics, and Jews, and followers of any other religion.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher