Presbyterian Insight......... where are they?

[Per_Crucem]

What exactly is the dreaded “homosexual agenda”?

Ask the bakers, florists, photographists, Catholic Social Services of MA, and the founder of Mozilla.

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course we are supposed to evangelize all, regardless of their sin. But Christ said, “Go and sin no more”. Now, obviously, we will continue to sin, as St. Paul complains about Romans 7. There’s a difference, however, between striving against sin, and relenting by saying, “well, it really isn’t sin.”
The message is sexual activity outside of marriage is sin, regardless of the nature of it, and Genesis and Christ identify marriage as between a man and a woman. Churches are not being compassionate or welcoming when they say gay “marriage” is acceptable, anymore than if they tell unmarried heterosexuals that “living together” is OK.

Jon

It’s not just a matter of “relenting” and saying “well, it really isn’t sin.” You make it sound as if the conviction of some people that it isn’t sin is not sincere. There are genuine differences of opinion about the meaning and applicability of various Scriptural passages.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It’s not just a matter of “relenting” and saying “well, it really isn’t sin.” You make it sound as if the conviction of some people that it isn’t sin is not sincere. There are genuine differences of opinion about the meaning and applicability of various Scriptural passages.

Why is sincerity relevant? No one accused them of being insincere; just wrong on a level which is costing individuals to remain in rebellion against God’s law and causing the loss of souls.

 

[Thorolfr]

Why is sincerity relevant? No one accused them of being insincere; just wrong on a level which is costing individuals to remain in rebellion against God’s law and causing the loss of souls.

It is your opinion that they are wrong and it is their opinion that they are right. So there is a difference of opinions.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is your opinion that they are wrong and it is their opinion that they are right. So there is a difference of opinions.

No, it isn’t. The black, white, and red says they are incorrect in their view. Again, “a matter of opinion,” turns Christianity into an irrelevant, relativistic mess.

 

[Mystophilus]

As an aside, I want to see what your views are in your own words, so, for future reference, I won’t be viewing any links that you post on the subject.

Sorry, sunshine, but dialogue works by cooperative interchange, not by the unilateral decision to dominate the process. If you are going to selectively ignore what I say, we’re not having a dialogue, and my posting any further comments is pointless.

 

[Mystophilus]

Of course not. But that can’t happen when one particular viewpoint (that of theological liberalism) refuses to do so, under the guise that homosexual activity is, in fact, not sinful.

Actually, it is quite possible to evangelize to people without pretending that homosexuality is sinful.

I did bother. By quoting Aquinas, you not only gave his view of the natural law, you also stated that you were in agreement with it as a basic definition.

Precisely yes, with Aquinas’ description of Natural Law, not with Paul’s claims about what is and what is not natural.

It is not just what Paul thinks is divine command. Rather, the entirety of Scripture defines natural law as God’s command.

Really? I was not aware that any other part of the Bible defined natural law.

 

[Denise1957]

Sorry, sunshine, but dialogue works by cooperative interchange, not by the unilateral decision to dominate the process. If you are going to selectively ignore what I say, we’re not having a dialogue, and my posting any further comments is pointless.

I have not posted links which provide my point of view. I have stated my views on the forum. I asked you to provide your definition of natural law. You gave a brief definition, and also posted links. That doesn’t really work for me, in that it gets you off the hook in having to state your views in a clear manner.

I have no interest in dominating the process. You are free to write all you want about why you believe that natural law allows for same-sex relationships. I have tried to show why St. Thomas would not agree with this view.

 

[Mystophilus]

What exactly is the dreaded “homosexual agenda”?

A friend once explained that it comes in a pink, fluffy, ring-bound folder which arrives in the mail shortly after you sign up to be gay, and which you are strictly forbidden ever to show to a straight person.

 

[Denise1957]

Just a bit, hence the reference to Divine Command as a dichotomous concept, and hence the links to the articles discussing those things in more detail.

Actually, what we most particularly need to deal with is this: “taking into consideration the power of passion, prejudice, and other influences which cloud the understanding or pervert the will, one can safely say that man, unaided by supernatural revelation, would not acquire a full and correct knowledge of the contents of the natural law (cf. Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. ii).” If this is the sort of “natural law” which you mean by “a Catholic definition of natural law based on Aquinas”, then no, they are not similar, because the above is what Philosophy identifies as Divine Command, not Natural Law.

Now, hopefully, that is not what you mean, because a) it would constitute an enormous non sequitur to the previous discussion about non-Christian societies, and b) it would only end up with “gay marriage is wrong because (my church’s understanding of) God says so.”

Interesting, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what I wrote. What I addressed was a definition of natural law as described by St. Thomas. I didn’t address anything about divine command; but rather only natural law, which you didn’t respond to at all. That’s fine, but we won’t get very far in the discussion that way.

 

[Mystophilus]

Interesting, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what I wrote. What I addressed was a definition of natural law as described by St. Thomas. I didn’t address anything about divine command; but rather only natural law, which you didn’t respond to at all. That’s fine, but we won’t get very far in the discussion that way.

It is very precisely about what you wrote, because you said that you were intending to present a Catholic view of Natural Law, and what we need to establish is whether the view which you are intending to present is or is not one which actually depends upon Divine Command, and is thus not Natural Law alone.

You gave a brief definition, and also posted links. That doesn’t really work for me, in that it gets you off the hook in having to state your views in a clear manner.

What is unclear about it? I gave you a brief summary, and presented two corroborating versions from independent sources: the definition of Natural Law with which I am working is the standard philosophical definition of Natural Law, as described on both of those sites.

 

[Denise1957]

It is very precisely about what you wrote, because you said that you were intending to present a Catholic view of Natural Law, and what we need to establish is whether the view which you are intending to present is or is not one which actually depends upon Divine Command, and is thus not Natural Law alone.

What is unclear about it? I gave you a brief summary, and presented two corroborating versions from independent sources: the definition of Natural Law with which I am working is the standard philosophical definition of Natural Law, as described on both of those sites.

Exactly what in the definition that I provided by St. Thomas has to do with Divine Command, and not natural law? By Catholic view I mean a view by a Catholic - St. Thomas. He was a Catholic. And since you were the first to bring up St. Thomas, I think it’s appropriate to explore St. Thomas’ definition of natural law further.

If you cannot provide a definition without using links, then I must presume that you really don’t know much about the subject.

 

[Mystophilus]

Exactly what in the definition that I provided by St. Thomas has to do with Divine Command, and not natural law? By Catholic view I mean a view by a Catholic - St. Thomas. He was a Catholic. And since you were the first to bring up St. Thomas, I think it’s appropriate to explore St. Thomas’ definition of natural law further.

Indeed, and you said, “so far …] next”, demonstrating an intention to continue talking about Aquinas, who, in his reference to “eternal law”, imports Divine Command to Natural Law (Summa 2.1.91.2, et al.) and thus fails to discriminate between the two. Since, as already mentioned, Divine Command from a theologically-conservative position only ends up with “gay marriage is wrong because (my church’s understanding of) God says so”, a discussion of the interrelationship of Natural Law and gay marriage needs to discriminate between the two.

If you cannot provide a definition without using links, then I must presume that you really don’t know much about the subject.

Presume all that you like about me, and all that you like about what you “must”.

 

[Denise1957]

Indeed, and you said, “so far …] next”, demonstrating an intention to continue talking about Aquinas, who, in his reference to “eternal law”, imports Divine Command to Natural Law (Summa 2.1.91.2, et al.) and thus fails to discriminate between the two. Since, as already mentioned, Divine Command from a theologically-conservative position only ends up with “gay marriage is wrong because (my church’s understanding of) God says so”, a discussion of the interrelationship of Natural Law and gay marriage needs to discriminate between the two.

Presume all that you like about me, and all that you like about what you “must”.

I was not talking about Divine Command. I was intending to continue talking about St. Thomas’ view of natural law. You didn’t give any indication that you understood or had any interest in what I’d written in that post, regarding St. Thomas view of natural law. Again, what in my post gave any indication that I was referring to Divine Command? I still don’t get it. Do you perhaps think that good and evil as contrary notions can only be discussed in reference to Divine Command, and that there’s no reference to it in natural law?

 

[Stephen168]

The Natural Law is the foundation for much of our understanding of morality and social life in Christendom, and to some extent in Judaism and Islam. It is embedded in the founding documents of the USA - including the fact that certain rights and principles in the social order are older than the whole concept of government and don’t come from government; that government must respect the Natural Law.

In 1900 the Natural Law was accepted, taken for granted, by almost all Christian churches as well as by many non Christians, and non believers in the US. Decade by decade, that was eroded (contraception, divorce, eugenics, stem cell etc). Gay marriage is an attack on 2 parts of the Natural Law, marriage and homosexuality. Each time one part of the Natural Law is surrendered, it makes it easier to give up another part. People who like their birth control pills and artificial insemination don’t understand that all these things are connected. That the Declaration of Independence with its statement of equality, and “permanent” human rights inherent in a person’s humanity may soon be considered no longer inalienable. The government gives, the government can take away. That is what comes with the loss of the Natural Law.

Yes, I would say by the way we are designed that sodomy goes against the natural law and human bonding to create, and raise children is in our nature.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, I would say by the way we are designed that sodomy goes against the natural law and human bonding to create, and raise children is in our nature.

I don’t want to speak for commenter, but I think that St. Thomas would agree with you, since the good has the notion of an end (sexual relations between man and woman have a good end, in that it begins a family, which is essential for the continuing existence of society). Evil has the contrary notion in natural law, in that if something has a bad end, it is evil. So natural inclinations come from God in our essence, or nature, and unnatural inclinations do not. The natural law is an ordinance, in that it is an ordering of the natural inclinations toward that which is good for it. Homosexual acts are not natural inclinations, since they are contrary to the essence of man.

I probably haven’t explained it very well, so I hope it makes sense.

 

[Thorolfr]

Evil has the contrary notion in natural law, in that if something has a bad end, it is evil. So natural inclinations come from God in our essence, or nature, and unnatural inclinations do not. The natural law is an ordinance, in that it is an ordering of the natural inclinations toward that which is good for it. Homosexual acts are not natural inclinations, since they are contrary to the essence of man.

But they seem to be in accordance with the essence of some men and women. You also haven’t stated what kind of “bad” or “evil” end results from homosexual relations. You just assume that this is somehow self-evident.

 

[JonNC]

It’s not just a matter of “relenting” and saying “well, it really isn’t sin.” You make it sound as if the conviction of some people that it isn’t sin is not sincere. There are genuine differences of opinion about the meaning and applicability of various Scriptural passages.

I doubt not there sincerity. Only their accuracy. But out of curiosity, can you reference a scriptural support for same gender marriage.

Jon

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t want to speak for commenter, but I think that St. Thomas would agree with you, since the good has the notion of an end (sexual relations between man and woman have a good end, in that it begins a family, which is essential for the continuing existence of society). Evil has the contrary notion in natural law, in that if something has a bad end, it is evil. So natural inclinations come from God in our essence, or nature, and unnatural inclinations do not. The natural law is an ordinance, in that it is an ordering of the natural inclinations toward that which is good for it. Homosexual acts are not natural inclinations, since they are contrary to the essence of man.

I probably haven’t explained it very well, so I hope it makes sense.

I’m not sure about sodomy being evil but it is contrary to our design.
I also think about the four causes that are used to describe things. Marriage is a thing that can not include same sex unions. Reading Aquinas’question on marriage being part of natural law was consistent with marriage being a thing in human nature.

 

[Mystophilus]

I was not talking about Divine Command. I was intending to continue talking about St. Thomas’ view of natural law. You didn’t give any indication that you understood or had any interest in what I’d written in that post, regarding St. Thomas view of natural law. Again, what in my post gave any indication that I was referring to Divine Command?

1. You were talking about Aquinas’ view of Natural Law.
2. Aquinas’ view of Natural Law includes a dependence upon Divine Command (“eternal law”, as I mentioned way back here).
3. Divine Command and Natural Law are dichotomous concepts.
4. How a third concept (e.g., gay marriage) interacts with Natural Law or Divine Command depends upon which of those two it interacts with.
5. The official Catholic position on homosexuality refers to “natural law” but actually depends on revelation, i.e. Divine Command, not on Natural Law alone.
6. A view of homosexuality from the “natural law” position of Aquinas or the official position of the Catholic Church is actually a Divine Command view, and thus ultimately operates as “gay marriage is wrong because (my church’s understanding of) God says so”, as already stated.