Same sex attraction

[Seeker2010]

I suspect the anger arises in you so much you lose focus on what the other person is saying. Hopefully one day you will mature enough to be a little calmer.

I’m not angry. It’s not in me. I’ll confess that you guys frustrate the snot out of me with your arrogance and your insistence that you KNOW the truth, and anyone who has the audacity to challenge that or to wonder if you may be right or not is evil, but frustration and anger are not the same thing.

I asked a simple question. From where does the pope get information that he disseminates to others? When people on this board ask if this or that action is morally acceptable, I have frequently seen others quote or point them to this or that papal decree or paper.

Ergo, if using plastic cups is wrong because Pope John Doe said so in Papal Vitae 37 (totally made up), how is it that HE became aware that GOD thinks plastic cups are wrong? Even if one believes that the bible itself is a work of god (and I certainly do not), you can’t even point to that for evidence as it’s not in there. (I’m fairly certain the church does not condemn plastic cups, merely using it as a non-specific example.)

With regard to the Pope, the very fact he has ascended to the Papacy makes him more enlightened than the rest of us.

Which implies that the powers that be within the church have access to information and communications from god that they don’t share with the little people. Which, in and of itself would seem an abuse of power to me.

Now answer my question. Why do you persist?

Because I’m a masochist. And because I believe in freedom, which many devoutly religious do not. I do not know if you are one of them, but the number of people who call for things such as governmental censorship and criminalizing this or that sexual behavior that I’ve encountered on this board is chilling.

Apparently freedom and religion are not really compatible with one another, as far too many religious people of many, if not most religions, think nothing of stripping freedoms from others based purely upon the tenant of their religion, without regard to whether or not the persons whose freedoms they are restricting are members.

 

[Betterave]

Well, I would think it would be because he has access to actual authoritative information that the rest of us lack. However, since the premise here is that god is the actual, and only, authority, that would mean either the pope is in direct, two-way communication with him, or has access to past, verified communications from him. Either way, it’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

Why do you say that “the premise here is that god is the actual, and only, authority”? What do you mean by that? Whose premise is it? What do you mean to imply by saying “god is the actual and only authority”? This could obviously be taken to imply that no one who is not God has any kind of authority, which would be absurd… So what exactly do you mean?

And if he is giving us merely his personal opinion, why should that be authoritative?

If that’s what he is doing (and he does do that sometimes), then that is only authoritative to the extent that the personal opinions of wise, learned, holy people deserve respect.

If the pope thinks god wants X, you think god wan’t Y, and I think he want’s Z, but we’re all just spouting our own opinions, is there any real way to determine who amongst us is right?

Yes - we discuss it and try to determine which of us (if any of us) knows what he is talking about, and which of us (if any of us) are just engaged in rationalization/dogmatism/etc…

 

[Seeker2010]

Why do you say that “the premise here is that god is the actual, and only, authority”? What do you mean by that?

I mean that god makes the rules, because he’s the HDIC. (Head Dude In Charge.) So if god says plastic cups are sinful, they are. Whereas if Steve down the street says they’re sinful, it’s merely his opinion and carry’s no weight. Of course there are ‘authorities’ from a human perspective, but what I meant was that god and god alone makes the rules.

If you disagree (I’m neither endorsing nor arguing against it), do say so.

If that’s what he is doing (and he does do that sometimes), then that is only authoritative to the extent that the personal opinions of wise, learned, holy people deserve respect.

But when he’s NOT giving personal opinion, when he’s declaring rules of god that must be followed, from what source is he being told thusly?

Yes - we discuss it and try to determine which of us (if any of us) knows what he is talking about, and which of us (if any of us) are just engaged in rationalization/dogmatism/etc…

But that’s not how it works. If the pope says X, then X it is regardless of my or your opinion. As I’m not catholic, my opinion wouldn’t even be consulted (or listened to), and despite your catholicism, see if you can get an appointment with him to try to argue something you disagree about.

 

[Betterave]

I mean that god makes the rules, because he’s the HDIC. (Head Dude In Charge.) So if god says plastic cups are sinful, they are. Whereas if Steve down the street says they’re sinful, it’s merely his opinion and carry’s no weight. Of course there are ‘authorities’ from a human perspective, but what I meant was that god and god alone makes the rules.

If you disagree (I’m neither endorsing nor arguing against it), do say so.

That’s true: if God said, “thou shalt not use plastic cups,” then it would ipso facto be sinful to use plastic cups - but why? - because we are morally bound to obey God. And if God said, “thou shalt obey my representatives; if you hear them, you hear me,” then God’s representative says, “thou shalt not use plastic cups,” in this case again, ipso facto it would be sinful to use plastic cups - and why? - because we are morally bound to obey God and in this case, by extension, his representatives. Plastic cups would not, however, be morally problematic in themselves; it is only the obedience to God that they would represent which would be morally binding. This is not the kind of case the magisterium deals with in its moral teachings however. When it comes to morals, yes, God makes the rules in a sense, but only in the sense that he created us and made us such that certain things are good for us and fulfill us and other things are not. He doesn’t make us, then make up some arbitrary rules (at least so far as moral rules are concerned).

But when he’s NOT giving personal opinion, when he’s declaring rules of god that must be followed, from what source is he being told thusly?

I think you’re completely misconstruing the situation. When he declares God’s rules insofar as these are moral rules, he is declaring the rules that arise from our own (God-given) human nature. In doing so we believe his natural reason and understanding is enlightened and empowered by the Holy Spirit and by the revealed teaching of the Church that have been handed on under the guidance of the Spirit for two thousand years, but it’s nothing like having a seance or getting on the phone.

But that’s not how it works. If the pope says X, then X it is regardless of my or your opinion. As I’m not catholic, my opinion wouldn’t even be consulted (or listened to), and despite your catholicism, see if you can get an appointment with him to try to argue something you disagree about.

Understanding must come before disagreement. Disagreement without a basis of understanding is sterile and pointless. The truth is not fundamentally about consultation. What you asked about, and what I replied to you about, was not the truth, per se, but how we determine whose opinion is the truth. And rational discussion is how it works, certainly so far as this context (CAF) is concerned. (Obviously you’re also free to pray about it, or to do some reading, or whatever you believe might be helpful. )

 

[Seeker2010]

why? - because we are morally bound to obey God and in this case, by extension, his representatives.

And ***this ***is the real core of this discussion. And how is it that we know that we are to obey ‘God’s representatives’? Because they told us so! They have merely claimed the authority, and for some reason their followers are okay with that. No outside, verifiable information is available that god actually granted these men authority over the rest of us, we are merely to take their word for it.

Sorry, that’s not good enough.

The god described in your holy book possesses the ability to unambiguously and definitively show all of humanity that he, and his representatives, are to be obeyed. Yet he remains silent. Perhaps that’s because his so-called ‘representatives’ are representing nothing but themselves and their own interests? Nah, couldn’t be that, could it?

When it comes to morals, yes, God makes the rules in a sense, but only in the sense that he created us and made us such that certain things are good for us and fulfill us and other things are not. He doesn’t make us, then make up some arbitrary rules (at least so far as moral rules are concerned).

Were that true, you and I would not be having this discussion. If it were that clearcut what is and isn’t good and fulfilling that it’s inherently obvious just by being human, there would be no room for discussion nor any need for debate. Since there is considerable debate (and dissension) it seems clear to me it’s not quite as obvious as you seem to think.

In doing so we believe his natural reason and understanding is enlightened and empowered by the Holy Spirit and by the revealed teaching of the Church that have been handed on under the guidance of the Spirit for two thousand years, but it’s nothing like having a seance or getting on the phone.

So he’s making stuff up as he goes. That’s what I thought.

 

[Betterave]

So he’s making stuff up as he goes. That’s what I thought.

FYI:
Definition of SOPHOMORIC
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature

 

[Betterave]

And ***this ***is the real core of this discussion. And how is it that we know that we are to obey ‘God’s representatives’? Because they told us so! They have merely claimed the authority, and for some reason their followers are okay with that. No outside, verifiable information is available that god actually granted these men authority over the rest of us, we are merely to take their word for it.

Sorry, that’s not good enough.

Sorry, but that’s a very silly caricature of the epistemic grounding of the authority in matters of faith (not morals! - strictly *moral *matters need not be justified by reference to our duty of obedience, and are not so justified in the Church’s teaching, as I just explained and you just ignored) of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. You need to get over this absurd conviction you seem to have that you understand the intellectual grounds for the Catholic faith, such that you take yourself to be qualified to dismiss them. If you don’t understand X, you can’t possibly know that X is wrong. Please think about this.

The god described in your holy book possesses the ability to unambiguously and definitively show all of humanity that he, and his representatives, are to be obeyed. Yet he remains silent.

That’s what we call a ‘false dichotomy’ in Critical Thinking 101: show unambiguously and definitively (to Seeker’s satisfaction) or remain silent - no third option.

Perhaps that’s because his so-called ‘representatives’ are representing nothing but themselves and their own interests? Nah, couldn’t be that, could it?

No, that is certainly highly, highly implausible (besides hopelessly vague).

Were that true, you and I would not be having this discussion. If it were that clearcut what is and isn’t good and fulfilling that it’s inherently obvious just by being human, there would be no room for discussion nor any need for debate. Since there is considerable debate (and dissension) it seems clear to me it’s not quite as obvious as you seem to think.

But I said nothing about it being obvious or clearcut - so what are you talking about here??

 

[Seeker2010]

FYI:
Definition of SOPHOMORIC
1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature

Let’s see.

We have a man who claims to speak for God. He does so through information that is passed to him from a spirit that talks to no other man, and by your explanation doesn’t even directly talk to him, more like he influences his thoughts.

Verses my explanation, that this man is merely making stuff up as he goes.

And you call me sophomoric. That is laughable.

 

[Betterave]

Let’s see.

We have a man who claims to speak for God. He does so through information that is passed to him from a spirit that talks to no other man, [why do just make idiotic stuff like this up?] and by your explanation doesn’t even directly talk to him, more like he influences his thoughts.

Verses my explanation, that this man is merely making stuff up as he goes.

And you call me sophomoric. That is laughable.

Why?? Why is that laughable? For someone who is ignorant and immature, laughter as a substitute for a reasonable reponse to a serious argument often indicates that he is doing his best to avoid admitting to himself that he is closed-minded, ignorant, and immature. Is it really working for you?

And as I said above [bolded], please actually read what I write and stop making stupid stuff up and pretending that I said it (that’s called a straw man, in case you’re not familiar).

 

[BlueShadow123]

Why?? Why is that laughable? For someone who is ignorant and immature, laughter as a substitute for a reasonable reponse to a serious argument often indicates that he is doing his best to avoid admitting to himself that he is closed-minded, ignorant, and immature. Is it really working for you?

Why is it that I see you going around calling people immature and ignorant because they have a different perspective than you?

Time for you to grow up and act like a Christian you claim to be.

Instead of going around calling people names like ‘ignorant and immature’ try to explain to them why you think they are wrong.

Its immature of you to make posts bashing them rather than explaining how you think they could be wrong.

You, are definitely a good example of somebody another should not debate with, because you will resort to calling them immature and ignorant.

Well news flash, you aren’t all that mature yourself for doing so.

PS: You don’t know everything either. Address the actual topic rather than resort to name calling in the future.

 

[Betterave]

Why is it that I see you going around calling people immature and ignorant because they have a different perspective than you?

I think you ‘see’ that because you’re not very rational and you don’t read/understand what I actually write.

Time for you to grow up and act like a Christian.

Like you? Good one.

Instead of going around calling people names like ‘ignorant and immature’ try to explain to them why you think they are wrong.

Those aren’t names - they are descriptions of the kinds of positions that people often espouse/arguments they make - kind of like yours.

Its immature of you to make posts bashing them rather than explaining how you think they could be wrong.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I did explain why Seeker was wrong, and his sophomoric approach is precisely one of the things which is most seriously wrong with his position - yours too.

You, are definitely a good example of somebody another should not debate with, because you will resort to calling them immature and ignorant.

Non sequitur. If someone is making immature and ignorant arguments, it is appropriate to point this out. If you would prefer this not to happen, I would surmise that it is only because the truth makes you uncomfortable.

Well news flash, you aren’t all that mature yourself for doing so.

News flash: “you too” is a fallacy, an error in reasoning - look up tu quoque.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I think it’s because you’re not very rational and you don’t read/understand what I actually write.

Like you? Good one.

Those aren’t names - they are descriptions of the kinds of positions that people often espouse/arguments they make - kind of like yours.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I did explain why Seeker was wrong, and his sophomoric approach is precisely one of the things which is most seriously wrong with his position - yours too.

Non sequitur. If someone is making immature and ignorant arguments, it is appropriate to point this out. If you would prefer this not to happen, it is only because you hate the truth.

News flash: “you too” is a fallacy, an error in reasoning - look up tu quoque.

Don’t give excuses.

If you think Seeker is wrong, that is fine. Obviously you guys have different thoughts and opinions on this. And that is what you need to address. How dare you go and call somebody else ignorant and immature. That is rude and offensive.

Address the actual topic rather than result in acting like a rude person. And yes, you calling him immature and ignorant is rude. You owe him an apology, I think. How dare you.
Keep comments like that to yourself.

And if you think hes so ignorant then try to give him knowledge that you have. He doesn’t know everything you do, and you don’t know everything he does. Part of debating is also learning from eachother. So please, keep the rude comments to yourself. You are only putting others down when you speak like that.

PS: I think speeker is a smart person who has something to say. And you need to let him say it. For all you know, he may end up proving you wrong. Having an attitude thinking that you’re always right will get you nowhere. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Seeker2010]

That’s what we call a ‘false dichotomy’ in Critical Thinking 101: show unambiguously and definitively (to Seeker’s satisfaction) or remain silent - no third option.

How typical that you attack the method of my argument, but not the message.

Your book tells a story of a very interactive god. He spoke with many people, performed miracles, smited entire cities, made war on entire populations. Caused the earth to stop rotating in it’s orbit (though the story says the sun stopped, as the sources of your religion were so ignorant they thought the sun revolved around the earth.)

If he did all of that, he’s capable of making his presence known, not to my satisfaction, but in such a way that it’s impossible for ANYONE of sound mind to deny. Given that his demands of us are faith and obedience, he could accomplish 100% compliance by doing so. Instead he ‘influences’ the thoughts of a single individual and we’re collectively just supposed to take that individuals word for it, and obey his commands.

Does that really seem reasonable to you? I guess it must. Since you know everything.

Me, I admit there’s more than I don’t know than there is that I do. I believe there is a supernatural creator, a ‘god’ if you will. After all, we are here! But I see no credibility in the documents given to us by mere mortal men from thousands of years ago, and your arrogance in your dealings with me and others is not making progress convincing me I have erred in my conclusions.

 

[Betterave]

BlueShadow1237310340:

Don’t give excuses.

…

You’re being completely ridiculous. I don’t know if it’s even worth responding to you, since you ignore everything I say. Seeker’s response WAS immature and ignorant! I’m not making excuses, I’m pointing out a fact! If you would like to challenge my assertion, do so. But please don’t come back to me with any more of your silly, self-righteous question-begging.

 

[Betterave]

How typical that you attack the method of my argument, but not the message.

I’m beginning to think you are incapable of this, but could you please actually read what I wrote and respond to it - instead of to stupid stuff that you have made up?

 

[BlueShadow123]

BlueShadow1237310340:

Don’t give excuses.

…

You’re being completely ridiculous. I don’t know if it’s even worth responding to you, since you ignore everything I say. Seeker’s response WAS immature and ignorant! I’m not making excuses, I’m pointing out a fact! If you would like to challenge my assertion, do so. But please don’t come back to me with any more of your silly, self-righteous question-begging.

You are not making yourself look very good by continuing to talk like that.
Now you’re angry with me and making fun of my posts. There was nothing wrong with my post. I asked that you not call people immature and ignorant while you are debating.
I think its time you realized your error, move on and not do it again.

Its natural to think the other person is wrong in a debate, however, when you feel they are wrong, feed them information that you think they may be lacking. Don’t resort to, ‘oh you’re immature and ignorant’. Where the heck is that going to get you? Nowhere. It will just make YOU look mean. Or like a person that one would not want to debate with. So from now on, please keep your rude comments to yourself. Actually address the topic rather than resorting to putting others down.

 

[Betterave]

BS: you have to *prove *a charge of libel (groundless accusations of libel are themselves liable to be libellous), and to do so you have to show that the libelous statement is not true. Understand?

 

[Betterave]

Betterave;7310365:

BlueShadow1237310340:

Don’t give excuses.

…

You are not making yourself look very good by continuing to talk like that.
Now you’re angry with me and making fun of my posts. There was nothing wrong with my post. I asked that you not call people immature and ignorant while you are debating.
I think its time you realized your error, move on and not do it again.

So you’re right because you’re right. Let’s ignore the substance of what I said and move on.

 

[BlueShadow123]

BlueShadow123;7310388:

Betterave;7310365:

So you’re right because you’re right. Let’s ignore the substance of what I said and move on.

As I have just said:

You are not making yourself look very good by continuing to talk like that.
Now you’re angry with me and making fun of my posts. There was nothing wrong with my post. I asked that you not call people immature and ignorant while you are debating.
I think its time you realized your error, move on and not do it again.

Its natural to think the other person is wrong in a debate, however, when you feel they are wrong, feed them information that you think they may be lacking. Don’t resort to, ‘oh you’re immature and ignorant’. Where the heck is that going to get you? Nowhere. It will just make YOU look mean. Or like a person that one would not want to debate with. So from now on, please keep your rude comments to yourself. Actually address the topic rather than resorting to putting others down.

 

[Seeker2010]

I’m beginning to think you are incapable of this, but could you please actually read what I wrote and respond to it - instead of to stupid stuff that you have made up?

I have made salient points which you have uniformly failed to address, instead you have attacked the method of my debate and called me names. Now, I’m pretty thick skinned, so it doesn’t bother me, but neither does it move the conversation forward.

So no, until you address my points, I have nothing further to say to you. Not my method, but the actual points.

The balls in your court.