!I didn’t know it was a theme of mine, let alone a favorite theme.
It’s been both an occasionally explicit theme and a regular subtext throughout the years.
Moreover, I didn’t know that I had expressed a desire for their standards of sexuality to inform ours.
Then if it’s irrelevant to contemporary western standards, why bring it up?
Are you doing more eisegesis, Elizabeth?
I have never engaged in eisegesis. That activity is reserved for the endless pursuit, by others, of “discovering” moral excuses for homosexual behavior in Sacred Scripture, and even suggesting that pagan sexual practices should legitimately inform ours. (Because if it’s ever been done, or ever theorized about by [insert honored ancient philosopher here] it must have merit.) Secondarily, eisegesis is reserved for the Liberation Theologians, who engage in it regularly.
Pay attention to context.
I have never not done so. That’s my specialty.
The issue was: has no one found a good which same-sex attraction may serve. I provided some examples. The idea that same-sex attraction may serve some positive good is offensive to you, I realize that.
Inasmuch as an attraction of any kind may serve some positive (as long as, if evil, it is not acted upon), there is not an issue. Not an issue with the Church (clearly), not an issue with her Saints, and not an issue with me, which is observable from my posting history on the subject – threads on which you never appeared and probably never bothered to read, because they were not outlets for your apparent agenda, which is to try to get lay Roman Catholics to doubt their Church’s theology about sexuality.
The thought that that good may be completely unrelated to homosexual sexual behavior confuses you, and you would therefore like not to think about it.
No, Mark. No need to patronize me. Nothing that you say confuses me. It is in fact crystal clear that you like to confuse the issue by introducing irrelevancies and by making Roman Catholics consider that perhaps the foundation for their Church’s belief is in error.
Got it. (And I’ve gotten it for quite some time.
)
You’d be surprised what I do and do not understand, Elizabeth–I have my doubts regarding whether or not your grasp on what I do or do not understand is as firm as you would like to think it is. I suspect that if someone does not understand something in precisely the way you understand it, then you conclude that they lack understanding completely. That’s certainly a way of being catholic, Elizabeth–I’ve seen enough of it here on these forums to convince me of its schoolmarmish perniciousness–but it’s not the only way (if history and general experience are any indication), and I have my doubts that it’s the only way that the Roman Catholic Church prescribes for her faithful.
Frist of all, I or anyone here, could report those remarks ^ as violating forum rules for chairty, with their ad hominem (“schoolmarimish perniciousness”). I realize that you’re resorting to this because you’re not winning the argument. I understand you clearly, and having respect for my fellow man, I believe you also undertsand clearly. I’ve always thought that you understood the points being made, just that you do not accept them, and so would prefer to obfuscate as a substitute for argument. I’m every bit as classically educated as you are, so I wouldn’t try pulling that one on me.
In fact, that’s what annoys me. You most likely do understand the way others describe the theology, and you probably do understand how I relate the philosophy behind it (or have learned it), but you prefer to dwell in other, unrelated theories.
We could all afford to be more humble when it comes to our assessment of our own understanding and the understanding of others.
When it’s shown that we do not understand. Since that is not true for me in this instance, and in all the other instances in which you’ve opposed me, perhaps you meant the observation to refer to yourself.
