Victims of the Sexual Revolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Robert Sarah along with ten other cardinals, has contributed to a new book-- “Eleven Cardinals Speak: On Marriage and the Family.”

This short review concentrates on Cardinal Sarah’s contribution, in which he says that marriage prep must start from scratch. It will first need to eradicate all the erroneous ideas about marriage absorbed from the popular culture.

“Sarah would have the catechists of marriage start on the firm ground of natural law: male and female complementarity, the telos of humanity. Modern couples approaching marriage often bring with them attitudes that, in effect, must be . . . exorcised. Attention must thus be brought to bear on things alien to popular culture: renunciation for one; self-sacrifice for another. Any unwillingness to face squarely the hard truths at the start will lead to later disaster.”

thecatholicthing.org/2015/10/21/a-school-of-conjugal-life/
 
DaddyGirl said:
Ah. I see this writer has a collection of essays published this year that she’s trying to promote and sell about…wait for it…the sexual revolution!
Click to expand...
Thanks for noting this. I wasn’t aware of any of her books, but when I looked at the Amazon page I noticed that the most recent isn’t even listed yet. I haven’t read any of them, but the most intriguing title is “Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World.”
 
JimG said:
Cardinal Robert Sarah along with ten other cardinals, has contributed to a new book-- “Eleven Cardinals Speak: On Marriage and the Family.”

This short review concentrates on Cardinal Sarah’s contribution, in which he says that marriage prep must start from scratch. It will first need to eradicate all the erroneous ideas about marriage absorbed from the popular culture.

“Sarah would have the catechists of marriage start on the firm ground of natural law: male and female complementarity, the telos of humanity. Modern couples approaching marriage often bring with them attitudes that, in effect, must be . . . exorcised. Attention must thus be brought to bear on things alien to popular culture: renunciation for one; self-sacrifice for another. Any unwillingness to face squarely the hard truths at the start will lead to later disaster.”

thecatholicthing.org/2015/10/21/a-school-of-conjugal-life/
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Ed
 
It’s implied that “Sexual Revolution” means the overturning of traditional Judeo-Christian values about fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, easy divorce, cohabitation, abortion, birth control and related matters that occurred in the U.S. and Europe primarily in the 1960s and 70s and has continued since with ever more disturbing iterations of perverted activity being considered legitimate “lifestyle choices” - even for children. But that’s a long subtitle to put on a book for the sake of hair-splitting or those who would feign ignorance to argue that the term has no common cultural reference. :twocents:
 
3DOCTORS said:
It’s implied that “Sexual Revolution” means the overturning of traditional Judeo-Christian values about fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, easy divorce, cohabitation, abortion, birth control and related matters that occurred in the U.S. and Europe primarily in the 1960s and 70s and has continued since with ever more disturbing iterations of perverted activity being considered legitimate “lifestyle choices” - even for children. But that’s a long subtitle to put on a book for the sake of hair-splitting or those who would feign ignorance to argue that the term has no common cultural reference. :twocents:
Click to expand...
 
3DOCTORS said:
It’s implied that “Sexual Revolution” means the overturning of traditional Judeo-Christian values about fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, easy divorce, cohabitation, abortion, birth control and related matters that occurred in the U.S. and Europe primarily in the 1960s and 70s and has continued since with ever more disturbing iterations of perverted activity being considered legitimate “lifestyle choices” - even for children. But that’s a long subtitle to put on a book for the sake of hair-splitting or those who would feign ignorance to argue that the term has no common cultural reference. :twocents:
Click to expand...
Very well put.

Ed
 
exnihilo said:
This will no doubt be unpopular, but I think a certain amount or level of physical abuse is less harmful than divorce.
Click to expand...
A certain amount of physical abuse? A certain amount?

Maybe you’d like to define that. I mean, we’d all like to know how much a man can beat his wife before you consider it a reasonable option to get the hell out of there.

Slapping ok? Dragging around by the hair (hi PR). The occasional punch? A good kicking? Rape?

Maybe you can tell us how much violence you would put up with until the point where you had to leave.
 
There was no list of people’s names. Either you made that up and then found someone who agreed with you or someone else made it up and you repeated it without attributing it.

Either way, you were wrong.
 
Bradski said:
There was no list of people’s names. Either you made that up and then found someone who agreed with you or someone else made it up and you repeated it without attributing it.

Either way, you were wrong.
Click to expand...
You said that I made up that St. Paul was using a list of folks who could be used in a court of law.

Do you retract that?

Otherwise, we are done.

I don’t dialogue with people who impugn my character, who assert that I “make things up”.

Esp. when I provided a source for my position.

:mad:
 
PRmerger said:
Paul had a list of 500 witnesses that he could use, if necessary, in a court of law, to prove his case.
Click to expand...
That is not in scripture. It isn’t written anywhere else either. No-one at that time even implies it. Not even Paul himself. There is zero evidence for it. There was no list of five hundred people. It is a weak assumption at best, obviously suggested (with no evidence to back it up) to attempt to put some flesh on an argument that doesn’t rate any merit as it stands.

If you did not conjure that from nothing, then you need to attribute it to the person who did make it up.

Edit:

Hang on…

Having just re-read a couple of posts it might seem you are using that guy Ray as evidence for this non-existent list? That some guy said something on a radio programme, therefore it is worth repeating as fact, with no evidence whatsoever?

Isn’t this an exact example of my whole point? That someone, somewhere says something, with absolutely nothing to back it up with whatsoever, and it is later repeated by others as fact.
 
Bradski said:
That is not in scripture. It isn’t written anywhere else either. No-one at that time even implies it. Not even Paul himself. There is zero evidence for it. There was no list of five hundred people. It is a weak assumption at best, obviously suggested (with no evidence to back it up) to attempt to put some flesh on an argument that doesn’t rate any merit as it stands.

If you did not conjure that from nothing, then you need to attribute it to the person who did make it up.

Edit:

Hang on…

Having just re-read a couple of posts it might seem you are using that guy Ray as evidence for this non-existent list?
Click to expand...
I am using Ray as evidence that I didn’t “just make it up”, as you asserted.

He maintains that the list of 500 witnesses were men that would have validity in a court of law.

Now…do you retract saying I just made that up?
 
exnihilo said:
Divorce would still be harmful even if physical abuse is present. It may be the best solution but it is still a harmful one. It might likened to chemotherapy which might kill the cancer but still itself harms the body. This will no doubt be unpopular, but I think a certain amount or level of physical abuse is less harmful than divorce. I’m not saying any amount or interested in debating at what point physical abuse is worse. I just have the opinion that divorce is so emotionally damaging that there are in fact worse things a child can endure.
Click to expand...
When a husband hits his wife or a wife hits her husband, the marriage is already in trouble. Subsequent abuse breaks the marriage down even further. Same thing goes from adultery. You need not have a divorce to have a broken marriage.

Chances are the abusive spouse will also hit the children. The victims have a right to be safe from the abuser.

Divorce adds one more part in the coffin that abuse built. Can abusive marriages be salvaged? It’s possible but it takes a lot of effort on the part of the abuser and he or she must be committed to changing. But what if the abuser does not change or is not willing to.

Can you really stand there and tell the victims to put up with it?
 
PRmerger said:
I am using Ray as evidence that I didn’t “just make it up”, as you asserted.

He maintains that the list of 500 witnesses were men that would have validity in a court of law.

Now…do you retract saying I just made that up?
Click to expand...
OK, I retract that you made it up. You didn’t. Ray did. He pulled something out of thin air and stated it as fact - not as a proposition or a supposition, but as a fact. With zero evidence for it.

In fact, you can see the way his mind was ticking over.

We need more than just a mention of 500 people.
Paul said 'brethren.
We can take that to mean no women.
No woman would be allowed to give evidence in a court of law.
Therefore those he mentioned would be able to give evidence.
Therefore…there must have been a list of names he could use in a court of law.

Now, unless I am mistaken, you repeated what he said as a fact. Not a proposition or a supposition, but as a fact. Which illustrates my main argument. That suppositions, propositions, heresay and rumour end up being stated as facts and then accepted as such.
 
Bradski said:
A certain amount of physical abuse? A certain amount?

Maybe you’d like to define that. I mean, we’d all like to know how much a man can beat his wife before you consider it a reasonable option to get the hell out of there.

Slapping ok? Dragging around by the hair (hi PR). The occasional punch? A good kicking? Rape?

Maybe you can tell us how much violence you would put up with until the point where you had to leave.
Click to expand...
👍

Usually I don’t agree with your ideas, but you are dead on here.
 
Bradski said:
OK, I retract that you made it up. You didn’t. Ray did.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

As for Ray making it up…



I’m quite certain that you are no expert on the ancient near east adjudication process so your assertion that Ray “made it up” is as authoritative as a 6000 year old earther claiming that Bill Nye “just made up” his evidence for the earth being 4.5 billion years old.
 
DaddyGirl;13385641 So how is she deciding which group got hurt. said:
By using the statistics she has quoted in the article!
Obviously!
Why, are you trying to suggest the sexual revolution has been a good thihg for families!
Being a self described “prayer warrior”, you may like to say a prayer for those hurt by the sexual revolution!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top