What is your opinion on Lady Gaga?

[AdamP88]

I disagree. She certainly is not a talentless hack. Most of her own material is written herself and she is definitely a very talented pop artist, performer and writer. I’m generally a U2, Coldplay kinda guy but she has made a bit of a fan of me - music wise.

It is unfortunate that she behaves in the the manner that she does. I would say she is a bad influence (certainly on children). The lyrics of some of her songs are questionable & most of her music videos are not suitable viewing material for any serious catholic.

That’s my :twocents:

In relation to what I said earlier…it is probably important to note that she did recently release her own condom brand with the profits going to Planned Parenthood.
While she may be talented…she is not particularly moral and that would go for her music too. If she supports PP then I’m not buying any more albums.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

No, the Church says SSA is disordered and homosexual acts are sinful. It is silent on whether it is a choice or biological, as the Church does not pronounce dogmata on matters of science, biology, psychology, or anything other than faith and morality.

The Church likewise pronounces not on matters of creation, except as they pertain to faith or morality: “the world was created from nothing”, and “we are descended from first parents” (the basis of original sin). Within that spectrum, there are young-age or strict creationists such as myself (where I fit in oddly in the Catholic Church, better in the Orthodox Church, and best of all in the Reformed and Evangelical traditions, on that one doctrine), there are ancient earth/universe/age creationists, intelligent design advocates, theistic evolutionists, so on and so forth - none are condemned by the Church and all are accepted, with the Church pronouncing on none, as long as the dogmata are adhered to and the views are compatible with Christianity (i.e. materialism, reductionistic materialism [mind-brain/body equivalency], atheistic Darwinism, etc., which are not).

However, unlike on the age of the earth and matters of evolution, where there is ample room for very reasonable disagreement within the bounds of human knowledge, there is much less room for reasoned disagreement on the psychogenic origin of homosexuality in at least a segment of the population with same-sex attraction (see my previous posts).

Ive seen tons of people on here saying that the church has no problem with homosexuality as long as its not acted upon.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, from what I’ve learned being on these forums, the church says homosexuality is not a choice,

No, Pumpkin. The Church has not declared anything whatsoever about whether homosexuality is a choice or not a choice.

and is accepted by the church as long as no acts are commited from it.

Again, you are misinformed.

Those with same sex attraction are accepted by the Church, of course, but the tendency is considered DISORDERED, not “okay”, as you profess.

You can be gay- but not have gay sex or get married.

I prefer to use the term SSA or homosexual. “Gay” is a politicized term that connotes a different culture/ethos that offers the paradigm that this disorder is absolutely normal.

 

[PRmerger]

Ive seen tons of people on here saying that the church has no problem with homosexuality as long as its not acted upon.

Either you are misinterpreting their comments (as I’ve seen you do in the past), or these Catholics are misinformed.

The Church states that homosexuality is DISORDERED. Those with this disorder, just like those with addictions or any other grave sins, are welcome, but homosexuality is not considered “okay”, as you profess.

Well her message says that being gay is okay. And the church agrees with that.

 

[PRmerger]

No, the Church says SSA is disordered and homosexual acts are sinful. It is silent on whether it is a choice or biological, as the Church does not pronounce dogmata on matters of science, biology, psychology, or anything other than faith and morality.

The Church likewise pronounces not on matters of creation, except as they pertain to faith or morality: “the world was created from nothing”, and “we are descended from first parents” (the basis of original sin). Within that spectrum, there are young-age or strict creationists such as myself (where I fit in oddly in the Catholic Church, better in the Orthodox Church, and best of all in the Reformed and Evangelical traditions, on that one doctrine), there are ancient earth/universe/age creationists, intelligent design advocates, theistic evolutionists, so on and so forth - none are condemned by the Church and all are accepted, with the Church pronouncing on none, as long as the dogmata are adhered to and the views are compatible with Christianity (i.e. materialism, reductionistic materialism [mind-brain/body equivalency], atheistic Darwinism, etc., which are not).

However, unlike on the age of the earth and matters of evolution, where there is ample room for very reasonable disagreement within the bounds of human knowledge, there is much less room for reasoned disagreement on the psychogenic origin of homosexuality in at least a segment of the population with same-sex attraction (see my previous posts).

:yup:

 

[joshvanrad]

Personally I don’t care for her musically because I think her lyrics lack substance and emotion. I could really care less for the shock appeal of modern pop music. So while she may be talented, it is easily lost in her daft lyrical skills.

As far as her political message goes- I believe she is one of the many who are ushering in a time of immoral changes. She is just one of the medias weapons to further our continued world-wide transformation into “the fall of Rome”.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I saw an interview talking about how she goes into her egg to become ‘reborn’ and then comes out when she fees shes reborn spiritually.

What the heck does that even mean?

I assume you did not read the article that someone linked earlier in this thread, which talks EXTENSIVELY about this exact question. It may sound a bit conspiratorial, but I strongly suggest you read it. This article tells you everything you need to know about exactly why Lady Gaga is propagating SERIOUS EVIL:

embracingyourgreatness.blogspot.com/2011/02/lady-gaga-to-birth-new-race-caution.html

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Either you are misinterpreting their comments (as I’ve seen you do in the past), or these Catholics are misinformed.

Not much to misinterpret when they say “the church accepts homosexuality.”

 

[PRmerger]

Not much to misinterpret when they say “the church accepts homosexuality.”

You’ve misinterpreted to say that the Church thinks it’s okay.

Now you’ve taken that statement to refute the true Catholic teaching that says that homosexuality is disordered.
*
That’s* how you misinterpreted it.

Bottom line: the Church states that homosexuality is DISORDERED.

You see that now, right?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

You’ve misinterpreted to say that the Church thinks it’s okay.

Now you’ve taken that statement to refute the true Catholic teaching that says that homosexuality is disordered.
*
That’s* how you misinterpreted it.

Bottom line: the Church states that homosexuality is DISORDERED.

You see that now, right?

No, that is what they said. Ive seen multiple people on there saying that, so I’m simply telling you what they said.

 

[PRmerger]

No, that is what they said. Ive seen multiple people on there saying that, so I’m simply telling you what they said.

That’s fine. And now you can quote the rest of the Catholics here that have been saying that the Church says that homosexuality is DISORDERED. And that homosexuals, like those who have addictions or other grave sins, are welcome in the Church.

 

[AdamP88]

That’s beyond me. Everything is debated in the Church - even things we know to be perfect truths or blatant lies. Papal infallibility (Kung), the simulated ordination of priestesses (Catholic Womenpriests), abortion (Catholics4Choice), even the virgin birth (Brown), the reality of miracles (Brown), the nature of creation, the reality of original sin (Fox), and so on - if one steps outside of the visible Church to the entirety of the Body of Christ, everything is debated, down to the very Trinity itself, without anyone actually rejecting it. It’s one of those things where even if men like to debate it, or intellectually reject it, they still must live as if it were true.

That it is obvious is obvious, and is obvious - excuse the convoluted language - to anyone who will look at the reasoning or evidence, Biblical, theological, philosophical, psychological, or empirical.

Certain topics are no longer theologically debated in the church - such as the homosexuality topic & for example, the teaching on the Trinity.
Abortion , women priests and such are not on the table for debate in the church…

 

[AdamP88]

Yeah bonus points for that…

I’m Irish-Algerian

 

[AdamP88]

Definitely agree she is talented - I just wish the whole superstar lifestyle wasn’t so full of sex, drugs & rock & roll…

Oh…wait…is that an oxymoron?

 

[tabycat]

sarcasm alert

I think there is a good possibility that she, the Cardassian/Kardashian sisters, and some others are actually space aliens masquerading as humans to prove to their leaders that real humans are a bunch of gullible fools.
sarcasm off

:

rotfl: That would mean that the space alians are just as foolish us humans are.

 

[AdamP88]

Did you guys know that Cardassians are actually the name of an alien race in Star Trek…

 

[tabycat]

Did you guys know that Cardassians are actually the name of an alien race in Star Trek…

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine:wink:

 

[AdamP88]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

yes…you know your trek

 

[JNdoum]

Intellegent, articulate, gifted people are “dangerous”…the question is “To whom” are they dangerous? She definitely isn’t a “follower”…she definitely IS a free thinker". I can see how many conservative religious people WOULD consider her “dangerous”.

I’m sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? I don’t see her as a free thinker. A free thinker, in my opinion, would be someone who tries to find solutions, to things like world hunger, or war, or disease, or even things like self-esteem. I don’t see how she fits into any of these roles. She can go onto a stage dresses in nothing but pipe cleaners and Kleenex, and scream “You’re all beautiful!” at the end, but what good has she done? Has she said anything new? Has she made a major change?

Intelligent, articulate, and gifted people are dangerous sometimes, because they often like to control unintelligent, inarticulate, ungifted people. The Holocaust being a prime example, with Hitler being a quite artistically talented, brilliant, and charismatic man. He was also an insane monster who killed millions. Those are not redeeming qualities. Not being a follower is not a redeeming quality either, because every dictator who ever existed was not a follower. Sure, it’s good to be intelligent, articulate, even “free-thinking,” but these are useless characteristics without morals. Miss Gaga is lacking in those. She’s no Hitler, but she’s no Mother Teresa either.

What I really didn’t like about your post was your dig at conservative “religious people” (you just insulted millions of people with one very general word pairing), and implying that conformism is some kind of inherent evil. Everyone conforms every day. How many people wear pants in public? Follow traffic laws? Get into the latest fashions? Pay for the things they get at the store? Because all of those people conform to a set of rules and laws, they generally do all of those things (with noticeable exceptions, such as skirts, kilts, public nudity, etc.). Free thinking is not always good either, as it leads to such horrid things as abortion and such, which I’d rather not get into.

Everything has its place in life and free-thinking and non conformism have theirs, in certain spheres. We can’t just go around doing whatever we want willy-nilly though.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’m sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? I don’t see her as a free thinker. A free thinker, in my opinion, would be someone who tries to find solutions, to things like world hunger, or war, or disease, or even things like self-esteem. I don’t see how she fits into any of these roles. She can go onto a stage dresses in nothing but pipe cleaners and Kleenex, and scream “You’re all beautiful!” at the end, but what good has she done? Has she said anything new? Has she made a major change?

Intelligent, articulate, and gifted people are dangerous sometimes, because they often like to control unintelligent, inarticulate, ungifted people. The Holocaust being a prime example, with Hitler being a quite artistically talented, brilliant, and charismatic man. He was also an insane monster who killed millions. Those are not redeeming qualities. Not being a follower is not a redeeming quality either, because every dictator who ever existed was not a follower. Sure, it’s good to be intelligent, articulate, even “free-thinking,” but these are useless characteristics without morals. Miss Gaga is lacking in those. She’s no Hitler, but she’s no Mother Teresa either.

What I really didn’t like about your post was your dig at conservative “religious people” (you just insulted millions of people with one very general word pairing), and implying that conformism is some kind of inherent evil. Everyone conforms every day. How many people wear pants in public? Follow traffic laws? Get into the latest fashions? Pay for the things they get at the store? Because all of those people conform to a set of rules and laws, they generally do all of those things (with noticeable exceptions, such as skirts, kilts, public nudity, etc.). Free thinking is not always good either, as it leads to such horrid things as abortion and such, which I’d rather not get into.

Everything has its place in life and free-thinking and non conformism have theirs, in certain spheres. We can’t just go around doing whatever we want willy-nilly though.