Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Bradski]

Indeed. A person devoid of moral values.

Having a taste or not for a particular vegetable is not a moral question. Raping someone is. And in that case, the rapist is exhibiting behavior which would allow us to classify him as a psychopath.

The definition of a psychopath is not someone with no moral values. It’s someone who gives them no weight. They may well know that rape is wrong and would probably agree with you that it is. And mean it. They simply don’t experience empathy.

You can’t empathise with a root vegetable but you can with a woman. So you are quite entitled to class someone who rapes a girl a psychopath whether that person believes it to be morally acceptable or not. The difference in their moral outlook and yours is irrelevant.

 

[Leo2014]

Obviously, admonishing people sometimes does work, just as effectively sharing our message sometimes does not work.

The death of moral outrage often enough signals the birth of general moral turpitude.

It was because the Germans were not outraged with Hitler that he led them into hell for twelve years.

It was because the world was outraged with Hitler that his hell finally consumed him.

Remember a couple of key points:

• We live a society that are not all Catholic.  Therefore, it is presumptuous that everyone contains the same values.
• Why does every argument eventually includes Hitler?

I have discovered that the Internet is inundated with critics and arm chair warriors. I am certain that if we were to organize a revolve that I would not find any of these individuals in the church parking lot. You know in the US-of-A Catholics greatly out number those that declare to be gay. However, as a political force, gay sure beat us to the ground like those old school yard tussles.

I hope I didn’t hurt your feeling because that is not my intent. But, I was involved personally with the propositions we had in California over several elections to fight gay marriages. The frustration was that it was soo hard to get anyone out of their chair and help! Heaven forbid you ask for any financial contributions.

 

[PRmerger]

Having a taste or not for a particular vegetable is not a moral question. Raping someone is. And in that case, the rapist is exhibiting behavior which would allow us to classify him as a psychopath.

The definition of a psychopath is not someone with no moral values. It’s someone who gives them no weight. They may well know that rape is wrong and would probably agree with you that it is. And mean it. They simply don’t experience empathy.

You can’t empathise with a root vegetable but you can with a woman. So you are quite entitled to class someone who rapes a girl a psychopath whether that person believes it to be morally acceptable or not. The difference in their moral outlook and yours is irrelevant.

Egg-zactly.

Everything you said here asserts the Catholic paradigm on morality, Brad! :clapping:

You can see how it is in direct violation of Hee’s paradigm which is, “I like turnips. You like mushrooms. Who am I to say that turnips are better than mushrooms?”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

“Nuclear family” does not preclude what you mention above. The bare minimum nuclear family is a married man and woman. I’ve never heard that it excluded grandparents, etc.

It de facto excludes extended family especially grandparents as often the grandparent is the head of household.

I don’t know where you are from. But in the US, the big problem is undervaluing marriage. Almost no one gets married anymore, and when they do, it’s way too late (perhaps so the kids can participate in the wedding).

The shortage of priests is not due to an overvaluing of marriage (since so few get married), but rather an undervaluing of the priesthood.

And of course, the Church values celibacy. As can be seen in the link in one of my prior posts.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12498499&postcount=196

Please prove that the declining marriage rate is caused by an undervaluing of marriage.

Celibacy (not just the priesthood) is severely undervalued.

I happened to explicitly say the Church values celibacy, indeed it is anathema to elevate marriage above celibacy, but that isn’t the message one gets from conservatives.

As for people becoming dissatisfied in marriage…marriage involves making a commitment “till death do us part” and there is always an element of risk. No one knows exactly what the future holds, but we make the marriage commitment anyway. Suggesting that people hold marriage in lower regard so that they aren’t disappointed later on seems to me to be the wrong answer. Yes, there may be periods where the reality doesn’t quite meet the expectation, but I can say at least that my wife and I love each other much more than we did when we married 36 years ago. And our current reality is that it’s much more than I ever expected, and much more than I deserve.

People are placing unrealistic expectations on marriage that the institution simply can’t meet.

 

[inocente]

First of all, this has nothing to do with women versus men. BTW - I’m gathering from your posts that you are female - whereas I previously thought you were probably male. Sometimes I miss obvious clues, so please pardon me in that case.

Women are as good as men, but different than men. This is one of the purposes of Genesis 2 being in the bible (details on the creation of Eve.)

You bring up a point which is important to clarify, and I’ll try my best, but will probably open a can of worms. I better understand where you’re coming from now, I hope.

I think you might be confusing “disciplines” with “dogma.” Disciplines can change with the times, dogma cannot.

For example, Paul defines one of the characteristics of a good Bishop / Priest as “being married only once” and as you know, currently married priests are not allowed. The marriage status of priests can change with the times since it is a discipline, not a dogma.

A concrete example of a dogma is that Christ is indeed God. This will not change with the times.

The examples you list above are “helpful hints for living a good family life in 40AD.” They are not dogma, but at the time they made more sense than they do now.

It might be good for everyone involved in these discussions to differentiate between discipline and dogma (and there may be even another category that doesn’t come immediately to mind). Unfortunately, I can’t think of a list of dogmas to refer to… Perhaps others know of a concise list???

No, I’m male, you were right first time.

I quoted the verses on women and slaves as examples of how morality was different in that culture at that time to our culture now. Anglicans have just authorized women bishops, so there’s another change for conservatives to get upset about.

The trouble with being dogmatic is that as well as keeping people together it can drive them apart. Here’s Pope Francis: “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. …] The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. …] We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow." - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

The Samaritan was following the rule to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus did not say to stop following the rules. Jesus did not say that the other rules should be ignored. The 10 commandments are still in effect. The beatitudes go beyond that to show us an even more perfect way to build on the commandments, not to replace them. Jesus did not give them a dispensation to not follow any rules.

Nope, Jesus had a choice, tell a story or list a set of rules. He was careful to tell a story, since the meaning of the passage is that God’s Law cannot be codified into legislation or a computer program. Real mercy and compassion require us to treat each person as an individual, not apply faceless laws to all and sundry.

*Yes, the church was wrong to burn heretics at the stake (although it was VERY rare). It would still be wrong.

Those persons who make up the church are not perfect. The church exists as a hospital for sinners, not a club in which only perfect persons are allowed. People have done awful things in the past, and will continue to do awful things in the name of the church, or Christ, or God. Many Catholics will find their way to Hell.

The one thing that is static is the dogmatic teachings of the church, because these represent eternal truths, not just “a good idea for this time in history.”*

If the Church can and has been wrong then the division between infallible dogma and fallible non-dogma doesn’t mean much to non-Catholics. As you say, the Church is made up of people, so what is taken to be revealed by God (and is therefore dogma) has at some point been a matter of interpretation and judgment by people.

But unless God has revealed that democracy is evil, there doesn’t seem to be any case for citizens giving up their right to one person one vote, and voting according to their conscience.

 

[PRmerger]

If the Church can and has been wrong then the division between infallible dogma and fallible non-dogma doesn’t mean much to non-Catholics. As you say, the Church is made up of people, so what is taken to be revealed by God (and is therefore dogma) has at some point been a matter of interpretation and judgment by people.

Does this include the discernment by the Church that the Gospel of Matthew is theopneustos but the Didache is not?

If you’re not sure that the Church got this correct, then on what do you base your belief that what is written in the Gospel of Matthew is revelation?

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
The trouble with being dogmatic is that as well as keeping people together it can drive them apart. Here’s Pope Francis: “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. …] The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. …] We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow." - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Nope, Jesus had a choice, tell a story or list a set of rules. He was careful to tell a story, since the meaning of the passage is that God’s Law cannot be codified into legislation or a computer program. Real mercy and compassion require us to treat each person as an individual, not apply faceless laws to all and sundry.
…

People seeking to justify themselves often cite the story of Jesus forgiving the prostitute; they conveniently overlook the second part: “go and sin no more.”

It’s true that scripture needs interpreting, but that’s why the Church has a Magisterium. Their job is to make sure an interpretation is consistent with dogma. Protestants believe in each person interpreting for themselves. This is Original Sin, man making the rules instead of God.

 

[inocente]

I thought I made it clear that opinion polls are not determiners of truth.

No, you accused me of being a liar. Your words were “all you have offered are a couple of opinion polls which you pulled out of your head”.

I cited five links to polls to show I am not a liar. All you do is insult everyone. Read the stickies. You are not a good advertizement for your church. I already told you not to post to me again and will be ignoring you from now on.

 

[inocente]

Were Christ and St. Paul “twitching the curtains”? Just not your day, is it?

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

Verse mine! Verse mine!

I think if you want to show respect for Matthew as the writer, and Jesus as the speaker, you need to avoid mining isolated verses out of context.

The context is “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So the disciples are only to preach to Jews, and as you and I are not Jews, the disciples are instructed to go nowhere near us. We would waste their time, we are not amongst their priorities.

Oops I hear you say.

After further instructions, Jesus says how to prioritize further, this time amongst Jews. “As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”

And then there’s the sentence you quoted. And then “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.”

So when read prayerfully in context, Jesus is obviously not breaking off his important instructions to blurt out a homophobic aside. He is on-message about towns which are not priority. This is Christ, and Christ never rambles.

Ditto with your other verses, please read them in context, and let them speak to you rather than forcing your own meaning onto them.

Remember, we discussed this before, and I listed all the resources and education Baptists get in reading scripture, and even though I asked twice, you somehow forgot to say what resources and education you got.

Just not your day, is it?

 

[inocente]

1) The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2) Believing heresy imperils the soul
3) Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4) Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Remember a couple of key points:

• We live a society that are not all Catholic.  Therefore, it is presumptuous that everyone contains the same values.
• **Why does every argument eventually includes Hitler?**

I have discovered that the Internet is inundated with critics and arm chair warriors. I am certain that if we were to organize a revolve that I would not find any of these individuals in the church parking lot. You know in the US-of-A Catholics greatly out number those that declare to be gay. However, as a political force, gay sure beat us to the ground like those old school yard tussles.

I hope I didn’t hurt your feeling because that is not my intent. But, I was involved personally with the propositions we had in California over several elections to fight gay marriages. The frustration was that it was soo hard to get anyone out of their chair and help! Heaven forbid you ask for any financial contributions.

Godwin’s Law is real.

is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1” — that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t you think that whether we should kill calves to obtain tender meat is a moral question? Whether we should farm any animal is a moral question. What sort of animals we could eat is another.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but beating puppies is not covered by the Catechism. But we still know it’s wrong.

It would be a lot quicker and less time consuming if you either admitted that you personally find homosexuality disgusting and we can all then put it down to a personal aversion or simply said: It’s wrong because God says so’.

So should we be more moral if we kill animals that are not tender meat? Why?

Beating puppies is wrong because empathy (do unto others as you’d have them do unto you) and common sense and the natural law tells me it is wrong. The catechism does not have cover every single human act.

I do not find homosexuality disgusting. I find sodomy disgusting. Some homosexuals are averse to sodomy, so why should I find the mental state itself disgusting unless the proclivity is followed through? For the same reason, I would not find a person with murderous impulses disgusting unless he followed through on those impulses.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Verse mine! Verse mine!

I think if you want to show respect for Matthew as the writer, and Jesus as the speaker, you need to avoid mining isolated verses out of context.

The context is “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So the disciples are only to preach to Jews, and as you and I are not Jews, the disciples are instructed to go nowhere near us. We would waste their time, we are not amongst their priorities.

Oops I hear you say.

After further instructions, Jesus says how to prioritize further, this time amongst Jews. “As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”

And then there’s the sentence you quoted. And then “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.”

So when read prayerfully in context, Jesus is obviously not breaking off his important instructions to blurt out a homophobic aside. He is on-message about towns which are not priority. This is Christ, and Christ never rambles.

Ditto with your other verses, please read them in context, and let them speak to you rather than forcing your own meaning onto them.

Remember, we discussed this before, and I listed all the resources and education Baptists get in reading scripture, and even though I asked twice, you somehow forgot to say what resources and education you got.

Just not your day, is it?

Well, I guess that if I’m not allowed to let Jesus compare the rejection of him to something so evil as Sodom and Gomorrah (and you never even comment on Paul’s condemnation of sodomy) there’s no other way to get to you. I used to think Protestants follow the Bible. I guess not all of them do.

Just not your day, is it?

Try mining a bible verse that condones sodomy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I may, the Hitler reference as regards the German people is not historically accurate. The world, meaning those in the intelligence community, knew exactly what Hitler was up to, as did certain people in positions of power. The German propaganda apparatus was quite effective.

Please continue.

Ed

The Protestants of Germany were taken in by Hitler, as voting maps demonstrate. Some Catholic voted for Hitler, but the proportion that voted against him was much greater than in the dominantly Protestant section of Germany. That is how he rose to power, by the ignorance of the masses, not by the consent of the intelligence community.

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2645044/posts

“Rome and the atheists have gained … These two shall fight it out – these two; Protestantism being retained for the base of operations sly by Atheism.”
Herman Melville, The Piazza Tales (1876), p. 406.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Godwin’s Law is real.

…

So what? But that doesn’t answer his question. It’s real because …

 

[Winterwolf00]

So should we be more moral if we kill animals that are not tender meat? Why?

Beating puppies is wrong because empathy (do unto others as you’d have them do unto you) and common sense and the natural law tells me it is wrong. The catechism does not have cover every single human act.

I do not find homosexuality disgusting. I find sodomy disgusting. Some homosexuals are averse to sodomy, so why should I find the mental state itself disgusting unless the proclivity is followed through? For the same reason, I would not find a person with murderous impulses disgusting unless he followed through on those impulses.

You explained why animal cruelty is wrong but neglected to explain why homosexuality is wrong, or sodomy if you prefer although I believe you’re merely splitting hairs.

 

[PRmerger]

You explained why animal cruelty is wrong but neglected to explain why homosexuality is wrong, or sodomy if you prefer although I believe you’re merely splitting hairs.

Homosexuality is wrong because it (sex) is not ordered to its natural purpose.

Just like it’s wrong to store batteries in your stomach. Even if you can do this…it’s just…wrong. Disordered.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Homosexuality is wrong because it (sex) is not ordered to its natural purpose.
Just like it’s wrong to store batteries in your stomach. Even if you can do this…it’s just…wrong. Disordered.

Ah the Naturalistic Fallacy.

So things that are natural are somehow automatically good?
You know what else is unnatural? The internet.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah the Naturalistic Fallacy.

So things that are natural are somehow automatically good?
You know what else is unnatural? The internet.

I didn’t say that things that are unnatural are immoral.

Please read my answer again. Emphasis on the “ordered to” part, ok?

 

[Winterwolf00]

I didn’t say that things that are unnatural are immoral.

Please read my answer again. Emphasis on the “ordered to” part, ok?

I did look over it.
You are using Naturalism as a justification that homosexuality is wrong are you not?