Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[PRmerger]

But the final call is…ours. Right or wrong. Well-formed conscience or not. Ignorant of all the facts or not.

Yes. The final call is ours.

Well formed conscience is better than ill formed.

We agree.

But now you, as an atheist, have no coherent way to argue why your position: it’s wrong to execute homosexuals is any better than the guy who argues: it’s right to execute homosexuals.

We with the theistic framework do.

 

[Bradski]

But now you, as an atheist, have no coherent way to argue why your position: it’s wrong to execute homosexuals is any better than the guy who argues: it’s right to execute homosexuals.

[SARCASM]You got me there. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to argue against executing homosexuals.[/SARCASM]

 

[PRmerger]

[SARCASM]You got me there. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to argue against executing homosexuals.[/SARCASM]

So, tell me: how do you argue against someone who says: it is better for the world to execute homosexuals.

You go, and I’ll retort and refute your comments.

 

[Bradski]

So, tell me: how do you argue against someone who says: it is better for the world to execute homosexuals.

You go, and I’ll retort and refute your comments.

Matthew 7:12

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 7:12

No, Bradski.

We are talking about without a theistic framework.

You seem to be suggesting that without God you cannot argue against execution of homosexuals?

Yes? Is that your position, if so, Bravo!

Now, if you are still holding on to the position that you can argue against the execution of homosexuals without a belief in God…

you offer your arguments.

And I will respond and refute. From an atheistic framework.

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be suggesting that without God you cannot argue against execution of homosexuals?

Or, to say it without so many double negatives:

You have taken the position, Bradksi, by using Scripture to argue against the execution of homosexuals, that God is necessary for an understanding why this is immoral.

Is that your position now?

 

[Bradski]

It’s not a theistic answer. It’s just one that also happens to be found in the bible. You need to read up on reciprocal altruism.

It’s been around for longer than you can imagine. It’s the basis for all secular ideas of morality. It’s in our very genetic make-up.

You seem to believe that anything biblical belongs to Christianity. That ain’t the case.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not a theistic answer. It’s just one that also happens to be found in the bible. You need to read up on reciprocal altruism.

It’s been around for longer than you can imagine. It’s the basis for all secular ideas of morality. It’s in our very genetic make-up.

So I don’t believe in “reciprocal altruism”.

I believe in “Do unto others before they do unto me”.

So why, again, am I not supposed to execute homosexuals?

You seem to believe that anything biblical belongs to Christianity. That ain’t the case.

Actually, not quite. Anything true belongs to Christianity, Bradski

 

[Bradski]

So I don’t believe in “reciprocal altruism”.

I believe in "Do unto others before they do unto me’.

I believe you said you were going to refute my position, not offer an alternative. Whenever you are ready…

 

[inocente]

So can you give a context in which it would be morally permissible to execute a homosexual (for his disordered desire)?

Yes.

If you’re an Israelite, God demands you execute homosexuals:

“The Lord said to Moses: Tell the Israelites …] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” - Leviticus 20.

Quoted directly from the Bible at vatican.va.

 

[inocente]

Submission to authority is not merely submission to authorities, as it might reside in a human being by a merely human claim.
Submission is at it’s heart a recognition that Christ has shared his charisms, and they reside somewhere (in someone), and his gifts call for our response and submission.

A human being obeys his conscience in making moral evaluations. The source of the moral absolute is God himself. To the degree that a conscience listens and acts with the call of God, the conscience and actions are “good”.

An action is not morally good because an individual conscience determines it so, an action is good, and a conscience is well formed to the degree it recognizes the good.

Christ can give a gift to anyone. And if he gives you knowledge of what is right and wrong then you will be able to explain the reasoning, for if it makes no sense then it is not convincing (1 Cor 14).

An action is morally good because an individual conscience determines it so by reason. If the conscience cannot hear reason, the source cannot be God.

For foundational principles of morality, consult the Catholic Church for guidance.

Most Modern People take secular courses, which have the benefit of exploring the work of many philosophers of ethics rather than just a couple. Here’s the first lecture from a foundational class at Harvard. Notice the focus is on informing consciences to make moral decisions, the opposite of blindly following orders. Notice that the lecture hall is packed. Notice the lecture has 6.7 million views (and I’ve noticed it on PBS).

youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6

 

[PRmerger]

I believe you said you were going to refute my position, not offer an alternative. Whenever you are ready…

My refutation is this: I don’t subscribe to what you have said is the moral absolute I need to submit to.

So, again, how do you argue with someone of that persuasion that execution of homosexuals is immoral?

 

[Aloysium]

Yes.

If you’re an Israelite, God demands you execute homosexuals:

“The Lord said to Moses: Tell the Israelites …] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” - Leviticus 20.

Quoted directly from the Bible at vatican.va.

That’s not how I understand that entire reading, which spoke to the people of that time and continues to be meaningful as a reminder of sin’s consequences. The law remains, and it is clarified with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Morality is based on love. In a loving society, struggling to exist, there are sacrifices we must make to live in harmony and support one another. Being seduced by our passions to the detriment, especially extreme in those days, of our families and friends, is to bring great evil into the world. We must destroy sin within us.

 

[inocente]

Why some Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

 

[goout]

Christ can give a gift to anyone.

That is true, but is only a part of the story. Gifts are also unique to persons and vocations. I do not have a call to be a bishop.
The loss of the sense of uniqueness is probably the greatest deception of our current age. In our well-intentioned rush to be egalitarian, we have forgotten the uniqueness of every person and vocation.
“Unity through diversity”.

And if he gives you knowledge of what is right and wrong then you will be able to explain the reasoning, for if it makes no sense then it is not convincing (1 Cor 14).

An action is morally good because an individual conscience determines it so by reason. If the conscience cannot hear reason, the source cannot be God.

An action is good pre-conscience, and a conscience is well formed to the degree it perceives the good.
You are exalting conscience to the level of God.

Most Modern People take secular courses, which have the benefit of exploring the work of many philosophers of ethics rather than just a couple. Here’s the first lecture from a foundational class at Harvard. Notice the focus is on informing consciences to make moral decisions, the opposite of blindly following orders.

Obedience to authority is not blindness.
If someone has the gift of a share in Christ’s authority I want to open that gift. I open it by submission and obedience.
Did you know that the etymology of obedience is “to listen”? “ab-audiere”.
Obedience does not lead to slavery, it is an open ear and heart to the voice of the shepherd.
Everyone submits to someone or something. The question is, are we listening to the authentic voice?
If we exalt our own conscience as sole arbiter of the good, we are deaf. A spiritually deaf person cannot conform his conscience to the good.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Well, that’s why there’s the Catholic way of looking at things which is to have a relative absolute morality.

Nothing could demonstrate the irrationality of your stance better than this proposition. Of course, it is NOT the Catholic way… it is YOUR personal way. When you can draw a line which is BOTH straight and circular, come back.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Anything true belongs to Christianity, Bradski

What nonsense. Christianity borrowed from others, but cannot claim ownership.

Well, that’s why there’s the Catholic way of looking at things which is to have a relative absolute morality.

Nothing could demonstrate the irrationality of your stance better than this proposition. Of course, it is NOT the Catholic way… it is YOUR personal way. When you can draw a line which is BOTH straight and circular, come back.

 

[PRmerger]

What nonsense. Christianity borrowed from others, but cannot claim ownership/

All “others” were merely foreshadowing of the fullness of Truth.

Preparation for the Explosion.

 

[goout]

What nonsense. Christianity borrowed from others, but cannot claim ownership.

The meaning of the statement was not to claim ownership, but to observe that Christianity seeks what is true, and is the fullest expression of that truth, particularly the Catholic Church.
No one owns the truth. The truth is A Person, and a person cannot be owned.
And you are in step with the Catholic belief that others also have elements of and expressions of truth.

Everyone is oriented to find it, evidence being that you and I are here bothering to discuss it.

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing could demonstrate the irrationality of your stance better than this proposition. Of course, it is NOT the Catholic way… it is YOUR personal way. When you can draw a line which is BOTH straight and circular, come back.

Oh, you absolutist, you, dear Vera!

I just love it when you keep walking through that door.

Exhibit # (I’ve lost count), Folks, refuting this:

• and I am NOT an absolutist.

It turns out, Vera, that I knew something about you that you didn’t know.

And you keep proving me right, inadvertently, by your statements.

If you were “NOT an absolutist”, you wouldn’t be here arguing that you are right and others (esp Catholics) are wrong.