You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Elizium23
Guest
It is against the Natural Law, which you do not believe in anyway, so why are you making up things that are not true?I agree absolutely that the Church says that these are indeed sinful. Again no argument with me here. I am arguing that there is anything disordered or unnatural in these actions. Rau argued that the Penis is primarily designed for procreation, I argue that the female clitoris is not designed for primarily procreative purposes, it is simply tertiary. Therefore, there is no violation of Natural Law to engage in female to female clitoral stimulation from a Natural law perspective.
C
cena
Guest
What is your point? That just because a lot of people who say they follow the bible it’s okay? If those same people were all stealing, jumping off buildings, etc. would you say the same?
T
tomberg
Guest
So you are arguing that it is moral behavior for the Church to execute people or give them the death penalty as you call it, for teaching something different than the Church wants them to teach? You are claiming that the Catholic Church has this right? So according to you, the Catholic Church can execute Lutherans, Anglicans and Mormons simply because they their teaching contradicts the Catholic Church? Personally I do not give a hoot what the Church’s reasons were for killing a person, killing a person for a belief is simply never moral behavior. Apparently you think it is.Where do you base your morals then?
The free masons were trying to undermine the faith
A lot of the native Americans practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism
Those heretics were obstinate after being corrected, they were spreading their error and leading people away from the truth, what they got was the death penalty, which isn’t considered murder.
Excommunication doesn’t mean damned to hell(not that you said that), the Church can make something a mortal sin but they can’t unconditionally damn you for an action. Anybody who was translating it could have written and taught whatever they wanted so it’s a bad idea to have lay people translating their own versions of the bible without supervision.
Apparently it is also acceptable to kill book publishers because they publish books that the Catholic Church does not like. I just want to make sure I am getting this right.
The Free Masons have every right they want to “undermine the faith” as long as a person is sticking to arguing ideas, but the Church did not allow for differences of opinion. So killing Free Masons is perfectly acceptable because the Church said so. So if the Catholic Church had burned George Washington at the stake that would have been perfectly within the Catholic Church’s rights to do so and would have been a perfectly moral action. I can not believe for a minute that you actually agree with this.
T
tomberg
Guest
I believe in Natural Law, I just don’t believe anyone has the wisdom to know what that law is with any degree of certainty at any point in history. Everyone who wants to propound what is and is not Natural law can never seem to agree with each other, nor do many Natural Laws continue from age to age, culture to culture. I think it is something we are gradually discovering as time and knowledge increase. However, I question anyone’s ability to tell me exactly what is and what is not Natural Law.It is against the Natural Law, which you do not believe in anyway, so why are you making up things that are not true?
Did you know that the Catholic Church taught that Democracy was a violation of Natural Law? Yep, they taught that the Divine Right of Kings was in accordance with Natural law and that representative democracy was an obvious and heretical violation of Natural Law. Boy I am glad the Enlightenment thinkers won that argument. I bet you are too. Or maybe not, you might support the divine right of kings and be opposed to democracy.
Also, you can’t just say it violates Natural law without telling why it violates Natural law. give me your reasons why, maybe you can convince me.
M
moondawg
Guest
Of course God programmed them when he created them. How else could they function? They didn’t get genes from parents, weren’t nurtured, and didn’t learn from experience. They just appeared according to Catholic teaching. What is your source for stating they were “incredibly smart”? You just made that up.It could have entered later if humans later chose it.
But since Adam and Eve (well the first man and woman we don’t know their names) were the ones to sin, sin entered the world through them.
They directly disobeyed the one command God gave them because they lost trust in him, if he programmed them that would make no sense. That would be masochistic
They were incredibly smart, ignorance is part of the fall.
M
moondawg
Guest
The Catholic Church also taught geocentrism and other absurdities.Did you know that the Catholic Church taught that Democracy was a violation of Natural Law? Yep, they taught that the Divine Right of Kings was in accordance with Natural law and that representative democracy was an obvious and heretical violation of Natural Law. Boy I am glad the Enlightenment thinkers won that argument. I bet you are too. Or maybe not, you might support the divine right of kings and be opposed to democracy.
V
Vico
Guest
What is impossible for man is not impossible for God. The Holy Spirit provides a way for each to not sin.…why did He bother creating gay people?
If His plan was perfect and unblemished, then why create people who’s sexualities are described by the Church as being “disordered”?
…
In my opinion, I can’t possibly distinguish condemning someone based on what they do and based on who they are.
…
Have any of you managed to reconcile the theology with the evidence for evolution?
…
John 9:1 AND Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth: 2 And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?
3 Jesus answered:
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
C
cena
Guest
I don’t what you mean by programmed. I thought you meant they had no free will like they were Robots and God programmed their choices into them.Of course God programmed them when he created them. How else could they function? They didn’t get genes from parents, weren’t nurtured, and didn’t learn from experience. They just appeared according to Catholic teaching. What is your source for stating they were “incredibly smart”? You just made that up.
I remember reading from a Baltimore catechism “the Angels were smart. They didn’t need to go to school. Adam and Eve were smart. They didn’t need to go to school.”
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson5.htm
Q. 261. Why do we say our understanding was darkened?
A. We say our understanding was darkened because even with much learning we have not the clear knowledge, quick perception and retentive memory that Adam had before his fall from grace.
C
cena
Guest
The Church didn’t teach that a few individuals (Who were bishops if I remember correctly) had that theological opinion. It wasn’t a teaching.The Catholic Church also taught geocentrism and other absurdities.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.