NationStates Jolt Archive

And the majority can fuck off until it starts problematising its own attributes, and should until then leave mine alone.

And the minority seriously needs to calm down a bit.

No, pumpkin. "Why" would be the causes to his attraction to a specific attribute of womanhood, not womanhood itself.

Only if that was what you were focusing on.

No, the next step is invariably to put the heterosexuals as the "normal" response and then define the "aberrant" response in gay men.

Is that why, with more study, homosexuality has been seen as LESS aberrant"? Is that why, with more study, homosexuality has been moved out of the "mental illness" category and is now seen by most of the scientific medical community as simply another trait that happens to exist in the minority?

At this point, homosexuality isn't being defined as "aberrant" any more than being left-handed is, at least not within the majority of the medical or scientific community. And that viewpoint has been becoming increasingly common in the general population as well.

The reason is hardly ever to understand heterosexuality - that is the norm that doesn't require questions or "fixing" - the reason is in the overwhelming cases to understand homosexuality and through that imply strategies to attack the "deviance".

Not at all. In fact, there haven't been any serious studies like that for decades - mostly because the studies that people tried to do convinced most of them that there was no reason or need to "fix" it. At this point, we're focussed on understanding, not on worrying about deviance or "fixing".

By problematising the aberration you've defined as "non-heterosexual".

You're the only one doing any "problematising" here, Fass.

And supplying a possible "answer" to homosexuality, while at the same time not even asking the question about heterosexuality, let alone giving an answer thereto.

The study gives us just as much information about female heterosexuality as it does about male homosexuality. The fact that you choose to ignore that is your own problem, not anyone else's.

Hardly - if there is one thing queer theory has been good at, it is at deconstructing the scientific stance that has invariably defined the norm by delineating the deviation.

Not sure what you're saying here.

And I am saying that I am sick and tired of it, and that the time has come not to stand for being the "other", be that "the other sex" (merci à vous, madame de Beauvoir!) or "the other sexuality".

Many of us are sick of it. But your ire is misplaced when your issue is with seeking knowledge to better understand ourselves and our biology instead of being directed at those who would either ignore or misuse that knowledge.

Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation?What methods of alteration are allowed? Just willpower, or can we apply neural surgeory (well, ok, maybe that's sci-fi at the moment, but in principle it ought to be possible).

What methods of alteration are allowed? Just willpower, or can we apply neural surgeory (well, ok, maybe that's sci-fi at the moment, but in principle it ought to be possible).

In moral principle, anyone who develops such a surgery is a miserable excuse for a human being.

Why does study have to be "problematising"? When we look to see why some people have blue eyes and some people have brown, is that "problematising" any given eye color?

If you have a bias to deem one more desirable than the other, one will be problematised - in the sense of "making a problem" - look at eugenics! The language is however misleading - I use the term "problematise" more as it is used within constructivism; so as to define that which is questioned and explained, as opposed to that which is not.

You seem to think that anyone who finds these questions interesting is out to get you, but that simply isn't the case.

I'm not saying that they're out to get me. I'm saying that their definitions, questions and methods are in the overwhelming majority of cases belittling, insulting, problematising and objectivising of me, and not of themselves.

And the minority can fuck off until it become reasonable and stops attacking everyone that thinks basically what they do, but slightly different.

You know what I love about this? This is the same 'poor me' line that people who want to speak for others ALWAYS pull out. "Oh poor me, I'm white, but I am really sensitive, and I want to speak for blacks, or natives. I'm hale and whole, but I am really intuitive, and I want to speak for the handicapped!"

And then, when the people in question say, "um, thanks, you might THINK you have a handle on what we're talking about and dealing with, but you don't, and it's actually a little offensive that you think you do", the whole "oh, the unreasonable minority, when will they ever appreciate me, and my incredible sensitivity and intuition? Ungrateful bastards!" line pops up.

Yes. The minority on the receiving end of so much prejudice and bullshit should learn how to speak more kindly to us, because we're on their side, and we get it man...

In moral principle, anyone who develops such a surgery is a miserable excuse for a human being.Only if he develloped it to "cure" people of their sexuality.
I'd imagine such surgical techniques would in themselves be of great benefit to humanity when applied to actual neurological problems rather than to change people's minds.

If you have a bias to deem one more desirable than the other, one will be problematised - in the sense of "making a problem" - look at eugenics! The language is however misleading - I use the term "problematise" more as it is used within constructivism; so as to define that which is questioned and explained, as opposed to that which is not.



I'm not saying that they're out to get me. I'm saying that their definitions, questions and methods are in the overwhelming majority of cases belittling, insulting, problematising and objectivising of me, and not of themselves.

Not that it's a good thing, but we do that with pretty much anything that has a clear dichotomy with one side being much larger and more prevalent than the other. Whether it's sexual preference, theism vs. atheism, we tend to question and suspect more the less common side and take for granted the more common side.

You know what I love about this? This is the same 'poor me' line that people who want to speak for others ALWAYS pull out. "Oh poor me, I'm white, but I am really sensitive, and I want to speak for blacks, or natives. I'm hale and whole, but I am really intuitive, and I want to speak for the handicapped!"

And then, when the people in question say, "um, thanks, you might THINK you have a handle on what we're talking about and dealing with, but you don't, and it's actually a little offensive that you think you do", the whole "oh, the unreasonable minority, when will they ever appreciate me, and my incredible sensitivity and intuition? Ungrateful bastards!" line pops up.

Yes. The minority on the receiving end of so much prejudice and bullshit should learn how to speak more kindly to us, because we're on their side, and we get it man...

Thank you for assuming I'm straight. I'm not. I'm not part of some big, bad, oppressive majority. I'm part of a minority that thinks any step towards acceptance is a good one. And it's apparently a minority within a minority.

And I'm tired of seeing you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot. It's stupid. You appear to have some kind of Bad Guy you've invented so you don't have to consider other viewpoints. I'm tired of hearing about how everyone disagreeing with you is a Big Bad Rich Straight Christian White Man, it's ignorant and foolish.

Fass has already personally attacked a bunch of people who AGREE with him that gays should have rights.

Only if that was what you were focusing on.

That is where they stop their focusing at.

Is that why, with more study, homosexuality has been seen as LESS aberrant"? Is that why, with more study, homosexuality has been moved out of the "mental illness" category and is now seen by most of the scientific medical community as simply another trait that happens to exist in the minority?

You confuse pathology with aberration. I have read much of the what the "scientific medical community" has to say about homosexuality, and I have seen that their discourse is almost always based in either the heteronormative or the heterosexist, just like the female body all too often is dealt with as "that which is not male". The heterosexual male is the standard - the rest is aberration, a special case, "other".

At this point, homosexuality isn't being defined as "aberrant" any more than being left-handed is, at least not within the majority of the medical or scientific community. And that viewpoint has been becoming increasingly common in the general population as well.

In medicine today there are still issues with white people being the standard, with women's health and symptomatology being an afterthought, and in this retarded sphere you would claim that homosexuality has stopped being defined as aberrant? You delude yourself.

Not at all. In fact, there haven't been any serious studies like that for decades - mostly because the studies that people tried to do convinced most of them that there was no reason or need to "fix" it. At this point, we're focussed on understanding, not on worrying about deviance or "fixing".

On "understanding" the deviance; not on questioning the norm. "Fixing it" doesn't have to mean 'curing' it, but placing it within one's heteronormative frame.

You're the only one doing any "problematising" here, Fass.

While you happily close a blind eye to reality.

The study gives us just as much information about female heterosexuality as it does about male homosexuality. The fact that you choose to ignore that is your own problem, not anyone else's.

No, it doesn't. At the most it may grant a very cursory insight into fertility - into heterosexuality? None.

Not sure what you're saying here.

"Health is the absence of disease" is one such construction. To define health, you delineate that which it is not, and not that which it is.

Many of us are sick of it. But your ire is misplaced when your issue is with seeking knowledge to better understand ourselves and our biology instead of being directed at those who would either ignore or misuse that knowledge.

My ire is directed at heteronormativity and heterosexism, and that ire will have very little reason to subside for quite a long time - especially when that "seeking of knowledge" is subject to them.

heh. What ever makes them happy(Homosexuals)

Thank you for assuming I'm straight. I'm not. I'm not part of some big, bad, oppressive majority. I'm part of a minority that thinks any step towards acceptance is a good one. And it's apparently a minority within a minority.

And I'm tired of seeing you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.

I'm tired of you accusing everyone of accusing everyone of being a bigot, when in fact, what we have is, is a disagreement. Did I say all whites who wish to speak for non-whites are bigots? Did I say that all healthy people wanting to speak for the handicapped are bigots? No, you pulled that little gem out of your own ass, thanks.

You are advocating that the 'minority' in question be thankful, grateful for the support of anyone who espouses said support. That somehow, it is an 'attack' when the 'minority' in question states, "no, sorry, you might think you're supporting me with that statement, but you aren't". How terribly ungrateful, isn't it! I mean...that attacking search for clarity, it's absolutely horrible.

It is easy to see where the difference lie between clear opponents. It is much more difficult to see where differences lie between people who are in the main, on the same side. BUT BEING ON THE SAME SIDE doesn't absolve you, or make you right, or confer upon you some sort of immunity from questioning. In fact...THINKING you are on the same side as someone doesn't even mean that you are in fact, on that person's side. Especially when you are assuming that you even know what that side is.

So when the 'minority' points out how you do not in fact have a grasp on their position...don't take it as an attack. Take it as a fucking given right of ANYONE to tell another person that they have incorrectly read their mind.

Fass has already personally attacked a bunch of people who AGREE with him that gays should have rights.
No. Fass has been pointing out how in fact, those people do not agree with him. OH THE HORROR!

Not around here and I even look for them (being bi)

Maybe you are not looking hard enough ;)
But seriously, how can you 'look' for gay men? Unless you get to know them personally (or go to a gay bar), sometimes it is quite hard to tell just by looking. I have a few gay and bi friends that I would have never known (and did not know) until they either told me or I fit the pieces together through conversations.

And I'm tired of seeing you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot. It's stupid. You appear to have some kind of Bad Guy you've invented so you don't have to consider other viewpoints. I'm tired of hearing about how everyone disagreeing with you is a Big Bad Rich Straight Christian White Man, it's ignorant and foolish.

I think you need a bit more work on making up my position for me.

Show me one instance of me saying that someone disagreeing with me is a Big Bad Rich Straight Christian White Male.

When you can't, I expect you to come back here, and apologise for your bullshit.

I'm tired of you accusing everyone of accusing everyone of being a bigot, when in fact, what we have is, is a disagreement. Did I say all whites who wish to speak for non-whites are bigots? Did I say that all healthy people wanting to speak for the handicapped are bigots? No, you pulled that little gem out of your own ass, thanks.

Hardly. I disagreed with you and you instantly accused me of being part of some evil oppressive majority.

You are advocating that the 'minority' in question be thankful, grateful for the support of anyone who espouses said support. That somehow, it is an 'attack' when the 'minority' in question states, "no, sorry, you might think you're supporting me with that statement, but you aren't". How terribly ungrateful, isn't it! I mean...that attacking search for clarity, it's absolutely horrible.

It's fairly rude to respond with mindless rants.


So when the 'minority' points out how you do not in fact have a grasp on their position...don't take it as an attack. Take it as a fucking given right of ANYONE to tell another person that they have incorrectly read their mind.


You have incorrectly read my mind. And your response on, for example, the PC threads of the people who disagreed with you told you they had a different definition of PC than you did, you responded by calling them white men who "longed for a time when minorities knew their place" or something like that.


No. Fass has been pointing out how in fact, those people do not agree with him. OH THE HORROR!

No, Fass has been flaming them.

No, Fass has been flaming them.

While you've used oh, so neutral language.

Hardly. I disagreed with you and you instantly accused me of being part of some evil oppressive majority. Read again. I accused you of being someone who wishes to speak for another group. You quite clearly do not consider yourself to be a part of whatever 'minority' you've lumped Fass into.



It's fairly rude to respond with mindless rants. You clearly haven't been reading his posts. But hey, rock on with your own bad self.



You have incorrectly read my mind. And your response on, for example, the PC threads of the people who disagreed with you told you they had a different definition of PC than you did, you responded by calling them white men who "longed for a time when minorities knew their place" or something like that. Aha, I knew you'd pull that thread out. How droll.

Every single post of mine in that thread was dripping with sarcasm. How unsurprising that you are incapable of noticing. You might want to read that thread again. It's the same thread where I was also accused of being a white supremacist. Hey, read the australian indigneous thread too. I was also accused of being a racist white. Why? Because certain people around here seem to have had their sarcasm metres removed at birth.

Sorry, you fail.

No, Fass has been flaming them.
Get a grip. Is that your excuse for not actually reading the points he's making?

While you've used oh, so neutral language.

Oh come on, what he does is 'x' and what YOU do is 'y', and never the twain shall meet.

Aha, I knew you'd pull that thread out. How droll.

Every single post of mine in that thread was dripping with sarcasm. How unsurprising that you are incapable of noticing. You might want to read that thread again. It's the same thread where I was also accused of being a white supremacist. Hey, read the australian indigneous thread too. I was also accused of being a racist white. Why? Because certain people around here seem to have had their sarcasm metres removed at birth.

You know, I thought that thread was too bad to be true… but on the internet, it's so hard to be sure. ;)

You know, I thought that thread was too bad to be true… but on the internet, it's so hard to be sure. ;)

I think I've turned a few newbies' hair white on a few occasions, making satirical comments about aboriginals...until they realise I am one.

I think I've turned a few newbies' hair white on a few occasions, making satirical comments about aboriginals...until they realise I am one.

Well, that I did manage to pick up.
Yeah, I'm new here… still meeting people…

Zarakon, you do realize that if you get on the bad side of both Fass and Neesika, the world will explode at midnight?

I think I've turned a few newbies' hair white on a few occasions, making satirical comments about aboriginals...until they realise I am one.

I was fairly lucky to have a good sense for sarcasm the first time I got into a discussion with you shortly after I'd joined. In fact, it's probably one of the few things keeping me from despising a lot of the really good satirists here on NSG.

On a side note, you've got a TG, lass.

I think you need a bit more work on making up my position for me.

Show me one instance of me saying that someone disagreeing with me is a Big Bad Rich Straight Christian White Male.

Admittedly, my main thread has the downside of you making sarcastic comments in your idea of an anti-PC mindset, so I included those here too.

When you can't, I expect you to come back here, and apologise for your bullshit.


Let's see here, here's where you suggested that people who are against PC are for using the word "******" and sexually harassing woman, not to mention lynching gays:

And it's horrible! It means you can't say '******' even though it's clearly NOT a racial slur anymore...it means you can't pat the female secretary on the ass anymore, even though the slut clearly wants you too...it means you can't beat up gay men for shits and giggles and get away with it...

Seriously, Australia...stay FAR away from PC!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12759879&postcount=6

Claiming they support the use of racial slurs and fondling woman, again:

Well I think that's uncalled for. You can't tell anything about a person's intelligence by the people he or she likes to fondle, or call names. Sheesh.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12760016&postcount=49

Or maybe you actually think that. I can't know.

Claiming anti-PCers are sexist and racist:

I think that sums up the PC movement nicely. Feminine and hypersensitive.

Feminine is bad for obvious reason. And hypersensitive...well shit. I mean seriously people, grow a thicker skin! What...we enslaved your ancestors? Yeah, but a LONG time ago. We massacred your people, attempted to destroy their culture and moved them onto Reservations? Yeah, but a LONG time ago! What the hell are you people still bitching about? Bitches got the vote, what more do they want? I mean...seriously.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12760035&postcount=56

Ooo...Here's a big one. Someone who disagrees with you is called "Out of touch",

You are so out of touch...

then you go again with the accusations of using racial slurs and supporting sexually harassing woman in your lovely sarcastic way,

They call each other that all the time! It has obviously lost any sort of negative connotation...so why the hell can't we say it? I mean...okay fine, it meant something bad a long time ago, but things change, you know? Now it's like...a term of endearment. My ******!

Oh right, PC had nothing to do with those laws? How is it sexual harrassment when that slut of a secretary shows up in a barely-there mini skirt and practically BEGS for male attention...then turns around and uses this PC bullshit to enrich herself when she actually GETS that attention? I mean...really.

Then we swing around for accusations of more racism and insensitivity towards the disabled,


That just irks me. I mean...look, they've all got black skin, right? Or, well, sort of browny skin. But anyway, they are all clearly the same kind of people...so black works fine! Who cares if they're from Africa or not? Next thing you know, they'll expect us to say things like Somali-American, or Jamaican-American...like it matters where one darky comes from as compared to another.

That is totally crazy. Are we trying to make the retards think they AREN'T retarded or something? Yes, they SHOULD be ashamed for being so fricking...retarded!

then we wind up for the big finale of accusing them of hating academics, woman, and activists:



PC is in reality just an annoyance, something to pay lip service to for out-of-touch academics and activists, women, and panderers.

What is WITH those people?

BOOM! HOME RUN!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12760085&postcount=77

Again with accusations of insensitivity:

They're retarded. Like they'd notice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12760195&postcount=117

So far we have racist, sexist, woman-groper, and insensitive for stereotypes you make of your opponents. Let's continue.

I have 26 more pages of this stuff, but I'd like to stop now if that's enough.

You can apologize for your personal attacks now.

Sorry, you fail.

Hardly. That thread is sarcastic, to be sure, but it's sarcasm meant to demonize people who don't agree with you.

Hardly. That thread is sarcastic, to be sure, but it's sarcasm meant to demonize people who don't agree with you.

Mock them dahling. It's a subtle, yet important difference. It is the root of satire. Mock the position, mock the proponent.

If that bothers you so much, you are quite clearly in the wrong forum.

Mock them dahling. It's a subtle, yet important difference. It is the root of satire. Mock the position, mock the proponent.

If that bothers you so much, you are quite clearly in the wrong forum.

The point is, your painting all those who disagree with you as stupid, barbaric, woman-abusing, racist assholes.

You can apologize for your personal attacks now.

Seriously. Grow up. You can also take your thread hijack to Moderation, which seems to be your favourite hangout.

WHy can't we all just boink? :(

The point is, your painting all those who disagree with you as stupid, barbaric, woman-abusing, racist assholes.

Seriously. Grow up. You can also take your thread hijack to Moderation, which seems to be your favourite hangout.

Fight, fight, fight, fight! :D

WHy can't we all just boink? :(Zoning laws.

The point is, your painting all those who disagree with you as stupid, barbaric, woman-abusing, racist assholes.

Hilarious.

I accused you of being incapable of understanding sarcasm.

You go out of your way to prove me right.

It seems as though I have no work here...so, I bid thee adieu.

Hilarious.

I accused you of being incapable of understanding sarcasm.

You go out of your way to prove me right.

It seems as though I have no work here...so, I bid thee adieu.

Translation: Someone's pointing out the flaws in my arguments. Time to go.

Zoning laws.

:eek:

:(

:eek:

:(

I'm still trying to figure out how sex can be affected by zoning laws...

So far all the theories are rather disturbing.

If you have a bias to deem one more desirable than the other, one will be problematised - in the sense of "making a problem" - look at eugenics!

And if you don't have any such bias?

The language is however misleading - I use the term "problematise" more as it is used within constructivism; so as to define that which is questioned and explained, as opposed to that which is not.

So there's no "problematising" in studying sexuality. Cool!

I'm not saying that they're out to get me. I'm saying that their definitions, questions and methods are in the overwhelming majority of cases belittling, insulting, problematising and objectivising of me, and not of themselves.

I think you're seeing something that isn't there.


You know what I love about this? This is the same 'poor me' line that people who want to speak for others ALWAYS pull out. "Oh poor me, I'm white, but I am really sensitive, and I want to speak for blacks, or natives. I'm hale and whole, but I am really intuitive, and I want to speak for the handicapped!"

And then, when the people in question say, "um, thanks, you might THINK you have a handle on what we're talking about and dealing with, but you don't, and it's actually a little offensive that you think you do", the whole "oh, the unreasonable minority, when will they ever appreciate me, and my incredible sensitivity and intuition? Ungrateful bastards!" line pops up.

Yes. The minority on the receiving end of so much prejudice and bullshit should learn how to speak more kindly to us, because we're on their side, and we get it man...

Actually, if a black person came started bitching, "OMG! How dare they study the differences between ethnicities! They're just doing it to oppress me!" I'd be pretty put off by it, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm white.

I'm still trying to figure out how sex can be affected by zoning laws...

So far all the theories are rather disturbing.

If you don't understand the effect of zoning laws on sex, then you probably aren't supposed to understand. *nod*

((brief interruption for on-topic moment))
People are remarkably obsessed with sex. All this hassle over who people prefer to have sex with and why. Sex isn't that important. THe day people stop applying labels to themselves and others based on sexual predilections is the day the world evolves a little bit. *nod*

((and now back to our regularly scheduled silliness))
The white zone is for loading and unloading only. There is no stopping in the red zone. :)

People are remarkably obsessed with sex. All this hassle over who people prefer to have sex with and why. Sex isn't that important. THe day people stop applying labels to themselves and others based on sexual predilections is the day the world evolves a little bit. *nod*

Evolves! ZOMG teh ebul liberal! :p

Evolves! ZOMG teh ebul liberal! :p

I'll get the tar! You get the feathers!

That is where they stop their focusing at.

Who is this mysterious "they"?

You confuse pathology with aberration. I have read much of the what the "scientific medical community" has to say about homosexuality, and I have seen that their discourse is almost always based in either the heteronormative or the heterosexist, just like the female body all too often is dealt with as "that which is not male". The heterosexual male is the standard - the rest is aberration, a special case, "other".

Funny, I haven't seen any of that, and I've read just about everything I can get my hands on in the subject.

In medicine today there are still issues with white people being the standard, with women's health and symptomatology being an afterthought, and in this retarded sphere you would claim that homosexuality has stopped being defined as aberrant? You delude yourself.

Yes, there are issues with white people being the standard - one that is known and is being addressed. Yes, there are issues with women's health being an afterthought - one that is known and being addressed, with quite a bit now focussed on women's health. And yes, there are some doctors who view homosexuality as "aberrant" - but that viewpoint is becoming increasingly uncommon, largely because of the research that is being done.

On "understanding" the deviance; not on questioning the norm. "Fixing it" doesn't have to mean 'curing' it, but placing it within one's heteronormative frame.

Once again, it's the "they're all out to get me" attitude. Research seeks to understand sexuality. Obviously, any individual will have to place that understanding within their own frame of reference.

While you happily close a blind eye to reality.

Oh noes! I don't agree with Fass blindly and completely! Obviously this means I can't see reality!

No, it doesn't. At the most it may grant a very cursory insight into fertility - into heterosexuality? None.

That all depends on the mechanism. Is the woman more fertile? Does she have an increased sex drive? Is she attracted to men more strongly or in a different way than women without this genetic component? All sorts of questions are opened up here!

My ire is directed at heteronormativity and heterosexism, and that ire will have very little reason to subside for quite a long time - especially when that "seeking of knowledge" is subject to them.

You aren't railing against heteronormativity or heterosexism, however. You're basically saying, "STOP INVESTIGATING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE YOUR TONE!"

No. Fass has been pointing out how in fact, those people do not agree with him. OH THE HORROR!

It's pretty hard to agree with him that we (and anyone else interested in studying the mechanisms that control sexuality) are all evil, evil people who think that being gay is somehow inferior to any other sexual orientation. After all, it simply isn't true.

I'll get the tar! You get the feathers!

Fun! :D

You know I am homosexual.

I do not believe EVERY doctor is a heterosexist that panders to heteronormists. I think it is damned unhealthy to believe that, in fact.

There is no question that X percentage of physicians hold to such a philosophy slavishly, most of those who do hold to the more conservative or conservative religiosity's point of view.

But it is flat out wrong, no...it is borderline paranoid to cleave to such an extreme view of the medical profession.

I can tell you that 90% of my physicians in my life have been straight. I consider it important that they know I am gay and have certain medical risks and needs. I have only walked out on one. The rest were good clinicians who added the information I provided to their overall healthcare plan for me with no obvious judgement for OR against my sexuality. I have found that they were appreciative of having a responsible and honest patient.

It does not surprise me in the least that attitudes are changing regarding sexuality. One of the side effects of open discourse is that points of view that formerly were held down by those in whose interest it would be to repress such points of view, come out into the open sunshine. It allows people to judge for themselves, if they so choose.

I know my sexuality isn't a choice, I cannot explain that to anyone who does not listen with both their hearts and their minds.

There are times when militant activism are useful, and there are times when it is completely counterproductive.

I remind Fass of that, not because I am a chickenshit appeaser, but because I know and understand human nature and I pick my fights with care.

JC

It's pretty hard to agree with him that we (and anyone else interested in studying the mechanisms that control sexuality) are all evil, evil people who think that being gay is somehow inferior to any other sexual orientation. After all, it simply isn't true.

People like that do exist. I guess we're being grouped in with the rest of them.

People like that do exist. I guess we're being grouped in with the rest of them.

Yet he has a point.

We don't look at why, OMG, some people have green eyes, what could be the cause of that?

We say, I wonder why people have different coloured eyes, oh look, here's the gene that determines eye colour. To study just one eye colour for a cause would belie a way of thinking about the issue that is simply wrong. To even be studying it as a single issue is also wrong.

So why aren't these headlines 'Scientists discover sexuality gene' instead of 'Scientists discover why people are homosexual'.

The fact that people are even looking at the cause of why people are homosexual shows that they're thinking of people as homosexual or heterosexual when I think the line is far more blurred than that.

You can say 'I don't think homosexual people are inferior' but that is not inconsistent with still thinking 'homosexual people are different'.

That may or may not be his point.

This has probably been said before in numerous ways already but still, I just like writing myself.

Yet he has a point.

We don't look at why, OMG, some people have green eyes, what could be the cause of that?

We say, I wonder why people have different coloured eyes, oh look, here's the gene that determines eye colour. To study just one eye colour for a cause would belie a way of thinking about the issue that is simply wrong. To even be studying it as a single issue is also wrong.

So why aren't these headlines 'Scientists discover sexuality gene' instead of 'Scientists discover why people are homosexual'.

The fact that people are even looking at the cause of why people are homosexual shows that they're thinking of people as homosexual or heterosexual when I think the line is far more blurred than that.

You can say 'I don't think homosexual people are inferior' but that is not inconsistent with still thinking 'homosexual people are different'.

That may or may not be his point.

This has probably been said before in numerous ways already but still, I just like writing myself.

We're raised that way. By the time we learn about homosexuals we've been told about how men and women love each other for years. Everything you learn like that as a child gets set as the standard for normality. Everything not normal is different. And if you want to get into perceived normality, "normal" traits are usually the most prevalent and abundant (or at least what we've been told to think is the most common). Anything that's relatively rare is seen as different. We're only human. I'm not saying that that's right or good but that's the way that (at least for now) it works.

We're raised that way.

We sure are. We've been raised to hold many attitudes that need to change in this world and if it takes someone to forcefully point it out - well, that's how things change.

People have been ridiculed, persecuted and even executed for holding opinions that we now see as utterly normal and wouldn't bother to question. S'gotta start somewhere.

We sure are. We've been raised to hold many attitudes that need to change in this world and if it takes someone to forcefully point it out - well, that's how things change.

People have been ridiculed, persecuted and even executed for holding opinions that we now see as utterly normal and wouldn't bother to question. S'gotta start somewhere.

I'm sorry about the way this generation was raised but it's a little late to completely change things that have been drilled into us since birth. We can try to raise the next one better but we can no more completely erase our upbringings from our minds than we will our sexuality to change.

I'm sorry about the way this generation was raised but it's a little late to completely change things that have been drilled into us since birth. We can try to raise the next one better but we can no more completely erase our upbringings from our minds than we will our sexuality to change.

You can't erase your upbringing from your mind, but there's no reason to allow it to control your actions. Look, I was raised a hardcore fundy, but that certainly doesn't dictate my life anymore, not in the slightest. You can choose to fight against your upbringing.

You can't erase your upbringing from your mind, but there's no reason to allow it to control your actions. Look, I was raised a hardcore fundy, but that certainly doesn't dictate my life anymore, not in the slightest. You can choose to fight against your upbringing.

I never said you can't. I'm just saying that expecting people to completely erase the "you're different" mentality is expecting a little too much considering their upbringing and that they're "only human" as it were. Go ahead and prove me wrong I'd love that.

I'm sorry about the way this generation was raised but it's a little late to completely change things that have been drilled into us since birth. We can try to raise the next one better but we can no more completely erase our upbringings from our minds than we will our sexuality to change.

Don't be sorry, this generation was raised just fine as shown by the fact we're having this debate at all.

Optimism changes, pessimism stagnates.

The only people who have the most sexual choice are bisexuals. *Nods* they can be straight on Monday and gay on Tuesday.

AMEN, Kryo! Bisexuals FTW (ergo, me for the win... nice)!

I never said you can't. I'm just saying that expecting people to completely erase the "you're different" mentality is expecting a little too much considering their upbringing and that they're "only human" as it were. Go ahead and prove me wrong I'd love that.

I think we're talking about the difference between can and will. I think everyone can erase that mentality. I think very few will. But just because they refuse is no reason not to force them to confront their own bigotry, for instance. A person raised as a racist can certainly have his eyes opened, and doesn't deserve to be excused just by saying "that's how I was raised." It doesn't make the bigotry okay. Same with homophobia or any other type of hatred.

I don't think that homosexuals can choose to be gay any more than I can choose to be straight. I certainly can't choose to be gay. The fact of the matter is that sweaty guys don't turn me on. But boobies...boobies turn me on.

However, my condemnation of homosexual marriage and homosexual relations never depended on homosexuality being a choice. As a Catholic, I believe every man is called the chastity, and the only permissible sexual relations are those that occur within the context of marriage and are open to life.

Anal and oral sex, and just about everything else except for uncontracepted vaginal sex between husband and wife is thrown right out.

It is a very, very difficult moral ideal to adhere to. I know. I often fail at it. I have very grave difficulties with chastity, and often sin against purity.

However, we shouldn't merely wallow in sin. We should strive to submit ourselves to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If ever for a moment you think that such a thing is difficult, or that this sort of thing is a cause of suffering, remember too that Jesus went through great difficulties, and willed to suffer for us, even by enduring death on the Cross.

And also remember that if we suffer, especially in the pursuit of righteousness, our suffering can take on redemptive properties for souls. It can become as sweet incense to God, and when united with the Sufferings of Our Lord at Calvary, can release many souls in Purgatory from their sufferings, and can help convert many sinners to God.

I don't think that homosexuals can choose to be gay any more than I can choose to be straight. I certainly can't choose to be gay. The fact of the matter is that sweaty guys don't turn me on. But boobies...boobies turn me on.

However, my condemnation of homosexual marriage and homosexual relations never depended on homosexuality being a choice. As a Catholic, I believe every man is called the chastity, and the only permissible sexual relations are those that occur within the context of marriage and are open to life.

Anal and oral sex, and just about everything else except for uncontracepted vaginal sex between husband and wife is thrown right out.

It is a very, very difficult moral ideal to adhere to. I know. I often fail at it. I have very grave difficulties with chastity, and often sin against purity.

However, we shouldn't merely wallow in sin. We should strive to submit ourselves to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If ever for a moment you think that such a thing is difficult, or that this sort of thing is a cause of suffering, remember too that Jesus went through great difficulties, and willed to suffer for us, even by enduring death on the Cross.

And also remember that if we suffer, especially in the pursuit of righteousness, our suffering can take on redemptive properties for souls. It can become as sweet incense to God, and when united with the Sufferings of Our Lord at Calvary, can release many souls in Purgatory from their sufferings, and can help convert many sinners to God.

well... May I be the first to say that that is a bold position to take around here...

BTW how is hanging on a cross worse than going through life starving in war-torn parts of Africa, dealing with the rebel factions? No offense, but what exactly was the part that made it the experience you advocate?

BTW how is hanging on a cross worse than going through life starving in war-torn parts of Africa, dealing with the rebel factions? No offense, but what exactly was the part that made it the experience you advocate?

The point I am making is that Our Lord doesn't say "Hey, suffer for me. Haha, I laugh at you." Our Lord suffered too, and He gives meaning to our sufferings.

Remember what He said:

"Come to me, all ye who labor and are heavily burdened, and find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

A yoke is not merely placed upon a single ox. It is placed upon two.

The point I am making is that Our Lord doesn't say "Hey, suffer for me. Haha, I laugh at you." Our Lord suffered too, and He gives meaning to our sufferings.

Remember what He said:

"Come to me, all ye who labor and are heavily burdened, and find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

A yoke is not merely placed upon a single ox. It is placed upon two.

Hanging on a cross for a couple days to an infinite being is nowhere near a mortal living in civil war, strife, and starvation, never to know the feeling of a full stomach nor a quenched thirst. Unless there was something I'm missing here (which I must clearly be), I just don't see the two comparing at all. Unless it has to do with the aforementioned missing of some thing.

Hanging on a cross for a couple days to an infinite being is nowhere near a mortal living in civil war, strife, and starvation, never to know the feeling of a full stomach nor a quenched thirst. Unless there was something I'm missing here (which I must clearly be), I just don't see the two comparing at all. Unless it has to do with the aforementioned missing of some thing.

He hung on the cross for a few hours, not for a couple days. That said, He suffered as a man, and His suffering was greater than all other sufferings, because He was Perfect Man, and so his senses were likewise perfect, and his sense of pain therefore was perfect.

And he did not merely hang on the cross. Rather, he was brutally scourged to such a degree that he was unrecognizable, crowned with thorns, reviled by the masses, and then crucified.

And before any of this occured, he was so wracked with agony, so wracked with grief the night before that he sweated blood.

On top of that, consider the almost continuous sorrow He must have felt for all the souls that would reject Him, even though He loves each and every one more than a Father loves an only child.

He faced in His life continuous rejection, a continuous threat of being stoned to death, and, in His infinite foreknowledge, the continuous prescence of the knowledge that, even though He was to justify every single man, that not every man would be saved, because some, nay, many would outright reject him.

If you want to know the sufferings of Our Lord, you need only turn to the Prophet Isaias (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=1&f=s#x), who sayeth of the Christ:

"Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not."

Or to the Psalmist (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=21&l=2&f=s#x), who sayeth:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones."

There was no greater suffering than that the Lord endured, and He endured it, not by accident, nor by any external force, but according to His Own Love and Zeal for souls.

For, "No greater love a man hath than this: To lay down his life for His friends," and indeed, we are not slaves of the Lord, but, if we Love Him, His Friends.

In summary, my friend, the cause of his suffering was not merely the cross, but each and every sin ever to be comitted, these sins which caused him to be crucified. So many people today ask the question "Who killed Jesus?"

The answer isn't the Romans, the Jews, etc.

Every man who has ever comitted a mortal sin crucified Our Lord.

He hung on the cross for a few hours, not for a couple days. That said, He suffered as a man, and His suffering was greater than all other sufferings, because He was Perfect Man, and so his senses were likewise perfect, and his sense of pain therefore was perfect.

And he did not merely hang on the cross. Rather, he was brutally scourged to such a degree that he was unrecognizable, crowned with thorns, reviled by the masses, and then crucified.

And before any of this occured, he was so wracked with agony, so wracked with grief the night before that he sweated blood.

On top of that, consider the almost continuous sorrow He must have felt for all the souls that would reject Him, even though He loves each and every one more than a Father loves an only child.

He faced in His life continuous rejection, a continuous threat of being stoned to death, and, in His infinite foreknowledge, the continuous prescence of the knowledge that, even though He was to justify every single man, that not every man would be saved, because some, nay, many would outright reject him.

If you want to know the sufferings of Our Lord, you need only turn to the Prophet Isaias (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=1&f=s#x), who sayeth of the Christ:

"Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not."

Or to the Psalmist (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=21&l=2&f=s#x), who sayeth:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones."

There was no greater suffering than that the Lord endured, and He endured it, not by accident, nor by any external force, but according to His Own Love and Zeal for souls.

For, "No greater love a man hath than this: To lay down his life for His friends," and indeed, we are not slaves of the Lord, but, if we Love Him, His Friends.

In summary, my friend, the cause of his suffering was not merely the cross, but each and every sin ever to be comitted, these sins which caused him to be crucified. So many people today ask the question "Who killed Jesus?"

The answer isn't the Romans, the Jews, etc.

Every man who has ever comitted a mortal sin crucified Our Lord.

Assuming everything you're saying is factual and not myth, there's still a problem. Jesus knew what his fate would be, and knowledge of that fate--a short time of torment with a respite that would include a return to ultimate glory--would have made it easier for him to bear whatever torture he underwent. It's far worse to have to deal with torment when you have no idea what the outcome will be.

Of course, it's all a fairy tale anyway, so it really doesn't matter.

He hung on the cross for a few hours, not for a couple days. That said, He suffered as a man, and His suffering was greater than all other sufferings, because He was Perfect Man, and so his senses were likewise perfect, and his sense of pain therefore was perfect.

Seeing as I can't figure out "perfect" senses of pain seeing as it is a biological attribute and has no real scale with which I could gauge, I'll let this go.

And he did not merely hang on the cross. Rather, he was brutally scourged to such a degree that he was unrecognizable, crowned with thorns, reviled by the masses, and then crucified.

And before any of this occured, he was so wracked with agony, so wracked with grief the night before that he sweated blood.

OK... now there's something I missed. That makes it a lot worse... but then, I doubt the Romans only did that to the one guy, so it still isn't unique.

On top of that, consider the almost continuous sorrow He must have felt for all the souls that would reject Him, even though He loves each and every one more than a Father loves an only child.

OK, the whole Trinity thing here is making my brain hurt, so I'll need a sec for this one...

Yeah, that must hurt, but still not the worst pain.

He faced in His life continuous rejection, a continuous threat of being stoned to death,

Same as a lot of people back then.

and, in His infinite foreknowledge, the continuous presence of the knowledge that, even though He was to justify every single man, that not every man would be saved, because some, nay, many would outright reject him.

So he's upset because he doesn't like the turnout of what he made and could easily undo/reduce. No points awarded.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can kind of see how it would be bad, but nowhere near equal to what it's trying to be made. I really am trying here and you raise many good points, but in the end, I simply cannot call his pain truly egregious to any pain on any human in the history of the world nor equal to the worst of those examples of people's lives.

In summary, my friend, the cause of his suffering was not merely the cross, but each and every sin ever to be comitted, these sins which caused him to be crucified. So many people today ask the question "Who killed Jesus?"

The answer isn't the Romans, the Jews, etc.

Every man who has ever comitted a mortal sin crucified Our Lord.

Let me get this straight. You're blaming me for the crucifixion of Jesus?

Let me get this straight. You're blaming me for the crucifixion of Jesus?

Yes. You, me, and all of us.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

Yes. You, me, and all of us.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

Speak for yourself, I wasn't around back then and had nothing to do with it.

It's set prenatally, certainly. Doesn't mean certain feelings and urges can't be repressed and/or discovered though.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

:confused: But I wasn't alive two millennia ago.

Speak for yourself, I wasn't around back then and had nothing to do with it.

answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. 24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. 25 And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi?

May we only hope the cock crows for thee too.

Yes. You, me, and all of us.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

And this is a bad thing because... ?
The Lord is an arsehole. Creating humanity for His own pleasure, with little interest in our wellbeing. We are just here to live the way He wants us.
Hurting Him through his fleshy incarnation seems fair.

And this is a bad thing because... ?
The Lord is an arsehole. Creating humanity for His own pleasure, with little interest in our wellbeing. We are just here to live the way He wants us.
Hurting Him through his fleshy incarnation seems fair.
Indeed. In fact, I'm sinning right now. Guess how.

Prophet Isaias, who sayeth of the Christ....
Psalmist who sayeth....

Lol... "sayeth". I'm a Super Sayeth.

Silly archaisms.

Yes. You, me, and all of us.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

Clearly no sin of intellect in you, since it's "sacrilege", not "sacrilidge".

That said, I will admit that Jesus was a nice guy (probably the nicest Jew ever portrayed in any work of literature ever).

As for ignorance of the Lord makes Jesus have to crawl on water instead of walk, what of those who do, in fact profess faith in your God, but don't truly mean it? Or those who believe so fervently in their God(s) that they would die to protect their beliefs? Who is more to blame for that facet of the crucifixion?

Also, I think the the things that really crucified Christ were a bunch of guys with hammers and nails... ya know, just puttin' that out there.

May we only hope the cock crows for thee too.

...and with that wish for me, your lack of compassion sends you straight to hell as well.

Come by around 4, I'm baking cookies.

...and with that wish for me, your lack of compassion sends you straight to hell as well.

Come by around 4, I'm baking cookies.

I was making reference to St. Peter, my friend. The only difference between Judas and St. Peter was that St. Peter repented of his rejection of Our Lord. Judas despaired.

May we only hope the cock crows for thee too.

Cock crows where?

I was making reference to St. Peter, my friend. The only difference between Judas and St. Peter was that St. Peter repented of his rejection of Our Lord. Judas despaired.

And that St. Peter was a rabbit.:rolleyes:

...and with that wish for me, your lack of compassion sends you straight to hell as well.

Come by around 4, I'm baking cookies.

I wouldn't worry about eternal suffering. After a period of time you'll adjust and won't feel anything. Lack of anything to contrast it with and enough time makes anything meaningless. Both heaven and hell would become bland and more or less feel the same with enough time.

I was making reference to St. Peter, my friend. The only difference between Judas and St. Peter was that St. Peter repented of his rejection of Our Lord. Judas despaired.

Judas helped to fullfill the wish of God to have his fleshy incarnation crucified. Crucifixion was the whole purpose of Jesus. So why was he the bad guy ?

I wouldn't worry about eternal suffering. After a period of time you'll adjust and won't feel anything. Lack of anything to contrast it with and enough time makes anything meaningless. Both heaven and hell would become bland and more or less feel the same with enough time.

I would think that heaven would get boring pretty fast. I would beg for death... er... reincarnation, that is.

I would think that heaven would get boring pretty fast. I would beg for death... er... reincarnation, that is.

Did you know we feel temperature changes instead of the temperature itself? We're sensitive to the contrast of how fast our body heat is being ripped out as it's produced (at least as I understand it that's where the heat that's being sapped out is coming from). Without anything to contrast it with their is no hot, no cold. Dark and light, bliss and suffering are absolutely meaningless without the other.

Did you know we feel temperature changes instead of the temperature itself? We're sensitive to the contrast of how fast our body heat is being ripped out as it's produced. Without anything to contrast it with their is no hot, no cold. Dark and light, bliss and suffering are absolutely meaningless without the other.

I did, in fact. Did you also know that if you can feel them at all, you are technically experiencing a pain reaction?

I did, in fact. Did you also know that if you can feel them at all, you are technically experiencing a pain reaction?

In the case of a burn having your cells vibrate to the point of severe damage is understandably painful :D

Although I don't quite understand where the pain of the cold comes from. Although I'd expect that expansion and contraction occurring that fast at really low temperatures is also damaging and has something to do with it.

Here's a slightly analogous video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw)

Judas helped to fullfill the wish of God to have his fleshy incarnation crucified. Crucifixion was the whole purpose of Jesus. So why was he the bad guy ?

So--have you been reading the Gospel of Judas or The Last Temptation of Christ or watching Jesus Christ Superstar? ;)

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

good. fuck your god.

I would think that heaven would get boring pretty fast. I would beg for death... er... reincarnation, that is.

There's a good reason why the least interesting part of The Divine Comedy is Paradiso. Hw many different ways can you say "beautiful" before it gets old?

And I've asked really religious people before what they think heaven is like, and they all come back with the same abstract answers--it will be beautiful, you'll be in the presence of God, blah blah blah. No specifics. If I'm going to spend an eternity somewhere, I at least want some variation. Put me on Red Dwarf with Rimmer and Kryten and Lister and the Cat first.

And I've asked really religious people before what they think heaven is like, and they all come back with the same abstract answers--it will be beautiful, you'll be in the presence of God, blah blah blah. No specifics. If I'm going to spend an eternity somewhere, I at least want some variation. Put me on Red Dwarf with Rimmer and Kryten and Lister and the Cat first.

If one is going to talk about heaven, one is necessarily incapable of adequate description thereof, particularly sense our language is more or less confined to the description of sense particulars.

If one is going to talk about heaven, one is necessarily incapable of adequate description thereof, particularly sense our language is more or less confined to the description of sense particulars.

I am always amused by the fact that people will profes such a strong belief in something they admit they do not understand.

I am always amused by the fact that people will profes such a strong belief in something they admit they do not understand.

Does the fact that he's a logician (according to him) make you more or less amused?

Does the fact that he's a logician (according to him) make you more or less amused?

Not sure. Does that make him the ox or the moron?

If one is going to talk about heaven, one is necessarily incapable of adequate description thereof, particularly sense our language is more or less confined to the description of sense particulars.

Well, that's convenient, far more convenient than saying something truthful like "I don't know," because it's a lot harder to sell the truth to people. The Bible's awfully short on descriptions of heaven, which is curious, seeing as God is supposed to be the author of it, and you'd figure that if anyone could help a human accurately describe it, God would be able to do that. So why did he fall short?

The only people who have the most sexual choice are bisexuals. *Nods* they can be straight on Monday and gay on Tuesday.

Actually, no we can't. We're Bi all seven days of the week. This is actually quite inconvenient, as even though we might make a commitment to a single partner, there will always be things they can't do for us.

Yup. Don't you know what "disagreeing" means? Just because Bottle is "on my side" (which she isn't, really, in this discussion) does not mean that she is right in what she says. So, take your school ground clique-mentality and play with it in the sandbox, because it's not suitable for adult discussions.

Have you ever been with a Vietnamese whore? Or a whore at all? No? Then, have a cup of STFU and while you're doing that, learn to recognise references to popular culture.

First of all, since you're dressing up like Lord of the Prance and getting highly riled for no good reason, I'll thank you to keep your faux-urbane insults to yourself, Oscar Tame. I know that's like a wall of tissue against a charging rhino, but hey, worth a shot.

Second, do you read your tripe before you post it? 'Cause I know YOU haven't been with a Vietnamese whore, unless whore has become a gender-neutral term in the last 24 hours. I just found it to be mildly dissonant for you to be so up in arms about homosexuality being studied while insulting an entire nationality in the process.

As for references to popular culture, O please forgive my poor, barbarian eyes for having never seen the sweeping epic from which such a gem of a line was issued.

I know you don't care, but I'll say it anyway: you do your own cause no service by acting like such a bratty catamite whenever homosexuality is even mentioned by someone not three rainbow sheets to the wind. I don't have anything against people becuase of their sexuality -- there's far too many more valid reasons to dislike people...like because they post like insecure, reactionary, playground outcasts trying to stave off an impending thrashing from the school bully with words.

So go sell neurotically insecure someplace else -- we're all stocked up here. How's that for a paraphrased cultural reference, you swishing Swedish Siskel?

Actually, no we can't. We're Bi all seven days of the week. This is actually quite inconvenient, as even though we might make a commitment to a single partner, there will always be things they can't do for us.

I can't believe you took my post seriously.

Actually, if a black person came started bitching, "OMG! How dare they study the differences between ethnicities! They're just doing it to oppress me!" I'd be pretty put off by it, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm white.
For the record, so would I. I'm annoyed by anybody who tries to shush legit research because they claim it's hurting their feelings.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.
Wow, so every time I fornicate with my partner I'm actually crucifying somebody?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Christianity is hella kinky. Most of the folks I know who are into BDSM don't even get that creative.

May we only hope the cock crows for thee too.

Did someone say cock?

I am always amused by the fact that people will profes such a strong belief in something they admit they do not understand.

Heh and I'm always amused when people make statements decalring their amusment at something they belive themselves not to be effected by!

Well, that's convenient, far more convenient than saying something truthful like "I don't know," because it's a lot harder to sell the truth to people. The Bible's awfully short on descriptions of heaven, which is curious, seeing as God is supposed to be the author of it, and you'd figure that if anyone could help a human accurately describe it, God would be able to do that. So why did he fall short?


Perhaps heaven like nirvana is a state of mind? Or a state of being?

Heh and I'm always amused when people make statements decalring their amusment at something they belive themselves not to be effected by!

Why should it not be amusing?

There are all sorts of crazy beliefs out there, it is most certainly amusing to see the weird stuff that humanity can dream up and manage to take seriously

Why should it not be amusing?

There are all sorts of crazy beliefs out there, it is most certainly amusing to see the weird stuff that humanity can dream up and manage to take seriously

Hey I'm a liberal man, be amused at what makes you laugh. I just said that peoples amusment(read, it is funny coz it don't effect me) at what they belive does not effect them amuses me. And for much the same reason(although not strictly true)

I'm just taking the piss outa those that take the piss, and for the same reasons. In effect I hold up a mirror to the amused, and this greatly amuses me.:D

In truth there is much about life that amuses me, and I would hope that somewhere people are amused at my amusement.

So--have you been reading the Gospel of Judas or The Last Temptation of Christ or watching Jesus Christ Superstar? ;)

Only the last I fear - though many years ago :( And the Bible of course ;)

Still - I fail to see how Christians can condemn someone who was doing exactly what God wanted him to do. As a nonChristian I can condemn Judas for being a backstabbing jerk that betrayed his friend - but Christians should lick his feet in admiration for his devotion to Divine Will.

Lol... "sayeth". I'm a Super Sayeth.

Silly archaisms.



Clearly no sin of intellect in you, since it's "sacrilege", not "sacrilidge".

That said, I will admit that Jesus was a nice guy (probably the nicest Jew ever portrayed in any work of literature ever).

As for ignorance of the Lord makes Jesus have to crawl on water instead of walk, what of those who do, in fact profess faith in your God, but don't truly mean it? Or those who believe so fervently in their God(s) that they would die to protect their beliefs? Who is more to blame for that facet of the crucifixion?

Also, I think the the things that really crucified Christ were a bunch of guys with hammers and nails... ya know, just puttin' that out there.

Yeah, and here's another curveball: I don't think the ROMANS (not the Jews) hung him for religious reasons.

Shocking, I know.

Yes. You, me, and all of us.

It was our sins of the intellect, our unwillingness to believe in Him for "intellectual reasons" that pressed that crown of thorns into the head of Our Lord.

It was the daily sacrilidges and blasphemies that we offer up daily that scourged Our Lord, and rent His Flesh.

It was our violence, our mistreatment of one another, the seemingly constant fighting and bickering that goes on among us that nailed his hands to the cross.

It was our willingness to ignore the Lord, and to walk away from him almost constantly that fixed His venerable feet upon the cross.

And it was our sins of Lust, our seemingly ceaseless pursuit to satiate our carnal urges, that pierced His side with the lance.

Yes, every time you and I commit a mortal sin, we Crucify the Lord in our hearts, and this caused Him more suffering, more sorrow than anything.

I live the way I want to, not how the Lord tells me to. I have my lust occasionally, and I satiate my carnal urges as well. If the Lord doesn't like it, I don't care.

I live the way I want to, not how the Lord tells me to. I have my lust occasionally, and I satiate my carnal urges as well. If the Lord doesn't like it, I don't care.

Even if God beamed down and told me that the Church was absolutely correct, I'd still live as I do.

Being all powerful =/= being the absolute moral good.

good. fuck your god.

Where does he like it? Front or back? ;)

Where does he like it? Front or back? ;)

Back. But Satan doesn't want to do Him anymore, so He has decreed that it is an abomination if anyone else does it.

Which actually seems to be moving back on topic a tiny little bit ;)

Well, that's convenient, far more convenient than saying something truthful like "I don't know," because it's a lot harder to sell the truth to people. The Bible's awfully short on descriptions of heaven, which is curious, seeing as God is supposed to be the author of it, and you'd figure that if anyone could help a human accurately describe it, God would be able to do that. So why did he fall short?

Well, no, not really. We can have a good idea of what Heaven is, but we are necessarily incapable of describing it, simply because Heaven is indescribable. Even Our Lord never gave a "description" so to speak about it. Granted, he gave metaphors about different aspects of Heaven, such as when He said "In My Father's house, there are many mansions," and "I will go prepare a place for you." However, he never really gave a real description of it, and the closest we can come to describing it is by echoing the words of St. Paul in Corinthians: (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=2&l=9&f=s#x)

"But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him."

And even Mother Church, in 2000 years of philosophical and theological tradition has only ever been able to say that Heaven is the "Beatific Vision," which is to say, that we will see God as He is. But even this is metaphorical, assuming "see" is meant in the normative sense of perceiving some material thing. God is an immaterial nonthing insofar as He lacks one or more of Aristotle's 4 constituent part of being a thing (Form, matter, actuality, and potential), particularly insofar as God lacks matter and potential.

Indeed, even using the great philosophy of Plato, we can only say of Heaven that it is "union with the Good," or being able to behold "Absolute Beauty."

And one might say "Hey, that sounds boring," but even this is subtly deceptive. In Heaven, there is no transition from point A to point B. In Heaven, there is no "time" as we perceive it. Heaven is Eternal, and when we are in Heaven, we are united with Eternity, which is absolutely simultaneous.

So it is really difficult to describe Heaven, particularly since Heaven absolutely defies descriptiveness in the human language.

Back. But Satan doesn't want to do Him anymore, so He has decreed that it is an abomination if anyone else does it.

Which actually seems to be moving back on topic a tiny little bit ;)

Nooo! Not back on topic! *hijacks thread and streaks*

I don't think that homosexuals can choose to be gay any more than I can choose to be straight. I certainly can't choose to be gay. The fact of the matter is that sweaty guys don't turn me on. But boobies...boobies turn me on.

However, my condemnation of homosexual marriage and homosexual relations never depended on homosexuality being a choice. As a Catholic, I believe every man is called the chastity, and the only permissible sexual relations are those that occur within the context of marriage and are open to life.

Anal and oral sex, and just about everything else except for uncontracepted vaginal sex between husband and wife is thrown right out.

It is a very, very difficult moral ideal to adhere to. I know. I often fail at it. I have very grave difficulties with chastity, and often sin against purity.

However, we shouldn't merely wallow in sin. We should strive to submit ourselves to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If ever for a moment you think that such a thing is difficult, or that this sort of thing is a cause of suffering, remember too that Jesus went through great difficulties, and willed to suffer for us, even by enduring death on the Cross.

And also remember that if we suffer, especially in the pursuit of righteousness, our suffering can take on redemptive properties for souls. It can become as sweet incense to God, and when united with the Sufferings of Our Lord at Calvary, can release many souls in Purgatory from their sufferings, and can help convert many sinners to God.

Take it from a lifelong Roman Catholic. The Church has zero business speaking on this subject. The amount that men and women who are sworn to chastity know about marriage and sex can be put in a thimble. The Church has a stilted point of view and to see such pap from you is stultifying.

The amount of suffering Jesus went through has no bearing on this subject. I seriously doubt that sexual orientation or expression of said sexuality went through Jesus' mind at all. You see, Jesus was concerned about the larger picture. You know that part about people living in peace with each other? Being good to each other? The message of the crucifixion has had changes laid on to the story like a layer of rancid lard.

Put in it's simplest terms, Jesus was a prophet and a man whose message was unpopular with the folks in power. They offered him a chance to recant and change the message and he didn't. So they crucified him. The Romans wanted to make an example of him, but it backfired. His death served as a rallying point for those who are now called Christians and Catholics. A story of self sacrifice.

The rest of the pap the Church feeds you about Transubstantiation and raising from the dead is there to add a layer of moral authority.

I will not listen to a bunch of increasingly older guys who are sexual novitiates and never been married when it comes to marriage advice or sexual advice. Until the Church allows it's priests to marry and have families, they are spectacularly unqualified to dispense such advice.

Oh...and you are sugarcoating your prejudice and conveniently pointing to the Church and Bible for backup. Pretty transparent when you think about it.

~S

That said, back on topic, it really doesn't matter if the homosexual tendency is biological or not, nor even if they are born with it. The fact of the matter is that we as humans are born into an unnatural state, particularly, original sin, and even after baptism go through life in a wounded moral state. And what we percieve natural tendencies are often themselves unnatural, insofar as they are deficient in comparison to the Form of man, and the Good.

That said, back on topic, it really doesn't matter if the homosexual tendency is biological or not, nor even if they are born with it. The fact of the matter is that we as humans are born into an unnatural state, particularly, original sin, and even after baptism go through life in a wounded moral state. And what we percieve natural tendencies are often themselves unnatural, insofar as they are deficient in comaprison to the Form of man, and the Good.

So you're saying theres nothing wrong with being gay then

So you're saying theres nothing wrong with being gay then

What I am saying is that even if gays are born gay, that doesn't mean that gay is the natural state of man, since we are born in an unnatural state of original sin anyway.

As the Psalmist (http://drbo.org/chapter/21050.htm) sayeth in the Miserere:

"For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."

So we can't say being born with anything is a sufficient condition for that thing being ok.

Even if God beamed down and told me that the Church was absolutely correct, I'd still live as I do.

Being all powerful =/= being the absolute moral good.

I'd rather be a free sinner than a person morally right but enslaved by their god. So, yeah.

What I am saying is that even if gays are born gay, that doesn't mean that gay is the natural state of man, since we are born in an unnatural state of original sin anyway.

As the Psalmist (http://drbo.org/chapter/21050.htm) sayeth in the Miserere:

"For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."

So we can't say being born with anything is a sufficient condition for that thing being ok.

But either way things are equal. If i'm born straight i'm sinful, if i'm born gay i'm sinful

I'd rather be a free sinner than a person morally right but enslaved by their god. So, yeah.

Who said disobeying God couldn't ever be morally right?

Just because God is hyper-powerful doesn't mean God is hyper-moral.

But either way things are equal. If i'm born straight i'm sinful, if i'm born gay i'm sinful

Either way you are born into original sin, regardless of being straight or gay. However, straight sex isn't a sin in the context of marriage, whereas gay sex is always sinful.

Either way you are born into original sin, regardless of being straight or gay. However, straight sex isn't a sin in the context of marriage, whereas gay sex is always sinful.

Is it just me or does "original sin" sound like God* being an asshole?

*(more accurately the Church acting as God)

Either way you are born into original sin, regardless of being straight or gay. However, straight sex isn't a sin in the context of marriage, whereas gay sex is always sinful.
But it's so damn fun you'd have to be crazy not to want to do it. :D

It's just like pork. I'll never understand how my jew friend can sacrifice the sweet, juicy taste of fresh bacon for the benefit of God, no matter almighty he might be. I have to assume he's never tasted bacon and doesn't know how good it is, otherwise I'm sure he'd change his mind.

That said, back on topic, it really doesn't matter if the homosexual tendency is biological or not, nor even if they are born with it. The fact of the matter is that we as humans are born into an unnatural state, particularly, original sin, and even after baptism go through life in a wounded moral state. And what we percieve natural tendencies are often themselves unnatural, insofar as they are deficient in comparison to the Form of man, and the Good.

Oh, my post was on topic. You made it topical.

Don't even start on original sin. It is a hellish concept not created by God, but by men.

The part you fail to explain is that the statements of the Church and policies of the Church are written by men who no more have a direct line to God than does AT&T.

You are essentially saying God allows us to be born naturally into a state where the soul is immediately imperiled by the dictate of God himself. It is a circular argument and designed to control a population, not save souls.

I live my life by one primary rule.

Hurt no one.

The Church hurts people. That is why I left it two years ago. It took me 42 years to wise up, sad.

The part you fail to explain is that the statements of the Church and policies of the Church are written by men who no more have a direct line to God than does AT&T.

'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God

Hm....:rolleyes:

Hm....:rolleyes:

I'm not convinced. If I say I'm always correct, that's great, but I can still be wrong.

Hm....:rolleyes:

Because clearly, if a man says he and his predecessors talk to god, he clearly must talk to god.

Circular reasoning for the mother f-ing win.

Why are you wasting your time with such irrelevant questions?

Why are so many people obsessed with "homosexuality"?

Read some books about queer theory, and finally let go of black/white, good/evil and straight/gay....and get a life!

Gay sex is too fun to be sinful.

So is pre-marital straight sex.

And bi-sexual threesomes!

There's no reason to believe in sin if it's gunna keep me from enjoying my life how I wish to :D

So, despite Church doctrines being written by men, just because they say "But God told me to do it" automatically means that it's true and not that they're lying manipulative assholes trying to control everyone using God as an excuse?

I'm sorry, I think that's being a bit gullible.

I'll keep on being my merry pork-eating, cotton/polyester blend wearing, homosexual, temples-shaven self until God deems it important enough to come down and tell me any of it is wrong in person. I'm not about to take the word of a random dude wearing a funny hat like divine truth on things the big guy didn't even ask his own son to drill us about. If it had been thatimportant to God you'd think Jesus would have peeped a work about all this, instead of going on and on and on about us all trying to live in peace, loving our neighbours and not judging them.

Allow me to rephrase that:

The Church says that She is infallible. If she is infallible, then she is infallible, because She says so. And if She is infallible (having said that she is infallible) then everything She says infallibly must be true. Among these things which She has spoken on is sexuality. She condemns gay sex, premarital sex, contraception, etc.

Therefore, if She is infallible, we must admit that these things are wrong.

If she is not infallible, that doesn't mean that these things are not wrong.

So either these things are definately wrong, or we do not really know if they are wrong.

So, even if she is not infallible, they might still be wrong.

Prudence alone tells us to assume that they are wrong.

Hm....:rolleyes:

Oh my, the Papal Infallibility Clause. How delightful.

The Pope does not have time to write all catechism, all documents and make all statements on behalf of the Church. :rolleyes:

Even if His Holiness Boniface is correct, only the inheritor of the Papacy has the ability to speak to God. No one else.

I simply don't buy into the argument. A man cannot declare himself infallible and expect me to buy it anymore.

His Holiness, Benedict XVI is a fine, upstanding, moral man. That is why he joined the Nazi Party willingly and was a brown shirted member of the Hitler Youth. :rolleyes:

I do not accept the Church's "moral authority" anymore. It has lost that right. It is a corrupt organization and deserves very little consideration. Just ask all of the Jews that the Church could have saved in WWII how good a minder of the world flock the Church is. Examine the Children's Crusade and tell me just how ghastly it is to send children in to be slaughtered by the Moors in a moment of misguided certainty.

Oh, yes. The Church is the absolute moral arbiter of this planet and is completely qualified to guide my soul to a state of perfection. :rolleyes:

Allow me to rephrase that:

The Church says that She is infallible. If she is infallible, then she is infallible, because She says so. And if She is infallible (having said that she is infallible) then everything She says infallibly must be true. Among these things which She has spoken on is sexuality. She condemns gay sex, premarital sex, contraception, etc.

Therefore, if She is infallible, we must admit that these things are wrong.

If she is not infallible, that doesn't mean that these things are not wrong.

So either these things are definately wrong, or we do not really know if they are wrong.

So, even if she is not infallible, they might still be wrong.

Prudence alone tells us to assume that they are wrong.

I am infallible.

I say that it is wrong for you to eat food of any type.

If I am infallible, you should never eat.
If I am not infallible, it might be true that you should never eat. You don't know.

Prudence says you should stop eating.

Allow me to rephrase that:

The Church says that She is infallible. If she is infallible, then she is infallible, because She says so. And if She is infallible (having said that she is infallible) then everything She says infallibly must be true. Among these things which She has spoken on is sexuality. She condemns gay sex, premarital sex, contraception, etc.

Therefore, if She is infallible, we must admit that these things are wrong.

If she is not infallible, that doesn't mean that these things are not wrong.

So either these things are definately wrong, or we do not really know if they are wrong.

So, even if she is not infallible, they might still be wrong.

Prudence alone tells us to assume that they are wrong.

Hahahahahaha.

So, if I say I am infaillible, and say that having brown hair is wrong, then all the rest of the world should assume it is wrong, because it would be "prudent" thing to do?

You crack me up. Go take a philosophy/logic class or something. This reasoning is so flawed I don't even know where to point the innacuracies.

Bottom line is: a funny guy wearing a dress and a funny hat who says God talks to him said that "teh gays R bad!!1!" a few centuries past, at a time where it was socially inacceptable. And you're telling me a few centuries later we should all ignore biology, sociology, common sense and statistical and historical evidence in favor of prudently crediting the guy with the funny hat hearing voices in his head with the benefit of the doubt?

Hah hah hah.

I am infallible.

I say that it is wrong for you to eat food of any type.

If I am infallible, you should never eat.
If I am not infallible, it might be true that you should never eat. You don't know.

Prudence says you should stop eating.


Actually, it doesn't quite work then.

If you are infallible, then I should never eat.
If you are not infallible, then it is necessarily not the case that I should never eat, assuming that all things necessary to survival are necessarily done.

Therefore, either I should never eat or I necessarily should eat.

Prudence is silent until I make the assumption "Dempublicants has no idea what he is talking about."

Allow me to rephrase that:

The Church says that She is infallible. If she is infallible, then she is infallible, because She says so. And if She is infallible (having said that she is infallible) then everything She says infallibly must be true.

Status of logic: Definitely circular

Among these things which She has spoken on is sexuality. She condemns gay sex, premarital sex, contraception, etc. Therefore, if She is infallible, we must admit that these things are wrong.

But we have no proof of God's infallibility (I'm not using 'his' or 'her' because God isn't human)

If she is not infallible, that doesn't mean that these things are not wrong.

Yeah, it does.

So either these things are definately wrong, or we do not really know if they are wrong.

I can evaluate their morality based on my own moral system.

So, even if she is not infallible, they might still be wrong.

But they're not.

Prudence alone tells us to assume that they are wrong.
Prudence =/= correct

Who said disobeying God couldn't ever be morally right?

Just because God is hyper-powerful doesn't mean God is hyper-moral.

God could be the devil, but that's a bit of a quantum leap, considering that I don't believe in a god.

Actually, it doesn't quite work then.

If you are infallible, then I should never eat.
If you are not infallible, then it is necessarily not the case that I should never eat, assuming that all things necessary to survival are necessarily done.

Therefore, either I should never eat or I necessarily should eat.

You've changed your train of logic. Why should it work differently here?

Prudence is silent until I make the assumption "Dempublicants has no idea what he is talking about."

Funny, one could make the same assumption (and be fairly confident in it) about the Catholic Church...

(Meanwhile, I'm not a he)

Yeah, it does.

But they're not.



Can you prove either of those claims?

God could be the devil

Somehow I think that'd make an interesting book series

but that's a bit of a quantum leap, considering that I don't believe in a god.

Well, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God defeats itself.

Funny, one could make the same assumption (and be fairly confident in it) about the Catholic Church...

(Meanwhile, I'm not a he)


Yet, that's the exact point I am making. Even if you say "The Catholic Church has no idea what She is talking about," then you still don't know if homosexual sex is ok or not. There are multiple other religions that say it is wrong, and one could possibly even make a natural law argument, and you can't claim that anyone should necessarily have gay sex.

So it's either "It's wrong, or we don't know if it's wrong."

Eating, however, is necessary to survival. So it's either "It's wrong, or it's definately necessary."

Can you prove either of those claims?

Yes, in my own moral system.

Yes, in my own moral system.

And we should accept your moral system because...?

And we should accept your moral system because...?

And we should accept the Catholic Church's moral system because...?

And we should accept your moral system because...?

Hey, you said we can't prove it not wrong and I proved that statement false via use of some non-God-reliant moral system.

You don't have to accept my system, but your supposition was wrong.

Yet, that's the exact point I am making. Even if you say "The Catholic Church has no idea what She is talking about," then you still don't know if homosexual sex is ok or not.

I know that there is absolutely no logical reason to say that heterosexual sex is ok but homosexual sex is not. That would appear to be enough.

There are multiple other religions that say it is wrong,

And multiple religions that say it isn't. What's your point?

and one could possibly even make a natural law argument,

Only if one wants to look stupid.

and you can't claim that anyone should necessarily have gay sex.

So? I can't claim that anyone should necessarily have heterosexual sex either. In fact, there are some people who I definitely think should refrain from it.

So it's either "It's wrong, or we don't know if it's wrong."

Or "It's not wrong."

Eating, however, is necessary to survival. So it's either "It's wrong, or it's definately necessary."

Who says a given person should survive?

Who says a given person should survive?
Yeah, I know a whole damn lot of persons we could do better without.

If you are infallible, then I should never eat.
If you are not infallible, then it is necessarily not the case that I should never eat, assuming that all things necessary to survival are necessarily done.

Therefore, either I should never eat or I necessarily should eat.


Even if he is not infallible it is possible he is right in this case. Which in reverse of course means that showing he is right now does not necessarily mean he is infallible.

Now apply this reasoning to the Church.

Even if he is not infallible it is possible he is right in this case. Which in reverse of course means that showing he is right now does not necessarily mean he is infallible.

Now apply this reasoning to the Church.

But Gens doesn't want to believe that he shouldn't eat. He does, on the other hand, want to believe that teh gays are ebil. Logic is necessary only as a crutch for the beliefs he's trying to hold up.

But Gens doesn't want to believe that he shouldn't eat. He does, on the other hand, want to believe that teh gays are ebil. Logic is necessary only as a crutch for the beliefs he's trying to hold up.

QFT

However, my condemnation of homosexual marriage and homosexual relations never depended on homosexuality being a choice. As a Catholic, I believe every man is called the chastity, and the only permissible sexual relations are those that occur within the context of marriage and are open to life.

Bold mine.

So not only are you against gay people having sex, you're against sterile straight people having sex.

Anal and oral sex, and just about everything else except for uncontracepted vaginal sex between husband and wife is thrown right out.

So, basically no fun and tons of kids. I see why I don't know many catholics.

It is a very, very difficult moral ideal to adhere to.

It's also a rather silly moral ideal. "Don't give in to millions of years of evo-I'm sorry, six thousand years of intelligent design."

I know. I often fail at it. I have very grave difficulties with chastity, and often sin against purity.

If that's "purity", purity sucks.

However, we shouldn't merely wallow in sin. We should strive to submit ourselves to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, we shouldn't wallow in sin, but we should become a willing slave to a higher power? Isn't that like cosmic bondage?

If ever for a moment you think that such a thing is difficult, or that this sort of thing is a cause of suffering, remember too that Jesus went through great difficulties, and willed to suffer for us, even by enduring death on the Cross.

Uh...We should follow what Jesus did, because he's opinions wound up with him nailed to a bit of wood?

And also remember that if we suffer, especially in the pursuit of righteousness, our suffering can take on redemptive properties for souls.

I think our souls would be happier getting oral sex.

It can become as sweet incense to God,

He...burns our sins in hell to get high?

Do you suppose the earth's just the round part of god's gigantic bong?

and when united with the Sufferings of Our Lord at Calvary,

Ooo...Capitalization!


can release many souls in Purgatory from their sufferings, and can help convert many sinners to God.

From what I understand from the accounts of some Christians, god's power depends on his worship. So if we just stopped believing this foolishness, all those souls supposedly in hell and purgatory would be saved!


And, given the various methods of execution back then, ever considered that the principle sign of christianity could have just as easily been a big rock?

Why does it matter if it can or cannot be changed? There's not the least tiny little thing wrong with being gay...

It's a bit like proclaiming a huge victory because people now believe that lefthandedness is something you're born with...

Waaaahhh?,

was lefthandedness something other then "born with" back in the day? :confused:

im left handed, and the only other way i see of becoming left-handed is neccessity, like not being able to use the other hand; e.g. falling out of a tree and shattering your [right arm's] elbow, or something like that.

do tell, please?

-Rafe
OOC

Waaaahhh?,

was lefthandedness something other then "born with" back in the day? :confused:

im left handed, and the only other way i see of becoming left-handed is neccessity, like not being able to use the other hand; e.g. falling out of a tree and shattering your [right arm's] elbow, or something like that.

do tell, please?

-Rafe
OOC

About 100 years ago being lefthanded was considered being a servant of Satan. It is why children were forced to learn to write with the "right" hand in schools, where forced included beating the left hand with a rod if you dared "abuse" it.
It was in fact treated very much like homosexuals are now.

About 100 years ago being lefthanded was considered being a servant of Satan. It is why children were forced to learn to write with the "right" hand in schools, where forced included beating the left hand with a rod if you dared "abuse" it.
It was in fact treated very much like homosexuals are now.

Indeed. Even a generation or two ago, some teachers (or parents) would try to force left-handed children to use their right hands.

Zarakon, what do you hope to acheive by debating the fundamental dogma of the catholic church, you can't expect him to change his beliefs on homosexuality without somehow converting him away from catholocism. Thats not very likely.

I didn't want to do this, but I have to.

The functional belief in catholic dogma is the bible is the literal truth, inspired by god.

You have based your faith on the idea that the bible is true. You believe it to be true because you believe it to be the ordained word of god. You believe it to be the ordained word of god because it says it is.

Well, I am sorry to tell you of my magical mythical post-it note that I bring out whenever someone claims that their holy book is true because it says it is. The note reads: "Every religion in the world is wrong. God."

Now, unfortunatly, since this post it note says it is true, it must be true, since after all, it says right there that God wrote it. Following this God has also written "by the way, gays are fine by me".

So it appears, I fear, that your faith is wrong. It also appears that God is left handed.

Somehow I think that'd make an interesting book series.

Deus Malum could write it. I can't. (Well, a few Naruto fanfics and a ridiculous campy parody, but that's it)

Zarakon, what do you hope to acheive by debating the fundamental dogma of the catholic church, you can't expect him to change his beliefs on homosexuality without somehow converting him away from catholocism. Thats not very likely.

You never know. I've known plenty of Catholics who disagreed with the Church on particular doctrines.

Even a generation or two ago, some teachers (or parents) would try to force left-handed children to use their right hands.

One of my mom's teachers tied her left hand to her desk to try to force her to write right-handed. My mom is in her late 50s, to give you an idea of when this was.

You never know. I've known plenty of Catholics who disagreed with the Church on particular doctrines.

I'm catholic and I think the pope is full of shit.

There, I said it.

I'm catholic and I think the pope is full of shit.

There, I said it.

But his shoes are pretty.
http://www.degree360.com/blogimages/popeshoes.jpgYay for Ruby Slippers!

I didn't want to do this, but I have to.

The functional belief in catholic dogma is the bible is the literal truth, inspired by god.


Actually this is untrue. The Vatican does not believe much of the Bible is literally true, at least historically speaking. Their dogma is based on the ethical system of natural law, which was made by saint Thomas Aquinas, and supposedly does not require belief in God to follow.

I know that there is absolutely no logical reason to say that heterosexual sex is ok but homosexual sex is not.

One is necessary for the procreation of our species whereas the other isn't?

You never know. I've known plenty of Catholics who disagreed with the Church on particular doctrines.

We call them heretics. They are all in a state of excommunication latae sententiae.

We call them heretics. They are all in a state of excommunication latae sententiae.

So either you agree with the Pope or go to hell?

So either you agree with the Pope or go to hell?

Yup! It's the greatest religious concept since Agree with sliced bread or be forced to eat unsliced bread!

One is necessary for the procreation of our species whereas the other isn't?

You still haven't addressed my point that you do not want heterosexual, married sterile people having sex. Is this an accurate claim?

One is necessary for the procreation of our species whereas the other isn't?

That doesn't provide any reason that homosexuality is not ok. It also completely ignores the fact that sex serves many other purposes besides procreation.

We call them heretics. They are all in a state of excommunication latae sententiae.

So Catholics truly aren't allowed to think for themselves, eh?

You still haven't addressed my point that you do not want heterosexual, married sterile people having sex. Is this an accurate claim?

He'd be a heretic if he claimed this. LOL

As I have stated before, since my magical mystical post it note is from god and states that you are wrong, I am waiting for you to renounce your beliefs.

And don't say the post it note wasn't written by god, it says it is right on it.

As I have stated before, since my magical mystical post it note is from god and states that you are wrong, I am waiting for you to renounce your beliefs.

And don't say the post it note wasn't written by god, it says it is right on it.God's name is 3M?! No wonder people never guessed it. Kind of anti climactic, don't you agree?

We call them heretics. They are all in a state of excommunication latae sententiae.

Incorrect, Master Gens.

I have had vigorous and healthy debate with many of my former parish priests. We disagreed, I was NEVER threatened with excommunication despite my contempt for the Papal Infallibility Clause, and I do mean contempt. They had open minds and happily debated with me because reasoned debate is healthy.

My last parish priest, a Bl. Fr. of the Society of Jesus actually complimented me saying that the Society of Jesus was poorer for not having a mind such as mine willing to examine canonical law critically in it's midst. I personally think he was just being nice.

I am personally welcome back into my parish at any time I so choose and am still able to take the sacraments. This DESPITE the fact that I am an unrepentant homosexual.

So stuff that into your theological pipe and smoke it, pally.

You still haven't addressed my point that you do not want heterosexual, married sterile people having sex. Is this an accurate claim?


Heterosexual, married sterile people can have sex, so long as they do it in the normal way, without contraceptives. Even married sterile couples can't use contraceptives, nor can they do oral or anal. The act must be open to life.

Incorrect, Master Gens.

I have had vigorous and healthy debate with many of my former parish priests. We disagreed, I was NEVER threatened with excommunication despite my contempt for the Papal Infallibility Clause, and I do mean contempt. They had open minds and happily debated with me because reasoned debate is healthy.

My last parish priest, a Bl. Fr. of the Society of Jesus actually complimented me saying that the Society of Jesus was poorer for not having a mind such as mine willing to examine canonical law critically in it's midst. I personally think he was just being nice.

I am personally welcome back into my parish at any time I so choose and am still able to take the sacraments. This DESPITE the fact that I am an unrepentant homosexual.

So stuff that into your theological pipe and smoke it, pally.

First and foremost, you don't "take" the sacraments. You receive the sacraments. That said, not only are you guilty heresy, and not only are you guilty of homosexual acts, but you are guilty of sacriledge also.

If your parish priest agrees with you at any point, which is to say, with your questioning of doctrine, then he condones heresy. He may even be guilty of condoning sacriledge if he is aware of you unrepentent state while offering you the Body of Our Lord.

My dear friend, Our Lord is willing to forgive every sin...even yours. Even if you try and fail, He forgives again and again. But he doesn't want us to wallow and bask in sin. He wants us to at least try.

He died for you. We must die to ourselves. In the words of St. Paul, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

First and foremost, you don't "take" the sacraments. You receive the sacraments. That said, not only are you guilty heresy, and not only are you guilty of homosexual acts, but you are guilty of sacriledge also.

If your parish priest agrees with you at any point, which is to say, with your questioning of doctrine, then he condones heresy. He may even be guilty of condoning sacriledge if he is aware of you unrepentent state while offering you the Body of Our Lord.

Wow. If applying logical thought and examining your indoctrinated dogma and finding questions condemns you to Hell, 99.9% of NSG will be there.

EDIT: Not to mention a WHOLE LOT of other people.

Wow. If applying logical thought and examining your indoctrinated dogma and finding questions condemns you to Hell, 99.9% of NSG will be there.

EDIT: Not to mention a WHOLE LOT of other people.


Examining dogma and finding questions isn't a problem. Examining the dogma, finding questions, and stubbornly rejecting what is proclaimed as the Truth of the Church is a problem. Curiosity doesn't kill the cat. Putting your own empiricist ideals, and your own demands of proof over the infallible Magisterium, that kills the cat.

If 99.9 percent of NSG do this, then 99.9 percent of NSG needs to repent.

Heterosexual, married sterile people can have sex, so long as they do it in the normal way, without contraceptives. Even married sterile couples can't use contraceptives, nor can they do oral or anal. The act must be open to life.

I'm jumping in here without bothering to read the previous mostly hideous pages, but I think you're completely missing the point. The last time I checked, sex between sterile people was not open to life, or they wouldn't be sterile.

I'm jumping in here without bothering to read the previous mostly hideous pages, but I think you're completely missing the point. The last time I checked, sex between sterile people was not open to life, or they wouldn't be sterile.

Yet, it IS open to life. They are having sexual relations in such a manner that, even though it is highly improbable, even approaching impossibility, that the wife will get pregnant, if the Lord proclaims "Woman! You're bearing a child!" that she would be able to do so.

The Lord has done this sort of thing in the past.

Examining dogma and finding questions isn't a problem. Examining the dogma, finding questions, and stubbornly rejecting what is proclaimed as the Truth of the Church is a problem.

Rejecting the "truth" of an organization whose only proof of its self-proclaimed validity is itself is not problematic.

Curiosity doesn't kill the cat. Putting your own empiricist ideals, and your own demands of proof over the infallible Magisterium, that kills the cat.

The word "Magisterium" automatically defeats any ability for me to take you seriously in this passage.

If 99.9 percent of NSG do this, then 99.9 percent of NSG needs to repent.

Or maybe we're just on to something.

Yet, it IS open to life. They are having sexual relations in such a manner that, even though it is highly improbable, even approaching impossibility, that the wife will get pregnant, if the Lord proclaims "Woman! You're bearing a child!" that she would be able to do so.

The Lord has done this sort of thing in the past.

If you're going to say it's open to life because God can play the miracle card and get the woman pregnant, what's to say God can't do that with any other form of sex? Why can't God do that to two men? He's GOD. He's all-powerful. Getting people pregnant through various other forms of sex is surely no problem for his mighty powers.

If you're going to say it's open to life because God can play the miracle card and get the woman pregnant, what's to say God can't do that with any other form of sex? Why can't God do that to two men? He's GOD. He's all-powerful. Getting people pregnant through various other forms of sex is surely no problem for his mighty powers.

The Lord says to have sex in a certain way! He says that only this way is permissible! Sterile couples can have non contracepted vaginal sex. Homosexual couples can't. End of story.

The Lord says to have sex in a certain way! He says that only this way is permissible! Sterile couples can have non contracepted vaginal sex. Homosexual couples can't. End of story.

OK, where exactly did God say "Thou shall only haveth the sex to procreate"?

OK, where exactly did God say "Thou shall only haveth the sex to procreate"?

He didn't say "Thou shalt only have sex to procreate." He said "You shall have vaginal intercourse without contraceptions." And He said this in Humanae Vitae and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

He didn't say "Thou shalt only have sex to procreate." He said "You shall have vaginal intercourse without contraceptions." And He said this in Humanae Vitae and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I don't care if a person said it. I asked where God himself or Jesus himself said it.

I don't care if a person said it. I asked where God himself or Jesus himself said it.

The Church is the Body of Christ and the Magisterium is the voice of God.

The Lord says to have sex in a certain way! He says that only this way is permissible! Sterile couples can have non contracepted vaginal sex. Homosexual couples can't. End of story.

Show me where your lord says this so I can mock it, please.

The Church is the Body of Christ and the Magisterium is the voice of God.

I think Jesus' body and a building built years after his death are two separate objects. [/LITERAL RESPONSE]

So, a serious question: If a sapient being is supposed to say what God said, how do we know they weren't lying about its [the Church laws'] origins?

Show me where your lord says this so I can mock it, please.

St. Paul sayeth so here in Corinthians 12:27. (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=12&l=27&f=s#x)

"Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member."

And to Timothy in the first letter, chapter 3, verse 15. (http://drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm)

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

And Our Lord sayeth it to His Apostles those first Bishops of the Church, in Luke 10:16. (http://drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm)

"He that heareth you, heareth me."

First and foremost, you don't "take" the sacraments. You receive the sacraments. That said, not only are you guilty heresy, and not only are you guilty of homosexual acts, but you are guilty of sacriledge also.

If your parish priest agrees with you at any point, which is to say, with your questioning of doctrine, then he condones heresy. He may even be guilty of condoning sacriledge if he is aware of you unrepentent state while offering you the Body of Our Lord.

My dear friend, Our Lord is willing to forgive every sin...even yours. Even if you try and fail, He forgives again and again. But he doesn't want us to wallow and bask in sin. He wants us to at least try.

He died for you. We must die to ourselves. In the words of St. Paul, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

I would like to think my parish priest has an open mind and I further would like to think that he is of the enlightened view that allowing the questioning and debating of doctrine is the best way to meet the needs of his flock (within theological limits).

My homosexuality is unrepentant due to the fact that is who I am. It is part of me. I pity you that you cannot accept that. I follow a set of ethical and moral rules that you cannot conceive of. I take one partner at a time and I do not cheat on my partner. I hurt no one. The only difference is that my partner is of the same sex as myself. I do not judge you based upon your narrow view of doctrine.

I have received the sacraments from the time I was old enough to know what they were. At no time have I ever considered my receiving of the sacraments sacriligious or sinful and I have been lucky enough to have priests who are decent, caring tenders of their flock who do not condemn those of us who are different from what you see as the "norm."

Finally, I do not pretend that I do not sin. I never have pretended that. But I will not cleave to such a narrow view to exclude that which I feel is natural and right for me. The greatest sin of all is to deny the truth about ourselves.

No Church, man or priest can marginalize me or others of my sexuality. There are many points of view in the Church, and there are many groups within the Church that do not cleave to your extremely sad and narrow minded interpretation. No false Pope, such as the current one has the moral authority to condemn me. Especially with such a dubious and highly immoral past. Pope Benedict is neither perfect, nor infallible and in a good and decent College of Cardinals, such an odious figure would never have been elected and allowed to wear the Fisherman's Ring and to lead God's Church into iniquity.

So we have a fundamental difference of viewpoint and I wish you well.

snip

I'd just like to quote Our Lord, if you don't mind:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.


Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Are you a Heathen and a Publican?

If you love the Lord, then you will take his cross. If you take not up his cross, then you are not worthy of Him. He says this Himself.

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

The first and greatest commandment Our Lord offers is to love God with a sacrificial love. He demands of us sacrifice. He commands us to die to ourselves, and to be absolutely obedient to the Church and to His commandments.

If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.

You claim me to have a "narrow interpretation." I'm not interpreting anything. This is the teaching of the Church. These are the words of the Magisterium. I am not offering you my own take on anything. This is what the Lord says.

Edit: For the record, don't take my relatively harsh words as any sign that I don't like you, particularly because you are a homosexual. I love you as my Christian brother. If I didn't love you, I wouldn't bother pointing out what I am pointing out. Don't take what I am saying as a personal attack. I am only doing what Our Lord commands, when he tells us to rebuke our brother. You are my brother, and I am responsible for you. Therefore, I must proclaim to thee what the Church teaches.

I only wish your priest would have done the same.

Gens Romae: I would like to ask a slightly personal question. You needn't answer if you consider it none of our business.

You seem well-studied and quite comfortable in the forum environment. Where have you done this before? Or under what name, if here?

So it is really difficult to describe Heaven, particularly since Heaven absolutely defies descriptiveness in the human language.

How convenient, the ability to comprehend where we will spend eternity was left out of the plans for humanity.

Well, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God defeats itself.

Not by itself, but in the context of reality as we know it, yes it does.

If you're going to say it's open to life because God can play the miracle card and get the woman pregnant, what's to say God can't do that with any other form of sex? Why can't God do that to two men? He's GOD. He's all-powerful. Getting people pregnant through various other forms of sex is surely no problem for his mighty powers.

I always wondered that too. Also, Gens Romae, if people aren't supposed to be doing it why is it possible in the first place?

The Lord says to have sex in a certain way! He says that only this way is permissible! Sterile couples can have non contracepted vaginal sex. Homosexual couples can't. End of story.

Why would an all-powerful all-knowing being that created us then go and give us verbal rules to live by? Also why would he only speak to a few instead of the masses? Would you have happened to see the Wizard of Oz? Think about that for a minute.

[...]Also, wolves have been persuaded not to kill sheeps. It has been done since more than 10000 years. Now we call those wolves dogs. [...] Violence isn't a language. Violence is the ultimate answer when language has failed. You aren't voluntary conveying a message through violence - you are just trying to down your target.

Your moral seems quite childish and oversimplified.

I said "wolves," not dogs. And I wasn't suggesting that French or German are somehow debased-- please-- I was saying that like those languages (or any other languages, they were examples, not an exhaustive list), like violence, are a means of expressing one's self. Violence just happens to be a language of last resort for some people, when they have nothing let to say but "I'm sick and fucking tired of trying to reason with you!"

Frankly, what I find childish and oversimplified is that instead of confronting my ideas, you tried to discredit my metaphors. "I don't like your euphamism, nyah!" It's easy to snipe from the distance and say "I don't see the merit in your argument," if you want to make an actual contribution to the dialogue try offering something substantive, an alternative argument, a counterpoint. Although given that your reply sounds argumentative for the sake of argument, just being contrary without sharing a point of view, I really don't know which side if any you'd come down on. :P

The Lord says to have sex in a certain way! He says that only this way is permissible! Sterile couples can have non contracepted vaginal sex. Homosexual couples can't. End of story.

And why does the Lord say so ? What exactly is wrong with having sex in other ways, as long as all participating enjoy the activity ?
One at least assumes the Lord can back his statements up with reasoning, and isn't just being smallminded.

And, predictably, in the day or two that I took off, someone decided to drag religiosity into it. Actually I'm amazed it didn't take longer. What always escapes them, though, is that for those of us humanists who worship at the altar of reason, and prefer the scientific method over faith in supernatural beings, their self-righteous Catholicism or Protestantism or whatever is as irrelevant to us as voodoo or Zoroastrianism or Buddhism or Taoism is to them. Or, as Stephen Roberts said, "when you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Don't dredge up religion, because your mystical beliefs aren't universally accessible or relevant-- they only matter to you and to those who share them with you. The rest of us prefer our debates as delusion-free as we can get em.

Examining dogma and finding questions isn't a problem. Examining the dogma, finding questions, and stubbornly rejecting what is proclaimed as the Truth of the Church is a problem. Curiosity doesn't kill the cat. Putting your own empiricist ideals, and your own demands of proof over the infallible Magisterium, that kills the cat.


What an un catholic way of thinking.

If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.

"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

If you love your own homosexual desires more than you love the Church and the Lord, then you should really reconsider calling yourself a Catholic.

"Homosexual" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who are both. And considering that the Bible tells you to love your fellow man, not to judge lest you be judged, that we are all sinners, and that no sin is greater than any other sin, perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian.

The Church is the Body of Christ and the Magisterium is the voice of God.

So, you'd say that Magisterium has ever been wrong, of course, yes?

So, you'd say that Magisterium has ever been wrong, of course, yes?


Mother Church has never erred on doctrines of Faith or Morality.

Mother Church has never erred on doctrines of Faith or Morality.

Really? So when those doctrines have changed, does that mean God changed His mind? Was God wrong? Or were the men claiming the authority of God wrong?

And, I see, so when they declared Galileo a heretic for saying the earth revolved around the sun, they were right, no?

Mother Church has never erred on doctrines of Faith or Morality.

Read: we refuse to change after 2,000 years; it was good enough for then it's good enough for now. Change is scary.

Read: we refuse to change after 2,000 years; it was good enough for then it's good enough for now. Change is scary.

No, you should read:

Morality is not relative. There is a moral absolute. If it was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

No, you should read:

Morality is not relative. There is a moral absolute. If it was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

... so, you mean like the Church? :p

12831438And, I see, so when they declared Galileo a heretic for saying the earth revolved around the sun, they were right, no?

That the earth revolved around the sun was never Church doctrine. Thus, the Church never erred. Specific clergy did.

Besides, Galileo deserved what he got. He was such a dick about it.

That the earth revolved around the sun was never Church doctrine. Thus, the Church never erred. Specific clergy did.

Besides, Galileo deserved what he got. He was such a dick about it.

Ha. So the Church can kill people because they are "dicks", I guess. Good to know.

Seperately, you are factually incorrect. The sun revolving around the earth was original claims by the Vatican and they've since flipped.

Please, educate yourself on matters BEFORE speaking on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.

No, you should read:

Morality is not relative. There is a moral absolute. If it was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

Morality is relevant only to the person's upbringing, based on the values that are taught to them. Morals cannot be absolute because they change with time. As culture changes and progresses, so do morals. The morals change as different perspectives are brought into a society. What may seem immoral ans scary to one is not immoral to the other.

It used to be considered "immoral" for a Catholic to be left-handed but it's now accepted. The left-hand was "sinister"; the hand of the devil. But we don't see it as that any more. One example of now morality is relevant as opposed to absolute.

Morals cannot be absolute because if they are based on the Testament, they cannot be 100% accurate given the propensity for error during the transcription process over the two millennia that the Church has existed. The word would not be perfectly translated because there is too great a chance that something was lost in translation. Even if the original doctrine had been the opus dei, the transcriptions were done by monks and humans are subject to err.

of course they can.I am a bisexual but ive only become bi in the last half year or so. before i was straight and now im bi. i may become gay one day.

Now let's talk about a few other "positions" of the Church.

Matthew 23 -

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. [B]12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Now, does that sound like any practices within the Church? That could be a man speaking today and it would completely apply to the modern Pharisees and hypocrites.

Ha. So the Church can kill people because they are "dicks", I guess. Good to know.

Galileo wasn't killed by the Inquisition. He was condemned to house arrest.

Seperately, you are factually incorrect. The sun revolving around the earth was original claims by the Vatican and they've since flipped.

By the whom? If it wasn't set down by a Church Council, or issued Ex Cathedra by the Holy Father, or taught in Sacred Tradition, or in the Bible, or is not a matter of faith and morality, then it cannot be held as ever having been a doctrine of Mother Church.

In this case, heliocentrism or geocentrism is a matter of science, not a matter or morality, and therefore cannot be held to have ever been a doctrine of the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.

He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius.

See? He was being a dick about it!

As a matter of principle, the clergy doesn't like to be seen to advocate any new scientific, philosophical, etc. opinion until that theory has been thoroughly proven. When Galileo brought out his theory, it was still fairly young. It is only reasonable that the clergy at the time was unwilling to hastily accept it, and even barred his works when he was being a dick about it.

Morality is relevant only to the person's upbringing, based on the values that are taught to them.

That's bullshit and you know it. The very fact that you and I disagree, even within the same cultural system, proves that there is in fact a moral absolute.

I say that x is wrong.
You say that x is not wrong.

X can't both be wrong and not wrong. Therefore, there must be some objective standard by which we can judge x to be wrong or not wrong. Therefore, there must be a moral absolute.

Galileo wasn't killed by the Inquisition. He was condemned to house arrest.

Yeah, I actually didn't intend to write that. He died in custody. He was not explicitly killed by the Church.

By the whom? If it wasn't set down by a Church Council, or issued Ex Cathedra by the Holy Father, or taught in Sacred Tradition, or in the Bible, or is not a matter of faith and morality, then it cannot be held as ever having been a doctrine of Mother Church.

It was delivered as an explanation of the scripture by the Church and the Pope. Are you really suggesting the Pope was wrong? How does that help your argument?


In this case, heliocentrism or geocentrism is a matter of science, not a matter or morality, and therefore cannot be held to have ever been a doctrine of the Church.

Not according to the Church. They claimed it was a matter to be decided by scripture. That was the essence of the debate. So are you saying we should only listen to the Bible on morality and consider it or the explanation of it to be incorrect in terms of history and science? Are you sure you want to hold that position?



See? He was being a dick about it!

Um, you recognize that it's widely held that it was unintentional, even by the Church.

That's bullshit and you know it. The very fact that you and I disagree, even within the same cultural system, proves that there is in fact a moral absolute.

I say that x is wrong.
You say that x is not wrong.

X can't both be wrong and not wrong. Therefore, there must be some objective standard by which we can judge x to be wrong or not wrong. Therefore, there must be a moral absolute.

That is the worst argument for objective morality i have ever heard.

That's bullshit and you know it. The very fact that you and I disagree, even within the same cultural system, proves that there is in fact a moral absolute.

I say that x is wrong.
You say that x is not wrong.

X can't both be wrong and not wrong. Therefore, there must be some objective standard by which we can judge x to be wrong or not wrong. Therefore, there must be a moral absolute.

That's just a dumb argument. You could both be wrong. X can't be both, but it could be neither.

That's bullshit and you know it. The very fact that you and I disagree, even within the same cultural system, proves that there is in fact a moral absolute.

I say that x is wrong.
You say that x is not wrong.

X can't both be wrong and not wrong. Therefore, there must be some objective standard by which we can judge x to be wrong or not wrong. Therefore, there must be a moral absolute.except when labels like "wrong" do not apply to the issue you are bitching about.

in other cases, "wrong" is a point of view. there is no absolute moral.

That's just a dumb argument. You could both be wrong. X can't be both, but it could be neither.

X can't be both nor neither! It's either wrong or wrong. I can prove this.

1. Assume x is both wrong and not wrong.
2. X is wrong.
3. X is not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. It is not the case that x is both wrong and not wrong.

1. Assume it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
2. Assume x is wrong.
3. X is wrong or not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. X is not wrong.
6. X is wrong or not wrong.
7. Contradiction.
8. It is not the case that it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
9. X is wrong or not wrong.

So basically, combining the conclusions from the first and the second, we MUST conclude that x is either wrong or not wrong, and it CAN'T be both! It's one of the two. And there MUST be some way to judge it.

Therefore, there is an objective morality.

X can't be both nor neither! It's either wrong or wrong. I can prove this.

1. Assume x is both wrong and not wrong.
2. X is wrong.
3. X is not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. It is not the case that x is both wrong and not wrong.

1. Assume it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
2. Assume x is wrong.
3. X is wrong or not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. X is not wrong.
6. X is wrong or not wrong.
7. Contradiction.
8. It is not the case that it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
9. X is wrong or not wrong.

So basically, combining the conclusions from the first and the second, we MUST conclude that x is either wrong or not wrong, and it CAN'T be both! It's one of the two. And there MUST be some way to judge it.

Therefore, there is an objective morality.

Um, again, this isn't math. I know you don't get it, but you're starting with the assumption that morality is objective and thus can be assigned as wrong or not wrong. This assumption is exactly what we're questions.

There is a third option. X cannot be described in terms of wrong or not wrong objectively. As such, it's neither.

Let's say X describes height.

x = 6'0"

Is that right?

Yes and no.

The problem being that for some people at some times this is true, but it's not always true nor always false. There is information missing.

Yeah, I actually didn't intend to write that. He died in custody. He was not explicitly killed by the Church.

Exactly.

It was delivered as an explanation of the scripture by the Church and the Pope. Are you really suggesting the Pope was wrong? How does that help your argument?

Even the individual Pope of the time allowed the argument to occur. It was only when Galileo was an utter dick that the mod hammer came down.

Not according to the Church. They claimed it was a matter to be decided by scripture. That was the essence of the debate. So are you saying we should only listen to the Bible on morality and consider it or the explanation of it to be incorrect in terms of history and science? Are you sure you want to hold that position?

The Bible is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. The Church is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. Tradition is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. The Holy Father can only be infallible if speaking on matters of Faith or Morality.

If you come to some point that is not expressedly a matter of faith and morality, you can probably disregard it.

Um, you recognize that it's widely held that it was unintentional, even by the Church.

Intentional or not, he came across as dickish, and if you are a dick to the Holy Father, you deserve the ban hammer.

Um, again, this isn't math. I know you don't get it, but you're starting with the assumption that morality is objective and thus can be assigned as wrong or not wrong.

Dude, it's logically necessary.

Dude, it's logically necessary.

No, it isn't. It's called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy.

Like I said, if x is height, does x = 6'0"

Dude, it's logically necessary.

But not all things are "right" or "wrong". Like, for example, brushing your teeth. Is it wrong? of course not. But saying it's right is also a stretch.

Dude, it's logically necessary.Then give us logical proof.

No, it isn't. It's called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy.

A or not A is the driving force of formal logic. When I gave a proof for "Wrong or not wrong" and "not both wrong and not wrong," I was only giving a proof for A or not A, and not both A and not A, which, as I said, is the driving force of formal logic.

I am not saying that all things are either wrong or right. But by virtue of the Law of the Excluded Middle, all things MUST be either wrong or not wrong.

Like I said, if x is height, does x = 6'0"

I could answer if I understood the point you are trying to make. But if it is a statement, it is either true or false.

Then give us logical proof.

I gave the proofs on post 457.

Exactly.



Even the individual Pope of the time allowed the argument to occur. It was only when Galileo was an utter dick that the mod hammer came down.

Again, there is no evidence of this. There is clear evidence that the Pope said that Galileo was not to advocate heliocentrism.


The Bible is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. The Church is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. Tradition is only infallible on matters of Faith and Morality. The Holy Father can only be infallible if speaking on matters of Faith or Morality.

So the Bible is sometimes wrong. Good to know.


If you come to some point that is not expressedly a matter of faith and morality, you can probably disregard it.

You mean I can accept that the it could be wrong.

So when the church says that personhood begins at conception. They could be wrong. Good to know.

When they say sexuality is a choice. They could be wrong. Good to know.


Intentional or not, he came across as dickish, and if you are a dick to the Holy Father, you deserve the ban hammer.

You paint the "Holy Father" as petty and silly. What a nice thing for you to do?

X can't be both nor neither! It's either wrong or wrong. I can prove this.

1. Assume x is both wrong and not wrong.
2. X is wrong.
3. X is not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. It is not the case that x is both wrong and not wrong.

1. Assume it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
2. Assume x is wrong.
3. X is wrong or not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. X is not wrong.
6. X is wrong or not wrong.
7. Contradiction.
8. It is not the case that it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
9. X is wrong or not wrong.

So basically, combining the conclusions from the first and the second, we MUST conclude that x is either wrong or not wrong, and it CAN'T be both! It's one of the two. And there MUST be some way to judge it.

Therefore, there is an objective morality.

In Europe death penalty is wrong, in the US it is not wrong. What is the absolute here?

I gave the proofs on post 457.Nope. You did not even give a clear cut definition of what "wrong" means at all. Your proof is lacking.

A or not A is the driving force of formal logic. When I gave a proof for "Wrong or not wrong" and "not both wrong and not wrong," I was only giving a proof for A or not A, and not both A and not A, which, as I said, is the driving force of formal logic.

I am not saying that all things are either wrong or right. But by virtue of the Law of the Excluded Middle, all things MUST be either wrong or not wrong.


So is sitting on a chair wrong or not wrong?

X can't be both nor neither! It's either wrong or wrong. I can prove this.

1. Assume x is both wrong and not wrong.
2. X is wrong.
3. X is not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. It is not the case that x is both wrong and not wrong.

1. Assume it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
2. Assume x is wrong.
3. X is wrong or not wrong.
4. Contradiction.
5. X is not wrong.
6. X is wrong or not wrong.
7. Contradiction.
8. It is not the case that it is not the case that x is wrong or not wrong.
9. X is wrong or not wrong.

So basically, combining the conclusions from the first and the second, we MUST conclude that x is either wrong or not wrong, and it CAN'T be both! It's one of the two. And there MUST be some way to judge it.

Therefore, there is an objective morality.

Circular reasoning. You assume there is objective morality then prove there is objective morality based on that assumption.

Again, there is no evidence of this. There is clear evidence that the Pope said that Galileo was not to advocate heliocentrism.

Yet, did the Holy Father tell Galileo to advocate the other position? It seems to me that the Holy Father desired Galileo to give an unbiased work, which seems completely reasonable to me for that particular time. They were not living in the age in which we live. They didn't know all that we know about science. At that particular time, the science in which Galileo was working was still fairly young.

It is only reasonable that the Holy Father, who at the time was the chief political figure, and responsible more or less for the stability of Europe, not to want some uppity young jackass causing all sorts of trouble with newfangled ideas.

So the Bible is sometimes wrong. Good to know.

It potentially could be, but not on matters of faith or morality.

So when the church says that personhood begins at conception. They could be wrong. Good to know.

This is not a matter of science. This is a matter of faith or morality. Personhood is not a scientific concept. It a matter of faith or morality.

Mother Church therefore says that personhood begins at conception. She says that from the moment of conception, God creates in the new child an eternal human soul, and that Jesus loves that child.

Those are not scientific concepts. Those are intrinsically matters of faith and morality.

When they say sexuality is a choice. They could be wrong. Good to know.

The Church doesn't claim that sexuality is a choice. The Church outright says in Her catechism that we have no idea what causes homosexuality. Sexuality may not be a choice.

But actually having sex is a choice, and this choice is a moral matter.

A or not A is the driving force of formal logic.

Yes, the problem here is that A is "X is wrong."

As such, it means "X is wrong" is simply not True (because it's not always true). That doesn't mean "X is not wrong" is True. The difference is obvious to anyone who understands logic.

X is not wrong <> Not X is wrong.

I know you don't see the difference, but it is not subtle in math or logic.


When I gave a proof for "Wrong or not wrong" and "not both wrong and not wrong," I was only giving a proof for A or not A, and not both A and not A, which, as I said, is the driving force of formal logic.

You misunderstand the definition of A and of A and not A. A or not A applies to true or false, not wrong or not wrong.


I am not saying that all things are either wrong or right. But by virtue of the Law of the Excluded Middle, all things MUST be either wrong or not wrong.

Nope. You're incorrect. You're misapplying it. It's a typical logical fallacy. It's called the false dilemma. That makes two logical fallacies. You got another one in your pocket.



I could answer if I understood the point you are trying to make. But if it is a statement, it is either true or false.

True or false is not the same as wrong or not wrong. This is your error. The point is that false means it has the potential to be not true. True means always true. That's why bivalence works. However when you're talking about moral absolutes, you automatically create a flaw, because it means always true or always false, which is a false dilemma.

So is sitting on a chair wrong or not wrong?

Sitting on a chair is not wrong. How is that a difficult concept?

Circular reasoning. You assume there is objective morality then prove there is objective morality based on that assumption.

Dude, I merely gave a proof of the law of the excluded middle. If you reject the proofs I gave, you reject formal logic in its totality, and if you do this, you concede that contradictions are possible, and therefore I have no reason to debate with you, especially since there is absolutely no possibility with you of having rational discussion.

Sitting on a chair is not wrong. How is that a difficult concept?

So not sitting on a chair is wrong?

Yes, the problem here is that A is "X is wrong."

As such, it means "X is wrong" is simply not True (because it's not always true). That doesn't mean "X is not wrong" is True. The difference is obvious to anyone who understands logic.

X is not wrong <> Not X is wrong.

I know you don't see the difference, but it is not subtle in math or logic.

Dude, that's complete bullshit and you know it. Absolutely anything that takes up the formal notation A or ~A is logically tautologous. If you disagree, you permit contradictions.

Dude, I merely gave a proof of the law of the excluded middle. If you reject the proofs I gave, you reject formal logic in its totality, and if you do this, you concede that contradictions are possible, and therefore I have no reason to debate with you, especially since there is absolutely no possibility with you of having rational discussion.Oh, cut the crap. You gave proof for nothing at all. What you call logic is just incoherent drooling. You cannot even sort out the proper preconditions for your little calculation. Morality is not math. Morality is bound by the boundaries of societies. Different societies define what's right and wrong differently. There is no absolute.

So not sitting on a chair is wrong?

Not sitting in the chair is not wrong either.

If you had any knowledge of formal logic, you could see how non problematic this is.

"Wrong" in this case is a predicate, not a truth value. "Sitting in chair" likewise is a predicate. So if you negate "Sitting the chair," you merely invert the truth value of that particular predicate. "Wrong" however, remains a seperate predicate, and so is independent on that negation.

Sitting in a chair and choosing not to sit are both not wrong.

Dude, I merely gave a proof of the law of the excluded middle. If you reject the proofs I gave, you reject formal logic in its totality, and if you do this, you concede that contradictions are possible, and therefore I have no reason to debate with you, especially since there is absolutely no possibility with you of having rational discussion.

Law of excluded middle only applies when one objective property is possible in the first place (for instance the light is on is possible, so the light can either be on or off is correct). But there is no proof that it is possible for an action to be objectively wrong or right.

Yet, did the Holy Father tell Galileo to advocate the other position? It seems to me that the Holy Father desired Galileo to give an unbiased work, which seems completely reasonable to me for that particular time.

He required him to not advocate a scientific position. To offer up no conclusion in a matter of science. The idea is absurd.


They were not living in the age in which we live. They didn't know all that we know about science. At that particular time, the science in which Galileo was working was still fairly young.

How is this a defense? Does that mean he SHOULDN'T practice science because the hypocrite.... I mean the Pope says so.


It is only reasonable that the Holy Father, who at the time was the chief political figure, and responsible more or less for the stability of Europe, not to want some uppity young jackass causing all sorts of trouble with newfangled ideas.

Yeah. Ideas are dangerous. Isn't that why they wanted to kill Jesus. I mean, they were right. It's only reasonable that the Holy men of the time not want some "uppity young jackass causing all sorts of trouble with newfangled ideas."

I hold that both Churches were wrong. I'm silly like that.



It potentially could be, but not on matters of faith or morality.

Good to know. Could it be wrong on what is and isn't a part of the Bible. Since that's also not a matter of faith or morality.

Meanwhile, the Church would disagree with you on what is a matter of faith. One of the objects of faith is that the Bible is infallible.



This is not a matter of science. This is a matter of faith or morality. Personhood is not a scientific concept. It a matter of faith or morality.

Wow, you're really happy to stretch definitions, no? How fun? I noticed you ignored my post demonstrating the faith of Jesus Christ and how the Church does the opposite. I guess matters of faith aren't so important to you.



Mother Church therefore says that personhood begins at conception. She says that from the moment of conception, God creates in the new child an eternal human soul, and that Jesus loves that child.

What happens at conception is a matter of science. The beginning of life is a matter of science. The Church, therefore, according to you is fallible.



Those are not scientific concepts. Those are intrinsically matters of faith and morality.

Whether something is living or not is not a matter of science? Really? Based on what?


The Church doesn't claim that sexuality is a choice. The Church outright says in Her catechism that we have no idea what causes homosexuality. Sexuality may not be a choice.

It hasn't held that position all throughout history now has it. Meanwhile, so you're saying that people are going to Hell for God making them wrong.



But actually having sex is a choice, and this choice is a moral matter.

The Church has in the past openly condemned homosexuality. Not the acts. Homosexuality is just attraction.

Not sitting in the chair is not wrong either.

If you had any knowledge of formal logic, you could see how non problematic this is.

"Wrong" in this case is a predicate, not a truth value. "Sitting in chair" likewise is a predicate. So if you negate "Sitting the chair," you merely invert the truth value of that particular predicate. "Wrong" however, remains a seperate predicate, and so is independent on that negation.

Sitting in a chair and choosing not to sit are both not wrong.

Show that something can be objectively wrong.

Dude, that's complete bullshit and you know it. Absolutely anything that takes up the formal notation A or ~A is logically tautologous. If you disagree, you permit contradictions.

You don't get it. You really should reapply yourself to understanding logic.

I'm saying A or not A. You are the one misapplying that to mean wrong or not wrong. By definition A is not wrong and Not A is wrong are not equal. You are creating a false dichotomy.

For example, if I say x = 0 is a given, A, then if you show that x is ever not 0 then you've demonstrated not A.

So not (x=0) is true. However, x is not zero is not true. See the difference.

Show that something can be objectively wrong.In math it can, because in math "wrong" means "not true". In morality it only means "ought not be done".

St. Paul sayeth so here in Corinthians 12:27. (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=12&l=27&f=s#x)

"Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member."

And to Timothy in the first letter, chapter 3, verse 15. (http://drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm)

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

And Our Lord sayeth it to His Apostles those first Bishops of the Church, in Luke 10:16. (http://drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm)

"He that heareth you, heareth me."

Darn, I forgot all about this. Anyways, you aren't proving much. One of them details rules for bishops and neophytes only. The others don't seem to say that only one type of sex is possible. Perhaps I missed something, which wouldn't actually surprise me: reading through long passages of the bible is not my idea of a good time.

Show that something can be objectively wrong.

I think you have all missed the boat. You aren't disagreeing with "wrong or not wrong." You are disagreeing with the possibility of anything being wrong.

That doesn't go against the dichotomy that I've said. If everything is not wrong, then everything is still wrong or not wrong.

So, I really don't have to prove that anything can be objectively wrong. The point does remain, however, that if we disagree about the point, then there must be some way of determining whether it is or isn't.

Thus, there must be some universal standard.

In math it can, because in math "wrong" means "not true". In morality it only means "ought not be".

yeah, hes mixing up true and false with morally wrong and right.

You don't get it. You really should reapply yourself to understanding logic.

I'm saying A or not A. You are the one misapplying that to mean wrong or not wrong. By definition A is not wrong and Not A is wrong are not equal. You are creating a false dichotomy.

For example, if I say x = 0 is a given, A, then if you show that x is ever not 0 then you've demonstrated not A.

So not (x=0) is true. However, x is not zero is not true. See the difference.


Ah, I think I see your objection. Just out of curiosity, do you fall under the constructionist school of logical philosophy?

yeah, hes mixing up true and false with morally wrong and right.

And, of course, leaving out the "neither right nor wrong" category.

I think you have all missed the boat. You aren't disagreeing with "wrong or not wrong." You are disagreeing with the possibility of anything being wrong.

That doesn't go against the dichotomy that I've said. If everything is not wrong, then everything is still wrong or not wrong.

So, I really don't have to prove that anything can be objectively wrong. The point does remain, however, that if we disagree about the point, then there must be some way of determining whether it is or isn't.

Thus, there must be some universal standard.

If it's not possible for something to be wrong. Something can only be not wrong, and can't be wrong or not wrong.

yeah, hes mixing up true and false with morally wrong and right.

I never said "morally wrong or right." I said "wrong or not wrong." You made the jump.

If it's not possible for something to be wrong. Something can only be not wrong, and can't be wrong or not wrong.

You understand that the logical "or" only means that one of the two is true, yes?

yeah, hes mixing up true and false with morally wrong and right.Wrong is a matter of perspective in every single instance. That's why there are laws and courts. Because what's right and wrong is obviously NOT absolute and thus self-evident.

I never said "morally wrong or right." I said "wrong or not wrong." You made the jump.

Then it's totally irellavent. Wern't you asked to prove that there is objective morality?

Wrong is a matter of perspective in every single instance. That's why there are laws and courts. Because what's right and wrong is obviously NOT absolute and thus self-evident.

If wrong is soley a matter of perspective in every single instance, then there should be no laws or courts, because laws and courts themselves enforce some held standard of right or wrong. Your argument is self defeating, comrade.

If wrong is soley a matter of perspective in every single instance, then there should be no laws or courts, because laws and courts themselves enforce some held standard of right or wrong. Your argument is self defeating, comrade.

Why is it selfdefeating ? There is no reason to require that the standard the court adheres to is objectively right. It just is the one society has decided to adopt.

You understand that the logical "or" only means that one of the two is true, yes?

Yes. But the box (for instance) can't have positive dimensions or negative dimensions and exist, since the second is impossible. Thus that means the box can only have positive dimensions.

Heterosexual, married sterile people can have sex, so long as they do it in the normal way, without contraceptives. Even married sterile couples can't use contraceptives, nor can they do oral or anal. The act must be open to life.

But that isn't open to life. It cannot produce life. Do you understand what sterile means?

Ah, I think I see your objection. Just out of curiosity, do you fall under the constructionist school of logical philosophy?

I fall under the "I think for myself" school of philosophy. I think attempting to ascribe any kind of a label regarding people's views or means of deconstructing the world is almost always going to prove a mistake.

So, I really don't have to prove that anything can be objectively wrong. The point does remain, however, that if we disagree about the point, then there must be some way of determining whether it is or isn't.

Thus, there must be some universal standard.There only must be some universal standard of morality if morality is objective. You are putting the cart before the horse.