Tawi wrote:Hey Jd-
Here's a Catholic response to your post -
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_f ... gs_of.html.
However, Scott Hahn's book, "A father who keeps his promises", is credited for explaining this issue the best in the Catholic community.
There are a lot of atheistic arguments that can stump protestant Christians, be it about creationism or what-not. Catholics however, are a very different case. Now this is the part where I get a bit cocky, but this is an issue I really want to land-on here. I've been getting the idea that skeptics sweep Catholicism and Protestantism under one umbrella. While we are both Christians, there is a big difference between us. Now of course, this is the
Catholic view on things, if another Protestant Christian would want to speak up against this part, go ahead.
I don't aim to be mean, but... I can't believe I wasted my time reading that trite. If you want to retort my post, you better do it yourself, because that link was simply an exercise in circular logic that was more disturbing in its agenda to avoid reality than it was in its very laughable and failed attempt to enlighten. You have to understand that
saying something does not make it true. Indulging in such extensive circular logic does not change the fact that it is circular logic.
As for those condescending remarks toward other Christians: Catholics are more stubborn than Protestants--not more wise or more informed. From my experience, they, more so than any other, tend to indulge in mass delusions and refuse to acknowledge any other worldview and, when challenged, tend to use misdirection to avoid considering any sort of actual facts or evidence. Catholics, for example, continue to respect and worship a Pope that deliberately and systematically covers up the rape of young children and threatens anyone wanting to come forward with full excommunication. That's a holy man if I've ever seen one (no sarcasm, actually). And thanks to his stance on contraception, there will be more death on his hands by the time he dies than any mass murderer in history, and the body count will continue to rise long after he's dead. The Catholic Church could use its influence for good for once if they would stop living in the Dark Ages.
If the link you provided is an meant to serve as an example of how Catholics are superior to Protestants in debate... I can only submit this instance as evidence of my theory that Catholics tend to be far more convinced of their own eminence than any other religious group I've come across.
If you want a debate, respond to every bit of my former post in detail, point by point, with no outside links. Quotes from links are fine, but linking to outside articles that retain only a cursory bearing on the subject at hand is not. I will not respond to any further post of yours, including one replying to what I've said above in this post, until my original post is addressed because it feels as if you are completely avoiding the issue throughout this topic. You aren't actually responding to anything and instead are just making excuses from start to finish. Actively avoiding every criticism and only "directly" responding to what you feel is something you can defend without relying on specifics makes your argument weaker, not stronger. I don't have time to run in circles with you--I leave the circular logic to the apologists, because they've made an art form out of avoiding reality.PhoenixTears wrote:Maybe I won't change your mind (and you definitely won't change mine), but telling me I'm wrong but not being able to explain why does nothing to endear me to your cause (not that anything you say could, to be perfectly honest; I will never have a problem with homosexuality). But just take that as a general statement. Nobody is going to listen to you if you can't explain to them why you think they're wrong.
The problem with such believers, Tears, is that they know they know they can't convince anyone else because what they are saying is worth nothing to anyone that isn't already taken in by the act. Instead, when they get into these debates, they spend the entire time trying to continue to reinforce their own convictions to essentially convince themselves, not someone else. It's sad, but it's true, and I think if people read this topic from start to finish, they'll see exactly what I mean.
Let's let Carl Sagan sum it up rather succintly:
"You can’t convince a believer of anything, for their belief is not based on evidence—it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe."BK201 wrote:I think this thread should be closed. We're getting off-topic... And the catholic and bible thing'ies kinda offEnd me (I'm a catholic after all...)... D: D:
I don't think that is going to happen, because it's exactly the stigma toward discussing issues like this that leads to them taking so long to meet change. There's nothing offensive about homosexuality, and if people weren't saying the Bible was justified in outlawing it, the Bible would not come up. Once the Bible is no longer considered on this subject (as I hope will be reality some day), you won't have to worry anymore.
dilbertschalter wrote:I agree with this, but I do think you have to be very careful about context. Your quote about Jesus, for example, isn't really someone taking a stand on the issue of slavery- it's part of broad encouragement of obedience to authority. That Jesus was like 99% of people who lived during his time doesn't make following certain moral prescriptions he made a bad thing in and of itself. It's like viewing Jeffferson, Madison, Washingston, etc; as incredibly evil because they supported slavery. I don't deny that such support was bad (and led to bad things down in the future), but it was a product of their times and it also doesn't simply negate the worthwhile things they had to say. I understand that your actual point is about how quotes like these show that rigidly adhering to the exact words of a document that is a couple thousand years old is unwise (very true!), but I think the context still is relevant.
The founding fathers example really is excellent, but to that I
would add that none of them were meant to be divine and are not considered as such. Jesus is meant to be the lord and savior that died for our sins--he was meant to be divine according to the Bible, not just a man. I do think it is important to be mindful of the context as well, but I also do not want the context to become an
excuse for the faithful to fall back on when cornered (I think you know what I mean).
I have to go back there. As much as I would love to debate in this thread this shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. To have feelings of dislike or hate towards a group of people, gender, sex, age or w/e is wrong. I feel if you oppose homosexuality even if you keep it in your head you're wrong. There is no good reason to do so. To use religious texts is like using quotes from harry potter as evidence. Dumbledore was homosexual! lol
