Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

dyslexia wrote:

the only theologically sustainable thesis that can be put forward by the holy roman church (or any other of the abrahamic dogmas) is that essense preceeds existence, all else falls to the side of argumentative discourse of interpretation. if you wished a conversation on the above thesis, there just might be some interesting dialogue, until then you are just pissing in the wind.

I guess I'll have to continue pissing in the wind. Smile

0 Replies

maliagar,

My arguments with your posts have nothing to do with secularism. They are rebuttals of some easy-to-carp posts of yours and I never identified myself as a secularist.

So, out with your rebuttal already. I'm not here to listen to your rants and generalizations about secular thinking.

I am here to be amused at watching you defend yours.

Please do so.

0 Replies

Man, you're sensitive...

If you're an atheist, then you are by definition a secularist. And some atheists/secularists believe they are the only ones coming up with solid rational arguments. Smile

Sorry pal. I won't be able to amuse you tonight. Blame it on the computer. You can read Thomas Aquinas if you want to have a good laugh. Just let me give you some hints, though: You used "natural" as meaning "animal", and I used "natural" meaning human nature.

And human nature is essentially biological, psychological, moral, social, cultural, and political. And the fullfillment of human nature's potentialities (happiness) requires that we avoid behaviors that curtail and blunt its development. Human nature requires the avoidance of self-centered behavior.

There are many ways of grounding morality, and the axiomatic way is the least promising (for the code you propose, as well as for the code I propose). There are other ways. Study Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntire.

Take care.

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar,

My arguments with your posts have nothing to do with secularism. They are rebuttals of some easy-to-carp posts of yours and I never identified myself as a secularist.

So, out with your rebuttal already. I'm not here to listen to your rants and generalizations about secular thinking.

I am here to be amused at watching you defend yours.

Please do so.

0 Replies

Was that a escape hatch I just saw open and shut? c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Was that a escape hatch I just saw open and shut? c.i.

The only escape hatch I've heard sounded something like "Help me, Frank!!!!!!" Laughing

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Man, you're sensitive...

Yes yes, and I bruise easily and such.

maliagar wrote:

The point still holds: some people believe they are the only ones coming up with solid rational arguments.

Quite right. And this is sometimes something I am guilty of. This, however, is a case in which I think many are coming up with rational arguments and one person, yourself, is not.

How would your above statement relate to your take on the situation? Are your statements rational? While those of others not? ;-)

maliagar wrote:

Sorry pal. I won't be able to amuse you tonight. Blame it on the computer.

I shall, I'll even use colorful labuage.

maliagar wrote:

You can read Thomas Aquinas if you want to have a good laugh.

I am not a big fan of the "read this tome" line of argument but thanks anyway.

maliagar wrote:

Just let me give you some hints, though: You used "natural" as meaning "animal", and I used "natural" meaning human nature.

Likewise a hint: An appeal to nature does not have to be restricted to humans or animals. It is an argument based on the premise that a certain allegation (in this case that homosexuality is against "human nature") translates into another value laden axiom (in this case that homosexuality is bad).

That you choose to now attach your argument to human nature greatly facilitates the argument against it. You now add as enemy to your argument the challenge of quantifying human nature. This is not an exact science and relying on it can make it hard to acieve rational basis for your claim. This is gonna be a hard case for you to make.

But like I said earlier teh first part is easy, the hard part is when you decide to employ the argumentum ad antiquitatem or the appeal to nature.

Your goal was not to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, you stated that it was wrong. So beyond the hurdle of illustrating how it is, as you say, "against human nature" you face the next hurdle. You must then illustrate how something that is against human nature is wrong. Otherwise your appeal to nature (or, if you choose the argumentum ad antiquitatem route) become a naturalistic fallacy. You will have tried to connect axioms. And worse yet, some of the most controversial one (and ones hardest to argue).

maliagar wrote:

And human nature is essentially biological, psychological, moral, social, cultural, and political. And the fullfillment of human nature's potentialities (happiness) requires that we avoid behaviors that curtail and blunt its development. Human nature requires the avoidance of self-centered behavior.

Please fulfill the stated argument that homosexuality is wrong. This fails to even broach the subject.

maliagar wrote:

There are many ways of grounding morality, and the axiomatic way is the least promising (for the code you propose, as well as for the code I propose). There are other ways. Study Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntire.

There are indeed. And that's why it's fun to discuss. But again, I am not a fan of "read this tome" arguments. It's an altogether too common cop-out in unregulated debate and in a more structured medium you'd not get away with it. I appreciate teh suggestion, but ultimately we are discussing your contention that homosexuality is wrong. Not my reading list. So I hope your computer improves soon (if you need help post to the computer forum, I try to answer as many of those as I can) and I'll wait for your completion of the "homosexuality is wrong" argument.

0 Replies

I never said, "help me, Frank." You did. c.i.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I think many are coming up with rational arguments and one person, yourself, is not.

If I were not producing arguments, nobody would be paying attention to what I say. But you guys so desperately want to "prove" me wrong... Smile

Quote:

How would your above statement relate to your take on the situation? Are your statements rational? While those of others not? ;-)

I haven't said that other people's statements are not rational. What I've said is that they are also guided by their secular faiths. You see, faith and reason usually work together. This applies for Christians as well as for atheists.

Quote:

I am not a big fan of the "read this tome" line of argument but thanks anyway.

It is a weak argument, but it's better than nothing when you're in a hurry, and when you've lost a long argument due to computer problems. And plus, we are not inventing the wheel here. All the arguments we use here have been in one way or another better presented by professional philosophers. I'm under the impression that you care for the truth, and a proof of it is the willingness to read the best philosophers of the other side.

Quote:

premise that a certain allegation (in this case that homosexuality is against "human nature") translates into another value laden axiom (in this case that homosexuality is bad).

Of course. Everything that we shouldn't be doing is "bad". Then the question is why we shouldn't be doing it. Why shouldn't we inject heroin in our veins? Why should sexuality be kept within the context of marital love, instead of turning it into a self-recreational sport? When we realize to what extent these practices impoverish our lives (or lead us in that direction), then we see that we shouldn't be doing them (if we want to live fulfilled, happy lives). They are, therefore, "bad", "wrong", etc. They go against happiness understood as human fulfillment (not as a transitory feeling).

This is why I sustain that homosexuality is wrong.

So, you see, I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong because it violates some axiomatic code hanging in there. I'm saying it is wrong because of its negative consequences when it comes to the fulfillment of human nature (individually and socially). That's how religions come up with moral codes: Not out of nowhere, as so many outsiders seem to believe, but out of a deep understanding of human nature. That is why all the major historical religions agree on morality. Even a non-theistic religion such as Buddhism is against homosexuality.

Quote:

You now add as enemy to your argument the challenge of quantifying human nature.

It is not a matter of quantification. Human nature is not to be defined by what a majority does. A minority can have a better grasp of that nature.

Quote:

You must then illustrate how something that is against human nature is wrong.

I just did. And my starting point is the notion of human fulfillment (which is not a subjective, emotional, relativistic notion).

Quote:

again, I am not a fan of "read this tome" arguments. It's an altogether too common cop-out in unregulated debate and in a more structured medium you'd not get away with it.

Certainly. But again, if you really care about the truth, I'm sure you won't mind being exposed to Christian philosophy.

Quote:

So I hope your computer improves soon...

I had been writing for too long, and got disconnected from the forum. And what I wrote was not saved anywere. Next time I'll save on the clipboard.

However, my main argument has already been presented.

Take care.

0 Replies

God isn't dead, he just doesn't give a crap.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

If I were not producing arguments, nobody would be paying attention to what I say. But you guys so desperately want to "prove" me wrong...

You contend that homosexuality is wrong. I'm discussing ot with you. Proving you wrong is not a big deal or anything worth getting desperate about.

'Tis just discussion, that it is and nithing more...

maliagar wrote:

I haven't said that other people's statements are not rational. What I've said is that they are
Quote:
also guided by their secular faiths
. You see, faith and reason usually work together. This applies for Christians as well as for atheists.

I disagree that it is relevant to the contention about homosexuality being wrong.

maliagar wrote:

It is a weak argument, but it's better than nothing when you're in a hurry, and when you've lost a long argument due to computer problems. And plus, we are not inventing the wheel here. All the arguments we use here have been in one way or another better presented by professional philosophers. I'm under the impression that you care for the truth, and a proof of it is the willingness to read the best philosophers of the other side.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like to read. But here on this forum I'm far more interested in what you have to say.

maliagar wrote:

Of course. Everything that we shouldn't be doing is "bad".

You've already changed it. And still the initial hurdles are not cleared. You have not yet illustrated that homosexuality is against himan nature, nor have you made the connection between that axiom and the allegation that homosexuality is wrong or a "shouldn't".

maliagar wrote:

Then the question is why we shouldn't be doing it.

I know, I'm hoping for clarification on this. Why shouldn't homosexuality sex take place?

maliagar wrote:

Why shouldn't we inject heroin in our veins? Why should sexuality be kept within the context of marital love, instead of turning it into a self-recreational sport?

Ok, maybe good for another few topics but I'm still curious about the "homosexuality is wrong" one.

maliagar wrote:

When we realize to what extent these practices impoverish our lives (or lead us in that direction).

Please illutarte how this is true.

maliagar wrote:

then we see that we shouldn't be doing them (if we want to live fulfilled, happy lives).

This is the next thing to illustrate, after the first allegation is solidified.

maliagar wrote:

They are, therefore, "bad", "wrong", etc. They go against happiness understood as human fulfillment (not as a transitory feeling).

So if homosexuals feel happiness through fulfillment then homosexuality is right?

maliagar wrote:

So, you see, I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong because it violates some axiomatic code hanging in there. I'm saying it is wrong because of its negative consequences when it comes to the fulfillment of human nature (individually and socially).

Ok, I hear you. But what are these oft mentioned, never elaborated "negative consequences"? And since living a life inevitably includes "negative consequences" why are these in particular ones that should be avoided? It's a case I've been interested in seeing you make.

maliagar wrote:

It is not a matter of quantification. Human nature is not to be defined by what a majority does. A minority can have a better grasp of that nature.

I think you misunderstood me, I did not phrase it well. I am asking you to illustrate how homosexuality is against human nature. I do believe the homosexual minority has a better grasp on that nature than you or I and i think it will be a difficult argument for you to make.

maliagar wrote:

I just did. And my starting point is the notion of human fulfillment (which is not a subjective, emotional, relativistic notion).

Where? I did not even see an attempt.

maliagar wrote:

Certainly. But again, if you really care about the truth, I'm sure you won't mind being exposed to Christian philosophy.

I agree. I am well versed in Christian philosopy. I used to disseminate it.

maliagar wrote:

I had been writing for too long, and got disconnected from the forum. And what I wrote was not saved anywere. Next time I'll save on the clipboard.

Aha, happens to the best of us. [action] copying before I post [/action]

0 Replies

As I see maliagar's position, he draws the entirety of his argument from his rote acceptance of the tenets of a particular Christian sect. Any superstition is as valid as the next, I suppose. Metaphysics, however disguised, neither offers nor submits to objective argument. And yes, maliagar, I've read Aquinas. In Latin ... under the stern eyes and stout sticks of Jesuits. I sense too that I have read far more broadly and deeply than have you into the history, derivation, and permutations of the Graeco-Syrian Judaic sect which, over roughly a millenia, evolved into what is now known as The Holy Roman Catholic Church ... an entity roughly contemporaneous with, though not particularly related to, the Norman Conquest of Britain.
The Shism of 1054 CE (essentially a flap over a single word. "filioque", added then to the Nicene Creed, which since 325 CE had been the prime statement of Christian Theology) is the proximate origin of The Roman Catholic Church, and of the Primacy of The Pope. The basis of the Schism was the addition, by Pope Leo IX, one of a council of five essentially coequal leaders of The Church, of that one word to the Creed which had united Christianity since Constantine (himself an Eastern, not Roman, emperor ... Constantinople, remember) called the Council at Nicea. The paragraph in question refered to the Holy Spirit and decreed in the original that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is glorified together with the Father and the Son. Leo IX added the word "filioque", which changed the meaning to: "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son". This change of one word brought serious ramifications as to the nature of the Son and the Trinity itself, reverting to considerations of "heresies" past, as Arianism, Monothelitism and others. Leo IX declared the other four heads of the church in error and assumed the position that his church, in the altered Creed, carried the correct interpretation of Christianity, and further that he, as head of The Correct, Universal (katolicos), True Church, was alone the appointed and annointed ambassador of God The Trinity to the world of man. As a fair number of secular leaders, possesed of armies, went along, Leo IX prevailed, and as it was his brand of Christianity that those leaders, primarily European, flogged to their subjects, we come to The Church we know today

Not that the foregoing has anything to do with canonical approbation of non-traditional sexual preference. Rather, it is meant to call to question your assertion of there being One True Church. What today is known as The Roman Catholic Church essentially is the invention of an Eleventh Century ecclesistical despot who marshalled more political clout than did his rivals.
.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

And my starting point is the notion of human fulfillment (which is not a subjective, emotional, relativistic notion).

According to what empircal, quantifiable, reproducible data?
I see in your assertion a problem similar to the inherent flaw which negates Aquinas' "Proof"; it procedes from and depends upon an assumption neither proven nor proveable. Aquinas' proof will only work in a universe which requires there be a diety, your assumption requires all our notions of fulfillment be congruent with your own. That strikes me as hubris.

'

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Maliagar
You can PROVE there is but one church!!!!!!!!! I'd love to see you attempt that!

Man, it seems to me that people are not really reading what I write... Or perhaps I'm assuming that they know at least something about Christianity when they really don't.

The point is very simple. Christ founded but one Church. That Church is still around. It is the Catholic Church.

1) I know a great deal about Catholicism - and I am very well versed in almost all aspects of the history of Christianity. Don't fret on that accout.

2) If you are going to write about "Christ founded but one Church" -- write about "Christ founded but one Church." If you are going to say that you "can prove there IS but one church" -- understand that you will be asked to do so. My comment in that regard had nothing to do with whether or not I know something about Christianity. (But that was a good line. I like to jab once in a while, and it is nice to know you understand how that works.)

Quote:

If you don't believe me, go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (which is no official publication of the Catholic Church). Then read 1st, 2nd, 3d, and 4th century Christian authors to see if they were affiliated to different "Christian" churches, or just to the One and Only.

Hummm...where do you suppose the Encyclopedia Britannica got the information they offer in their sections on Jesus and "the Church he established?" Surely they didn't send reporters back in time. And are you supposing they are offering what they have as a fact that it happened - or are they reporting what the Bible says happened?

The Encyclopedia Britannica bit, Maliagar, is what is known as a red herring. Nice try. No cigar!

And as for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christian authors, I would say a couple of things:

1) There were schisms right from the start -- and even Peter and Paul disagreed on significant aspects of the new religion (note: singular). The early Christian authors also disagreed on substantial issues.

Today, the issues and disagreements are more pronounced -- and the notion of what a "church" is has become more flexible.

I could, if pressed, present an argument that there actually is but ONE Christian church with Catholicism as but one part. I would argue that the one church is fractured and branched. But a tree is still a tree -- no matter if its main trunk branches and no matter how many limbs it develops. (Of course for obvious reasons, that argument was not easily available to you when I challenged your ability to "prove" there is but one church..)

Bottom line: There seems to be no way the Encyclopedia Britannica, Maliagar, or anyone else to KNOW that Jesus actually intended to start a church, let alone just one church -- EXCEPT BY SIMPLY BLINDLY BELIEVING IT. Which is to say: All indications are that you are just guessing that Jesus intended to start a church; that he intended the church always to be one; and that the branches of this particular tree somehow actually are not part of the tree.

Quote:

From this One Church all the other broke away. Hence, the Catholic Church is the most ancient, most authoritative Christian body.

That I will buy (in fact I just mentioned that up above) -- but that was not what you argued originally -- so naturally I had to respond to what you originally argued - that there was but one church.

Quote:

If you think that I don't know there are Protestant churches around, you must have a very funny idea of who you're talking to.

I have no idea of who you are -- although I compliment you on your ability to use this forum with the facility you show so quickly.

Quote:

Quote:
Read the record yourself. Open that Encyclopedia of yours to the section titled "Martin Luther" or "Henry XIII."

I suppose you meant Henry VIII (I guess this was a typo... or perhaps lazy writing?)

Not a typo at all - just lazy writing! I should have checked. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It will help keep me on my toes, and I suspect being on my toes will be important in this discussion. You are very good at this.

Quote:

Quote:
I maintain that damn near everything you are saying about the Catholic Church ... IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN YOUR BELIEFS.

"Near everything"? That is a very bold assertion. Can you be a bit more specific? Why do you maintain this? What are your BELIEFS regarding Christianity and the Church?

I think that was very, very specific -- "damn near everything."

If you have anything of substance to your general theme that you think is not the result of a belief -- blind acceptance of something you do not know -- emphasize it and I will either indicate why I think it to be blind acceptance or acknowledge it to be knowledge.

Quote:

Maybe I can help you clarify your beliefs...

As I said, I will not express any beliefs here -- so I will not need any help clarifying them.

PERSONAL NOTE: I am delighted you are here. Catholics take a beating in these forums -- and even I, an agnostic, have been reduced at times to defending certain Catholic positions for want of someone else to do so. I hope you stick around.

0 Replies

What is most telling to me is Maliagar's inability to relate to human experience and, worse (in my view), draw on his/her own experience. It's all rote (as Timber, I think, pointed out). It all comes out of a text somewhere, articulate but disturbingly disassociated and ultimately sad and boring.

0 Replies

maliagar, I'll be the first to admit I'm not a student of the bible, but please show us where in the bible in support of any Pope? You claim Peter was the first Pope who established the Catholic Church, but he couldn't be a Pope, because he was married. See Cor 9:5. Isn't it true that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope cannot be married? Who made that rule? Where in the bible does it say that? It seems to me that all the Catholic Church's rules are man-made rules, and not the word of god from the bible. c.i.

0 Replies

c.i.

The celibacy of the (Roman Catholic) clergy wasn't decided before the 13th century (Lateran Councils), while the R.C. thinks the prove that Christ constituted St. Peter as head of the church is to found in the two Petrine texts Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

0 Replies

Walter, Here's Matthew 16:17-19. "17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

What I read from these passages is " and upon this rock I will build my church,...." It says nothing about Peter being the first Pope. c.i.

0 Replies

As for John 21:15-17, I'll only provide the following link. http://www.isv.org/musings/musing11.htm
c.i.

0 Replies

Well that's the way religion goes: some don't belief this, others do.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar wrote:
If I were not producing arguments, nobody would be paying attention to what I say. But you guys so desperately want to "prove" me wrong...

You contend that homosexuality is wrong. I'm discussing ot with you. Proving you wrong is not a big deal or anything worth getting desperate about.

Sure.

maliagar wrote:

I haven't said that other people's statements are not rational. What I've said is that they are also guided by their secular faiths. You see, faith and reason usually work together. This applies for Christians as well as for atheists.

Quote:

I disagree that it is relevant to the contention about homosexuality being wrong.

Oh, it is very relevant. It means that all of us (those who think homosexuality is wrong, and those who think it is great) are influenced by more or less "arbitrary"personal choices, acts of "blind" faith, decisions to put our trust here and not there. And if this is true, then there is no point in disqualifying a Christian argument because of the acts of faith it may involve. All the other arguments are also "tainted" with (i'd prefer guided by) faith. Those who believe there is no God are as faith-driven as devout Muslims. I've said this several times already: Fath is an inescapable fact of life.

maliagar wrote:

Of course. Everything that we shouldn't be doing is "bad".

Quote:

You've already changed it.

Did I? But that shouldn't matter, right? 'Cause these discussions are useful to clarify and better situate the issue, right?

Quote:

You have not yet illustrated that homosexuality is against himan nature, nor have you made the connection between that axiom and the allegation that homosexuality is wrong or a "shouldn't".

I have, and I won't repeat myself. Maybe you should read my message carefully. Or refute it.

Quote:

Why shouldn't homosexuality sex take place?

Because it involves a limitation of the human potential (biologically, emotionally, socially) in one of its most essential expressions: sexuality. You want illustration? Here it goes: Homosexuals cut themselves from the experience (and personal challenge) of a physical, emotional, intimate, committed, and lasting relationship with the opposite sex. Homosexuality is usually the result of a solidified inability to deal with the opposite sex on an intimate level. Homosexuals take the easy route and indulge in their own limitations (and even self-destructive feelings). Those who indulge in these fears and limitations end up avoiding the real experience (and challenge) of parenthood, which for the wife is intensely physical, and for the husband a total challenge for his capacity to feel empathy for his wife. It is not surprising that psychologists often detect higher levels of infantilism / immaturity among homosexuals. Homosexuality is often the result of a psychological-emotional limitation (or worse, of confusion and seduction at a sensitive time in a teen's life). Homosexuals cut themselves of the social aspects of marital and family life. They are usually forced (or choose to) live a promiscuous life.

Now, of course, you may ask: "Why is this wrong?" Why should we strive to live fulfilled lives? After all, we can always indulge our limitations and lowly desires and "not worry, be happy". We don't need society, children, the opposite sex, to be happy, right? Wrong.

maliagar wrote:

Why shouldn't we inject heroin in our veins? Why should sexuality be kept within the context of marital love, instead of turning it into a self-recreational sport?

Quote:

Ok, maybe good for another few topics but I'm still curious about the "homosexuality is wrong" one.

No, those are not "other" topics. I'm sure you know what "reasoning by analogy" means. Or you are among those who BELIEVE that mathematical reasoning is the only way to go?

Quote:

So if homosexuals feel happiness through fulfillment then homosexuality is right?

This comment leads me to believe that you are not reading my messages carefully. I already explained this.

Quote:

since living a life inevitably includes "negative consequences" why are these in particular ones that should be avoided?

That's a more interesting question. To come up with the answer, think about this: Not all "negative consequences" are equally rooted in our essential selves. Some are more fundamental (graver) than others.

Quote:

I do believe the homosexual minority has a better grasp on that nature...

I wonder why you have such a strange belief. There are all kinds of homosexuals, and I doubt that you can generalize about their grasp of human nature.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know