Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

CerealKiller wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I intend to stick with "I do not know -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to point me in any particular direction" for now -- and if this ever changes, I suspect it will change because of something so universal, everyone will change at the same time -- because the answer will be specific.

I don't think that will ever happen -- but that is just a guess.

I know exactly where you are coming from because I once held similar views. I have come to learn that although men and women are commanded to believe and will be held accountable for unbelief, genuine faith is never exclusively a matter of human decision."

I sincerely thank you for your response here, Cereal, but to be honest, I'm not really sure of what you are trying to say.

"Genuine faith"???

"Faith" is simply an insistence that a guess (belief) is correct.

I understand theists try to make it a virtue -- but it isn't. It is bullheadedness, plain and simple.

A belief is a guess/estimate/supposition about the unknown.

"I believe there is a God!" is an example of a belief.

"Faith" is inisting that guess is correct, even though there is absolutely no logical reason to susect that it is to the exclusion of its opposite.

You theist folks are stuck with "faith" because that is all you've got. There is no other way to come to your God or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy -- except by faith.

And, as folks are wont to do, you all try to put the best possible face on your situation. But the hard truth is -- "faith" is nothing more than a crutch which allows you to hold onto "beliefs" that are, if examined, absurd.

If you truly once held views similar to mine and now are a theist dealing with beliefs (guesses) and faith (insistence in those guesses) -- life has dealt you some very lousy cards.

I'd toss them in and get back to holding views similar to mine once again. It is the logical thing to do.

0 Replies

I love it -- prove an egg isn't an egg by seperating the yoke from the white. Someone's idea of semantics is right out of a cocked hat.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

maliagar wrote:
this would "prove" that there are no universal truths.
It does so to my satisfaction.

Not to my satisfaction though. For one thing is the objective truth value of a statement, and another the subjective conditions that enable us to recognize it or reject it. You believe that our diverse subjective abilities to see or not see the truth are enough to prove that truth does not exist. To me, those diverse abilities just prove that daltonism, blindness, and other disabilities are part of the human condition.

timberlandko wrote:

maliagar wrote:
Faith is the act by which we choose a trustworthy foundation upon which to build a meaningful existence in this world. Some choose Christianity, others hedonist atheism, others secularist agnosticism, others a political understanding of justice (which leads to social activism), others Buddhism, etc.

Superstition is the belief that, whatever the hidden source of good, truth, and beauty may be, we can grab it in our hands, possess it, make it ours, force it to work in our favor.

I would submit that your brief discourse equates the terms as opposed to differentiates between them. Faith relies upon a "hidden source", by your own admission, just as you describe superstition. The two are not separate, or distinct, but the same, and cannot be proven otherwise.

Not true. I'm saying that they are two different human acts. With faith, we put ourselves "in the hands" of a foundation that is larger than us. We don't own it; we are owned by it. We adjust our lives to the ultimate ends it proposes. With superstition, we seek to control, to own, to manipulate, to possess, to use "it" for our own very concrete ends.

Quote:

I gotta say I admire your tenacity ... you are if nothing else indefatigable ... :wink:

That's because I can be a bit patient... :wink:

Hope this helps.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Not true. I'm saying that they are two different human acts. With faith, we put ourselves "in the hands" of a foundation that is larger than us. We don't own it; we are owned by it.

I guess that is why they call you folks "sheep" and the people who are telling you where to go "shepherds" -- right?

By the way, Maliagar, there is still a discussion outstanding between us.

You have asserted that the Catholic Church should be the one interpreting what biblical passages mean and do not mean -- and that they Catholic Church can be counted upon to do a reasonable interpretation of biblical passages. You indicated that the Catholic Church takes all those difficult passages I've mentioned and posted -- and integrates them into a "holistic" view of the Bible. Supposedly, according to you, the Church explains each and every difficult passage away with logic and reason.

I assert that the Catholic Church simply disregards difficult passages -- and cannot be counted on to do a reasonable and logical interpretation of the Bible. I assert there is no "holistic" approach -- there is simply avoidance and denial of any passages that don't say what the Catholic Church wants them to say -- of which might cause embarrassment for the Church.

I've posted a list of several relevant passages on slavery from both the Old and New Testaments -- and posted the entire of the Church's Catechism teachings on the issue of slavery.

The difficult passages are completely ignored and disregarded except for one -- which is distorted. In effect, the catechism simply asserts that slavery is sinful -- a sin against the Seventh Commandment (Thou shall not steal) -- AND DISREGARDS ALL THE DIFFICULT PASSAGES.

That vindicates my position.

Why don't we discuss that? It could be interesting.

0 Replies

Saint Thomas Aquinas on a certain type of blindness - Summa Theologica

Whether blindness of mind and dulness of sense arise from sins of the flesh?

Objection 1. It would seem that blindness of mind and dulness of sense do not arise from sins of the flesh. For Augustine (Retract. i, 4) retracts what he had said in his Soliloquies i, 1, "God Who didst wish none but the clean to know the truth," and says that one might reply that "many, even those who are unclean, know many truths." Now men become unclean chiefly by sins of the flesh. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are not caused by sins of the flesh.

Objection 2. Further, blindness of mind and dulness of sense are defects in connection with the intellective part of the soul: whereas carnal sins pertain to the corruption of the flesh. But the flesh does not act on the soul, but rather the reverse. Therefore the sins of the flesh do not cause blindness of mind and dulness of sense.

Objection 3. Further, all things are more passive to what is near them than to what is remote. Now spiritual vices are nearer the mind than carnal vices are. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are caused by spiritual rather than by carnal vices.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that dulness of sense arises from gluttony and blindness of mind from lust.

I answer that, The perfect intellectual operation in man consists in an abstraction from sensible phantasms, wherefore the more a man's intellect is freed from those phantasms, the more thoroughly will it be able to consider things intelligible, and to set in order all things sensible. Thus Anaxagoras stated that the intellect requires to be "detached" in order to command, and that the agent must have power over matter, in order to be able to move it. Now it is evident that pleasure fixes a man's attention on that which he takes pleasure in: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4,5) that we all do best that which we take pleasure in doing, while as to other things, we do them either not at all, or in a faint-hearted fashion.

Now carnal vices, namely gluttony and lust, are concerned with pleasures of touch in matters of food and sex; and these are the most impetuous of all pleasures of the body. For this reason these vices cause man's attention to be very firmly fixed on corporeal things, so that in consequence man's operation in regard to intelligible things is weakened, more, however, by lust than by gluttony, forasmuch as sexual pleasures are more vehement than those of the table. Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which makes a man weak in regard to the same intelligible things. On the other hand, the contrary virtues, viz. abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation. Hence it is written (Dan. 1:17) that "to these children" on account of their abstinence and continency, "God gave knowledge and understanding in every book, and wisdom."

Reply to Objection 1. Although some who are the slaves of carnal vices are at times capable of subtle considerations about intelligible things, on account of the perfection of their natural genius, or of some habit superadded thereto, nevertheless, on account of the pleasures of the body, it must needs happen that their attention is frequently withdrawn from this subtle contemplation: wherefore the unclean can know some truths, but their uncleanness is a clog on their knowledge.

Reply to Objection 2. The flesh acts on the intellective faculties, not by altering them, but by impeding their operation in the aforesaid manner.

Reply to Objection 3. It is owing to the fact that the carnal vices are further removed from the mind, that they distract the mind's attention to more remote things, so that they hinder the mind's contemplation all the more.

---

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Saint Thomas Aquinas on a certain type of blindness - Summa Theologica

Whether blindness of mind and dulness of sense arise from sins of the flesh?

Objection 1. It would seem that blindness of mind and dulness of sense do not arise from sins of the flesh. For Augustine (Retract. i, 4) retracts what he had said in his Soliloquies i, 1, "God Who didst wish none but the clean to know the truth," and says that one might reply that "many, even those who are unclean, know many truths." Now men become unclean chiefly by sins of the flesh. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are not caused by sins of the flesh.

Objection 2. Further, blindness of mind and dulness of sense are defects in connection with the intellective part of the soul: whereas carnal sins pertain to the corruption of the flesh. But the flesh does not act on the soul, but rather the reverse. Therefore the sins of the flesh do not cause blindness of mind and dulness of sense.

Objection 3. Further, all things are more passive to what is near them than to what is remote. Now spiritual vices are nearer the mind than carnal vices are. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are caused by spiritual rather than by carnal vices.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that dulness of sense arises from gluttony and blindness of mind from lust.

I answer that, The perfect intellectual operation in man consists in an abstraction from sensible phantasms, wherefore the more a man's intellect is freed from those phantasms, the more thoroughly will it be able to consider things intelligible, and to set in order all things sensible. Thus Anaxagoras stated that the intellect requires to be "detached" in order to command, and that the agent must have power over matter, in order to be able to move it. Now it is evident that pleasure fixes a man's attention on that which he takes pleasure in: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4,5) that we all do best that which we take pleasure in doing, while as to other things, we do them either not at all, or in a faint-hearted fashion.

Now carnal vices, namely gluttony and lust, are concerned with pleasures of touch in matters of food and sex; and these are the most impetuous of all pleasures of the body. For this reason these vices cause man's attention to be very firmly fixed on corporeal things, so that in consequence man's operation in regard to intelligible things is weakened, more, however, by lust than by gluttony, forasmuch as sexual pleasures are more vehement than those of the table. Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which makes a man weak in regard to the same intelligible things. On the other hand, the contrary virtues, viz. abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation. Hence it is written (Dan. 1:17) that "to these children" on account of their abstinence and continency, "God gave knowledge and understanding in every book, and wisdom."

Reply to Objection 1. Although some who are the slaves of carnal vices are at times capable of subtle considerations about intelligible things, on account of the perfection of their natural genius, or of some habit superadded thereto, nevertheless, on account of the pleasures of the body, it must needs happen that their attention is frequently withdrawn from this subtle contemplation: wherefore the unclean can know some truths, but their uncleanness is a clog on their knowledge.

Reply to Objection 2. The flesh acts on the intellective faculties, not by altering them, but by impeding their operation in the aforesaid manner.

Reply to Objection 3. It is owing to the fact that the carnal vices are further removed from the mind, that they distract the mind's attention to more remote things, so that they hinder the mind's contemplation all the more.

---

:wink:

Huh????

0 Replies

I believe its already been mentioned numerous times that ol' Tom's "Proof" works only in a universe in which there must be a god, as that is the assumption from which it proceeds. Hardly valid logic ... nothing more than rationalization and wishful thinking ... along with a fair number of incredible leaps and a few deus ex machina resolves. Sorry, maliagar, that is wasted cut-and-paste. BTW, have you ever read Aquinas in Latin? Fascinating ... much more precise, yet equally unsatisfying. Oh, well. Coming back to the core of the argument against the arguments you present, they are all dependent upon theological foundation. Superstition and mysticism neither confirm nor deny evidence, they are merely assumptive thought of a comforting nature, bereft of logic, reasoning, or deduction. Theology, particularly Christian Theology, and in finest particular, Catholic Theology, is , by the definition of the word, absurd. If it works for you, fine ... it can work for you. Personally, I just can't buy it, whether critiqued internally or externally, it is fatally flawed. It has some nice notions, granted, but then, Nazi Germany pulled itself from the grip of the Global Depression, the Titanic was conceived and intended to be the safest ocean-going vessel ever launched, and Bishop Usher argued vigorously for the historicity of The Flood. Mistakes are made. That's human ... human falibility. Clinging to those mistakes in the face of abundant reason, logic, and evidence to the contrary is human too ... human ignorance.

0 Replies

Gilgamesh revisited, Timber and although they've discovered some vague evidence that the Black Sea was a scene of a great catastrophic flood, it's just another example of the borrowed stories of the Bible. One day, they'll have to return it.

0 Replies

Hey, Tim!

It seems like you missed the point yet again. Ol' Tommy's quote did not have anything to do with proving the existence of God (BTW, his five ways--and others--are carefully discussed by philosophers today; the issue is not as settled as you would like it to be. Even St. Anselm's ontological argument has seen numerous rephrasings through the centuries).

The quote was a Christian version of Marx and Freud's ad hominem suspicions: If you or me hold the positions we hold, it must be due to our class interests, to some unresolved sexual complex, or to the fact that we are attached to sensual pleasures and don't want to leave them. :wink:

timberlandko wrote:

Sorry, maliagar, that is wasted cut-and-paste.

I know. You didn't even read it... Nevermind... I'm a patient guy... Smile

Quote:

Coming back to the core of the argument against the arguments you present, they are all dependent upon theological foundation. Superstition and mysticism neither confirm nor deny evidence, they are merely assumptive thought of a comforting nature, bereft of logic, reasoning, or deduction.

It depends on what you understand by theology. 'Cause you probably know that there is a branch of theology called 'natural theology' and another called 'theodicy'. And they are based on reason and evidence. And you probably know that as soon as you claim to have rid yourself of the religious element, it creeps in from the back door (ask the Marxists). Religion and faith are facts of the human condition. "Assumptive thought" is inescapable, regardless of your own assumptions about your own thinking. :wink: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." And standing for something requires a great deal of TRUST. The question is not IF we will build our lives upon a faith. The question is ON WHAT FAITH are we going to build it.

Now, let's be professional, ok? :wink: Don't change the terms on me. We were talking about faith and superstition (not mysticism). And the definition of faith I provided applies to the faith of the atheist, of the hedonist secularist, of the scientistic materialist, etc. But you haven't discussed this definition at all. You think you are refuting my definition just by reasserting what you think. Don't start going Frank on me. Laughing

[BTW, if you really want to praise someone's persistence, go for Frankie's. Do you have any idea how many times he has quoted Leviticus 20:13 all across A2K's time and space? It's like, for him, that verse is the key to the whole universe...]

Quote:

Theology... is , by the definition of the word, absurd.

Mmmm.... I see that you really want to get Frankie on me. "By definition"? Or just because it doesn't fit with your particular epistemology and metaphysics? But then, we would have to go and see if your beliefs about human knowledge and science fit, for example, with contemporary thought on the philosophy, history and sociology of science. But you've already shown that you're not interested. So, let's quit walking in circles, ok?

Quote:

Mistakes are made. That's human ... human falibility.

That's right!

Quote:

Clinging to those mistakes in the face of abundant reason, logic, and evidence to the contrary is human too ... human ignorance.

That's the problem. You think that the task of determining truth of error is so straightforward, that you're already above mistake and error. The only ones that live submerged in them are those who don't think like you in these matters. But hey, your epistemology and metaphysics are also prone to mistake and error. Therefore, YOUR SET OF BELIEFS is not as solidly evident as you would like to TRUST.

Hope this helps.

:wink:

0 Replies

Maliagar

Thank you for your numerous references to me in posts to other people. It is exiting to have a fan club. In fact it is more than exiting - it is exhilarating.

You mentioned that I have cited Leviticus 20:13 over and over again -- and suggested that I consider the verse to be "the key to the whole universe."

Nope! I do not consider the verse to be the key to the whole universe. But I do consider it one of the verses that should cause any open-minded, logical, reasonable person to conclude that much of the stuff written in the Bible that is attributed to GOD -- is probably nothing more than an ancient Hebrew putting his personal biases and prejudices in the mouth of a god that was invented, in part, for that purpose.

I still say the Catholic Church simply disregards passages like the one at Leviticus 20:13. I don't think they try to integrate it into a complex of other passages nor do I think they deal with it in any kind of holistic sense -- both of which you have asserted they do.

You claim that I am wrong to search for answers or to discuss the meaning and implications of passages like the Leviticus citation -- claiming further that the Church should be the one to do the interpreting of the Bible. But since they simply ignore anything that is troubling -- why would anyone with a brain do that?

Why are you avoiding dealing with this, Maliagar. Do you realize it is a loser for your perspective -- and therefore the best thing to do is to do what your Church does when it cannot deal reasonably with something -- simply pretend it is not there?

Jeez -- I woulda thunk there was more to ya - that you had bigger balls.

0 Replies

What about me Frank?

0 Replies

Jeez, Craven. You almost made me sorry I brought that particular subject up with Maliagar.

In any case, I know the picture is not you -- and I can only hope that it is not Maliagar -- otherwise I'm gonna be eating a lot of crow.

0 Replies

Could anybody tell Frankie to quit yelling and screaming?

If he needs further assistance, he's welcome to go back to my old postings, which contain far more nutrients than he'll be able to assimilate in a long while.

Best,

:wink:

0 Replies

Ahhh...Maliagar.

Yer chicken.

You never dealt with the issue I've raised -- and you know it. But apparently you don't have what it takes to simply acknowledge it.

Tsk, tsk.

If you ever do want to regain some credibility, just get in touch. I'll be glad to discuss this item for as long as you want.

I tell you one thing, though, you are adorable when you are trying weasel out of discussing something.

0 Replies

Yes, Frank. I'm absolutely overwhelmed and intimidated by the awesome logic of your massive arguments. I'm terribly frightened by the sheer weight of the amazing bits of evidence you're capable of bringing to this forum. I simply cannot deal with your seasoned, world-class, 23nd century insights anymore. You're a modern gladiator, a virtual warrior, and at the mere sight of your formidable weapons I pee on my pants. You're way ahead of anything I could possibly conceive, and I'm terribly scared of having to face your astonishing demolishing capabilities ever again in this or any other life. I have no choice but to chicken out, weasel out, and whatever-else-you-want out.

At least I won't leave empty-handed. I'll forever be your humble fan, and as you know, that enriches my life well beyond my wildest dreams. I'm your follower, master. You're my shepherd. Who knows... maybe one day, in another life, you'll favor this poor soul by instructing me on how to read the Bible (excuse me, Leviticus 20:13) and everything else we need to be happy.

Now, relax, take some Xanax (just one, please), and go to sleep. You'll feel better afterwards. :wink:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ahhh...Maliagar.

Yer chicken... you are adorable when you are trying weasel out of discussing something.

0 Replies

Nutrients as in bullshit...well, it is nutritious. For plants.

0 Replies

:wink:

Hey, Lightwizard...

You should consider changing your name to Lightweight, or Light-headed, or Lightness, or Lightened... Seriously... Laughing

Lightwizard wrote:

Nutrients as in bullshit...well, it is nutritious. For plants.

0 Replies

That's enlightened to you.

0 Replies

I'm printing out what you write and shreading it to feed my plants. They are doing better than ever.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know