[quote]florelius wrote:
Can you prove these claims with empirical evidence?
Why arent homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions?
How is homosexual acts inherently sinful from a non-religious perspective?
Your last claim I didnt fully understand, so I dont bother ask about it.
[/quote]
Can you prove through empirical evidence that I need to prove everything through empirical evidence?
No kids.
Because it goes against nature.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Can you prove these claims with empirical evidence?
Why arent homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions?
How is homosexual acts inherently sinful from a non-religious perspective?
Your last claim I didnt fully understand, so I dont bother ask about it.
[/quote]
Can you prove through empirical evidence that I need to prove everything through empirical evidence?
No kids.
Because it goes against nature. [/quote]
How does it go against nature when it happens within nature?
[quote]kamui wrote:
-i’m an high school teacher.
-i have a facebook account, with a few dozens of my students and ex-student as “friends”.
-i’m not favorable to gay marriage.
-i will never post anything about this on my facebook account, and i will never “speak my mind” about this in my classroom.
when a student ask me about this kind of “politic and world issues”, i always answer that my opinion doesn’t matter at all.
If they insist (it happens sometimes), i just play the “devil advocate” : i try to give counterarguments to their arguments.
it’s the same thing if i speak with a 19yo bisexual (and liberal) girl or a recently reconverted franco-algerian muslim. (i have been in both situations, btw).
my job is not to “solve” these issues, but to show how complex they are.
Doing otherwise would be directly against the deontology rules i agreed to respect when i accepted my charge.[/quote]
Outstanding post, Kamui.
Mufasa
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Can you prove these claims with empirical evidence?
Why arent homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions?
How is homosexual acts inherently sinful from a non-religious perspective?
Your last claim I didnt fully understand, so I dont bother ask about it.
[/quote]
Can you prove through empirical evidence that I need to prove everything through empirical evidence?
No kids.
Because it goes against nature. [/quote]
How does it go against nature when it happens within nature?
[/quote]
Nature =/= happens in nature, if you mean outdoors.
But, nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Can you prove these claims with empirical evidence?
Why arent homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions?
How is homosexual acts inherently sinful from a non-religious perspective?
Your last claim I didnt fully understand, so I dont bother ask about it.
[/quote]
Can you prove through empirical evidence that I need to prove everything through empirical evidence?
No kids.
Because it goes against nature. [/quote]
How does it go against nature when it happens within nature?
[/quote]
Nature =/= happens in nature, if you mean outdoors.
But, nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth.[/quote]
Don’t be dense. By your statement 1 any marriage that didn’t produce children has less value. Feel free to defend this position with any rationality.
While I feel all religion is foolish it certainly takes a special brand of silliness to try to derive a religious argument from the natural world. Since there is absolutely no empirical or apriori proof for the existence of God you might want to start there before using religious claims to devalue homosexual relationships.
As well it would likely be good for you to research the history of the Catholic Church and exactly why priests were no longer allowed to be married…might be rather enlightening for you.
[quote]groo wrote:
Don’t be dense. By your statement 1 any marriage that didn’t produce children has less value.[/quote]
How does it?
Aristotle did, so did the stoics, so did Aquinas. Go to tell them they are foolish.
Why would there be empirical evidence?
I didn’t make religious claims, I made a philosophical claim.
[quote]As well it would likely be good for you to research the history of the Catholic Church and exactly why priests were no longer allowed to be married…might be rather enlightening for you.
[/quote]
Oh please enlighten me. Please provide sources. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Don’t be dense. By your statement 1 any marriage that didn’t produce children has less value.[/quote]
How does it?
Aristotle did, so did the stoics, so did Aquinas. Go to tell them they are foolish.
Why would there be empirical evidence?
I didn’t make religious claims, I made a philosophical claim.
[quote]As well it would likely be good for you to research the history of the Catholic Church and exactly why priests were no longer allowed to be married…might be rather enlightening for you.
[/quote]
Oh please enlighten me. Please provide sources. :)[/quote]
This is perhaps the main work on the issue
An historical sketch of sacerdotal celibacy in the Christian church,
Lea, Henry Charles, 1825-1909.
Going to original documents is interesting as well to put some of the issues in perspective. However until the council of Trent a priest being celibate wasn’t a requirement although there were some bitter fights about it prior to that. When it did become mandated many candidates for the priesthood that were not able to accept this obviously were out. It was pushed through for a variety of reasons the main one likely to limit property being inherited out of the church to a priest’s direct descendents.
While obviously not intentional, the percentage of homosexual clergy was increased by this as they already were adept at hiding their sexual preferences since they were rather less accepted then than now. So none of them left the church because of being already married or widowed in addition to the fact that they largely entered the orders in the same amount while at least some heterosexual men no longer chose to enter the priesthood because of this.
To the first part of your argument though you didn’t lay it out you said that heterosexual unions were more valuable because they produce children. I don’t accept this premise, but if we allow it any union that doesn’t produce offspring is less valuable since the child production of homosexual relationships and hetero non breeder relationships are equal.
No one has produced a valid argument for the existence of God. And most certainly even if there had been such an argument it certainly doesn’t give credence to one minor theistic religion.
[quote]kamui wrote:
-i’m an high school teacher.
-i have a facebook account, with a few dozens of my students and ex-student as “friends”.
-i’m not favorable to gay marriage.
-i will never post anything about this on my facebook account, and i will never “speak my mind” about this in my classroom.
when a student ask me about this kind of “politic and world issues”, i always answer that my opinion doesn’t matter at all.
If they insist (it happens sometimes), i just play the “devil advocate” : i try to give counterarguments to their arguments.
it’s the same thing if i speak with a 19yo bisexual (and liberal) girl or a recently reconverted franco-algerian muslim. (i have been in both situations, btw).
my job is not to “solve” these issues, but to show how complex they are.
Doing otherwise would be directly against the deontology rules i agreed to respect when i accepted my charge.
[/quote]
Quoted so people can see how it’s meant to be done.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
So you would be fine if he was a Calvinist who told his students that Catholicism is a corrupt faith led by charlatans guilty of the worst atrocities in religious history?[/quote]
How are the two the same?[/quote]
That you need to ask this question says volumes about your current education, maturity, and world view. Hopefully in time your perspective will better match Pat’s, but there’s no guarantee it ever will.[/quote]
The only person I compare myself to is Jesus. Don’t cop out, give some fraternal correction.
Tell me how the two are the same.
Homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions.
Homosexual acts are inherently sinful.
Homosexuality isn’t inherently sinful, but it is not form of concupiscence and disordered somewhat.
Homosexuals are called to a chaste life, like the rest of the human population.
Now, unless this guy did something I am not seeing, I’m not sure how disagreeing with homosexual unions is the same as bashing Catholics. [/quote]
Shocking as it may be to hear this, your beliefs in the divinity of the Catholic church are no more based on facts than your beliefs about the sinful nature of homosexual acts. I know you’ve convinced yourself that you are absolutely, 100%, fair dinkum correct in your convictions, and I realize that millions of people agree with you, but that doesn’t make you factually correct.
But that’s beside the point.
Pat shares your religious convictions. Yet he doesn’t come across as condescending, sanctimonious, and judgmental toward gays. I’ll let him explain the difference if he chooses to do so. People tend to mellow with maturity, and they focus more on love and humility than judgment and condemnation. But age is no guarantee of wisdom, and some never change.
Is one of the reasons for homosexual marriages being wrong really not having kids? That seems kind of ridiculous.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Don’t be dense. By your statement 1 any marriage that didn’t produce children has less value.[/quote]
How does it?
Aristotle did, so did the stoics, so did Aquinas. Go to tell them they are foolish.
Why would there be empirical evidence?
I didn’t make religious claims, I made a philosophical claim.
[quote]As well it would likely be good for you to research the history of the Catholic Church and exactly why priests were no longer allowed to be married…might be rather enlightening for you.
[/quote]
Oh please enlighten me. Please provide sources. :)[/quote]
This is perhaps the main work on the issue
An historical sketch of sacerdotal celibacy in the Christian church,
Lea, Henry Charles, 1825-1909.
Going to original documents is interesting as well to put some of the issues in perspective.[/quote]
Which original documents?
It is still not a requirement.
Do you have a source for this claim?
Canon Law dictates that no priest own land, that it is owned by the dioceses which he works with in. And, I think you’ll find that it wasn’t the Council of Trent the practice became universal, but that it happened in the 11th Century.
[quote]While obviously not intentional, the percentage of homosexual clergy was increased by this as they already were adept at hiding their sexual preferences since they were rather less accepted then than now. So none of them left the church because of being already married or widowed in addition to the fact that they largely entered the orders in the same amount while at least some heterosexual men no longer chose to enter the priesthood because of this.
To the first part of your argument though you didn’t lay it out you said that heterosexual unions were more valuable because they produce children.[/quote]
No. That’s not exactly what I said.
Except you didn’t quite get my premise right. So your further conclusion is incorrect.
I said that they are unequal because homosexual unions cannot produce kids. This isn’t a case by case or individual by individual case, it is universal. The union between two men or two women cannot produce offspring.
If in all and every case humans were to enter into a homosexual union, humans would cease to exist after a generation. This anti-thesis of flourishing.
A valid argument? Thomas Aquinas gave five, those five arguments were also sound.
Here is one:
We humans are contingent beings in the measure that we had parents, that we eat and drink, and that we breathe. But those elements upon which we depend for our existence â?? parents, food and drink, oxygen â?? are themselves conditioned, caused, contingent. We cannot go on endlessly appealing to similarly conditioned things, and therefore we must come, inevitably, to some reality which exists, not dependently but unconditionally, through the power of its own essence. [1]
[1] Vogt, Brandon (2011-07-29). The Church and New Media.
I was trying to insert some large quotes but it would make the post gigantic. These are a few to show that the church saw an issue with benefices in addition to the general immoral actions of many clergymen.
EFFORTS AT REFORM. 437 bishop Tournon, and at Lyons by Claude, Bishop of Macon. To what extent these excellent rules were put in force may be guessed by a description of the French clergy in 1560, as portrayed by Monluc, Bishop of Valence, in a speech before the royal council. The parish priests were for the most part engrossed in worldly pursuits, and had obtained their preferment by illicit means, nor did there seem much prospect of an improvement so long as the prelates were in the habit of bestowing the benefices within their gift on their lackeys, barbers, cooks, and other serving men, rendering the ecclesiastics as a body an object of contempt to the people.’ We need, therefore, not be surprised to find in the councils of the period a repetition of all the old injunctions, showing that the maintenance of improper consorts and the disgrace of priestly families were undiminished evils.2 In 1530 Clement VII. addressed himself vigorously to the task of putting an end to the scandalous practice of hereditary transmission of benefices, which he describes as almost universal. A special Bull was issued, prohibiting the children of priests or monks from enjoying any preferment in their father’s benefices, and providing that if he or his successors should grant dispensations permitting such infraction of the canons, they should be considered as issued unwittingly, and be held null and void.3 Like so many others, this Bull seems to have been forgotten almost as soon as issued, and the penu1 “Que les cures ignorans, avares, 3 Bull. ad Canonum (Mag. Bull. occup6s a toute autre chose qu’a leur Roman. Ed. 1692, I. 682). “Cum pascharge, avoyent estes pour la plus sim sacerdotes ut ecclesiis suis eorum part pourveus de leurs cures par filii potirentur… videlicet quod ipsi moyens illicites; qu’ autant de deux presbyteri eorum crimen, quod erat escus que les banquiers avoyent en- occultum, non sine turpitudine, ob voyes C Rome, autant de cures nous inordinatum spuriorum filiorum amoavoyent-ils renvoyes. Les cardinaux, rem detegere non erubescerent,” etc. les 6vesques n’avoient faict difficult6 Alexander III., in prohibiting the de bailler leurs benefices a leurs sons of priests from enjoying their maistres d’hostels, voire a leurs var- fathers’ benefices, had permitted it if lets de chambre, cuisiniers, barbiers a third party intervened, and a diset leurs laquais; si bien que les per- pensation for the irregularity were -sonnes ecclesiastiques s’estoyent ren- obtained. The letter of this law was dues odieux et contemptibles a tout frequently observed, but its spirit le monde.”-Pierre de la Place, Estat eluded by nominally passing the prede Rel. et Rep. Liv. in. ferment through the hands of a man 2 Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1551, of straw, and it was this abuse which cani. 22 (Harduin. Xa. 458). Clement desired to eradicate. can. 22 (Harduin. X. 468).
pg 437 of
An historical sketch of sacerdotal celibacy in the Christian church,
CONDITION OF THE CHURCH. 513 extreme necessity of the case, and did its best to cure the immedicable disease. Its first canon reaffirmed the observance of the Basilian regulations, and appointed a commission empowered to enforce them; and, that nothing should interfere with its efficiency, the Archbishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow made a special renunciation of their exemption from the jurisdiction of the council. The second canorn, in forbidding the residence of illegitimate children with their clerical fathers, endeavored to procure obedience to the rule ordered by the council of 1549, by permitting it for four days in each quarter, and by a penalty for infractions of ~200 in the case of an archbishop, ~100 in that of a bishop, and leaving the mulct to be imposed on inferior ecclesiastics at the discretion of the officials. The third canon prohibited the promotion of children in their father’s benefices, and supplicated the queenregent to obtain of the pope that no dispensations should be granted to evade the rule. The fourth canon inhibited ecclesiastics from marrying their daughters to barons and lairds, and endowing them with church lands, or making their sons barons or lairds with more than ~100 annual income, under pain of fine to the amount of the dowry or lands abstracted from the church; and all grants of church lands or tithes to concubines or children were pronounced null ajd void.l When such legislation was necessary, the disorders which it was intended to repress are acknowledged in terms admitting neither of palliation.nor excuse. The extent of the evil especially alluded to in the latter canons is further exemplified by the fact that during the thirty years immediately following the establishment of the Reformation in Scotland, more Wilkins, IV. 207-10.-Knox, p. ArchbishopofSt. Andrewsreliedwhen 129. These canons, it appears, were he consented to waive his exemption not adopted without opposition. Ac- in this matter. His personal reputacording to Knox, “But herefrom ap- tion may be estimated from the repealed the Bishop of Murray and mark of Queen Mary when, in Decemother prelates, saying That they would ber, 1566, he performed the rite of abide the canon law. And so they baptism on James VI. She forbade might well enough do, so long as they him to use the popular ceremony of remained Interpretors, Dispensators, employing his saliva, giving a reason Makers and Disannullers of the Law.” which was in the highest degree de-(Op. cit. 119.) It was doubtless on rogatory to his moral character. (Sir some such considerations that the J. Y. Simpson, ubi sup.). 33
pg 513 of the same work
There is quite a bit of similar stuff in the text to be frank its a pain in the ass to read through, but it is available online. It at least implies the church was concerned with the benefices as much as the moral turpitude.
I think the cosmological arguments don’t get much traction amongst philosophers and there have been many counterarguments that I find more compelling. At the very least the cosmological argument isn’t going to be able to ascribe qualities to a God which would certainly not make a theistic god any more likely than any other.
edit to reorder properly going from word last two paragraphs were reversed
[quote]forlife wrote:
Shocking as it may be to hear this, your beliefs in the divinity of the Catholic church are no more based on facts than your beliefs about the sinful nature of homosexual acts. I know you’ve convinced yourself that you are absolutely, 100%, fair dinkum correct in your convictions, and I realize that millions of people agree with you, but that doesn’t make you factually correct.
[/quote]
Though I may believe that I am correct, I am not against looking at the situation.
[quote]But that’s beside the point.
Pat shares your religious convictions. Yet he doesn’t come across as condescending, sanctimonious, and judgmental toward gays.[/quote]
Because I say homosexual acts are wrong and that homosexual unions are not equal?
What if I said I have friends with SSA? 
Kidding, though I do. I’m deeply sorry if I have seemed condescending or sanctimonious (not sure what the second word is exactly). I am a man, and therefore am the worst of sinners.
I don’t presume that you haven’t seen correctly, but I am not attempting fraternal correction on this message board (if I do it remains in PM box, as fraternal correction should be done in private and I only do it if I think it will do good).
I am interested in an impartial, cool, and civil discourse of the subjects that come up.
I wouldn’t soon think you would think love and humility or judgement and condemnation come from the discourse. As, it is almost purely a discourse to exchange and discuss ideas on a topic.
I can’t say for sure, but I hope the rest of my day is filled with love and humility.
If you don’t find love and humility in my discussions, I am deeply sorry. I will attempt to write with a better tone in my posts.
This would be a fair analysis of the cosmological argument in question. It definitely is from a philosopher that is fairly sympathetic. It is important to note that Acquinas conception of god that this proves is nothing at all like a theistic god.
[quote]groo wrote:
theistic god any more likely than any other.
[/quote]
There is something else besides a theistic god? Just kidding, brother.
Those arguments aren’t arguments necessarily for a specific God, though there is only one God the five arguments of Thomas Aquinas describes.
The arguments are a proof of God. The Christian God is the God of the Philosophers, for example Socrates argued that there was a goodness that controlled the pagan gods (he gave a false dichotomy of do your gods’ will what is good, because what they will is therefore good or because what is good is good before they will it)…that was goodness is what Catholics call God.
The Philosophers (even Einstein, &c.) have always ascribed through the ages to a higher being, but not a personal God. They describe the Christian God, though not fully. Not only is the Catholic God the God of Philosophers, he’s also the God of Jesus Christ.
I’ll see if I can find some information, but if you wish to read more about the Christian God, I always suggest Introduction to Christianity by the great theologian, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (his other name is Pope Benedict XVI).
@groo, I have to do some chores so I’ll come back later and read and address the other part of your post.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Shocking as it may be to hear this, your beliefs in the divinity of the Catholic church are no more based on facts than your beliefs about the sinful nature of homosexual acts. I know you’ve convinced yourself that you are absolutely, 100%, fair dinkum correct in your convictions, and I realize that millions of people agree with you, but that doesn’t make you factually correct.
[/quote]
Though I may believe that I am correct, I am not against looking at the situation.
[quote]But that’s beside the point.
Pat shares your religious convictions. Yet he doesn’t come across as condescending, sanctimonious, and judgmental toward gays.[/quote]
Because I say homosexual acts are wrong and that homosexual unions are not equal?
What if I said I have friends with SSA?
Kidding, though I do. I’m deeply sorry if I have seemed condescending or sanctimonious (not sure what the second word is exactly). I am a man, and therefore am the worst of sinners.
I don’t presume that you haven’t seen correctly, but I am not attempting fraternal correction on this message board (if I do it remains in PM box, as fraternal correction should be done in private and I only do it if I think it will do good).
I am interested in an impartial, cool, and civil discourse of the subjects that come up.
I wouldn’t soon think you would think love and humility or judgement and condemnation come from the discourse. As, it is almost purely a discourse to exchange and discuss ideas on a topic.
I can’t say for sure, but I hope the rest of my day is filled with love and humility.
If you don’t find love and humility in my discussions, I am deeply sorry. I will attempt to write with a better tone in my posts. :)[/quote]
Fair enough. I just wanted you to know how some of your comments come across, especially compared to a fellow Catholic like Pat. I’ve never once heard him say anything like “Heterosexual unions are superior to Homosexual unions”, for example. I know that he has religious convictions against homosexual behavior, but he still manages not to make offensive statements like this.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Fair enough. I just wanted you to know how some of your comments come across, especially compared to a fellow Catholic like Pat. I’ve never once heard him say anything like “Heterosexual unions are superior to Homosexual unions”, for example. I know that he has religious convictions against homosexual behavior, but he still manages not to make offensive statements like this.
[/quote]
Yes, people do get upset sometimes when you say the truth.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Fair enough. I just wanted you to know how some of your comments come across, especially compared to a fellow Catholic like Pat. I’ve never once heard him say anything like “Heterosexual unions are superior to Homosexual unions”, for example. I know that he has religious convictions against homosexual behavior, but he still manages not to make offensive statements like this.
[/quote]
Yes, people do get upset sometimes when you say the truth. :)[/quote]
You mean like people saying the Catholic church is a fraud?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Fair enough. I just wanted you to know how some of your comments come across, especially compared to a fellow Catholic like Pat. I’ve never once heard him say anything like “Heterosexual unions are superior to Homosexual unions”, for example. I know that he has religious convictions against homosexual behavior, but he still manages not to make offensive statements like this.
[/quote]
Yes, people do get upset sometimes when you say the truth. :)[/quote]
You mean like people saying the Catholic church is a fraud?[/quote]
Didn’t know that was a truth.