[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A perversion means to use something in a way that is unnatural and destructive. Sex organs are for the creation of life. Since human life is the highest standard existent, it is the goal of sex. Thus using homo sex is simply wrong from the start.
[/quote]
You are still so Catholic. Seriously, it stuns me how much you deride the Catholic church but still use her basic arguments about sexuality (function = telos, deviation from telos as unnatural). I don’t mean that as an insult to the other Catholics on this forum; I would certainly never use Headhunter as an EXAMPLE of Catholic argumentation. I am simply saying that the Catholic argument, stripped down and perverted, has left an indelible mark on his thought.
Once again, HH, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS UNNATURAL? God tells me. You, on the other hand, have only nature itself to base your claims off of. And what do we find in nature? MULTIPLE SPECIES ENGAGING IN PROMISCUOUS HOMOSEXUAL SEXUAL ACTS OF VARIOUS KINDS, INCLUDING ANAL PENETRATION. If humans and other animals in nature engage in homosexual acts, BY DEFINITION, SUCH ACTS CANNOT BE UNNATURAL. How can you not understand this argument?
“Sex organs are FOR the creation of life,” you say? “For” implies purpose. Who determined the purpose?
The phrase “creation of life” has NO place in an ostensibly purely rational discussion (though of course you find such romantic notions and assertions all over the place in Rand, once again demonstrating that she was NOT a real philosopher); what you mean is “the continuation of the species.” You cannot get an ought out of an is; a result of sexual intercourse in a world without providence does not have any morally constraining capacity. Sexual intercourse of various kinds also brings pleasure; the sexual drive obviously has a dual function in nature.
This statement - “since human life is the highest standard existent, it is the goal of sex” - is nothing but pseudo-romantic conjecture. I am not moved by such unfounded claims. Prove it; don’t just make assertions at me.
As far as destructive is concerned… that’s once again open to debate. I can say that homosexual practice is destructive because it is counted among various practices that endanger one’s relationship with God. What do you have? How is it destructive?[/quote]
Let’s play in your ballpark, shall we?
"In 1992, it was reported in the news that the Catholic Church had turned around towards vindicating Galileo[51]:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture…
Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992
In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, including the trial of Galileo among others.[52][53]" Galileo affair - Wikipedia
Uh…yeah…thanks for finally admitting that Galileo was right…uh…yeah…thanks bunches…
Religion, enlightening the world for thousands of years…
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
[/quote]
Aaaahh, as usual, HH does NOT respond substantively to my statements. We were talking about the supposedly unnatural nature of homosexuality. Now we’ve moved to Galileo?
First of all, how is this “in my ballpark?” I’m not Catholic, and I couldn’t agree less with the episcopacy’s treatment of Galileo in the past nor care less about their apology in the present. So what does any of this matter to me?[/quote]
The point is that one can’t disprove religiosity by using religiosity. They’re nuts, as the Galileo example illustrates.
Tell me: how DO you debate the merits of the Virgin Birth when one party says: ‘Because god wanted it that way!’ which is what your position is. (And yes I know its a mistranslation.)
Catholicism is the oldest form of christianity; whatever you are, you’re just an offshoot of that.
[/quote]
- Your Galileo example did not illustrate that point at all. It merely showed that, at a particular point in time, many within the Catholic church interpreted various biblical statements too literally.
- It is NOT a mistranslation. Virgin is a potential meaning of the Hebrew as well as the Greek. It is simply a less common meaning than “young woman.”
- Catholicism (as it is distinguished today) is NOT the oldest form of Christianity. Thoughtful historical research has demonstrated that.
- You’re committing the genetic fallacy - X is bad simply because it comes from Y. That’s inherently fallacious reasoning.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe that the Gnostics would be the oldest christian sect, followed by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic church, which are equally old.
[/quote]
That’s not true. Gnosticism is a second century A.D. movement; the distinctive shapes of the Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (which were originally a single tradition) had already been formed before the end of the first century A.D. Gnosticism is a later phenomenon lacking any ties to the original Christianity of the first century.
