Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

04/12/2013 new
(Quote) Peter-933860 said: Are you praying for some or what?
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

Are you praying for some or what?

--hide--


I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
04/12/2013 new

(Quote) Frank-410833 said: I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
(Quote) Frank-410833 said:

I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
--hide--
I love you anyway brother! Dove gardener

04/12/2013 new
(Quote) Peter-933860 said: I love you anyway brother!
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

I love you anyway brother!

--hide--


I LUV U
04/12/2013 new

(Quote) Frank-410833 said: I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
(Quote) Frank-410833 said:

I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
--hide--
Instead of just stating that I havn't got a clue, please tell me what's wrong in my post. Pretty please, with sugar on top. fluffy

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Peter-933860 said: God created bacteria and virus too. Those critters were also included when God said that His crea...
(Quote) Peter-933860 said:

God created bacteria and virus too. Those critters were also included when God said that His creation was very good.

Decay in various forms are a integrated part of our universe. It is built in on the subatomic level. And occurs in us on the macroscopic level too. The purpose of the tooth is not to decay. But it will due to the laws of nature.

--hide--


Hi, Peter,

I do agree that God saw that all He created was good.

However, after the fall of Adam, all of creation which was originally ordered by God to work with him, now became inordinate to some degree or other, demanding Adam's toil to reap his livelihood from the soil. It was this prevarication of Adam which originated death (corruption) in the material realm of God's creation, spiritual and physical for humans, physical for plants and animals.

The bacterial animal previously created for the purpose in assisting man in the completion of his Due End, now works against him. I won't discuss the virus here, since it is not living matter.

Decay is merely corruption/death of a good, living member of a material being. It is not integral (i.e., contributing to the wholeness of a being); it was never meant by the Creator to happen.

It is not the laws of nature which lead to decay, but rather the physical laws of a fallen universe.

Take for example:

There is a boulder which weighs 50 lb. If the boulder is lifted to 6 feet high and then dropped, we know by the physical laws that the boulder will fall at a specific velocity until it reaches the earth, dispelling all its kinetic energy in some specific measure of force on the earth.

Now, raise the same boulder over the same spot to the same height, and place an infant's head in the spot the boulder will hit. Physical laws dictate that the boulder will fall once again with the same energy, smashing the skull of the infant with the force. However, the laws of nature dictate that we ought (an english word based upon the concept of justice) not do this, since this is not in line with the purpose of the infant's head.

Animals and plants cannot appreciate the natural or physical law, since they do not have spiritualized souls to conceptualize these things.

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Frank-410833 said: Apparently he's never heard that homosexuality and attraction to the same sex is a cross to ...
(Quote) Frank-410833 said:

Apparently he's never heard that homosexuality and attraction to the same sex is a cross to bear like I've stated a few posts back. But, we may not fancy those thoughts or carry those gay actions out. Plain and simple. It's a test. Not complicated.
--hide--


I get the sense that he accepts this notion that homosexual desire and attraction are a cross to bear.

However, I also get the sense that his views stand from a very different view on cosmology than myself.

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I get the sense that he accepts this notion that homosexual desire and attraction are a...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I get the sense that he accepts this notion that homosexual desire and attraction are a cross to bear.

However, I also get the sense that his views stand from a very different view on cosmology than myself.

--hide--

I am so glad you three finally realized that you are saying the same things but arguing two completely different bases. Peter is presenting the argument from the standpoint of natural law and you from natural purpose. Using the tooth as an example to show what everyone else probably seemed to notice and why no one else joined in.

Tooth - Chewing food consistently and easily for bodily consumption - Equates to Natural Purpose - The ideal plan for an object as designed by God for its greatest utility and dignity (Chelsea's basis)

Tooth Decay - The fact that a tooth will decay in nature if nothing preventative is done to prevent that decay - Equates to Natural Law as defined by that which exists in nature naturally. ( Peter's basis)

???? Still trying to figure out Frank's basis boggled wink

Natural law does not necessarily mesh with natural purpose in all instances for the precise reason that we have a fallen universe. The legacy of original sin is that there are many situations or examples that occur in Natural Law which are at odds with Natural Purpose.

However you cannot confuse the two or even deny that there is often a disparity between the two. They are two COMPLETELY different things from a philosophical standpoint. If you are arguing from the basis of two different philosophies that do not mesh naturally, how could you possibly expect to be saying the same thing? scratchchin

I am glad that you finally realized that Peter is the not the evil gay promoter as he is definitely not. biggrin He was presenting an argument for natural law which is the point from which most secular people would approach it. I believe that the OP asked for an argument geared towards the secular and he was simply trying to provide an argument that fit that bill. Most secular logical thinkers will shoot down natural purpose as they see it as a subjective principle rather than the objective one that we as Catholic or Christian see it. Please keep that in mind. Please also keep in mind what the OP asked.

Peter is not the enemy; far from it. He is as Catholic as Catholics come and probably has a more ordered prayer life and faith norms than many on this site. He is an intellectual I will give you that. However, I am not sure when that became a bad thing. St. Thomas Aquinas did not seem to have an issue with being intellectual and Catholic but he was also often misunderstood. scratchchin

Please note that I am not implying any similarity between Aquinas and Peter. So don't even go there. Just providing clarity from an otside party.

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Shara-929649 said: I am glad that you finally realized that Peter is the not the evil gay promoter as he is definite...
(Quote) Shara-929649 said:

I am glad that you finally realized that Peter is the not the evil gay promoter as he is definitely not.

--hide--


While I disagree with the majority of your post, merely due to semantics, which is not a foundational issue: I did not start out replying to Peter with any confusion regarding Peter's position on homosexuality, so there was really nothing to realize finally in that regard.

The only problem that I had with what Peter was stating was an apparent lack of clarity in terms and conformity to Catholic doctrine regarding the creation of the world, the fall of man and all material creation, and how this applies to inordinate behavior presently observed in animals since the fall.

I personally take my cosmology from an Aristotlean standpoint, which due to its Scholastic approbation, I believe is really the only safe source of cosmology.

04/13/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: While I disagree with the majority of your post, merely due to semantics, which is not ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



While I disagree with the majority of your post, merely due to semantics, which is not a foundational issue: I did not start out replying to Peter with any confusion regarding Peter's position on homosexuality, so there was really nothing to realize finally in that regard.

The only problem that I had with what Peter was stating was an apparent lack of clarity in terms and conformity to Catholic doctrine regarding the creation of the world, the fall of man and all material creation, and how this applies to inordinate behavior presently observed in animals since the fall.

I personally take my cosmology from an Aristotlean standpoint, which due to its Scholastic approbation, I believe is really the only safe source of cosmology.

--hide--

Honestly Chelsea, further discussion with you is pointless. Your view point is so skewed and narrowed by your belief in your rightness that trying to share an alternate viewpoint with you is a waste of time. I am certainly not a time waster so I will leave you to your shallow thoughts which are probably such due to your age and experience. However, I would imagine that many people are not receptive to conversing or discussing with you. You may want to examine why. I think that God has blessed you with gifts but you need to learn to temper them by his grace or it will be a hard and possibly lonely road. We ALL need outside input. Without it we are prone to mal-formed consciences even in the holiest and or most brilliant of people. two cents

04/13/2013 new
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said: I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explain...
(Quote) Rachel-731570 said:

I have many friends who are on facebook who are in favor of gay marriage. I would like some help with explaining the Catholic stance that would be easily understood, a quick enough read most would read it, but with enough substance to not be so easily dismissed. I'd love your help. Every time I try to write it out, it gets too long and not kind-yet-firm. Please help!

--hide--
It is impossible to convince someone on FB post, but here is one that had hel me with many sensitive topics where it comes to defend our faith "Who is the one that needs to adapt? God to human beings or human beings to God?" if we are part of the Catholic Church, then we know precisely what is expected from us...
Posts 111 - 120 of 158