Are you praying for some or what?
I'm praying you lose some and get a clue.
error: Forum not initialized properly! Please check the link and try again.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
I am glad that you finally realized that Peter is the not the evil gay promoter as he is definitely not. 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.
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.
I am glad that you finally realized that Peter is the not the evil gay promoter as he is definitely not.
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.
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.
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!