True Catholic

True Catholic
[ True Catholic ]

Israel Folau signs away his freedom of speech (again)

Posted by Faz on January 29, 2020, 1:05 pm

You'd think man of principle, Israel Folau, would not sign up for any football contract that threatens his freedom of speech.

But no.

He is going to play for the Catalan Dragons!

Israel Folau signs with French team Catalan Dragons to play in Super League

... As part of the deal with Folau, the Catalan Dragons said it had signed an agreement with the Rugby Football League, which oversees the league, and any transgressions would trigger an immediate termination of Folau's contract.

The club would also incur a substantial fine. It's unclear how much the club could be penalised.

Folau's return to the field appears to sit uneasily with the RFL ...

Read the whole article here

Re: Israel Folau signs away his freedom of speech (again)

Posted by Alex Caughey on January 29, 2020, 4:30 pm, in reply to "Israel Folau signs away his freedom of speech (again)"

I quote from the captioned article:

"Of course it's a risk," Yanic Rey, media manager at the Catalan Dragons, told the ABC.

"We know what he did, it's the past now and we ask him to keep his opinion for him[self] in the future."

Far from his homeland Mr. Folau may well focus his attention on the game, with the further thought that the media may well be less inclined to offer him a platform telling the human race how flawed we are. No exceptions.

Was it ever about freedom of speech?

Posted by Faz on January 29, 2020, 7:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Israel Folau signs away his freedom of speech (again)"

Far from his homeland Mr. Folau may well focus his attention on the game, with the further thought that the media may well be less inclined to offer him a platform telling the human race how flawed we are. No exceptions.

Could be, Alex, but the point is by signing with another club he is effectively foregoing his precious freedom of speech for a lucrative contract.

Or was it ever about freedom of speech?

From the article: 'Minutes before the signing was made official, fellow Super League team Wigan Warriors announced their round six match in March against the Dragons would be "Pride Day".'

I'm not sure that the media will be any less inclined to 'offer him a platform'.

Folau tends to make his own 'platform'. Late last year he all but said the bushfires were 'God's punishment'.

Re: Was it ever about freedom of speech?

Posted by Alex Caughey on January 29, 2020, 9:21 pm, in reply to "Was it ever about freedom of speech?"

Well, Faz, I will not speculate on Israel Folau's reasoning, recognising that yesterday's life is well behind him.

I wish Mr. Folau much good luck at his new club, with the understanding that redemption is the birth right of every human person.

The street of hard knocks is the most brutal of teachers...
...imparting lessons that transform us into a better person, looking forward to more rewarding days.

end

What else?

Posted by John on January 29, 2020, 9:44 pm, in reply to "Was it ever about freedom of speech?"

You’ve made evasion of the truth an art form, Faz. Of course it is about freedom of speech; in order to make a living, he has to keep quiet about certain politically incorrect subjects. His freedom of speech has been taken away.

The Daily Telegraph report includes this para:

Folau has vowed to not publicly express his sincerely held religious views, saying his “intention is not to hurt anyone”.

Who is he not to hurt? Why Rugby players, of course. What sooks Rugby players have become, for all their tatts! “Boo, hoo, Israel is saying nasty things about me. Make him stop, or I’ll have a hissy fit.” Rugby players used to be made of steelier stuff.

And in passing, when I hear of Pride Days and Pride Marches, I can’t help wondering what the participants have to be proud about.

Bullying

Posted by Alex Caughey on January 30, 2020, 12:03 am, in reply to "Re: Was it ever about freedom of speech?"

This article is educational offering the reader an in depth perspective on bullying of gay teens:

https://childmind.org/article/lgbt-teens-bullying-and-suicide/

I quote:

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among adolescents, and gay teens are 4 times more likely than straight teens to attempt suicide. Moreover, the pain gay teenagers feel when they are taunted affects others around them: During adolescence, the mantra is, “I want to be the same.” Teens feel a powerful need to fit in, and when they see a gay student getting bullied for some perceived “difference,” they worry that their own differences—and we all have them—will be targeted by bullies next.

unquote

Re: Bullying

Posted by Tony M on January 30, 2020, 7:18 am, in reply to "Bullying"

According to LGBTI Health alliance:

Compared to the general population, LGBTI people are more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetime, specifically:

LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 are five times more likely
Transgender people aged 18 and over are nearly eleven times more likely.

According to SANE Australia:

The suicide rate among people with a mental illness is at least seven times higher than the general population. It is one of the main causes of premature death in this group.

Homosexuality was long recognized as a mental disorder until it became politically incorrect to do so.

I have a daughter who has just graduated from a typical 'catholic' girls' school where lesbianism is fashionable, their numbers burgeoning and the players not bullied but encouraged and supported as avant-garde, cool and brave young catholic women.

Whereas, my daughter had her last 18 months schooling ruined by being mercilessly bullied for entering the fray on an online students' forum, daring to delicately question the morality of homosexual acts.

Although this was all very traumatic for her, being a girl of strong character and faith, self-harm or suicide was never even on her radar.

This phony nexus between alleged school age homosexual bullying and suicide is just another tactic used by the inclusion/diversity propaganda machine and, my goodness, what amazing success it is having.

Burgeoning?

Posted by Faz on January 31, 2020, 7:43 am, in reply to "Re: Bullying"

According to SANE Australia:

The suicide rate among people with a mental illness is at least seven times higher than the general population. It is one of the main causes of premature death in this group.

SANE further elaborates:

Indigenous Australians experience much higher rates of psychological distress than the general population, and lower access to mental health services.

LGBTIQA+ people experience very high rates of depression and psychological distress and are the most at-risk group in Australia for suicide.

Mental illness is not more common in rural and remote areas than in cities, but rates of suicide are much higher, services are harder to access and stigma can be higher.

One in seven children aged 4-17 have experienced a mental illness and over a quarter of Australians aged 16-24 are experiencing a mental illness at any given time. Many people who live with mental illness first experience symptoms during adolescence.

Homosexuality was long recognized as a mental disorder until it became politically incorrect to do so.

You may not agree with the assessment but to reduce it to 'political correctness' is unreasonable, not least of all because 'political correctness' can't be verified in any objective sense.

I have a daughter who has just graduated from a typical 'catholic' girls' school where lesbianism is fashionable, their numbers burgeoning and the players not bullied but encouraged and supported as avant-garde, cool and brave young catholic women.

Burgeoning? As far as I'm aware those who identify as homosexual number somewhere between 10% and 15% and that has remained fairly stable. Do you have statistics that indicate otherwise?

Whereas, my daughter had her last 18 months schooling ruined by being mercilessly bullied for entering the fray on an online students' forum, daring to delicately question the morality of homosexual acts.

Bullying is never justified.

Although this was all very traumatic for her, being a girl of strong character and faith, self-harm or suicide was never even on her radar.

That's good.

This phony nexus between alleged school age homosexual bullying and suicide is just another tactic used by the inclusion/diversity propaganda machine and, my goodness, what amazing success it is having.

I'm not sure on what basis you regard this nexus as 'phony'.

There are all sorts of well-documented and well-researched materials (for example) linking bullying with suicide. Being 'different', including identifying as homosexual, can make a student a target for bullying.

Boo hoo, Folau?

Posted by Faz on January 31, 2020, 8:05 am, in reply to "What else?"

You’ve made evasion of the truth an art form, Faz.

I'll let that go through to the keeper.

Of course it is about freedom of speech; in order to make a living, he has to keep quiet about certain politically incorrect subjects. His freedom of speech has been taken away.

LOL. He has chosen three times (two in Australia and now one in Europe) to forego his freedom of speech on particular issues in order to sign a contract. That's his decision, freely made.

Signing contracts for high profile positions, such as sports, has conditions including what you say and how you behave. If you consider that unreasonable and, more to the point, un principled, you should sign the contract.

The Daily Telegraph report includes this para: Folau has vowed to not publicly express his sincerely held religious views, saying his “intention is not to hurt anyone”. Who is he not to hurt? Why Rugby players, of course. What sooks Rugby players have become, for all their tatts! “Boo, hoo, Israel is saying nasty things about me. Make him stop, or I’ll have a hissy fit.” Rugby players used to be made of steelier stuff.

I guess this is an implied criticism of Folau for allowing himself to be subject to this. And he has to forego his strongly held principles to 'make a living'. Boo hoo, Folau, eh?

And in passing, when I hear of Pride Days and Pride Marches, I can’t help wondering what the participants have to be proud about.

I'm sure you can't.

Boo hoo, correction

Posted by Faz on January 31, 2020, 10:05 am, in reply to "Boo hoo, Folau?"

Signing contracts for high profile positions, such as sports, has conditions including what you say and how you behave. If you consider that unreasonable and, more to the point, un-principled, you should not sign the contract.

Yes, burgeoning

Posted by Tony M on January 31, 2020, 2:14 pm, in reply to "Burgeoning?"

My point, in response to Alex's article, still being, that you won't be bullied for being or acting homosexual in schools these days, but you will be if you dare question the morality of homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is de rigueur, as is loathing of the Church's teaching on sexuality, marriage and family, even in so-called catholic schools.

Now loathing?

Posted by Faz on January 31, 2020, 3:48 pm, in reply to "Yes, burgeoning"

My point, in response to Alex's article, still being, that you won't be bullied for being or acting homosexual in schools these days ...

You won't? Again, on what basis do you make that claim?

... but you will be if you dare question the morality of homosexual acts.

Have you any information on how widespread this kind of bullying is?

Homosexuality is de rigueur, as is loathing of the Church's teaching on sexuality, marriage and family, even in so-called catholic schools.

You're basically elaborating on a claim you made before but, again, you provide no evidence.

The further claim that there is 'loathing' of Church's teaching needs to be verified. It's a strong word.

Not convincing

Posted by Faz on January 31, 2020, 3:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Was it ever about freedom of speech?"

Well, Faz, I will not speculate on Israel Folau's reasoning, recognising that yesterday's life is well behind him.

The evidence for that is not that convincing, but we will see. Maybe after round six we'll see if his free-speech imperative comes to the fore again.

Re: Not convincing

Posted by Alex Caughey on January 31, 2020, 4:06 pm, in reply to "Not convincing"

Well, Faz, time will tell whether Mr. Folau has learnt a lesson, or two on how best not to assume the role of the holier than thou.

All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Pete on February 2, 2020, 8:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Not convincing"

So are those who have judged Folau "holier than thou" too??... To be consistent surely no judging is allowed whatsoever..life is completely lawless and meaningless...yayy!

Previous Message

Well, Faz, time will tell whether Mr. Folau has learnt a lesson, or two on how best not to assume the role of the holier than thou.

Another misinterpretation

Posted by John on February 2, 2020, 10:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Not convincing"

Israel was only quoting the Bible. That doesn't mean he holds the impression that he is "holier than thou."

Don't you often quote the Bible yourself, Alex? Does that mean you have the impression that you are holier than the rest of us?

Previous Message

Well, Faz, time will tell whether Mr. Folau has learnt a lesson, or two on how best not to assume the role of the holier than thou.

It makes you wonder though ...

Posted by Faz on February 3, 2020, 4:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Not convincing"

... why Mr F didn't choose this quote:

A Rebellious Son
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Even the Devil . . .

Posted by John on February 3, 2020, 5:20 pm, in reply to "It makes you wonder though ..."

I guess it's a question of relevence, Faz. No matter how misguided you judge him to be, Israel obviously had the true good of his readers, rather than cynical mischief, at heart. You could learn much from him.

Learning a lot

Posted by Faz on February 3, 2020, 8:15 pm, in reply to "Even the Devil . . ."

I guess it's a question of relevence, Faz.

I'm just quoting the bible like Folau did. Folau chose to use the bible to attack homosexuals -- he made no distinction between homosexuals and sexual acts -- and someone else could do the same regarding 'rebellious kids'.

The banner he actually used said,'Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, athiests, idoloaters (which in Fundamentalist Protestant-speak includes Catholics ... hell awaits you.

If that's biblical, then it is a matter of relevance to quote other passages in the Bible.

Assuming that you don't think 'rebellious sons' should be stoned, then it illustrates that 'only quoting the bible' is not good enough.

No matter how misguided you judge him to be, Israel obviously had the true good of his readers, rather than cynical mischief, at heart.

Folau, cherry picks the bible which calls to question his motivation.

Folau, this great man of principle, also conveniently forgets that breaking a freely signed contract is a kind of lie.

If you say you will do something and you accept the constraints that you employer stipulates, then break those constraints, you either signed the contract dishonestly or you dishonestly broke the terms of you contract.

He can't be a man of high principle, lecturing others about their duties and obligations and break his own.

You could learn much from him.

I am.

Re: All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 4, 2020, 5:21 am, in reply to "All aboard the nihilism express...."

Well, Pete, your argumentation is standard fare offered to placate the belief that judgment of those who are determined to be worthy of judgment is justifiable, when the source for that judgment is biblical.

Over the centuries wise sages have written that a taste of righteousness can be easily perverted into an overweening sense of self-righteousness, and judgmentalism the result of believing that their behaviour is beyond reproach sufficient to justify their holier than thou judgments.

end

Re: Another misinterpretation

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 4, 2020, 5:59 am, in reply to "Another misinterpretation"

Well, John, we should be attentive never to adopt prematurely a moral or evaluating attitude of our neighbour, without first examining our own behaviour by severe self scrutiny.

In so doing we restrain our eagerness to judge others, knowing well our own flaws.

The human person is generally speaking far more eager to belittle those who do not measure up to our expectations, the result of believing that our evaluations are perfectly calibrated to reveal the entire human being on the receiving end of our judgmental scrutiny.

Re: All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Tony M on February 4, 2020, 8:02 am, in reply to "Re: All aboard the nihilism express...."

Well, Alex, I note your judgment that the judgements of others are motivated by a need to appear, or a self-perception of being 'holier than thou'.
My judgment is that your judgment of the motivation of their judgment is problematic. Such 'judgements' are, in my judgment, just as likely to indicate a 'shared brotherhood of sinfulness' as they are a 'holier than thou' attitude.

See 'theistic agnostic' Bill Vallicella's interesting discussion of judgement, relativism and dogmatism:

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/01/judgmentalism-moral-judgment-moral-relativism-and-god.html

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/08/to-oppose-relativism-is-not-to-embrace-dogmatism.html

Yet more misinterpretations

Posted by John on February 4, 2020, 9:20 am, in reply to "Re: Another misinterpretation"

Neither “our own behaviour”, nor “prematurely” have anything to do with it, Alex. It is never our prerogative to make judgments about our neighbour’s moral state. However, we may, and must, make judgments about our neighbour’s actions and words. You never make that distinction, but lump both types of judgment into the, (in your view), reprehensible JUDGMENTALISM bin.

Again, “our own flaws” are irrelevant, otherwise, very few people would ever be able to acknowledge the existence of evil. We are obliged to acknowledge “flaws”, (sins, in other words), even if we are ourselves guilty of the same sins. It’s called honesty, as opposed to Mr-Nice-Guyness.

Previous Message

High price

Posted by Faz on February 4, 2020, 5:04 pm, in reply to "Yet more misinterpretations"

Again, “our own flaws” are irrelevant, otherwise, very few people would ever be able to acknowledge the existence of evil.

That's a crazy notion. We can 'acknowlege' evil acts and we can seek to counter evil systems without judgement of individuals or groups. You can't assert with any certainty, as Folau does, that homosexuals will go to hell.

We are obliged to acknowledge “flaws”, (sins, in other words), even if we are ourselves guilty of the same sins. It’s called honesty, as opposed to Mr-Nice-Guyness.

But to do that as Christian has a high price. We have to be prepared to be judged as we judge, to only cast the first stone if we haven't sinned, to seek out the plank in our own eye first.

Folau asserts that homosexuals are bound for hell because of who they are and not for what they do -- his admonishment didn't talk about 'acts', it talked about a whole group of people.

The Catholic Church -- Folau's idoloters -- doesn't assert that homosexuality is a sin, let alone a sin worthy of hell.

Not even misinterpretations - just plain Fazian twisting

Posted by John on February 4, 2020, 7:40 pm, in reply to "High price"

“That's a crazy notion. We can 'acknowlege' evil acts and we can seek to counter evil systems without judgement of individuals or groups.” That’s exactly what I said in my first paragrah, Faz. Stop trying to twist my words into something else.

And as for “You can't assert with any certainty, as Folau does, that homosexuals will go to hell”, all Israel was doing was quoting 1 Cor 6:9-10, and Saint Paul needed no lecture from you on the point. He knew and in the comments on Folau’s case, it has been stated over and over that tendencies are not sins, but actions are, so just for you, Israel’s post actual meant that practising members of those classes were the intended recipients, as if you didn’t know that.

And just in case you have confused any none-too-well-informed reader, the Church doesn't assert that homosexual tendencies are sinful, (and no one on this board has ever said so), but does assert that homosexual practices are.

Previous Message

Again, “our own flaws” are irrelevant, otherwise, very few people would ever be able to acknowledge the existence of evil.

That's a crazy notion. We can 'acknowlege' evil acts and we can seek to counter evil systems without judgement of individuals or groups. You can't assert with any certainty, as Folau does, that homosexuals will go to hell.

We are obliged to acknowledge “flaws”, (sins, in other words), even if we are ourselves guilty of the same sins. It’s called honesty, as opposed to Mr-Nice-Guyness.

But to do that as Christian has a high price. We have to be prepared to be judged as we judge, to only cast the first stone if we haven't sinned, to seek out the plank in our own eye first.

Folau asserts that homosexuals are bound for hell because of who they are and not for what they do -- his admonishment didn't talk about 'acts', it talked about a whole group of people.

The Catholic Church -- Folau's idoloters -- doesn't assert that homosexuality is a sin, let alone a sin worthy of hell.

Reading what was written

Posted by Faz on February 5, 2020, 4:40 pm, in reply to "Not even misinterpretations - just plain Fazian twisting"

And as for “You can't assert with any certainty, as Folau does, that homosexuals will go to hell” , all Israel was doing was quoting 1 Cor 6:9-10 ...

Which version?

The text from the US Conference of Catholics Bishops:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

The footnotes explain: The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.

In other words the simplistic 'all Israel was doing was quoting' is problematic.

Israel's version of the bibles condemns homosexuals. That, to say the least, is open to interpretation even for those who consider homosexual acts

... and Saint Paul needed no lecture from you on the point.

And nobody needs a 'lecture' from a man who breaks freely signed contracts. He is, by his own standards, a liar.

He knew and in the comments on Folau’s case, it has been stated over and over that tendencies are not sins, but actions are, so just for you, Israel’s post actual meant that practising members of those classes were the intended recipients, as if you didn’t know that.

Where was that stated?

And just in case you have confused any none-too-well-informed reader, the Church doesn't assert that homosexual tendencies are sinful, (and no one on this board has ever said so), but does assert that homosexual practices are.

Yes, see above. But that wasn't what Folau wrote. The term stands out in his shopping list of sins as being a person as opposed to an action.

Re: Reading what was written

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 5, 2020, 5:58 pm, in reply to "Reading what was written"

Well, Faz, I can expand on your thoughtful contribution by offering our readers the context of Paul's words.

Paul of Tarsus spent some 18 months living in the ancient city of Corinth, a cosmopolitan holiday destination for those seeking a hedonistic break. Corinth, Greece was filled with shrines dedicated to the gods that fascinated those seeking solace from their life's challenges. Most of these prosperous shrines were staffed by men, women, and children offering sexual services to appease their customers deities. Prostitution was one of the principle attractions for visitors from across Rome's vast empire.

I have visited Corinth several times over the years sitting on the hill overlooking the city that provided Paul with so many thoughts on the exploitation of human beings by those with ample money to spend, leading Paul to condemn the exploitation of impoverished people by using them as prostitutes.

Ancient Corinth would be destroyed by an earthquake. The modern town of Corinth built some several miles from ancient Corinth, is the country seat for an agricultural economy supplying the population of Athens with vegetables, fruit, and dairy products.

end

A video reconstruction of ancient Corinth

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 5, 2020, 6:17 pm, in reply to "Re: Reading what was written"

for the curious this video offers the viewer a perspective of ancient Corinth when one the most prosperous holiday centres in the Roman Empire.

end

Prooftexting the bibile

Posted by Faz on February 6, 2020, 6:04 am, in reply to "A video reconstruction of ancient Corinth"

Thanks Alex. Folau, and his followers, use a classic fallacy form which is discussed here with, perhaps, the following central point:

The full quote, which Dr. Carson ascribes to his father, a Canadian minister, was "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

A "proof text" was originally a neutral term for the scriptural text that proved (or was seen to prove) a particular doctrine. However, the overuse and even abuse of proof texts (i.e., Quoting Out of Context as an Appeal to Authority) to defend practically any position eventually led to "proof text" taking on a mainly negative―sometimes even pejorative―connotation (Guilt by Association, anyone?).

So, it would appear that St Paul wasn't 'lecturing us' about homosexuality as we understand it today, but about those (who probably didn't identify as homosexual in the way we understand it today) expoiting prostitutes.

You could imagine St Paul reacting to the horror among the citizens of Corinth that his biting criticiam caused. St Paul could have said, 'This is called honesty, as opposed to Mr-Nice-Guyness'.

Astounding!

Posted by John on February 6, 2020, 8:29 am, in reply to "Prooftexting the bibile "

The lengths, that is, that you will go to in order to evade the truth, Faz.

“So, it would appear that St Paul wasn't 'lecturing us' about homosexuality as we understand it today, but about those (who probably didn't identify as homosexual in the way we understand it today) expoiting prostitutes.”

Oh, no, things were different back then. They used prostitutes! That’s different!

And using the Canadian minister’s logic, you can dismiss any part of the Bible you find inconvenient to your argument or your way of life.

At risk of repeating myself, I’m going to, er, repeat myself.

Astounding!

Astounding and astounding!

Posted by Faz on February 6, 2020, 11:39 am, in reply to "Astounding!"

The lengths, that is, that you will go to in order to evade the truth, Faz.

You go to no great lengths to post irrelevant commentaries of a personal nature.

“So, it would appear that St Paul wasn't 'lecturing us' about homosexuality as we understand it today, but about those (who probably didn't identify as homosexual in the way we understand it today) expoiting prostitutes.” Oh, no, things were different back then. They used prostitutes ! That’s different!

You rebut an assertion I didn't make.

And using the Canadian minister’s logic, you can dismiss any part of the Bible you find inconvenient to your argument or your way of life.

Again, that's not what he said or implied.

Are you 'dismissing' the part of the Bible that encourages you to accept that stoning a rebellious son is OK? Is that because it is not 'convenient to your way of life'?

Re: Prooftexting the bibile

Posted by Tony M on February 7, 2020, 7:02 am, in reply to "Prooftexting the bibile "

Romans 1 26: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Perhaps you and Alex could give archaeologically based context explaining how this verse somehow doesn't actually form part of the Church's tradition on homosexual acts, which 'has always declared them 'intrinsically disordered"'CCC 2357, closing the sexual act, as they do, to the gift of life.

You don't have a problem with homosexual acts, so why not just acknowledge it, admit we don't share a catholic faith on this and move on, rather than conduct these tedious, logistically gymnastic, non-catholic discussions on biblical interpretation, act and actor etc.

The reason God gave up on those above was their "Non Serviam"

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ...

Re: All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Pete on February 7, 2020, 10:16 am, in reply to "Re: All aboard the nihilism express...."

Previous Message

Well, Pete, your argumentation is standard fare offered to placate the belief that judgment of those who are determined to be worthy of judgment is justifiable, when the source for that judgment is biblical.

Over the centuries wise sages have written that a taste of righteousness can be easily perverted into an overweening sense of self-righteousness, and judgmentalism the result of believing that their behaviour is beyond reproach sufficient to justify their holier than thou judgments.

end

Why is it that only the person who bases their morality on the Bible or Church teaching deemed "judgemental"?

There is far more judging going on these days from the non-Biblical secular, atheist, relativist Church of Woke for "sins" against the "holy commandments" of "tolerance" "diversity" & "equality".

This isn't about "judgementalism" or "tolerance" as the secularists/atheists/relativists claim. If it was, the secularists would have to show complete tolerance and non-judgementalism of all moral positions to avoid themselves being hypocritical. It's really about competing moralities: Christian versus Secular. The secularists however are trapped in the hypocritical, illogical nonsense of a moral system based on "tolerance" which is basically self-contradictory.

Re: All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 7, 2020, 5:17 pm, in reply to "Re: All aboard the nihilism express...."

Well, Pete, there’s a proverb that says, “Outward appearances are not a reliable indication of true character.” In other words, you can’t – and shouldn’t – judge a book by its cover.

The them and us justification fails to persuade, for it assumes that because they do it, so can I with superior moral indignation drawn from Biblical references.

end

Re: Prooftexting the bibile

Posted by Alex Caughey on February 7, 2020, 5:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Prooftexting the bibile "

Well, Tony M, I don't spend my life pondering over the sexual life of people who are living their life, their way.

Self justification using Biblical texts to condemn people whose sexual life does not meet with our approval, speaks more about us than the other person.

Once we design a self-justifying narrative, our emotional entrapment within it expands to imprison us in its grip of self satisfying superiority.

Self-justification and judging others go together, as justification by grace and serving others go together. ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

end

Those above

Posted by Faz on February 7, 2020, 7:24 pm, in reply to "Re: Prooftexting the bibile "

Perhaps you and Alex could give archaeologically based context explaining how this verse somehow doesn't actually form part of the Church's tradition on homosexual acts, which 'has always declared them 'intrinsically disordered"'CCC 2357, closing the sexual act, as they do, to the gift of life.

Interesting distinction, Tony. You, at least, speak of 'homosexual acts' whereas others, including Folau, speak of 'homosexuals'. This conflation of orientation and 'acts' somehow never happens with heterosexual orientation and heterosexual 'acts' because, of course, how silly would be to say 'all heterosexuals are hellbound'?

And, as you elude to, the CCC makes the distinction quite clear.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

IMHO the conflation of orientation with action, if done repetitively, would be a reasonable candidate for 'unjust discrimination'.

You don't have a problem with homosexual acts, so why not just acknowledge it, admit we don't share a catholic faith on this and move on, rather than conduct these tedious, logistically gymnastic, non-catholic discussions on biblical interpretation, act and actor etc.

I think you're trying to 'verbal' me, Tony!

In all the time of ventured into this topic I can't recall ever giving an opinion on 'acts', homosexual or heterosexual. If that, for you, is evidence that I 'don't have a problem with homosexual acts', that really is your problem.

As our friend Alex says, '... I don't spend my life pondering over the sexual life of people ...'.

The reason God gave up on those above was their "Non Serviam"

Are you willing to tell the hapless reader who you think the 'those above' are this context?

Re: Those above

Posted by Tony M on February 7, 2020, 10:20 pm, in reply to "Those above"

In all the time of ventured into this topic I can't recall ever giving an opinion on 'acts', homosexual or heterosexual. If that, for you, is evidence that I 'don't have a problem with homosexual acts', that really is your problem.

You have indeed stated that the morality of homosexual acts (as with heterosexual acts, apparently) depends on 'context and intention'.
So, more accurately: You don't have a problem with 'moral' homosexual acts, those presumably performed by loving couples with orientations not of their own making.

More accurately?

Posted by Faz on February 8, 2020, 5:24 am, in reply to "Re: Those above"

You have indeed stated that the morality of homosexual acts (as with heterosexual acts, apparently) depends on 'context and intention'.
So, more accurately: You don't have a problem with 'moral' homosexual acts, those presumably performed by loving couples with orientations not of their own making.

More accurately? One statement is 'carte blanche' -- 'I don't have a problem' -- and the other is not.

Not forgetting that your 'not quite accurate' version of my views came with a sting in the tale: 'admit we don't share a catholic faith on this'. I always find it instructive when a person, with no more authority than I, comes up with this sort of personal assessment.

You were the one who said this is clear code for 'I surrender, my position is indefensible'.

Re: More accurately?

Posted by Tony M on February 8, 2020, 7:45 am, in reply to "More accurately?"

More accurately? One statement is 'carte blanche' -- 'I don't have a problem' -- and the other is not.

A problem with some homosexual acts is implied in the first statement by any reasonable reading. That you would have a problem with depraved stuff that goes on eg in park toilet blocks should have safely been assumed. Your escape route via customary, expedient argumentative literalalism should also have been anticipated.

In all the time of ventured into this topic I can't recall ever giving an opinion on 'acts', homosexual or heterosexual

is in another 'not quite right' carte blanche statement league altogether. italicised ever, no less.

Not forgetting that your 'not quite accurate' version of my views came with a sting in the tale: 'admit we don't share a catholic faith on this'.

My redundantly clarified version of your views comes with the same sting.

I always find it instructive when a person, with no more authority than I, comes up with this sort of personal assessment.

And I find it strange that one who rejects the Church's teaching on sexuality and acts as tireless warrior for its 'growth and change' gets shirty when it is pointed out they don't share a catholic faith with another who accepts and rejoices in the beauty and truth of that teaching.

Combustable

Posted by Faz on February 8, 2020, 8:38 am, in reply to "Re: More accurately?"

A problem with some homosexual acts is implied in the first statement by any reasonable reading.

Not at all. They are 'statements' which express your assertion about what my views are. By any reasonable reading, this is an unreasonable process.

That you would have a problem with depraved stuff that goes on eg in park toilet blocks should have safely been assumed. Your escape route via customary, expedient argumentative literalalism should also have been anticipated.

Ah, the passive voice! What's this 'code for', Tony?

is in another 'not quite right' carte blanche statement league altogether. italicised ever , no less.

This 'not quite right' journey started with you: 'you don't have a problem with homosexual acts'.

That is an unreasonable characterisation of my views.

My redundantly clarified version of your views comes with the same sting.

Which is also instructive.

And I find it strange that one who rejects the Church's teaching on sexuality and acts as tireless warrior for its 'growth and change' gets shirty when it is pointed out they don't share a catholic faith with another who accepts and rejoices in the beauty and truth of that teaching.

How satisfying for you! A tip: keep that straw man away from matches!

That bottom line

Posted by Faz on February 8, 2020, 3:10 pm, in reply to "Re: More accurately?"

And I find it strange that one who rejects the Church's teaching on sexuality and acts as tireless warrior for its 'growth and change' gets shirty ...

You're overestimating how I feel in response to your wild assertions, Tony. 'Shirty' would be taking them far too seriously.

In truth, as I alluded to, it says more about you than me especially given your all too brief -- the opposite of 'tireless', if you will -- foray into picking out the splinter of ad hominem in my eye and ignoring the plank in your, and others, eyes.

'... when it is pointed out they don't share a catholic faith ...

Open your eyes next time you look into the mirror, Tony, and note the lack of bishop's robes.

Given you have no authority to make such pronouncements, it begs the question 'why?'. Again, is it code for running out of argument?

A good question!

'... with another who accepts and rejoices in the beauty and truth of that teaching.

Trouble is the teachings are, at best, not 'recieved' by most Catholics.

Is this because most Catholics deserve to dismissive assertions you direct towards me? I don't think so! In general, they see the teaching as, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, incoherant, offensive and out of touch with reality.

IMHO of course!

And, yes, I'm with them! I also happen to believe that I'm not required to believe in doctrines that I (and others) find irrelevant, incoherant, offensive and out of touch.

Re: That bottom line

Posted by Tony M on February 8, 2020, 3:56 pm, in reply to "That bottom line"

No, the narrow road is never a very popular one, that's for sure.

No substance

Posted by Faz on February 8, 2020, 4:33 pm, in reply to "Re: That bottom line"

Previous Message

No, the narrow road is never a very popular one, that's for sure.

Well, it's not ad hominem I guess, but, again, it has no substance.

Re: All aboard the nihilism express....

Posted by Pete on February 8, 2020, 4:46 pm, in reply to "Re: All aboard the nihilism express...."

Well, Alex, I'm sure Satan believes God is very judgemental, intolerant and an enormous bigot.

Previous Message

Well, Pete, there’s a proverb that says, “Outward appearances are not a reliable indication of true character.” In other words, you can’t – and shouldn’t – judge a book by its cover.

The them and us justification fails to persuade, for it assumes that because they do it, so can I with superior moral indignation drawn from Biblical references.

end

Substance and ad-hominem alert.

Posted by Tony M on February 9, 2020, 7:38 am, in reply to "No substance"

You want substance, Faz, then try the following. Suspend reality for this exercise and read as baptized Catholic, not as secularised catholic and, please God, it might provide a way out of mediocrity for you.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/amoris-laetitia-and-the-churchs-captivity-to-secular-mediocrity/10097032

Name-calling with more syllables

Posted by Faz on February 9, 2020, 2:59 pm, in reply to "Substance and ad-hominem alert. "

Previous Message

You want substance, Faz, then try the following. Suspend reality for this exercise and read as baptized Catholic, not as secularised catholic and, please God, it might provide a way out of mediocrity for you.

I could do that, Tony, but you set the standard here about ad hominem. For you it was 'code' for running out of argument.

I don't think the link is inevitable but, like you -- at least when it applies to people you disagree with -- it is a reasonable suspicion.

I just don't get how you could pontificate about ad hominem in the way you have and not abide by it yourself.

But it's not just that, of course. Those who engage in ad hominem often seem to use terms that are, pejorative yes, but insubstantial. There is contempt in a term like 'secularised Catholic' but what does it mean? How can it be verified in any objective sense?

It's just name-calling with more syllables.

You've run out of argument, Tony, not because I say so, but because that's what you apparently believe.

Re: Name-calling with more syllables

Posted by Tony M on February 9, 2020, 5:26 pm, in reply to "Name-calling with more syllables"

I wasn't aware it was an argument, Faz. I thought it was a discussion, during which it has been established that you are content to be a member of a church made in your own image which in turn is made in image of the ephemeral mores of the secular society.

I thought that was selling yourself way short and attempted to provide some prompt toward authentic, sacrificial sonship commensurate with the true freedom of the children of God.
(Save me sarcastic protestations about my methods, please).

On the other matter, since returning here I have accused you of ad-hominem once and as stated a couple of times, that was in the context of your resorting even to that, having nothing else as a comeback to John.
In that same time, you have called me a liar, a hypocrite and lacking substance, so I think maybe you might protest just a bit too much about my 'pontification' on that score.

Anyway, as ever, prayers work better than anything we might attempt to provide and you shall remain in mine.

Over and out.

Too late

Posted by Faz on February 10, 2020, 5:20 am, in reply to "Re: Name-calling with more syllables"

Previous Message

I wasn't aware it was an argument, Faz.

True, it's now turned into a kind of lecture.

Previous Message

I thought it was a discussion,

LOL

Previous Message

during which it has been established

Ah, that passive voice again. The sound of not taking personal responsibility for your assertions.

Previous Message

that you are content to be a member of a church made in your own image which in turn is made in image of the ephemeral mores of the secular society.

When you pray to you thank God you're 'not like them'?

Previous Message

I thought that was selling yourself way short and attempted to provide some prompt toward authentic, sacrificial sonship commensurate with the true freedom of the children of God.
(Save me sarcastic protestations about my methods, please).

Methods?

Previous Message

On the other matter, since returning here I have accused you of ad-hominem once and as stated a couple of times, that was in the context of your resorting even to that, having nothing else as a comeback to John.

Well, you accused me of it and when I asked for specifics you went silent. Here's your opportunity again. (Be ready for me to claim that it was a 'method'.)

Previous Message

In that same time, you have called me a liar, a hypocrite and lacking substance, so I think maybe you might protest just a bit too much about my 'pontification' on that score.

Again, be specific. I have said things about your arguments (discussions?) but not about you.

Previous Message

Anyway, as ever, prayers work better than anything we might attempt to provide and you shall remain in mine.
Over and out.

Drat, and I was going to give you the last word. Oh well ... too late.

« Back to index

[ True Catholic ]