Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 06:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Anyone writing the paper has to presume that God exists, because the question is why would a Catholic think he has the right."

WTAF. Another non-sequitur. So you can ONLY write papers that presume gods exist ? Weeping

Yes in order to think like a catholic you must believe in God.

So ? Who cares ? You have not answered why you posted this here. It's all bullshit.
I also don't agree with your assertion. Mother Teresa was a Catholic and she said in her memoirs she didn't believe in god. Yes a non-sequitur.

Also "At this point I shall impose a second premise. Namely, the Catholic understanding of God, specifically the nature derived from the tetragrammaton, YHWH, I Am Who Am. This states that God is the totality of existence and all experience resides within God" ... is 100 % FALSE. The tetragramaton is the HEBREW name for a SINGULAR deity, (NOT a trinity) ... which you would know if they ever made you study the Bible. If god is the "totality of existence" then she is not a "person" and your definition is pantheism. "All experience resides within god" . Oh really ? Even "evil experience" resides in your god. You really have to examine your pious drivel.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 07:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 06:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Yes in order to think like a catholic you must believe in God.

So ? Who cares ? You have not answered why you posted this here. It's all bullshit.
I also don't agree with your assertion. Mother Teresa was a Catholic and she said in her memoirs she didn't believe in god. Yes a non-sequitur.

Also "At this point I shall impose a second premise. Namely, the Catholic understanding of God, specifically the nature derived from the tetragrammaton, YHWH, I Am Who Am. This states that God is the totality of existence and all experience resides within God" ... is 100 % FALSE. The tetragramaton is the HEBREW name for a SINGULAR deity, (NOT a trinity) ... which you would know if they ever made you study the Bible. If god is the "totality of existence" then she is not a "person" and your definition is pantheism. "All experience resides within god" . Oh really ? Even "evil experience" resides in your god. You really have to examine your pious drivel.

I posted this here because someone here asked the question. That is why.
Again you are attacking my premises yet you have not found a single thing wrong with my logic.
I have not read the memoirs of Mother Teresa so I cannot comment. But I decided to go with the church's teaching that to have faith you must hold all the catholic truths to be true.
While it would be an interesting debate, the topic of whether the Catholic concept of God is true or not is not meant for this thread. As I have said multiple times, we are not debating premises, the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate how it logically follows that someone who holds these premises would not be acting illogically if the prohibited gay marriage. You said my essay was illogical, prove to me that my conclusion does not follow from the premises.

PS, while the tetragrammaton question would be interesting, I feel that that is more of a biblical exegesis question and we are mor dealing with politics.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2015 08:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
The fact is you posted it on TTA ... and no one here cares about your gods or your cult, and I am baffled that you made not the slightest attempt anywhere to justify your series of unsupported assertions, (which is all you *paper* is ... disjointed assertions).

There's a LOT wrong with "your logic". No we are not dealing with politics. What we are dealing with is the complete and utter bankruptcy of the ancient Greek philosophical paradigm (called "idealism") which the Church and some of its minions still try to use to justify it's positions on many things, including its debunked set of ideas on variant sexual orientations and behaviors. (Actually I am going to make it that, as I am completely convinced you have not a clue *what* you are even trying to talk about).

The fact is the premise and assumption of Aristotle, Aquinas (and you *claim* your paper even though you NEVER state it ANYWHERE), is that there exists an "ideal" human (an "ideal male" and an "ideal female"), (which a homosexual deviates from). THAT is the underlying fallacy. There is no "ideal male nature" and no "ideal female nature" that perfection consists in attaining to. Every human idea of what that is, is LEARNED ... and there are COUNTLESS LEARNED concepts of what the ideal human is or could be. The ENTIRE edifice of Roman Moral Theology is built on this ONE falsehood. Feser and Madrid (Catholic "Thomists") go on and on and on about the "triangle" and how that "ideal" is metaphysical. It's simply BULLSHIT. Every human brain LEARNS what a "perfect" anything is, and that *perfection" exists NOWHERE except in multiple human brains as a result of LEARNING, (and in fact is not exactly the same in any two brains). It does not exist "out there" somewhere, metaphysically. The morality of idealism (as seen in the RCC) is debunked by Neuro-science. There is no ideal male, and no ideal female, and thus the concept of "evil" or "disordered" is false. What produces "joy" is LEARNED and not necessarily understood without the experience of learning. (Also the maximization of joy as the moral ideal is suspect. What if someone gets joy from inflicting pain, which many do ?) The concept is based on a duality of reality and "perfection" which exists nowhere. Your church's morality is all outdated shit, built on a debunked idea. What there are, are "some (many) *sort of* males", and "some many *sort of* females" who *may* share some traits. There is no Thomistic/Aristotelian ideal anything. Only individuals with some common traits. NOT flawed examples of a (non-existent) ideal.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Well, about homosexuality and the bible - it says that gays should be stoned.

So hand out some weed and be done with it.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
02-06-2015, 08:50 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is you posted it on TTA ... and no one here cares about your gods or your cult, and I am baffled that you made not the slightest attempt anywhere to justify your series of unsupported assertions, (which is all you *paper* is ... disjointed assertions).

They cared enough to ask the question.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 08:57 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 08:50 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is you posted it on TTA ... and no one here cares about your gods or your cult, and I am baffled that you made not the slightest attempt anywhere to justify your series of unsupported assertions, (which is all you *paper* is ... disjointed assertions).

They cared enough to ask the question.

Good. Then you owed them a coherent answer.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Being a former Catholic, what it basically comes down to is this: the Roman Catholic Church bases its entire view on homosexuality based upon its philosophical world view. It is not based on any fact or observation of the world around us, but on philosophical interpretations of what occurs in the world. Simply put: Catholicism requires LGBT people to be chaste because it has interpreted human anthropology and the natural world through a certain philosophical lense. It is unwilling to change its philosophy due to the assumptions it makes about interpreting the natural world ("natural law") and assumed metaphysics about God, which, again, is philosophical theorizing with absolutely no proof behind it.

In Catholicism, building upon the work of Thomas Aquinas ("Thomism" as the school of thought is called), the true meaning of the world and the Universe is to be found in the fullness of God, what Tarzan called the "Beatific Vision" and what the Eastern Orthodox refer to as "Theosis". This worldview pretty much states that God has built meaning into the world and it is up to humanity to discover it on its own via Divine Revelation, and said Revelations are to be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, the Church's teaching office. In Roman Catholicism, that means via the Bishops, Ecumenical Councils, and the Pope. In Eastern Orthodoxy, it's the Bishops, the Patriarchs and the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Roman Catholic view of human sexuality is based upon Natural Law theory: this is the idea that through our observations of sexual activity in the natural world, we can ascertain the "true meaning/purpose" of human sexuality- in other words, in Catholicism, since one of the major results of human sexual activity is procreation, and also since in Catholic thought it can be "observed via nature" that the penis and vagina are "naturally designed" to compliment one another, it is therefore assumed that the "true purpose" of human sexuality is procreation and the creation of a family, since this is the "evidence" that God has put into nature by design.

Again, natural law theory is Catholicism's way of discovering the true meaning that God has inserted into the world, based upon philosophical and theological interpretations of natural phenomena (i.e. heterosexual sex amongst humans). This creation of the family is seen as reflective of the totality of the Truth that is God, since by making humans we are reflecting the actions of God the Creator. Thus, heterosexual sex within marriage can be viewed as a Sacrament in Catholicism since its actions reflect the actions of God as Creator of the Universe. Thus, homosexuality and gay marriage by extension are seen as a sin because they go against the true meaning that God has inserted into the Universe at large: because homosexual sex is not procreative, therefore it goes against the Divine Revelation in regards to sex and is also not reflective of God's actions as Creator. Since it is not "ordered" towards creation, and thus is not reflective of God's actions and the meaning God has imbued into the Universe via His actions as Creator, it is seen as "disordered" and a sin.

But here is the problem: while it might be logically consistent within the worldview of Roman Catholicism for a Catholic to oppose gay marriage, that does not mean that that worldview is, in and of itself, logical or reasonable.

It assumes that God exists, and that there is inherent meaning in the world. It also assumes that we can derive in part that meaning by making interpretations of certain observations about nature. The issue is that this is basing a worldview and thus how to interact and treat people not on any observable evidence or proof, but on metaphysical interpretations of observable evidence which cannot be proven either way. The entire world view is based on interpretational metaphysical theory and not proof.

How do we know there is a God? How do we know that if one were to exist it created the Universe? We know that the Universe exists, but how do we know that something has inserted meaning into it from the get go? If God were to exist, how do we know it has revealed its plan in Nature? How do we know we are interpreting that plan correctly? If its by the Holy Spirit, how do we know that the Trinitarian view of God is correct? Saying because of Magisterial teachings based on Divine Revelation in Scripture and Tradition makes no sense, because again that's just more interpretational thinking.

When you get right down to it, Catholicism and Christianity is a series of philosophical metaphysical interpretations of the Universe with no hard and fast evidence to back up any of its claims. There is no data to prove either way, conclusively, that God does or does not exist. There is no way of proving that there is inherent meaning woven into the nature and fabric of reality, or that we can discover this meaning by interpreting certain observations about nature to fit our world view.

It is all interpretive theory with not a shred of evidence to back it up- natural law theory is, at best, as speculative as M Theory or String Theory in science, but hell even String Theory has mathematical equations to prop itself up with. Not even natural law theory has that!

Instead, in order to be consistent with the Christian philosophical interpretations of human anthropology, Roman Catholicism ignores the scientific evidence from psychology and psychiatry which has found, based on actual, observable evidence from people's actions and lives, that to suppress one's sexuality is not only unhelpful, but is emotionally, mentally and physically harmful to one's health. Viewing one's sexuality as sinful has been shown to cause depression and anxiety in many and has lead many LGBT people to commit suicide. In the face of this suffering, of this undeniable scientific evidence, the Roman Catholic Church chooses to save face in order to be consistent with its own philosophical tradition instead of admitting to error based on new evidence and the plight and suffering of human beings the world over.

It is more important to the Church to stick to it's interpretation of the World since it believes it to be true and to trust in a belief which has no proof to back it up (God as the Mystery of Faith), than to adjust its belief based on findings which have actual observable evidence to support them.

The Roman Catholic Church, simply put, requires its LGBT members to suffer based on a philosophical opinion and interpretation of reality. Since it believes this interpretation to be the Truth, it ignores any evidence that contradicts that interpretation, because it is more important to be consistent despite the very real suffering of others than to admit that your world view is wrong and causes demonstrable harm to others. The Magisterium would rather appear consistent and right than admit to error in order to alleviate the suffering of others.

If it is demonstrably more healthy to view homosexuality as something positive, and that this view in fact leads to happier lives mentally, physically and emotionally, why on earth would one insist on viewing it as a "cross to bare"? So that you are consistent with your own interpretive anthropology, no matter how much harm it might do?

That is incredibly petty and cruel, and willfully ignorant of the suffering of others: I would go so far as to call that objectively and demonstrably evil.

What this boils down to is that traditional Christianity and Roman Catholicism specifically are more concerned with saving face and sticking to their views than helping others, no matter how dangerous and unhealthy those views are shown to be.

Not only is that petty and cruel, it's downright insane and illogical.

I am not sure how I managed to devote 29 years of my life to such harmful interpretative metaphysical theory, but it now boggles my mind how any one can devote their lives to such a series of philosophical interpretations which not only have no evidence to back them up, but have also been shown to be, at least in part in regards to human experience, gravely harmful. What else do you call it when your worldview leads thousands if not more to take their own lives in despair?

If you're going to put your trust (Faith) in theories, those theories should at least be sane and helpful, even if there's no evidence to back them up! At least that way you're not harming anyone!

I rest my case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Nagoda's post
02-06-2015, 11:08 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 09:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Being a former Catholic, what it basically comes down to is this: the Roman Catholic Church bases its entire view on homosexuality based upon its philosophical world view. It is not based on any fact or observation of the world around us, but on philosophical interpretations of what occurs in the world. Simply put: Catholicism requires LGBT people to be chaste because it has interpreted human anthropology and the natural world through a certain philosophical lense. It is unwilling to change its philosophy due to the assumptions it makes about interpreting the natural world ("natural law") and assumed metaphysics about God, which, again, is philosophical theorizing with absolutely no proof behind it.

In Catholicism, building upon the work of Thomas Aquinas ("Thomism" as the school of thought is called), the true meaning of the world and the Universe is to be found in the fullness of God, what Tarzan called the "Beatific Vision" and what the Eastern Orthodox refer to as "Theosis". This worldview pretty much states that God has built meaning into the world and it is up to humanity to discover it on its own via Divine Revelation, and said Revelations are to be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, the Church's teaching office. In Roman Catholicism, that means via the Bishops, Ecumenical Councils, and the Pope. In Eastern Orthodoxy, it's the Bishops, the Patriarchs and the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Roman Catholic view of human sexuality is based upon Natural Law theory: this is the idea that through our observations of sexual activity in the natural world, we can ascertain the "true meaning/purpose" of human sexuality- in other words, in Catholicism, since one of the major results of human sexual activity is procreation, and also since in Catholic thought it can be "observed via nature" that the penis and vagina are "naturally designed" to compliment one another, it is therefore assumed that the "true purpose" of human sexuality is procreation and the creation of a family, since this is the "evidence" that God has put into nature by design.

Again, natural law theory is Catholicism's way of discovering the true meaning that God has inserted into the world, based upon philosophical and theological interpretations of natural phenomena (i.e. heterosexual sex amongst humans). This creation of the family is seen as reflective of the totality of the Truth that is God, since by making humans we are reflecting the actions of God the Creator. Thus, heterosexual sex within marriage can be viewed as a Sacrament in Catholicism since its actions reflect the actions of God as Creator of the Universe. Thus, homosexuality and gay marriage by extension are seen as a sin because they go against the true meaning that God has inserted into the Universe at large: because homosexual sex is not procreative, therefore it goes against the Divine Revelation in regards to sex and is also not reflective of God's actions as Creator. Since it is not "ordered" towards creation, and thus is not reflective of God's actions and the meaning God has imbued into the Universe via His actions as Creator, it is seen as "disordered" and a sin.

But here is the problem: while it might be logically consistent within the worldview of Roman Catholicism for a Catholic to oppose gay marriage, that does not mean that that worldview is, in and of itself, logical or reasonable.

It assumes that God exists, and that there is inherent meaning in the world. It also assumes that we can derive in part that meaning by making interpretations of certain observations about nature. The issue is that this is basing a worldview and thus how to interact and treat people not on any observable evidence or proof, but on metaphysical interpretations of observable evidence which cannot be proven either way. The entire world view is based on interpretational metaphysical theory and not proof.

How do we know there is a God? How do we know that if one were to exist it created the Universe? We know that the Universe exists, but how do we know that something has inserted meaning into it from the get go? If God were to exist, how do we know it has revealed its plan in Nature? How do we know we are interpreting that plan correctly? If its by the Holy Spirit, how do we know that the Trinitarian view of God is correct? Saying because of Magisterial teachings based on Divine Revelation in Scripture and Tradition makes no sense, because again that's just more interpretational thinking.

When you get right down to it, Catholicism and Christianity is a series of philosophical metaphysical interpretations of the Universe with no hard and fast evidence to back up any of its claims. There is no data to prove either way, conclusively, that God does or does not exist. There is no way of proving that there is inherent meaning woven into the nature and fabric of reality, or that we can discover this meaning by interpreting certain observations about nature to fit our world view.

It is all interpretive theory with not a shred of evidence to back it up- natural law theory is, at best, as speculative as M Theory or String Theory in science, but hell even String Theory has mathematical equations to prop itself up with. Not even natural law theory has that!

Instead, in order to be consistent with the Christian philosophical interpretations of human anthropology, Roman Catholicism ignores the scientific evidence from psychology and psychiatry which has found, based on actual, observable evidence from people's actions and lives, that to suppress one's sexuality is not only unhelpful, but is emotionally, mentally and physically harmful to one's health. Viewing one's sexuality as sinful has been shown to cause depression and anxiety in many and has lead many LGBT people to commit suicide. In the face of this suffering, of this undeniable scientific evidence, the Roman Catholic Church chooses to save face in order to be consistent with its own philosophical tradition instead of admitting to error based on new evidence and the plight and suffering of human beings the world over.

It is more important to the Church to stick to it's interpretation of the World since it believes it to be true and to trust in a belief which has no proof to back it up (God as the Mystery of Faith), than to adjust its belief based on findings which have actual observable evidence to support them.

The Roman Catholic Church, simply put, requires its LGBT members to suffer based on a philosophical opinion and interpretation of reality. Since it believes this interpretation to be the Truth, it ignores any evidence that contradicts that interpretation, because it is more important to be consistent despite the very real suffering of others than to admit that your world view is wrong and causes demonstrable harm to others. The Magisterium would rather appear consistent and right than admit to error in order to alleviate the suffering of others.

If it is demonstrably more healthy to view homosexuality as something positive, and that this view in fact leads to happier lives mentally, physically and emotionally, why on earth would one insist on viewing it as a "cross to bare"? So that you are consistent with your own interpretive anthropology, no matter how much harm it might do?

That is incredibly petty and cruel, and willfully ignorant of the suffering of others: I would go so far as to call that objectively and demonstrably evil.

What this boils down to is that traditional Christianity and Roman Catholicism specifically are more concerned with saving face and sticking to their views than helping others, no matter how dangerous and unhealthy those views are shown to be.

Not only is that petty and cruel, it's downright insane and illogical.

I am not sure how I managed to devote 29 years of my life to such harmful interpretative metaphysical theory, but it now boggles my mind how any one can devote their lives to such a series of philosophical interpretations which not only have no evidence to back them up, but have also been shown to be, at least in part in regards to human experience, gravely harmful. What else do you call it when your worldview leads thousands if not more to take their own lives in despair?

If you're going to put your trust (Faith) in theories, those theories should at least be sane and helpful, even if there's no evidence to back them up! At least that way you're not harming anyone!

I rest my case.

excellent response. Very well thought out. While I disagree on your assertion that there is no evidence for Catholic teaching, which is why I am a Catholic and maintain this philosophy, I feel as though you hit the nail on the head. Your point that it is consistent within itself is all I was trying to prove.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 11:18 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is you posted it on TTA ... and no one here cares about your gods or your cult, and I am baffled that you made not the slightest attempt anywhere to justify your series of unsupported assertions, (which is all you *paper* is ... disjointed assertions).

There's a LOT wrong with "your logic". No we are not dealing with politics. What we are dealing with is the complete and utter bankruptcy of the ancient Greek philosophical paradigm (called "idealism") which the Church and some of its minions still try to use to justify it's positions on many things, including its debunked set of ideas on variant sexual orientations and behaviors. (Actually I am going to make it that, as I am completely convinced you have not a clue *what* you are even trying to talk about).

The fact is the premise and assumption of Aristotle, Aquinas (and you *claim* your paper even though you NEVER state it ANYWHERE), is that there exists an "ideal" human (an "ideal male" and an "ideal female"), (which a homosexual deviates from). THAT is the underlying fallacy. There is no "ideal male nature" and no "ideal female nature" that perfection consists in attaining to. Every human idea of what that is, is LEARNED ... and there are COUNTLESS LEARNED concepts of what the ideal human is or could be. The ENTIRE edifice of Roman Moral Theology is built on this ONE falsehood. Feser and Madrid (Catholic "Thomists") go on and on and on about the "triangle" and how that "ideal" is metaphysical. It's simply BULLSHIT. Every human brain LEARNS what a "perfect" anything is, and that *perfection" exists NOWHERE except in multiple human brains as a result of LEARNING, (and in fact is not exactly the same in any two brains). It does not exist "out there" somewhere, metaphysically. The morality of idealism (as seen in the RCC) is debunked by Neuro-science. There is no ideal male, and no ideal female, and thus the concept of "evil" or "disordered" is false. What produces "joy" is LEARNED and not necessarily understood without the experience of learning. (Also the maximization of joy as the moral ideal is suspect. What if someone gets joy from inflicting pain, which many do ?) The concept is based on a duality of reality and "perfection" which exists nowhere. Your church's morality is all outdated shit, built on a debunked idea. What there are, are "some (many) *sort of* males", and "some many *sort of* females" who *may* share some traits. There is no Thomistic/Aristotelian ideal anything. Only individuals with some common traits. NOT flawed examples of a (non-existent) ideal.

You are again putting words in my mouth. You have combined two of my posts. One post was that the Catholic Church considers homosexuality to be a disorder. This is a fact, if you wish I can supply sources indicating that they hold this position. Nowhere did I say that I hold this position. My other post was how I used Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. I used them in my essay in that both philosophers use the concept of final ends. From Aristotle I got the concept of subordinate ends. From St Thomas Aquinas the beatific vision and the concept that this is the highest end and all others should be subordinate to it. Also I think you may have confused Aristotle/St Thomas with Plato/St Augustine. Plato was the one with the concept of a dualistic reality in which there existed a separate realm of perfection called the realm of the forms. St Augustine stated that the forms resided in the mind of God. Aristotle/St Thomas used the concept of the four causes of an item. These being the material, formal, final, and efficient. The material cause was what something was made of, the formal is the shape, the efficient is what causes it to be made and the final is the purpose. I don't believe either of these philosophers maintained an idea of perfection for any of these causes.

Ps sorry for the long break. Went out to get smokes.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 01:05 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 11:08 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 09:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Being a former Catholic, what it basically comes down to is this: the Roman Catholic Church bases its entire view on homosexuality based upon its philosophical world view. It is not based on any fact or observation of the world around us, but on philosophical interpretations of what occurs in the world. Simply put: Catholicism requires LGBT people to be chaste because it has interpreted human anthropology and the natural world through a certain philosophical lense. It is unwilling to change its philosophy due to the assumptions it makes about interpreting the natural world ("natural law") and assumed metaphysics about God, which, again, is philosophical theorizing with absolutely no proof behind it.

In Catholicism, building upon the work of Thomas Aquinas ("Thomism" as the school of thought is called), the true meaning of the world and the Universe is to be found in the fullness of God, what Tarzan called the "Beatific Vision" and what the Eastern Orthodox refer to as "Theosis". This worldview pretty much states that God has built meaning into the world and it is up to humanity to discover it on its own via Divine Revelation, and said Revelations are to be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, the Church's teaching office. In Roman Catholicism, that means via the Bishops, Ecumenical Councils, and the Pope. In Eastern Orthodoxy, it's the Bishops, the Patriarchs and the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Roman Catholic view of human sexuality is based upon Natural Law theory: this is the idea that through our observations of sexual activity in the natural world, we can ascertain the "true meaning/purpose" of human sexuality- in other words, in Catholicism, since one of the major results of human sexual activity is procreation, and also since in Catholic thought it can be "observed via nature" that the penis and vagina are "naturally designed" to compliment one another, it is therefore assumed that the "true purpose" of human sexuality is procreation and the creation of a family, since this is the "evidence" that God has put into nature by design.

Again, natural law theory is Catholicism's way of discovering the true meaning that God has inserted into the world, based upon philosophical and theological interpretations of natural phenomena (i.e. heterosexual sex amongst humans). This creation of the family is seen as reflective of the totality of the Truth that is God, since by making humans we are reflecting the actions of God the Creator. Thus, heterosexual sex within marriage can be viewed as a Sacrament in Catholicism since its actions reflect the actions of God as Creator of the Universe. Thus, homosexuality and gay marriage by extension are seen as a sin because they go against the true meaning that God has inserted into the Universe at large: because homosexual sex is not procreative, therefore it goes against the Divine Revelation in regards to sex and is also not reflective of God's actions as Creator. Since it is not "ordered" towards creation, and thus is not reflective of God's actions and the meaning God has imbued into the Universe via His actions as Creator, it is seen as "disordered" and a sin.

But here is the problem: while it might be logically consistent within the worldview of Roman Catholicism for a Catholic to oppose gay marriage, that does not mean that that worldview is, in and of itself, logical or reasonable.

It assumes that God exists, and that there is inherent meaning in the world. It also assumes that we can derive in part that meaning by making interpretations of certain observations about nature. The issue is that this is basing a worldview and thus how to interact and treat people not on any observable evidence or proof, but on metaphysical interpretations of observable evidence which cannot be proven either way. The entire world view is based on interpretational metaphysical theory and not proof.

How do we know there is a God? How do we know that if one were to exist it created the Universe? We know that the Universe exists, but how do we know that something has inserted meaning into it from the get go? If God were to exist, how do we know it has revealed its plan in Nature? How do we know we are interpreting that plan correctly? If its by the Holy Spirit, how do we know that the Trinitarian view of God is correct? Saying because of Magisterial teachings based on Divine Revelation in Scripture and Tradition makes no sense, because again that's just more interpretational thinking.

When you get right down to it, Catholicism and Christianity is a series of philosophical metaphysical interpretations of the Universe with no hard and fast evidence to back up any of its claims. There is no data to prove either way, conclusively, that God does or does not exist. There is no way of proving that there is inherent meaning woven into the nature and fabric of reality, or that we can discover this meaning by interpreting certain observations about nature to fit our world view.

It is all interpretive theory with not a shred of evidence to back it up- natural law theory is, at best, as speculative as M Theory or String Theory in science, but hell even String Theory has mathematical equations to prop itself up with. Not even natural law theory has that!

Instead, in order to be consistent with the Christian philosophical interpretations of human anthropology, Roman Catholicism ignores the scientific evidence from psychology and psychiatry which has found, based on actual, observable evidence from people's actions and lives, that to suppress one's sexuality is not only unhelpful, but is emotionally, mentally and physically harmful to one's health. Viewing one's sexuality as sinful has been shown to cause depression and anxiety in many and has lead many LGBT people to commit suicide. In the face of this suffering, of this undeniable scientific evidence, the Roman Catholic Church chooses to save face in order to be consistent with its own philosophical tradition instead of admitting to error based on new evidence and the plight and suffering of human beings the world over.

It is more important to the Church to stick to it's interpretation of the World since it believes it to be true and to trust in a belief which has no proof to back it up (God as the Mystery of Faith), than to adjust its belief based on findings which have actual observable evidence to support them.

The Roman Catholic Church, simply put, requires its LGBT members to suffer based on a philosophical opinion and interpretation of reality. Since it believes this interpretation to be the Truth, it ignores any evidence that contradicts that interpretation, because it is more important to be consistent despite the very real suffering of others than to admit that your world view is wrong and causes demonstrable harm to others. The Magisterium would rather appear consistent and right than admit to error in order to alleviate the suffering of others.

If it is demonstrably more healthy to view homosexuality as something positive, and that this view in fact leads to happier lives mentally, physically and emotionally, why on earth would one insist on viewing it as a "cross to bare"? So that you are consistent with your own interpretive anthropology, no matter how much harm it might do?

That is incredibly petty and cruel, and willfully ignorant of the suffering of others: I would go so far as to call that objectively and demonstrably evil.

What this boils down to is that traditional Christianity and Roman Catholicism specifically are more concerned with saving face and sticking to their views than helping others, no matter how dangerous and unhealthy those views are shown to be.

Not only is that petty and cruel, it's downright insane and illogical.

I am not sure how I managed to devote 29 years of my life to such harmful interpretative metaphysical theory, but it now boggles my mind how any one can devote their lives to such a series of philosophical interpretations which not only have no evidence to back them up, but have also been shown to be, at least in part in regards to human experience, gravely harmful. What else do you call it when your worldview leads thousands if not more to take their own lives in despair?

If you're going to put your trust (Faith) in theories, those theories should at least be sane and helpful, even if there's no evidence to back them up! At least that way you're not harming anyone!

I rest my case.

excellent response. Very well thought out. While I disagree on your assertion that there is no evidence for Catholic teaching, which is why I am a Catholic and maintain this philosophy, I feel as though you hit the nail on the head. Your point that it is consistent within itself is all I was trying to prove.

Tarzan:

I think you missed the point of my post: I was pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church's willful ignorance of people's suffering due to a difference in philosophy is not only problematic, it's downright wrong and cruel. If your Church is willing to let people suffer years of psychological and physical trauma just so that they can prove themselves to be philosophically consistent and justify their own views, in essence, prove to themselves and by extension the rest of the world that they are right at the expense of the suffering of others and completely ignore the fact that their actions and worldview have led to this suffering for the sake of defending what they believe to be true, don't you think that's at least a tad problematic?

The question comes down to this: what's more important at the end of the day, the Church's understanding of the world, or the fact that that understanding has lead an 18 year old kid to take his or her life because they feel they are disordered, not wanted, loved or appreciated by God and others?

Here's another question for you: Jesus said that you have to love your neighbour as yourself. This implies that you have to love yourself before you can love your neighbour. How can a worldview that tells someone they are, by their very nature, disordered with a predilection or tendency to sin, foster and contribute to someone coming to love themselves when it constantly paints that person as broken? If you constantly view yourself as sinful and broken, how is that at all healthy? And how can you fulfill Jesus' commandment when the standard you constantly compare yourself to (Jesus as the God-Man) is nigh unattainable for anyone? I know you'd say that we'd get to that standard eventually in Heaven and all suffering will be alleviated by God in the end in the Beatific Vision and that its all worth it in the end, but really, if your life is that full of misery and suffering, what's the point of going through it all only to be reprieved at the end? If you're going to get your troubles taken care of at the end of the day, there's no point in living if all you have to do is kill yourself to end the despair and for God to take away all your pain in Heaven.

For a religion that talks about Life and living in the Joy of the Resurrection, I don't exactly see how putting yourself down constantly for not reaching an impossible standard is going to allow you to live a joyful life, to love yourself or others.

Doesn't that lead to Death and not Life in the end?

And isn't that really counter-intuitive to what your religion supposedly teaches?

Think about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Nagoda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: