Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  You are again putting words in my mouth. You have combined two of my posts.

I told you I was, as your posts are incoherent , rambling and HAVE no "point".

(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Don' bother. Instead REFUTE what I have written instead of attempting deflection.

(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Nowhere did I say that I hold this position. My other post was how I used Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

THAT IS what Aristotle and Aquinas say, and if you think otherwise, then YOU have never read chapter 1 of the Summa, in which he attempts to unify the 4 philosophers.

(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

I have not. Read the Summa Theologica. I have confused nothing. The "beatific vision" is the final (supposedly) end of a human who has achieved (or been granted) the "sight" or "presence" of God in heaven". It's CRAP unless you first demonstrate there even IS a god.

(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Wrong. They were ALL dualists.

(02-06-2015 11:18 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Ps sorry for the long break. Went out to get smokes.

Smoking is very very bad for your health. It constricts your blood vessels. I think you already have brain dysfunction.

You have said NOTHING to refute the bullshit of ANY of the POINTS I made about the crap nature of the philosophies in question.

Have a good day.


Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 06:57 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:27 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I don't believe I stated that anywhere in the paper, while I did say that it is a natural institution, to distinguish it from being custom.

Pair-bonding is natural, as are other mating practices. Marriage is not a natural institution. You are conflating the societal and legal conventions with the behavior.

(02-06-2015 06:32 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 06:09 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I did not say it was impossible, I said none did.

Thank you, that is what I wished to clarify. I disagree with you, is there a particular reason why you think that current intuitions are not capable of this.

Again, I did not say that not are capable of it, I said that none do.

(02-06-2015 07:27 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  But I decided to go with the church's teaching that to have faith you must hold all the catholic truths to be true.

You say that like having faith is a good thing. It isn't. Faith is not a path to knowledge or understanding. Faith is just a shield to help you maintain a comforting delusion. That same statement can be made by an adherent of any religion and there is nothing any of them can say to gainsay the others when it is all based on faith.

Also, there are no "Catholic truths", there is just truth. Something either is true or it isn't.

(02-06-2015 11:08 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Even if I accepted that you showed a subset of Catholic teachings were internally consistent, it is of no practical value. Consistency is important but not sufficient; you would need to first provide the evidence you think exists that supports Catholic teaching.

As it stands, it looks to me like you've only shown that they are internally consistent if you start with the assumption that Catholicism is correct and that definitely gets you nowhere.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
03-06-2015, 02:47 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:19 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  But at least I know I can cross Harvard of the potential list.

That's funny as fuck. Pretending like Harvard was ever an option for you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: