(June 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Please don't misunderstand. I know the 2 are worlds differently. I just wanted to know if your comment  that it's wrong to say someone "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature" applied to all people, or if it applies just to some people.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: As long it's about consenting adults, morality doesn't come into it. I couldn't care less what everyone does in their private bedrooms, since they are, well, private.

Look, I generally like your attitude and agree with rexbecca that it's refreshing not to be patronized and preached to for a change. But that's one of the major problems I have with religion in general. Sticking it's nose into other people's business and calling that morality. It's being nosy, plain and simple and it's got nothing to do with morality.

And as for catholics priests, it would be more interesting how the percentage looks among people abusing a position of authority, since that's what they do. The general male population isn't that interesting, but teachers and the likes.

These are the statistics for my own country. It's not just about a few bad apples in this case.

Quote:Austria

In November 2010, an independent group in Austria[58] that operates a hotline to help people exit the Catholic Church released a report documenting physical, sexual, and emotional abuse perpetrated by Austrian priests, nuns, and other religious officials. The report is based on hotline calls from 91 women (28%) and 234 men (72%), who named 422 perpetrators of both sexes, 63% of whom were ordained priests.[59][non-primary source needed]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...buse_cases

(June 16, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My apologies.

I did not go as far as to examine other religions, just used basic knowledge of what I already knew about them. I just examined Catholicism and decided that it made sense to me. If I had felt that it didn't, then I would start examining other beliefs, including atheism.  

So you didn't examine other religions and found your Catholicism most logical, as you asserted earlier in this thread.

(June 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Del Rio. It's about 6 hours away from Austin!

Figured as much -- I'm former Air Force myself, but thankfully was never stationed there ... I was at Carswell in Fort Worth, when it was an active-duty base.

I did not "examine" them, but from what I knew about them, I knew they were not quite right.

Awesome, thank you for your service!

(June 16, 2015 at 3:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 3:39 pm)Cato Wrote: Because claiming fealty for a religious organization that systematically sheltered child sexual predators doesn't mesh well with the idea that Christianity doesn't condone the torture of children.

Cato, the Catholic religion does not "shelter" these people. The Catholic religion teaches that it is wrong to molest children, and to shelter people who do wrong like this.

Yes, there were people who were Catholic who did horrible things. There were also people who were Catholic who did another horrible thing by covering it up. There are bad people in every group, and Catholics are no different.

Catholicism does not condone any of this behavior. In fact, it vehemently teaches against it.

I agree that there's nothing in Catholicism's catechism that could reasonably be read to support going out and raping children. I think the bigger point is that the organization from which you're drawing the basis of your morals has been shown over and over and over to be engaging in massively hypocritical immoral actions, shielding those who commit them, refusing to discuss the cases with authorities, and refusing to help the victims of said immoral actions. Why would you draw your basis of morality from such an organization? Why not take the base ideas of morality from the catechism and just leave that specific organization? Unless you believe that it's the literal church itself that's more important than the ideas, I don't see why that would be hard.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You would have to ask Him that question.

But I think men and women have certain differences that compliment each other and set themselves up for the best scenario for having and raising a child. I think if God intended for 2 men or 2 women to bond together as a family unit, he would have made it so that they could reproduce.

Hey I thought you said you accepted evolution.  I'm not sure what to make of that acceptance if you can still say this.

I think God created the concept, and let nature take its coarse.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe they are not morally good because I believe God created sex to be used between husband and wife. And so using it outside of it's intended context is not moral.

Why? What's wrong with sex that isn't between husband and wife?

Quote:This isn't just about same sex relations, it is about opposite sex relations too. I have many friends who sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends, and I don't think what they are doing is moral. If they asked me what my views were, I would be honest with them and tell them. But I would never just come out and start bugging them about it. You are perfectly capable of loving someone and respecting someone without thinking everything they do is good.

Again, WHY? 'Bible sez' is not an explanation. What precisely is bad about sex that isn't between husband and wife?

Quote:Please read carefully. I did not equate the 2, nor would I ever. Because I do not think the 2 are equal. I did though, challenge the assertion made that it is wrong to say someone should refrain from "acting on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature."

That impulse is 1)a recognized psychiatric disorder 2)always harming others when acted upon. Do you fail to see the difference?

(June 16, 2015 at 3:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Cato, the Catholic religion does not "shelter" these people. The Catholic religion teaches that it is wrong to molest children, and to shelter people who do wrong like this.

What is "Catholicism" if not its leaders?  The church leaders were the ones covering everything up.  The Pope has a link directly to God, right?

(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

Quote:I believe it is objectively immoral, yes.

So, you didn't change your mind on what's objectively moral, even after you realized this:

Quote:But culpability changes depending on the person. So for someone of a different faith who has no idea or genuinely believes differently, they probably have very little fault, if any.

What's the point of making it something immoral, then?

An act can be objectively immoral, in and of itself. But the person's heart is something that cannot be judged. For example, a man breaks into your home and steals some percocet from your medicine cabinet. Is action moral? No.

Now imagine these 2 scenarios:

1. The man stole your percocet in order to sell them to high school kids.

2. The man stole your percocet because his child is in great pain while recovering from an injury and he cannot afford a refill of the medication.

The fact still remains, stealing is wrong. Period. But in scenario 1 the man probably has a lot more darkness in his heart than in scenario 2. While stealing is still wrong, I'm willing to bet his culpability is greatly lessened in the second scenario verses the first.

(June 16, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: So, you didn't change your mind on what's objectively moral, even after you realized this:


What's the point of making it something immoral, then?

An act can be objectively immoral, in and of itself. But the person's heart is something that cannot be judged. For example, a man breaks into your home and steals some percocet from your medicine cabinet. Is action moral? No.

Now imagine these 2 scenarios:

1. The man stole your percocet in order to sell them to high school kids.

2. The man stole your percocet because his child is in great pain while recovering from an injury and he cannot afford a refill of the medication.

The fact still remains, stealing is wrong. Period. But in scenario 1 the man probably has a lot more darkness in his heart than in scenario 2. While stealing is still wrong, I'm willing to bet his culpability is greatly lessened in the second scenario verses the first.

What does that have to do with two consenting adults entering into a relationship together?

Also, hearts don't feel emotions; hearts don't think. Hearts pump blood.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: Hey I thought you said you accepted evolution.  I'm not sure what to make of that acceptance if you can still say this.

I think God created the concept, and let nature take its coarse.

Is the 'nature' whose course is taken entirely value laden?  Why does every molecule and cell have to reflect divine superiority?  How can you be sure?

Can you be sure that God is not pleased when gays adopt or when those clever lesbians evolve to make inspired use of a turkey baster?

(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

Quote:And honestly, I do believe God shows great mercy for gay folks who act on their attraction, whether catholic or not.

Why do you believe this?  Because of this:

Quote:It must be extremely difficult to have to live a celibate life and to never get to feel the closeness of a life partner.

But people wouldn't have to live life like that if your ilk didn't tell people it was immoral.  Conflating homosexuality with child molestation is a really bad trick, too.  That is disingenuous, dishonest, and just plain vile.  How moral is that? Well they still don't have to live life like that. It's their decision, as it should be. It is not right to force it on anyone. If you read my earlier posts, you will see that I was not comparing the 2. Merely commenting on a statement someone made about not acting on impulses.

Quote:I'm sure God understands that better than any of us

Then why would he make it objectively immoral? That is a good question and one that I cannot fully answer. I would say that since He created the concept of sex, He must know that using it outside the context of husband and wife can be harmful in some way.

Quote:and I think He is very merciful to these people.

Again: why do you think that? See above.

Quote:When speaking about objective actions, we can say whether and action is moral or immoral in and of itself. But we can never judge the state of another  person's soul.

Why; because you say so?  You're allowed to judge everything but someone's soul?  I don't think that's what it says in the Bible...

Well, it's what I personally believe. I do believe we can judge a particular action as being good or bad... we do it all the time when making day to day decisions and when trying to figure out how to talk to others or handle others, etc. Love the sinner not the sin is something Jesus taught.