RE: Religion stifles Moral Evolution
December 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2017 at 1:19 pm by Aroura.)
And gay people evolved the way they did for a natural, useful purpose also. It exists in nature, in human nature, and is natural. Studies even show quite a lot of purpose, and positive benefits to society.
Some people in your religion made an argument that you accept whole cloth, despite it not aligning with known scientific nature, and you are someone who accepts science generally, and yet this time you take your religions word for it.
It seems to me the very definition of "because my religion said so". The guys in charge may give reasons, but all religions give reasons for their rules. Your responses concerning other people, religious officials, coming up with reasons is, accidently on your part I think, a total srawman. That isnt what we are dis ussing, nor what theOP is asserting.
The question is whether adherants accept those reasons because they are part of their religion, or if they think them out independently.
Also, you keep saying we and us, saying gayness is against Natural Law, yet you personally don't deny their right to marry, correct? So you disagree with what your religion teaches here, or not? I'm honestly a bit confused on your personal stznce, compared to the RCCs stance.
Last question at this time, do you differ from official RCC teachings on anything, or do you accept it all as unquestionably true? That which you are aware of, of course.
Some people in your religion made an argument that you accept whole cloth, despite it not aligning with known scientific nature, and you are someone who accepts science generally, and yet this time you take your religions word for it.
It seems to me the very definition of "because my religion said so". The guys in charge may give reasons, but all religions give reasons for their rules. Your responses concerning other people, religious officials, coming up with reasons is, accidently on your part I think, a total srawman. That isnt what we are dis ussing, nor what theOP is asserting.
The question is whether adherants accept those reasons because they are part of their religion, or if they think them out independently.
Also, you keep saying we and us, saying gayness is against Natural Law, yet you personally don't deny their right to marry, correct? So you disagree with what your religion teaches here, or not? I'm honestly a bit confused on your personal stznce, compared to the RCCs stance.
Last question at this time, do you differ from official RCC teachings on anything, or do you accept it all as unquestionably true? That which you are aware of, of course.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
