Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[Neo-Scholastic]

And what are those catholic opinions on Natural Law in relation to same sex relationships?

Because the objections are always about sex aren't they?

Seems to me, people are very good at rationalizing doing whatever they want with whoever they want anyway they want and dismissing the idea that they have any responsibility for their actions or that their actions have consequences. Sexual morality is just so very inconvenient, isn't it.

[Catholic_Lady]

1. And gay people evolved 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.

2. 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.

3. Also, you keep saying we and us, saying gayness is against Natural Law, yet you personally don't deny their right to marry, correct? 4. 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.

5. 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.

1. To be clear, my argument is about sexual morality, not the existence of gay folks. 

2. I explained why/how I think sex outside the context of self giving, life long commitment between one man and one woman is contrary to Natural Law. Can you explain what it was that I said that you disagree with?     

3. "Gayness" is not freely chosen, as people don't choose who they are attracted to. So it's not possible that being gay, in and of itself, would be against Natural Law.  

4. I agree with what my faith teaches. And that is that in the eyes of God, marriage as a sacrament, cannot happen between 2 people of the same sex. Or people who have been previously married. Or people who are unconsenting, etc. All couples actually have to go through a whole process to see if the Church will accept marrying them. Whether or not we think they should have the same rights under the law though, is a personal matter.   

5. For a time, I had a problem with the Church's teaching on contraception. I didn't understand it and it didn't make sense to me, so I thought the Church was wrong about it. Since then, I've come to better understand why and now I agree with it. Can't say there is anything else. All moral teachings make logical sense to me as of now.

[Joods]

And what are those catholic opinions on Natural Law in relation to same sex relationships?

Because the objections are always about sex aren't they?

Seems to me, people are very good at rationalizing doing whatever they want with whoever they want anyway they want and dismissing the idea that they have any responsibility for their actions or that their actions have consequences. Sexual morality is just so very inconvenient, isn't it.

It was brought up. It's what's being discussed. Are you afraid that your religious points will be made invalid because they are, mmm, I dunno.... irrational and not at all reasonable?

[SteveII]

An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard.  After all, we gain new information every day.  Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!"  In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery.  He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that.  He couldn't give women equal rights either.  Or really much of anything.

...

When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information.  And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better. 

First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).

Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.

[Neo-Scholastic]

3. "Gayness" is not freely chosen, as people don't choose who they are attracted to. So it's not possible that being gay, in and of itself, would be against Natural Law.  

People don't choose to be diabetic, have Down's syndrome, or become near-sighted either.

[Joods]

An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard.  After all, we gain new information every day.  Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!"  In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery.  He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that.  He couldn't give women equal rights either.  Or really much of anything.

...

When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information.  And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better. 

First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).

Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.

So much wrong. Let me help you since apparently you don't know how to read your own bible. 

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus...hat-means/

Moderate Christians love to talk about how Jesus fixed the Old Testament, or, in other words, obsoleted the horribly offensive parts about slavery, keeping women in their place, killing gays, etc. In fact, he did no such thing.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

[Brian37]

An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard.  After all, we gain new information every day.  Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!"  In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery.  He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that.  He couldn't give women equal rights either.  Or really much of anything.

...

When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information.  And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better. 

First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).

Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.

No, cant have it both ways. If Christianity were so "original" why include the OT?

I know why. Because the founders were looking to compete with the old Jews. Not because magic exists. Christianity exists for the same reason Buddhism does. Because a splinter sect didn't like the old ways, incorporated old motifs, and added a new character, and vilified the old stuff while keeping the old stuff they thought would sell.

No different than Coke and Pepsi.

[Aroura]

1. And gay people evolved 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.

2. 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.

3. Also, you keep saying we and us, saying gayness is against Natural Law, yet you personally don't deny their right to marry, correct? 4. 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.

5. 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.

1. To be clear, my argument is about sexual morality, not the existence of gay folks. 

2. I explained why/how I think sex outside the context of self giving, life long commitment between one man and one woman is contrary to Natural Law. Can you explain what it was that I said that you disagree with?     

3. "Gayness" is not freely chosen, as people don't choose who they are attracted to. So it's not possible that being gay, in and of itself, would be against Natural Law.  

4. I agree with what my faith teaches. And that is that in the eyes of God, marriage as a sacrament, cannot happen between 2 people of the same sex. Or people who have been previously married. Or people who are unconsenting, etc. All couples actually have to go through a whole process to see if the Church will accept marrying them. Whether or not we think they should have the same rights under the law though, is a personal matter.   

5. For a time, I had a problem with the Church's teaching on contraception. I didn't understand it and it didn't make sense to me, so I thought the Church was wrong about it. Since then, I've come to better understand why and now I agree with it. Can't say there is anything else. All moral teachings make logical sense to me as of now.

Thank you for your honest answers.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, cant have it both ways. If Christianity were so "original" why include the OT?

It's called a "borrowed ladder". You need pedigree...no ones going to listen to some asshole on a street corner yelling crazy shit about nailing people to sticks.

[Whateverist]

So very much this.  It is fundamentalism which stifles moral evolution and lowers the IQ of the people infected.

But the world isn't broken up into fundamentalists and non fundamentalists.  Many people exists somewhere on the scale to one side or the other, depending on the issue.

Perhaps it would be better to say the distinction is between fundamentalism, and non fundamentalism (or perhaps fundamental beliefs, and non...yada yada), because even Lutheran pew warmers and cafeteria Catholics can hold fundamentalists, racist, sexist views based on the teachings in their religion, while there exist evangelicals who do not.

I agree that there are shades between them and even among fundamentalists the culture of some will be more inclined toward intolerance and violence.