Cantab's rant

CathyMoran

Sorry if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here but I am one of these practicing catholics who is extremely anoyed at the current church homophobic attitude, to the extent that I am considering joining another branch that is more liberal. I have read the bible but I do not feel that the spirit of the bible is homophobic, all I got from it was that you should have respect for everyone.

In terms of the contraception issue - had a recent debate with my father about this - I am one of these people who will have to plan a pregnancy (am diabetic), I do not see why I should abstain when I am not in the position to procreate for health reasons (or just because I do not feel like having a baby yet!), yet the church as it "officially" stands would rather I die by using their contraceptive methods and risk having an accident.

Sorry if this is my little rant, I just find the homophobic nature of the catholic church offensive at the moment as it goes against my beliefs that God does not care what a persons sexuality is, it is how they are as people that counts.

ixoy

CathyMoran wrote:

Sorry if this is my little rant, I just find the homophobic nature of the catholic church offensive at the moment as it goes against my beliefs that God does not care what a persons sexuality is, it is how they are as people that counts.

You see that's exactly what I'd have thought it all meant too. That the core message is of love thy neighbour and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

However, I'm sure others will retort that you've just espoused a brand of Christianity and not Roman Catholicism. That apparently means taking direction from a Papal leader who thinks it's all "intrinsically disordered" I believe. I've had this debate before and the argument seems to be with the more ardent Catholics that you must follow the tenets of Catholicism as it interprets the Bible and as God's representative dictates. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong..

Hmm_Messiah

I've had this debate before and the argument seems to be with the more ardent Catholics that you must follow the tenets of Catholicism as it interprets the Bible and as God's representative dictates.

Most theoligans do not accept that the Popes Authority (as successor to Peter) is flawless in any argument, they would accept instead the strength of the argument. Infallibility has been used in one official decree, and even at that is disputed hotly.

One good thing about this Pope (who it seems might surprise people in the end, taking on a different attitude as Pope than he held himself) is that he warmly invited his old adversary Hans Kung to a meeting .

The Catechism (that thing still exists) is so conservative and reactionary to be a distortion of any natural justice or right. But People will have to realise faith/belief is separate from the doctrine of any church. When some one shows me where Jesus called any person disordered then it would be time to re-evaluate the guy with the beard.

Many people eitherways don't care so much about disagreeing with a doctrine but rather being so aware of the shortness of life are concerned about where they go next; the prospect of hell is a great deterent from using your mind! Strange to imagine though any God created us and the world and then wish us to be pre-occupied with what came next rather than enjoy the myriad of joys possible, which include comanionship, love, sensuality and sex

PAX

Cantab.

First off, I had decided not to participate in this discussion because everything I had written has essentially been passed off as a 'rant' and therefore my opinion invalidated.

There is merit in the argument that what I was saying was off-topic, but when certain individuals come out with stuff such as 'vile Catholic', 'current church homophobic attitude', 'the Church is responsible for the AIDS crisis in Africa' etc., I had to respond as these are ignorant attacks on the Catholic Church and such il-advised notions needed to be addressed. This is not often easy especially in a climate of a mass church-bashing mentality that seems to prevail in Irish society (especially amongst liberal groups such as yourselves).

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I've had this debate before and the argument seems to be with the more ardent Catholics that you must follow the tenets of Catholicism as it interprets the Bible and as God's representative dictates.

Well actually, Catholics do not find truth solely from the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Protestant Christianity (I'm talking the ones with valid Baptisms here) regard the Bible as the only source of divine revalation. Us Catholics (and indeed Eastern Orthodox) consider both the Bible and the spoken word as coming from one and the same source - God himself.

It isn't that Catholics believe only in tradition, Protestants believe only in the Bible, and never the twain shall meet. Christians of all denominations cherish the Word of God as being divinely inspired and revealed, but Catholics don't limit the Word of God to the Bible.

So Catholics believe that the Word of God comes in two forms: The Spoken Word and the Written Word. And yes, the Pope has the power to dispense, modify or continue any Human traditions such as not eating meat of Fridays during Lent, celibacy for priests of the Latin Church, etc. It's also important to remember that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals and has never been wrong in the 2000 years of the Church.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Most theoligans do not accept that the Popes Authority (as successor to Peter) is flawless in any argument, they would accept instead the strength of the argument. Infallibility has been used in one official decree, and even at that is disputed hotly.

I assume you refer to infallibility which is widely misunderstood. It's not the same as the Cathoic belief of inspiration (a special gift of the Holy Spirit which was given to the sacred authors who wrote the Bible) nor impeccability (the abscence and inability to commit sin which only Jesus himself and his mother Mary ever had).

Catholicism maintains that the Pope is infallible, incapable of error, when he teaches a doctrine on faith or morals. When he asserts his official authority, the Holy Spirit guards him from error. He is not, however, infallible in the scientific, historical, ppolitical, philosophical, geographical sense. No Pope in 2000 years has formally and officially taught an error of faith or morals to the universal Church.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

One good thing about this Pope (who it seems might surprise people in the end, taking on a different attitude as Pope than he held himself) is that he warmly invited his old adversary Hans Kung to a meeting .

I think it's more a case of making up with an old pal of his from the University of Tuebingen where they both studied and were good friends. Not sure if PB16 can reconcile their theological differences though. It's a great example of tolerance and respect of this Pope whilst asserting fundamental theological differences in a civilised and friendly manner.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

The Catechism (that thing still exists)

So? I've a CCC on my bookshelf and I'm looking at it right now (the 1992 version).

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

is so conservative and reactionary

Yawn. Here we go again. The Catholic Church is 'conservative' (i.e. anti-what you believe in). You can't blame the Catholic Church for teaching Catholicism, same way I can't criticise David Norris for being too liberal.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

to be a distortion of any natural justice or right.

Ah yes, natural justice, natural law. Now this is an interesting topic. Catholics live by the eternal law of God which is divided in to three headings: Divine positive (i.e. 10 commandments), Natural moral (i.e. Moses fled to the desert after killing an Egyptian before he got the 10 commandments because he knew, inherently, that what he did was wrong) and Human positive (Civil law and canon law). Whilst natural and divine laws are immutable and eternal, because they come from God, Human positive laws - whether they come from the Church or the government - are conditioned by contemporary circumstances such as time, place and culture.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

But People will have to realise faith/belief is separate from the doctrine of any church.

A rather erronous statement don't you think? Why will 'people' 'have' to realise this separation?

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

When some one shows me where Jesus called any person disordered then it would be time to re-evaluate the guy with the beard.

Well anyone who goes against the natural moral law would be considered disordered don't you think? The man who has sex with dolphins? The man who has sex with his mother/aunt?

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Many people eitherways don't care so much about disagreeing with a doctrine but rather being so aware of the shortness of life are concerned about where they go next;

The great lie of liberalism. Live for now, it's all about getting as much pleasure for yourself and from whatever source regardless of anyone or anything. Such an endless pursuit of happiness and self pleasure is a futile perspective on life and ultimately ends in misery.
People do care when they go against doctrine. You'd care if someone broke civil laws. Why would I not care if someone broke church rules?

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

the prospect of hell is a great deterent from using your mind!

From using your mind? You are confusing intellect with the compulsive and selfish desire (inherent in all men, who are by their nature sinners) to do whatever one wants regardless of the eternal laws of God. Hell will be fuelled by large bundles of sticks or branches meant for firewood, each one of them a human who lived their lives contrary to the eternal laws of God.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Strange to imagine though any God created us and the world and then wish us to be pre-occupied with what came next rather than enjoy the myriad of joys possible, which include comanionship, love, sensuality and sex

You list the above, but the fruits of life (sex, good food, a nice cigar, whiskey, a nice nap), when taken to the extreme (adultery & masturbation, gluttony, smoking, drinking, drug-taking, laziness, etc.) is bad for the individual and those around him.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

PAX

Just so long as it's on a 7-striped flag and not an 8-striped one!

Cantab.

CathyMoran wrote:

Sorry if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here but I am one of these practicing catholics who is extremely anoyed at the current church homophobic attitude,

The Church is not afraid of homosexual persons. Also please see my challenge to use of the taboo term 'homophobia'.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50649318&postcount=51

You should maybe talk to your local priest who can explain the Church's stance in a better context than the warped perspective that you'll find here on boards.ie>Soc>LGB.

CathyMoran wrote:

to the extent that I am considering joining another branch that is more liberal.

Have you thought about what you actually mean by liberal? Sometimes it is difficult to stand up and say you are a Catholic outside our homes - whether we're at work or socialising. Just because we are one day 'unpopular' and 'unfashionable' does not mean we are wrong. Remember, the Church has been through great persecutions ages ago and more recently, but to join another Christian denomination on the grounds of your political viewpoint (liberal) just doesn't make sense. The Catholic Church doesn't necessarily see itself as being right and all other religions being wrong, but Catholicism does firmly believe that Jesus Christ himself founded the Catholic Church and therefore the Church possesses all the truths and graces necessary for salvation, whereas other faiths possess only some truth and grace which can never lead to fullness. The Church believes that she has been given the fullness of truth and the mission to teach it to all nations.

CathyMoran wrote:

I have read the bible but I do not feel that the spirit of the bible is homophobic, all I got from it was that you should have respect for everyone.

It's right that you conclude that the spirit of the bible is not about fearing homosexual persons! Far from it! Indeed the Bible has got far more important things to be thinking about than the gay issue which attracts so much attention in the popular media. For people who define their whole lives around their 'sexual identity', it's no wonder they spend so much time and effort grouping together and lobbying the government for change. They know that lobbying the Church is a waste of time and is a sign of the power of the Church. Ultimately they will never find true happiness in a set of artificial, man-made laws and equality measures and are on a wild goose chase to nowhere.

Take pride in your faith, reflect on God daily and pray for goodness all over the world. Being a living witness to God and your Faith is the most powerful weapon of all in the arsenal of Catholicism against oppression and lies.

Catholicism will never be swept away in a tide of liberal ideology, no matter how high the waters. We've been through greater endeavours in our 2000 year history.

Now, I must get back to study.

Hmm_Messiah

Ok I'm not going there with you, I didn't see your original "rant" but your response isn't worthy of any real consideration. Its pathetic, poorly argued, and unrequired. I was responding to something Ixoy said. your opinion is of no interest to me, mostly because it is the same rubbish constantly rehashed. (but anything to avoid work)

BTW mostly what follows is a response to Cantab and maybe not worth others trawling through - U've been warned

Well actually, Catholics do not find truth solely from the Bible . Us Catholics (and indeed Eastern Orthodox) consider both the Bible and the spoken word as coming from one and the same source - God himself.

Crap. The RCC sees Truth as being Revealed by God the Old and New Testament. There is no further relevation of truth. The Heirarchy occasionally decides it can tweak something to make it more clear to us poor ignorant people. The RC also values Tradition as a sanctuary for truth, an idea that leads to very many of it problems.

And yes, the Pope has the power to dispense, modify or continue any Human traditions such as not eating meat of Fridays during Lent, celibacy for priests of the Latin Church, etc. It's also important to remember that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals and has never been wrong in the 2000 years of the Church.

The See of Peter has nothing to do with "power" , that you use the term shows the limit of your understanding of dogma, doctrine and its role within a belief structure. The Pope is not infallible, the majority of RC theoligans and bishops would reject infallibility. But maybe you know better. The person who decided the Pope was infallible was ... the Pope. Was he speaking infallibly when he decided that? The contraction is amusing .

I assume you refer to infallibility which is widely misunderstood. It's not the same as the Cathoic belief of inspiration .... nor impeccability (the abscence and inability to commit sin which only Jesus himself and his mother Mary ever had).

You assume wrongly. Nothing unusal there I'd imagine. I can't remember but I think you are wrong in the suggestion Mary was without the ability to commit sin. Without the ability there would be no free choice, vital for any christian, let alone the mother of God. She was born with out the first fault(original sin) as I recall.

Catholicism maintains that the Pope is infallible, incapable of error, when he teaches a doctrine on faith or morals. When he asserts his official authority,

The Pope, and some institutions he directs maintain this argument, it is not universally accepted by catholicism. Oh wait you mean "Roman" Catholicism? Well its not even maintained by the RC Church.

I think it's more a case of making up with an old pal of his from the University of Tuebingen where they both studied and were good friends. QUOTE]

I based my interpretation of the meeting (which I did not give explicitly anyways) on Hans Kung's words. Him being there and all I hope its ok if I place more store in his opinion than yours?

Yawn. Here we go again. The Catholic Church is 'conservative' (i.e. anti-what you believe in). You can't blame the Catholic Church for teaching Catholicism, same way I can't criticise David Norris for being too liberal.

You haven't a notion what I believe in, so stop presuming. Your argument is the one thats old. Old , tired. I'll ignore your spouting about different classes of Law and justice, other than finding it pathetic the way you state notional ideas as certainties.

But People will have to realise faith/belief is separate from the doctrine of any church. ...... A rather erronous statement don't you think? Why will 'people' 'have' to realise this separation?

erronous? Not in the least. But don't bother to "enlighten" me. Your logic is unique.

Well anyone who goes against the natural moral law would be considered disordered don't you think? The man who has sex with dolphins? The man who has sex with his mother/aunt?

Sorry is that from the Gospel? Jesus said that? You have answered what I asked, or failing to have decided to post something inane?

You are confusing intellect with the compulsive and selfish desire (inherent in all men, who are by their nature sinners) to do whatever one wants regardless of the eternal laws of God. Hell will be fuelled by large bundles of sticks or branches meant for firewood, each one of them a human who lived their lives contrary to the eternal laws of God.

Would you stop telling me, and others what we are doing, what we are confusing. I believe you to be wrong, you seem to think the same as me. Eitherways trust me I'm not the one confusing things here. The question is whether its deliberate on your part, or are you an unfortunate person who can't free their own mind from what they were "taught"

Just so long as it's on a 7-striped flag and not an 8-striped one

Not sure what the f8ck that means. I responded to another post (an intelligent one, you should try it) and responded as a sentient adult ...wait now...Roman Catholic, member of the Royal Priesthood, yadayadayada. Attaching an agenda to my words only hightlights the fact that you're unable to resond to anything without your own agenda. A sadly flawed one.

Please don't expend energy responding. You've demonstrated your opinion to be with out worth. I'm not saying Catholic Theology is worthless , just your responses individually.

Pax Vobescum

Cantab.

damien.m wrote:

Because people were never discriminated against, spat on, jailed, beaten, stabbed and killed in Ireland just because they were attracted to the opposite sex. 10 short years ago it was illegal to be gay and those things I mentioned actually happened.

Becase when straight you don't fear getting kicked out of home for telling your folks you like people of the opposite sex. There are guys and girls going to bed every night in Ireland worried about telling their parents that they're gay and not knowing that when they tell them how they'll react. I still have friends who have moved out of home first and then told their parents.

Because you don't have a state who says it doesn't recognize your relationship with your partner so that if your partner gets sick and his family doesn't like you, you are not allowed see him in the hospital and if he dies they get all the assets including the family home unless he wills it to you. If he does will it to you the state taxes you to remain living in your family home which you both built. Gay people live in such a state.

Because the suicide rate amongst straight people while high is nothing compared to that of gay people. You don't live in a society that subtely wears you down day in and day out and reminds you that you are an abhorance to nature because of who you love. This continuous reminder gets to some people and I'm sure is quite a contributory factor as to why so many young gay men kill themselves.

Because young straight people can enjoy and explore their sexuality and openly discuss who they fancy and who'd they'd shag. Not so with young gay people.

For those reasons and more there is a call once a year for gay people to have a parade and let each other know and the world that they are proud of who they are and they are proud of those that were beaten, tortured and killed to get us the limited rights we have now and that there is still a bit to go.

And because it makes gay people seen. Invisible people have invisible rights.

Gay parade = attempt to normalise homosexual behaviour which is, afaik, morally wrong and offensive. I just hope there aren't children around to see the kind of carry-on that will undoubtedly go on.

damien

Be a good troll and take it to another thread or better yet another universe. This is about Pride parades.

BuffyBot

I just hope there aren't children around to see the kind of carry-on that will undoubtedly go on.

Yes, because they will undoubtedly want to take part in a parade of some kind themselves. Perhaps with balloons. Oh, won't somebody think of the children?????

Goodshape

Cantab. wrote:

Gay parade = attempt to normalise homosexual behaviour which is, afaik, morally wrong and offensive. I just hope there aren't children around to see the kind of carry-on that will undoubtedly go on.

I think you'll find that homosexual behaviour is pretty normal for homosexuals.

Your attitude, on the other hand, I would class as morally wrong and offensive.

Cantab.

Goodshape wrote:

I think you'll find that homosexual behaviour is pretty normal for homosexuals.

Your attitude, on the other hand, I would class as morally wrong and offensive.

I think you'll find that homosexual behaviour is pretty abnormal for a lot of people in this world (anti-homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc.).

Your behaviour, on the other hand, I would class as morally wrong and offensive.

Now please explain to me why your position is more justified than mine?

shay_562

I think you'll find that homosexual behaviour is pretty abnormal for a lot of people in this world (anti-homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc.).

I think writing with one's left hand is abnormal for 8 out of every 9 people, but that doesn't mean I think we should try and force all lefties to write 'normally'. I also don't think you can impose your moral values (which are based on a religion that plenty of people in this world don't believe in) onto other people, and your attempts to do so on this forum in the past have been rebutted quite adeptly.

Stark

Back to your playthread Cantab. Feel free to spoil it as much as you want.

shay_562 wrote:

I think writing with one's left hand is abnormal for 8 out of every 9 people, but that doesn't mean I think we should try and force all lefties to write 'normally'. I also don't think you can impose your moral values (which are based on a religion that plenty of people in this world don't believe in) onto other people

Funnily enough, there was a time in Ireland not so long ago when left-handed children were forced to write with their right hand. This still happens in America. Left-handed people were once considered evil and an abomination against God. Sound familiar? Just goes to show how easily different is equated with wrong.

Enigma365

Cantabs moral guidance has made me think twice about my homosexuality. Ive decided hes right that my being gay is morally repugnant and that I must change my ways.

From now on, I am going to suppress any feelings of attration I have towards those of the same sex and pretend to be interested in girls. I may even force myself to have relationships with girls and who knows, may marry one eventually. I might even have kids. Yeah my life will be a misery, which will probably result in my wife and kids lives being a misery, but the important thing is that I will living my life with the moral clarity that Cantab prescribes, and that is what matters.

Cantab.

shay_562 wrote:

I think writing with one's left hand is abnormal for 8 out of every 9 people, but that doesn't mean I think we should try and force all lefties to write 'normally'.

Sorry, but could you please explain to me the immorality of writing with one's left hand?

shay_562 wrote:

I also don't think you can impose your moral values (which are based on a religion that plenty of people in this world don't believe in) onto other people,

I'm not attempting to impose my beliefs upon anybody else although if anybody would like me to introduce them to Catholicism, I'd be happy to do my best. Gay pride marches are a form of imposition in themselves as they attempt to normalise homosexual behaviour, change the law and send out incorrect messages to young religously minded people.

shay_562 wrote:

and your attempts to do so on this forum in the past have been rebutted quite adeptly.

I'm quite happy to debate these issues and come to a middle ground of mutual respect and acknowledgement of fundamental moral differences but the kind of anti-Catholic sentiment expressed in these pages is quite appaling.

Cantab.

Enigma365 wrote:

Cantabs moral guidance has made me think twice about my homosexuality. Ive decided hes right that my being gay is morally repugnant and that I must change my ways.

From now on, I am going to suppress any feelings of attration I have towards those of the same sex and pretend to be interested in girls. I may even force myself to have relationships with girls and who knows, may marry one eventually. I might even have kids. Yeah my life will be a misery, which will probably result in my wife and kids lives being a misery, but the important thing is that I will living my life with the moral clarity that Cantab prescribes, and that is what matters.

Go and do as you please, you're a free willed human being. I still believe your lifestyle choice is morally wrong.

Goodshape

Cantab. wrote:

I think you'll find that homosexual behaviour is pretty abnormal for a lot of people in this world (anti-homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc.).

And I have no wish that they partake in such behavior. What's your point?

Cantab. wrote:

I'm quite happy to debate these issues and come to a middle ground of mutual respect and acknowledgement of fundamental moral differences but the kind of anti-Catholic sentiment expressed in these pages is quite appaling.

What? I think you'll find, if you look up the top half of your screen, that you're posting in a Gay / Lesbian / Bisexual forum. You post here expecting us to listen to and respect the word of a religion which condems us to an afterlife of pain and suffering and then suggest that we 'come to a middle ground of mutual respect'? You don't see the conflict of interest?

I don't think anyone here is asking that you be gay, or that you give up your beliefs. Simply that you acknowledge the fact that others may have different belief systems, differint morals and different desires from your own. Are you willing to accept that?

Cantab.

Goodshape wrote:

And I have no wish that they partake in such behavior. What's your point?

That's perfectly fine. Do you respect the fact that most of the major religions have adopted a moral stance against homosexuality? Or do you expect me to tolerate homosexual behaviour in society whilst you can show intolerance towards organised religion?

Goodshape wrote:

What? I think you'll find, if you look up the top half of your screen, that you're posting in a Gay / Lesbian / Bisexual forum. You post here expecting us to listen to and respect the word of a religion which condems us to an afterlife of pain and suffering and then suggest that we 'come to a middle ground of mutual respect'? You don't see the conflict of interest?

Well if you look back to page one of this forum I initially became involved in response to uninformed criticism of Catholicism. I'm not here to directly convert LGBs; most of whom are probably so far entrenched in their ways (both mentally and socially), that there's no obvious way out for them. Publicly admitting you're wrong is a difficult, if not impossible thing for a grown man.

Goodshape wrote:

I don't think anyone here is asking that you be gay, or that you give up your beliefs. Simply that you acknowledge the fact that others may have different belief systems, differint morals and different desires from your own. Are you willing to accept that?

I acknowledge this. Do I 'accept'? Well, it depends what you mean by 'accept'. I regard Catholicism as being the fully revealed truth and nothing else. i.e. I am not a moral relativist.

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

Sorry, but could you please explain to me the immorality of writing with one's left hand?

Well I dunno about the writing part Cantab but if you have ever used your left hand for immoral purposes,be sure and use a sharp knife to cut it off as advised in the bible

And as for your eyes,I'm sure you've never been immoral with them, you being such a paragon of virtue and all, so theres no need to pluck them out...

damien

I do not think we are going to learn anything new from this silly thread and it seems that Cantab cannot make a positive contribution to this thread or forum when all he does is say the same thing over and over again. It's good to allow free discussion but this isn't a free open discussion, it's trolling and has no place here. Ban him!

Beruthiel

Cantab. wrote:

Gay parade = attempt to normalise homosexual behaviour which is, afaik, morally wrong and offensive. I just hope there aren't children around to see the kind of carry-on that will undoubtedly go on.

bringing kids up to be bigoted is immoral.
I have brought my daughter to a gay pride parade, she had a ball and it’s never wrong when people are full of the joys of life and happy to show it.
I have made sure that she sees people for who they are in their hearts, that is the only moral thing to do.
Who are you to judge other people?
Unless you are a perfect saint yourself you do not have the right, and anyway, a true saint would never claim to be so perfect that he would have the right to judge anyone.

Stark

Cantab. wrote:

Sorry, but could you please explain to me the immorality of writing with one's left hand?

There was an article published a while back: Handedness in pedophilia and hebephilia (Archives of Sexual Behavior, August 2005, vol 34 n. 4, p447ff) which showed a correlation between paedophilia and left-handedness.

Cantab wrote:

That's perfectly fine. Do you respect the fact that most of the major religions have adopted a moral stance against homosexuality? Or do you expect me to tolerate homosexual behaviour in society whilst you can show intolerance towards organised religion?

Do you accept the fact that most of the major religions have adopted a moral stance against one's use of one's left hand?

The Church no longer opposes left-handedness, but why the change? Surely God's laws are constant and don't change with increased scientific knowledge and the current moral climate? What about the claim that the Earth resolves around the Sun? Why did the Church bow to scientific pressure in this instance? Surely the word of God must have been stronger than the scientfic word?

Hmm_Messiah

do you not realise at this stage you are just feeding so pseudo-religious fetish this guy has ? His anti-homosexual stance is more extreme than RC Heterodoxy.

When any reaction is taken to the extreme its reasonable to wonder if the person is trying to convince himself more than any other.

He says he only appearred here to defend the Church from our inaccurate slant and opinion. But when detailled factual commentary was given on RC tradition, Scripture and doctrine he had nothing to say but rehash the same nonsense in a manner that is suggestive of autism. And definitely nothing was the reasonable response of an adult as he would claim.

He talks so much about homosexuality being immoral and offensive, and places this opinion within the teaching of his Church (rather than, God Forbid, using his own mind to formulate and opinion)
I can only note that the deity I've read of in the Gospels would find his attitude more abhorrent than two guys shagging or any other "immoral act".

It might be useful if he (and the past/present pontiff) realised no act can in itself be immoral. Theologically speaking acts must be placed in the context of intent, consequence, ignorance etc

And far from concentrating on the sexual acts of men and women Christ was far more concerned what people "thought" - "adultery by thought etc" - in this regard Cantab's mind appears here...well his God well judge him no doubt.

It is strange that he like so many of his Church are more concerned with sexual mores than social justice, or truth .

Finally, given all he has said, or the little he has said repeatedly, is no one anxious that having allowed him considerable free speech, that his ramblings might in some way re-inforce the negative feelings some young people have to tackle as they realise their sexuality ?

As a distortion of human sexuality his posts are almost pornographic. And not the good porn; the grainy 70's type with an excess of moustaches and medallions and always changing scene before anything fun might happen

Goodshape

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Finally, given all he has said, or the little he has said repeatedly, is no one anxious that having allowed him considerable free speech, that his ramblings might in some way re-inforce the negative feelings some young people have to tackle as they realise their sexuality ?

You think he should be silenced? If so I think I'd disagree. I think he's doing himself and his church no favours by expressing his -- quite obviously -- bigoted and narrowminded outlook on life and love. If he wants to continue to do that, I think he should be allowed (within reason).

This 'Cantab's rant' thread is an interesting look at that way of thinking, and just how ridiculous, unfounded and contradictory it is.

leo_watson357

I can't say that I agree with what Cantab is saying, but I respect him for posting it here in the midst of everyone. Opinions may be ugly, stupid or unfounded, but they all deserve the right to be aired freely.
At the end of the day, I wouldn't take it personally. Many people probably hate me for being white, British or middle class, why should people who hate me for being a homosexual be any different?

Hmm_Messiah

leo_watson357 wrote:

I can't say that I agree with what Cantab is saying, but I respect him for posting it here in the midst of everyone. Opinions may be ugly, stupid or unfounded, but they all deserve the right to be aired freely.
At the end of the day, I wouldn't take it personally. Many people probably hate me for being white, British or middle class, why should people who hate me for being a homosexual be any different?

the "right to be aired freely" becomes qualified when you can connect what people say to unlawful action or harm as in incitement to hatred etc.

But it doesn't even have to be seen on that scale. There was a family locally, seemed happy etc, one child was adopted but seemed to be very happy. He killled himself at 15. He was coloured and afterwards became apparent was constantly teased by a number of people. Looking at this as one of a wide range of consequences from what people say, if you were personally affected you might reconsider how much people "deserve" the right to say anything.

But I agree its good that opposing opinions have a forum; the problem is with his constant rehashing of the same opinion without intelligently tackling any argument put forward by others.

Another problem I'd have with Cantabs Rant is personally I'm overly familiar with the arguments against being gay, don't need it re-enforcedin a LGB.

Anyways, I don't see why any one should hate you for being who you are, or hate any other for being gay. How does yourself, or gay people so impact on this person's life that they hate?

damien

Goodshape wrote:

You think he should be silenced? If so I think I'd disagree. I think he's doing himself and his church no favours by expressing his -- quite obviously -- bigoted and narrowminded outlook on life and love. If he wants to continue to do that, I think he should be allowed (within reason).

There's freedom of speech and there's constant disruption. He has had his say numerous times and brings nothing more to the debate. It's a punch and judy show at this stage "oh no I'm not" "oh yes you are". An automated script can run in this thread now.

If you want him around so you can somehow feel good beating a bigot down then maybe that's the wrong reason?

Stark

I'll lock this thread. If he disrupts another thread on the forum like he did with the Pride thread, then I'll ban him.