In article <qfgLj.986$PJ3.332@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...
>
>On Apr 6, 7:27 pm, Jacob <jni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Going along with the crowd without any thought as to what God wants,
>> is what most people choose as a compromise, because this saves them
>> the trouble of thinking for themselves.
>The problem is what one thinks 'God wants,' which can vary widely from
>person to person.
Well of _course_ it is a 'problem'. But that is _why_ people like Aquinas
spent
so much effort on thinking about and describing what "God wants".
You, however, are quick to pour forth your opinion, without ever showing
the
fruit of such effort. Bad idea.
> For example, if one has a child who's gay, a parent
>may think 'God wants' the child to 'stop being gay,' which is
>impossible.
This is a perfect example of you shooting off your mouth without knowing
what
you are talking about. Of _course_ it is possible. In some cases, it may
be very
difficult, but that it is _possible_ was proved by many cases throughout
the
history of the Church.
You, no doubt, will dismiss that history as legendary, which is ironic,
since
you accept the _clearly_ mythological belief in the effectivity of
astrology.
> It's the same as trying to get someone to stop being
>hetero***ual.
No, it not the same. You keep repeating this with no more evidence than
you can
show for astrology.
> Whereas, another parent may understand
There's that favorite fallacy of yours again: you state as if proved what
is
doubtful, or even disproved. Here, you do it by presuming to say
'understand'.
> that the
>homo***uality in the Bible doesn't refer to the longterm, loving
>relation****ps of today
And here is another of your favorite fallacies. Yes, it _does_ refer to
the
_so-called_ 'loving' relation****ps of today. We know this because it
refers to
_any_ homo***ual act.
I have given you the detailed proof of this, your response was not even a
rebuttal. You had no counter-argument at all.
>and what God wants is for the parent to love
>the child just as they are.
No, that is not the 'love' commanded in the Bible: not even for people
without
this terrible burden of homo***uality. Yet again, you are completely
off-base.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
