It’s “pride” day tomorrow in many places. Type “pride month” into Google. One long endless sodomy flag (to use the polite term) decorates the results. Google is proud of sodomy. Evidently they want you to be, too.
Why “proud of sodomy”? Well, it is “pride” month, and the pride meant is that felt by those who are same-sex attracted and those suffering from gender dysphoria. The so-called “LGBT community”. A “G-man” in this “community” is proud of being sexually attracted to other men.
Both the desire and the manifestation of that sexual attraction is sodomy, which in the original and best definition meant “carnal copulation in a manner against nature” (Webster, 1913). The Oxford English Dictionary has “any form of sexual intercourse considered to be unnatural.”
“L-women” who are also proud of their sexual attraction to women are thus proud of desiring sodomy, too. Men who pretend or who believe they are women, and vice versa, have any manner of sexual desires. But they are at least proud of their delusion, if not also of desiring sodomy.
Sodomy, then, is a good and useful word. True, it is a judgmental word, in that it indicates an unnatural desire. But reality is often harsh and judgmental. And we can’t evade reality.
If you enjoy sodomy, you may take (meager) comfort that unnatural by itself does not mean immoral. It takes a deeper argument to get from unnatural to unlawful, immoral, unsupportable and the like. And even the most adamant supporter of “gay rights” has to admit that sodomy does not lead to natural sexual procreation.
So we can all agree on definition of the word.
Logic insists that when a man says he is proud of “being gay”, he is proud of his desire for sodomy with other men. That is all “being gay” means, a desire for sodomy—and not for friendship or love. A man may befriend or love another man in the complete absence of any sexual desire. The word we use for this is friend. There is nothing “gay” about friendship.
Very well, “pride marches” and “pride month” are logically equivalent with “pride for desiring sodomy” and “pride in sodomy month.”
Now the “rainbow” or “gay” flag is used by supporters of sodomy everywhere, as all know. It expresses pride in desiring sodomy, and further says that this desire is good. Nobody can dispute this. Thus we can call the creation the “(desire for) sodomy flag” or “sodomy colors”.
Google is only one of a slew of public corporations who are participating or signalling support for desiring sodomy. Before we answer why this is so, consider how these groups announce their agreement.
Pepsi issued a can imprinted with the sodomy flag. Colgate displayed the sodomy colors in toothpaste, stacked on one brush. Rice Krispies has the sodomy colors on their package in the shape of a heart with the words “So much to love about”.
Facebook, Instagram, and some others created apps to stitch or overlay the sodomy colors onto random photographs. Dr Martens shoes, Levi’s, GlassesUSA, Converse, American Eagle Outfitters, Nike, Urban Outfitters, all have custom products with the sodomy colors.
Starbucks flies the sodomy flag, as does the entire city of San Francisco. Bank of America announces its “employees around the country celebrate Pride“—in sodomy, of course.
One can go on and on like this. Indeed, the trick is not to find a major corporation celebrating pride in desiring sodomy. The magic is in discovering one that celebrates pride in natural sex. Indeed, I was only able to find companies everybody already knew about, like Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. It might make a fun exercise for readers to see if they can unearth others.
If the CDC’s statistics are a reliable guide, something over ninety-five-percent of the people who work at these corporations are not themselves “members” of the “LGBT community”. And the companies must know their actions in supporting sodomy discriminate against their (among others) Muslim and Christian employees and customers.
That makes the utilitarian argument some advance for why companies support pride in sodomy weak. Sodomy-pridefuls buying up Oreo cookies and the like won’t produce more than a blip in sales.
No, the pride in sodomy for those who don’t personally care for sodomy is for another reason, and a banal one. Virtue signaling.
Dull explanation, but true. These companies, celebrities, and non-sodomy fanciers want to tell the world how enlightened they are that they support those who do desire sodomy.
Sodomy, though it is unnatural by definition, always has limits. It is another useful exercise to project those limits. Supporters won’t give support for merely man-on-man anal sodomy forever. They’ll want something out of the deal, too. Signalling virtue will pale. Just what “freedoms” do you suppose these folks will demand?
Dull explanation, but true. These companies, celebrities, and non-sodomy fanciers want to tell the world how enlightened they are that they support those who do desire sodomy.”
Yes and the same is true for those who like to write about why they are disgusted by sodomy. It’s virtue signalling. It’s how it appears. Motives for that may well differ greatly!
Which ever side of the argument, whichever religious persuasion or proclivity, people are being asked, even with this article to be outraged. Come on now, be outraged! Express it! Declare it! Either be proud or be disgusted! That is your choice.
It is a phase. Don’t pay it any attention, more excuse for hysteria.
One important point though, there are many heterosexual couples and even non couples, but men who seek prostitutes who engage in sodomy. Statistically a higher number than even makes up all the rest worldwide. The difference is that nobody gets to find out what those types are up to. They keep it secret. Many of those join in virtue signalling for the pretend equally faking and hypocritical moral side. When I say they seek out sodomy, I’m referring to the kind of activity normally associated with gay men.
So many things are natural. To be a vegetarian is unnatural. Why don’t people get all hot under the collar about vegetarians?
Answer is, because it’s not about sex. People love an excuse to talk about it and write about it. The “LGBTQ” “COMMUNITY” have found it easy to create a stir and get noticed.
They are just milking the cow. Causing deliberate hurt or hindrance for the audience they hope most will be outraged and having a party at the same time.
In other words, it is a side show.
LGBT abuse rainbows
SJW fanciers and non fanciers abuse snowflakes
I’m going to form an action group.
Pro snowflakes and rainbows, real ones.
“Snowflake protection & Rainbow Awareness.”
Word abuse, that’s what it is…
Zippy and George would be proud!
I’ll see your Kamakawiwo’ole and raise you a Ho.
Aha! But I have pearly shells!
“Why don’t people get all hot under the collar about vegetarians?”
Some do, some don’t. The human race isn’t much threatened by your choice of food. Large numbers of people choosing non-reproduction *does* threaten the human race and before then starts to skew demographics and politics. If Republicans have children and Democrats do not, what eventually happens?
I always wonder how people can support a lifestyle with such bad health consequences. The health hazards of homosexuality are well known but not well publicized.
Oh Michael that is about the silliest thing…
The human race isn’t threatened by this. There is no cause for alarm.
If you don’t see the inerrant negative feedback in the scenario you present then you are a Michael 2 in disguise. There is a real and present threat but this isn’t one of them.
There are some roses outside with big sharp thorns which need pruning so I’ll leave the grumpy old men to paint them red. I wouldn’t want to spoil the party.
strike that Michael 2; there’s much commotion in the ocean and you know this, being a navy man.
Learn this dance off by heart and teach it to all your female friends and relatives!
If you post it on youtube it will spread the proper feminine way quicker and the human race will have a problem of a whole different magnitude on it’s hands. It’s sure to work.
It’s an order. I know you can do it, sir, Make sure you get all the moves right mind.
Two by two the male and female pairs of animals left the ark, and a rainbow in the sky marked the pledge that it would never be done again. The rainbow has been stolen.
Joy wrote “Oh Michael that is about the silliest thing…”
Good substitute for a substantive discussion. Anyway, your mileage obviously varies.
“The human race isn’t threatened by this.”
I suppose some definitions are in order but I’m not going to bother. I will suggest for your consideration that the 50 million or so pregnancies terminated, most of black children, has already changed the demographics of the United States from what it otherwise would have been. Whether this is good or bad is a talk for another day; but imagine the consequences of those 50 million, many of whom would now be parents and even grandparents, but now do not exist. What is currently a minority (except on televised commercial advertising) would have likely become the majority.
The bible missed an opportunity: It isn’t the meek that shall inherit the earth, it’s the breeders. Thus saith Charles Darwin.
“There is no cause for alarm.”
I have said nothing about alarm. I suppose I should be glad we seem to agree on this line.
The corporations, to which you refer, have CEOs…no? And upper management teams…right? Perhaps they would demonstrate their inclusiveness by posting photo’s of their cloacae.
To start, Michael “JOY wrote” or “X writes” is impolite, but you know this…I take it? It’s not as bad as YOS’s (*) or many of the other urban dictionary references though…
“Good substitute for a substantive discussion. “
Not sure what you mean there except to intend to imply that the point isn’t made regarding sodomy and companies joining in with the ‘pride’ or the ‘rainbow’ theme or whatever it is We fretted about yesterday.
“Anyway, your mileage obviously varies.”
What, exactly do you mean by this?
Of course your experience and perspective differs from mine. It goes without saying. We have discussed this before. Clearly everybody’s taste and opinions are formed by a complex set of information and a complex set of internal contemplation or whim depending on the individual. Facts are facts though. The truth doesn’t alter because it isn’t to your or my taste.
“The human race isn’t threatened by this.”
If the human race is threatened then there is cause for alarm no?
“I suppose some definitions are in order but I’m not going to bother.” Why say?
“I will suggest for your consideration that the 50 million or so pregnancies terminated, most of black children, has already changed the demographics of the United States from what it otherwise would have been. Whether this is good or bad is a talk for another day; but imagine the consequences of those 50 million, many of whom would now be parents and even grandparents, but now do not exist. What is currently a minority (except on televised commercial advertising) would have likely become the majority.”
This is bananas. It is not even relevant!
Why on earth are you writing about fifty million, I assume, abortions?
Why on earth do you think I should answer for them?
Really, Michael that was uncalled for.
How do you get from women doing hula dancing to the bible missing a trick, Darwin’s theory and outbreeding of one type affecting the human race?
I was offering a practical, if light hearted solution. Catholics think they’ve solved the problem but they’ve left everybody cold. Most people don’t believe what it preaches. Even the catholics who do a sneaky rhythm thing. The islamic faith gives women no choice and by that I don’t mean contraception. So if it’s more babies you want, get dancing! Was my point.
Some grown men have forgotten their manners.
George rocks. Zippy is hilarious.
@ Joy: “Rainbow”.
LOL, that took me back. It’s amusing that Christianity yearns for a world which would be very much like like Rainbow without Zippy.
Very profound… A Rainbow’s not the same without Zippy.
Perhaps some forgot.
On islands and since it’s come up all week about five times,
To my friend Shirley who had this played at her funeral last Thursday. A wonderful example of a lady, never believed in God, suffered greatly and never complained, who was punished much of her life and yet maintained her sense of humour and good grace to the end.
She is in a better place now.
to all the lost souls who see sirens everywhere they go. They have lost faith in themselves…
“Cover face, mine eyes dazzle, she died young.”
It seems the local forum bully is the ironically titled “Joy.” All these minor blogs have them, especially ones made by nominal Catholics. I used to be followed by Briggs on twitter and found his blog on accident today. Such a shame the comments have a mini tyrant running them.
The schoolyard bully comes to sneer and sneer and sneer because they think it will make their shame go away. The only thing it makes go away is the Faithful who don’t care about the sneerings of loose, insecure women, least of all internet bullies.
The articles here seem devoid of comments as of late and I can see why when the local queen bee sneers at anyone who dares to show even an ounce of virtue.
It makes her vices uncomfortable, you see. We can’t be having virtue. Least of all we can’t be having Catholicism!
The Church leaves her cold (see: it reminds her of her evil and we can’t be having that.). “Most people don’t believe what it preaches,” after all, which is just a euphemism for it makes her ego hurt. You see, Joy is “most people,” at least in her own head, and any child that gets in the way to that will be sacrificed to the ego that she worships.
You will not answer for all 60 million of the children murdered in the US since 1973 here in this world. You will at judgement though for supporting that evil.
Deflecting to the devil worshiping mohammedans to try and hide your shame over killing children all while calumniating against not only the Church but all Catholics is also something you will answer for.
You will also answer for worshipping politics and the destruction of mankind all hidden behind saccharine ironies and insecure sneerings.
You remind me very much of a Fulton Sheen quote:
“Conscience, Christ, and the gift of faith make evil men uneasy in their sin. They feel that if they could drive Christ from the earth, they would be free from “moral inhibitions.” They forget that it is their own nature and conscience which makes them feel that way. Being unable to drive God from the heavens, they would drive his ambassadors from the earth. In a lesser sphere, that is why many men sneer at virtue–because it makes vice uncomfortable.”
As much as I dislike you, I do not hate you. If I hated you I would encourage you to persist in your damnation and self-destruction. I instead hope to at least stick a thorn in your ego that isn’t easily torn out.
Hopefully one day it pains you enough to save your soul.
“cover Her face, mine eyes dazzle, she died young.’
This is strange theater. Joy, do you actually think your sneerings and melodrama will make your shame go away?
Why do you seemingly claim it as a point of pride that your deceased friend did not believe in God?
“she’s in a better place”. How do you know?
Because you are a gnostic and feel that the body is evil and the spirit is meaningless and you have a sick fixation on death?
Because you are a gnostic and you “know” she is because it pleases your ego?
Joy wrote: “To start, Michael ‘JOY wrote’ or ‘X writes’ is impolite”
As a courtesy to you and others I do it that way to establish context in case comments exist between your comment and my reply.
You really deserve to be ignored. However your filth requires some correction.
I am no bully but to the contrary, have tolerated vituperations on here and sneaky snide remarks as well as urban dictionary references as stated above and without any justifiable reason. I’ve watched Christians, encouraging or suggesting suicide of commenters or of random unknowns and suggestions of violence. ( Listen to podcasts. ) I have watched dissenting commenters being treated like muck with no reason. You have come to the party about a year and a half too late. That’s without a mention of the creep who exposed himself on line to me with help of the IP address and have had attacks on the computer which then were mentioned in comments on the blog. I have informed the police and sought aught counter surveillance it has been that serious. References directly back to this very site.
If a big shot like yourself can’t take commentary on religious matters you shouldn’t be near a religious discussion.
Briggs doesn’t claim to be apriest. These are not church services being disrupted by someone disagreeing, they are posts and articles about faith and religion and of course politics. Get over yourself. Perhaps you could petition Briggs to only allow Catholics of your choosing into a private discussion room.
I am pointing at reality for the likes of you who can’t stand the light of reality. You are lost.
Oh dear, lose woman? You are a creep and you flatter yourself.
Your comment is dangerous and particularly to women and those who are vulnerable in spirit.
My virtue is none of your business.
You claim I Support sodomy? You can’t comprehend what you read. So you lie instead.
You think I’m not a Christian? You can’t comprehend what you read. You lie instead.
You used to follow Briggs on twitter but know not of the reason he stopped…?
You think, for some bizarre reason I will pay for unborn, dead or some other imagined number of dead people. You are sick.
You are a modern day witch burner, part of the mob.
First you must find Yourself a witch. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Read the two commandments from Jesus and commit them to memory.
“love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your soul.”
The second is to love your neighbour.
If you do the first with all your might, you cannot look at a gay person or an anything you find distasteful to you and find that you want to condemn them. If you have enough love in your heart you don’t do such things. When you find someone suggesting the opposite you fight it and resist it.
Finally, learn to have a sense of humour, it will help you through.
Michael, I have wondered for a while so thank you for clarification.
To start, Michael “JOY wrote” or “X writes” is impolite, but you know this…I take it?
Oh, dear. I didn’t know that. I must’ve missed the Miss Manners lesson on the subject. Which rule of etiquette does it violate? How does one say that politely?
I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have plenty to be sad about.
You have a lot to be angry about but that is your problem, not mine.
You have a lot to be angry about but that is your problem, not mine.
To whom are you responding?
Joy denies she is a bully at the same time as trying to bully away any and all rebukes against her. This is normally referred to as “DARVO”: Deflect, attack, reverse victim and offender. It is most commonly used by women looking to emotionally abuse their husbands or to claim victimhood status despite being the aggressor.
The strange fantasy she mentions reminds proves this as why would she be here if all of that happened? The answer is because she only wants to disrupt. Joy jumped on the author for daring to rebuke sodomites and she will jump down the throat of anyone who dares question her.
Why is she even here then? Joy is here to please her ego at the expense of anyone she can attempt to take down with her. The term for this is narcissism, which ironically is the same illness that fuels the sodomites.
Imagine being so miserable that you spend your whole life on a place you hate to bully people you hate because they are the only people who pay attention to you. Not to mention the only reason they pay attention is because you shove yourself in their faces to scream how much you hate them.
You have not given any discussion on any matters or religion, you are giving “commentary” that is little more than absurdist rants used to express your anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry.
You are a gnostic, so reality is something you believe you can “know” away to replace it with your wishful thinking.
You scream about “tone” because you have no argument against me. You try to bully me with threats of emotional abuse because you want to control everything.
You obviously support sodomy as you champion any marxist cause dujour.
You obviously support killing children and you will be judged for it. There is nothing imaginary about the 2 billion children killed in the womb worldwide since 1970.
You play the victim because it is emotional abuse you think can be used to bully and control others.
You an enraged by anyone who does not refer to you with slave-like devotion to your ego.
You aren’t vulnerable in spirit…
Per Aquinas, Love is to will the good of the other as other. Also per Aquinas, the will is only created when you understand Good as Good.
It is not love to encourage the damnation and self-destruction of the mentally ill.
It is love to tell them the truth and that sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.
Thank you Briggs, I suppose I got carried away.
There was this bit too! Quite a strange choice of language “take down with her”…? What? You think I made something up about cyber attacks? Think again.
“Why is she even here then? Joy is here to please her ego at the expense of anyone she can attempt to take down with her.” Very odd talk. I’m not going anywhere, let alone down. You are on a completely different page, whoever you are. Domestic violence? victim talk? That is weird and unhealthy.
Preceding comment has not appeared for some reason.
Geezer not @ you
Catholic hater? Don’t be ridiculous. Dogma is dangerous. The Catholic Church has not been a force for good in the world. One day, maybe, soon. Disagreement with the worship, as it appears, of Aquinas. You are not free to make things up about my likes and dislikes.
The remarks about child killing are defamatory and untruthful rubbish.
As to not grasping the ‘flow’ of the discussion;
Memorialising my friend was not at you but a general remark to the ether as I think is obvious. The point about sirens is worth noting. It harps back, to old comments and since that type of music might be construed of some kind of evil It was worth making.
The line from Webster’s play seems very apt, though. I’m getting that same creepy feeling.
To your bullying theme, no, I simply refuse to join in and display distaste or pride in the whatever badger parade it is. It does not impinge. Perhaps living in San Fransisco it would be different.
I don’t fancy San Fransisco although my Father said it was one of the best places he visited in the US because the people were friendly. He’s very old fashioned.
As it happens it is more of an outrage that people take something beautiful and make it ugly. I do hate that. Hence rainbow, snowflake protection league remark.
I think that covers everything. Don’t bother me again with your filth.
Joy, your comments are pure bullying. Everything you say is either an attempt at silencing others or an attempt at manipulating them through emotional assault poorly veiled behind a forced aesthetic of victimhood. It’s hard to claim you are the perpetual victim when your first reaction to being challenged is to threaten them from an imagined place of power.
Your rhetoric is alinsky mixed with a few soviet-era euphemisms. Your intellectual capacity begins with “zippity-do-dah” and ends at threatening Catholics with persecution if they don’t worship you instead of God. Someone who hijacks a comment section to defend sodomy, then begins to quote dolly parton lyrics while eulogizing the mortal sin of her friend in a show of dominance is someone who has clearly grown fat with complacency because no one has the gall to challenge her.
Dogma is merely a true thought, as Fulton Sheen would say. Water is wet is a dogma. Hydroflouric acid being made of one atom hydrogen and one atom fluorine is a dogma.
Claiming that dogmas are dangerous is a dogma itself, and a dangerous dogma there is because it is a self-defeating thought that leads to the destruction of the mind. HF is not the chemical formula for water, water is not dry no matter how “revolutionary” you think you are to claim such things. Claiming that dogmas must be disregarded is the start of madness and government tyranny, which is a goal of your chosen side.
As I said, your rhetoric is soviet and you abuse this place with the same brand of tyranny that made saying 2+2=5 a requirement to escape execution in orwell’s 1984. There were many such dogmatic absurdities required of the soviets to escape execution, and you are trying the same here. It is a sign of total control when you can bully someone into saying what is untrue. Of course, you would claim those affected by this tyranny “deserved” it for being “dogmatic.”
Good is merely things as God created them to be. The Church is the only source of good, in this world. The only person you hurt with blasphemy is yourself.
You deny the Church because you want destruction, most of all self-destruction but like I said you think it a point of pride to take others down with you. That is why you spend your time disrupting and distorting here. There is a word in psychiatry for that condition, but Briggs did not like me mentioning it.
Two billion children have been killed worldwide since 1970, that is a point of fact. You would -like your soviet brethren – claim that none of them were human. You support the demise of children, and the political system fueled by that destruction, you will be judged for it.
Just like you will be judged for supporting the self-destruction of millions of sodomites. I imagine you are more than happy to hatefully let these people perish because it makes you feel better about your own depravity.
As for “creepy,” this is not only you trying to use buzzwords instead of arguments, you are employing another soviet tactic here. Behind the iron curtain, communists would accuse their political enemies of “chemical imbalances” or “schizophrenia” or any other such nonsense to mark said political enemy for “re-education.” You are well on your way to doing that here in defense of your imaginary dictatorship over this place.
I don’t know why Briggs allows you to do this. It feels sad to leave Briggs to the just desserts of his inaction, but I have lost my patience in regards to helping people who refuse to help themselves.
I will leave you and this site with a quote from Mother Angelica:
“Those who tell you the Truth love you. Those who tell you what you want to hear love themselves.”
Clean your own house, I’m not doing it for you.
For the record this does need clarification:
“The Catholic church has not been a force for good. “
From the Christian perspective that they are the church of God of the bible then this is an unmeasurable and unequivocal good in my view. That is a given. With power comes responsibility and a duty of care.
It is not to the point which is at fault. If there were not high expectations of such a church there would be no outrage, no dismay, not disappointment at their dealings and their machinations. It is that they have in my view forgotten their duty of care and are structured in such a way that this will continue to happen.
When people lose trust they lose faith, their motive to love and be charitable, their hopes are removed if they lose their faith in God. If I were a Catholic I would probably have lost my faith altogether. Without trust that Truth, prevails, the rest follows like a pack of cards.
The IQ2 debate in London is on youtube in it’s entirety. The motion is carried by an enormous number. I don’t know if the audience was fixed, the moderator was biassed and like the cat who got the cream which wasn’t good. I do Like Ann Widdecombe.
Yet I am inclined to agree with the winning side. It’s blemishes can’t be ignored.
Catholics and Christians are always the ones being criticised and persecuted but in this case it is the church itself and those who directly represent it.
Lastly Douglas Murray saved ‘organised religion’. Which included all the churches in a debate in Cambridge when he switched sides to argue for the Church because the Archbishop of Canterbury was losing and doing a dreadful job.
Setting aside dogma, individual churches out in towns and villages are not where the problem resides. To pretend there isn’t a problem is a recipe for more of the same.
The dogma discussion is another one. When I once said ‘people get upset’ if dogma is brought up. I thought it would be all the others. I knew less than I know now and as usual, the ignorant position was the happier one.
Arguing in the first person is a good way to irritate people very quickly. It’s just more honest, especially if ‘one’ is giving ‘one’s opinion.
“It is dangerous to express an opinion on any church and the Catholics are very touchy anyway.”
Joy wrote “Dogma is dangerous.”
It can be but usually is not. Danger arises when Person goes against Dogma, or Dogma goes against Person. In that situation, either the Person loses or Dogma loses. As the other writer points out, an assertion of this type *is* a dogma.
What happens if Dogma loses? Then you lose a social contract, concepts of right and wrong start to become whatever anyone wishes such things to be, law and order cannot be enforced because Law is Dogma and Dogma is Law.
If you start with libertarians, educated and civil, then you need only the “Ten Suggestions”. But where people are not universally and uniformly educated and civil, you need a lot more than Ten Commandments.
“The Catholic Church has not been a force for good in the world.”
Your definition of good seems to vary from mine. From out of that tradition comes essentially all of modern medicine and science. Good requires order, order requires Law which you call Dogma.
Perhaps you can show a superior example?
“You are not free to make things up about my likes and dislikes.”
As it happens, I am free to do exactly that and so is anyone else. The accuracy of such inventions will likely be rather low.
“I don’t fancy San Fransisco although my Father said it was one of the best places he visited in the US because the people were friendly.” >
I admire San Francisco. I lived in the bay area for two years. Some people are friendly, some are not, most are slightly to a lot above average aggressive. It wasn’t a difficult choice to set “Dirty Harry” in San Francisco.
“As it happens it is more of an outrage that people take something beautiful and make it ugly. I do hate that.”
As do I; hence my own interpretation of not casting pearls before boors, or on blogs, write about the most sacred things.
Joy writes (I also want to reply to Chesterton)
“From the Christian perspective that they are the church of God of the bible”
Not exactly. Conflating Catholic and Christian as if one is interchangeable with the other is confined to the Catholic church. If you ask a Mormon what she means by “The Church” it will of course refer to Mormons and I suspect all types of Christian churches do more or less consider themselves the one true representation of Christianity.
However, it is relatively indisputable that for a very long time Catholics were the only Christians.
“It is that they have in my view forgotten their duty of care and are structured in such a way that this will continue to happen.”
I might be straining at gnats but it seems to me the *church* has no such duty, *people* have duty of care to others. This is like government welfare, it is easy when someone else does it. Jesus made it very clear that my duty to you, yours to me, is personal and unrelated to your church membership which of course in Jesus’ day didn’t exist.
I have very little faith. I have instead rather a lot of knowledge. I don’t need to merely believe or trust that someone else is telling the truth which is useful since I don’t automatically assume truth from anyone.
I am intrigued by this iq2 debate you mention. A debate between one who lost it and one who never had it could be entertaining.
My comment to A Chesterton Reader is to simply declare what ought to be obvious anyway: My understanding of Catholic dogma is that — and then issue a list of judgments and accusations. Failing to do that presumes (which is likely the case) that you admit to no personal interpretation of either scriipture or dogma, that every right minded personn will see it eexactly the same way (cheesy tiny bluetooth keyboard’ too many small errors to worry about fixing).
I believe God, who cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, intends not to look upon sin AT ALL. Heaven is high and holy, unrepentant serious sinners (murderers in cold blood serious) will simply be forgotten in the Great Oubliette of Space or something.
When I hear fire and brimstone speech, I ask, WHO is going to supervise? Who among the saints will take pleasure in the suffering of others, whether for any reason or no reason? My reading is that there will not be a punishment’ how exacly do you punish an immortal soul anyway? Instead, the word is sorrow *like* a lake of fire and brimstone’ which is to say, it does not diminish . Why will someone be sorrowful? Well, they won’t be. A soul with the capacity for sorrow is redeemable.
In other words a lot of metaphor and propaganda but the truth is hidden, yet not hidden, somewhat in plain sight.
While it is easy to see that people sometimes thwart God’s plan, how is that even possible? It isn’t. What is thwarted is each man’s search for happiness. God’s plan rolls forward with or without you, me, Joy or anyone else.
Please read the bottom section if you’re busy. I’m not here to waste your time or offend with the proverbial wall of text. However leaving things unsaid is often an excuse for casual onlookers so to answer many of your points. Most of which I agree with in any event.
“It can be but usually is not. Danger arises when Person goes against Dogma, or Dogma goes against Person.”
Yes Michaelit is a way of expressing a thing like saying “anger” or “jealousy” or “pride” are dangerous. Of course the words are not, it is people who encompass the idea or the emotion or who are on the receiving end of it who become dangerously affected, both.
“an assertion of this type *is* a dogma.”
Is a distraction. Since the point is about Catholic dogma. Which is derived from the flow of words. To say that arguing against the thing is also dangerous is just to concede the point. Which is that it is dangerous!
Since folk enjoy intellectual danger and disharmony for their thrills they will undoubtably bring out more danger and more peril and more disarray when they use weapons like these. Well I’m all for it if they can follow it through with some semblance of rationality. They will simply die by that weapon. I enjoy danger from non contact sports. Skiing and the like, physical risk. We all get adrenalin from different things. I’ve never been inclined to mind bending beyond the rather ordinary and the pleasant. If people look for something else they will see it everywhere.
If some see a religious discussion as a matter of war, which in my view is pathetic, then use and abuse of power can be considered perfectly fine. Since ‘all’s fair in war’ as they say.
” ?What happens if Dogma loses? “
Michael,I leave your dogma losing the argument since by definition dogma ‘cannot lose! It is an unyielding immovable thing, not necessarily made of the truth by it’s substance. If you declare it a dogma, you win.
“If you start with libertarians, educated and civil, then you need only the “Ten Suggestions”. But where people are not universally and uniformly educated and civil, you need a lot more than Ten Commandments.” No special disagreement there, as was demonstrated throughout history with real barbarians.
?“Your definition of good seems to vary from mine. “
The point was made in brief with use of the word ‘immeasurable” secondly you will find me arguing, alone, for the gifts of Christian nations and of Christianity. Sorry, not just of Catholics because the nations in question are and were not always, Catholic. (Which is why I found myself arguing alone and particularly about modern historical achievements where Roman Catholicism played no part.)
On casting pearl before swine? Well I would agree and had the verse in my mind many times.
However, there are sometimes situations where what is sacred to one may well be not to another or many, in actual reality of the world we live in. Furthermore, that demonstrating a point may require a degree of reflecting in a real way of something sacred. If hogs and creeps find it good red meat then that is the risk one takes. The shame is on them.?
“conflating Catholic and Christian as if one is interchangeable with the other is confined to the Catholic church.” Well I’m referring to the ‘creed’ as they call it in the church were I was confirmed which acknowledges by rote belief in the ‘holy Catholic, and apostolic church’ amongst others. This line is not one I can say now without flinching any more other than the prosaic use of the word believe, which is surely not in the spirit of the creed.
It is intended to prevent sectarian fighting. Fundamentalists and zealots do the opposite. Let them be if they let me be. Especially when they don’t even know where my disagreement is!
However the Christian is the person who believes in Jesus from the bible and who knows the Truth that only through him and no other interceder can a person come to know God. That no special power is handed down as if by light magic. That forgiveness does not need or require a redo every Sunday or every communion service but that the service is a sacred and personal reflection on the Truth and a remembrance of the passion of Christ. That forgiveness follows the act of remembrance and repentance first. That forgiveness is real and permanent. That the Holy Spirit exists and acts today but cannot be executed as a power on tap by the ordination process. I don’t offer an alternative special just to me.
“However, it is relatively indisputable that for a very long time Catholics were the only Christians.”
Yes a historical fact, and it seems when they yearn for this time back again, they begin to resemble fundamentalists, gangsters and inquisitors.
?“I might be straining at gnats but it seems to me the *church* has no such duty, *people* have duty of care to others.”
Yes, straining at gnats . Where Bishops, Archbishops Nuns! hide behind the church and the cloaks and any other individual who needs to hide simply can do the same with a little help from their friends.
“Jesus made it very clear that my duty to you, yours to me, is personal and unrelated to your church “
Of course, a point I’ve made many times here. However it is irrelevant to the questions of the responsibility of individuals who’s career it is, let alone calling and personal declaration to act in a Truly Christian way. When this does not happen they are responsible in the same way as when a bank manager steals funds or a lawyer acts unlawfully in or outside of their daily work. There is such a thing as reasonable expectation. Governments and welfare may have a duty of care but notwith respect to loving thy neighbour, for example. Since government’s purpose is not spiritual or pastoral care in essence or in proclamation.
…Like you, I have very little faith but it only needs to be the size of a mustard seed. It’s strength that matters.
“I don’t need to merely believe or trust that someone else is telling the truth which is useful since I don’t automatically assume truth from anyone. “ Useful to the point where you risk missing the good whilst eschewing the bad.
“Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent.” Very useful but only when one is mindful, perhaps doing some scientific experiment, analysis, research of some kind. Trusting there might be lazy. If you don’t trust people you never really know them, since trusting requires some risk.
Until you have taken a risk you haven’t taken a step of faith. (Have a feeling that last sentence wasn’t quite logical).
?“I am intrigued by this iq2 debate you mention.”
Lastly Michael, thank you for being sensible. For understanding at least attempting to in a genuine way. Also a note that the very most sacred things, to me, are known to no-one but myself and personal friends. As previously said in a different way.
Honour is not something that can be stollen by thieves or liars.
Silence is not guilt. As Cordelia demonstrated.
Shame and guilt are separate, they are often seen separately.
“Honi soit qui mal y pense”.
A lot of comment and print in the article and comments about a rather simple subject, that being: why the necessity for persons, and through organizations, find the need to proclaim their association with aberrant sexual activity. The approach advocated by Oscar Wilde would seem more appropriate. Of course he should have taken his own advice but he, at least, recognized the necessity for observing the proprieties. The current “in your face” attitude is both offensive and tiresome and earns little sympathy. While playing the victim card may be self satisfying, it accomplishes little.
Nobody claimed victim. The pride thing is about victory. That is what is upsetting the reactionary side who are doing as the pride fraternity would have them do.
Go and punch a wall I say but next time find yourself another silly physio to stand in the way. I’ve had a lot worse from patients, chairs thrown round the room, shouting, threats, insults…it’s often when your’e bearing good news that there isn’t a problem.
When your metacarpals are fractured come and ask nicely and I might help.
As I said. Only people I know with sore knuckles are those on the left that don’t get the affirmation they crave. Most others simply hope the LGBTs etc. don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. While the desire for approval and coddling by children is understandable, adults of all persuasions should probably make the effort to rise above for their own peace of mind.
Absolutely Donald, it is the right that should be rising above it.
My expectations of the left are inherently low so nothing is a surprise.
When you look to the right for inspiration and they have lost faith, humour and good sense once looks to the reasonable, wherever they might be. On who ever’s spectrum of colour or opinion.
For the record, NigelTeapot, of the sex cult post fame, is the same on line SJW activist, evidently, as the individual calling themselves A GK Chesterton Reader in the above high brow debate.
Chesterton himself, a pleasant and optimistic, affordable character, self questioning, would never approve, or condone such shoddy behaviour.