Chick-Fila
Options
Replies
-
I am Catholic and I have absolutely nothing against gays.
To take this in the spirit of the thread, you ally yourself with an institution that takes a decidedly different view of homosexuality in principle and in action, despite its proclamations to the contrary. When the Pope decalres, "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." We respect the gays, they're just sick and evil.. You actually contribute financially to those views with every dollar you give to the church.
I'm torn on the whole Chick-Fil-A fight. On one hand, I recognize that the owner's a *kitten* who gives money to hateful causes. On the other I recognize that probably most of the owners of the franchises are local folks who had no idea of this guy's hate when they signed up. I guess they ought to be standing up and fighting him by releasing statements, but in this economy they're probably terrified they'll lose their franchises. Who knows what the legal ramifications are anyway? They might be contractually obligated to support him. But, I think a boycott will inevitably hurt a lot more people than the guy they want to target. Maybe the cause is worth it, but like I said, I am torn on this. Maybe this is why I prefer pre-emptive, specifically targeted military strikes to economic sanctions.0 -
1. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was being inhospitable to guests.I'm totally ignorant about this, can you tell me more?
The person I spoke to last night claimed, as I was taught in Christian private school, that we get the word sodomy from Sodom, and that it was their unrepentant sexual deviancy that led to God's wrath. Even as a child, I doubted that story was "real" and thought of it more as a parable.
“Being inhospitable” is an understatement, I think. In the story, the men of the city wanted to rape the “visitors” and, even when offered Lot’s daughters, insisted on raping the men. This is why, of course, the story has long been associated with homosexual acts rather than heterosexual ones.
Even if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a kind of parable (for the sake of argument), it is designed to illustrate something by way of illustrating a profoundly perverse series of actions. The story is “shocking” precisely because of the men of the city not wanting “natural” relationships (even if violent acts of rape) with women but, instead, insisted on sexual acts with men. However you want to read the story, I don’t see how one can escape these features of it.
*I'm giving Lucky the explanation of this question from the Church's position*0 -
To take this in the spirit of the thread, you ally yourself with an institution that takes a decidedly different view of homosexuality in principle and in action, despite its proclamations to the contrary. When the Pope decalres, "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." We respect the gays, they're just sick and evil.. You actually contribute financially to those views with every dollar you give to the church.
Why are you giving a "value" to the act of homosexuality, though? The Church also preaches on other sins all the time. Just because the Church believes someone is a sinner does not mean we're taught to hate these people, to bash them, to kill them, to mock and ridicule them. You say "sick and evil" because that's how you want to interpret it. So, the act is a sin? So is lying, which is "evil". Right?0 -
Could you explain to me the term "intrinsic moral evil"? Because it kinda sounds to me like it's saying that someone's very nature is evil.
I use sick in the clinical term since not only are these gays evil by nature, they also have a "disorder" according to the Pope which makes them, by definition, sick.0 -
1. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was being inhospitable to guests.I'm totally ignorant about this, can you tell me more?
The person I spoke to last night claimed, as I was taught in Christian private school, that we get the word sodomy from Sodom, and that it was their unrepentant sexual deviancy that led to God's wrath. Even as a child, I doubted that story was "real" and thought of it more as a parable.
“Being inhospitable” is an understatement, I think. In the story, the men of the city wanted to rape the “visitors” and, even when offered Lot’s daughters, insisted on raping the men. This is why, of course, the story has long been associated with homosexual acts rather than heterosexual ones.
Even if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a kind of parable (for the sake of argument), it is designed to illustrate something by way of illustrating a profoundly perverse series of actions. The story is “shocking” precisely because of the men of the city not wanting “natural” relationships (even if violent acts of rape) with women but, instead, insisted on sexual acts with men. However you want to read the story, I don’t see how one can escape these features of it.
*I'm giving Lucky the explanation of this question from the Church's position*
I don't think shock value (or lack thereof) has anything to do with it. A historical understanding of how sex acts were used in ancient civilizations, and in nature for that matter, makes the story unsurprising. The naturalness of the relationship is irrelevant because rape doesn't have much to do with sex and quite a bit to do with dominance. That is, it's dominance expressed through the sex act. The fact that one set of people were exerting dominance over others is of more interest than the genders of people involved.
I agree that calling it a sin of being inhospitable is an understatement. I also stand by it as a viable interpretation.0 -
An “intrinsic moral evil” is an act that is morally flawed by its very nature. In other word, it is an action that cannot conceivably be “right” in any context. For instance, it is wrong to blaspheme God. It is inherently “disordered” or morally evil to curse God. It is intrinsically wrong to “marry” a dog or a cat. That phrase certainly does not mean that human nature is evil as such but that certain actions, that humans can commit, are inherently disordered or “distorted” and therefore cannot be approved as morally acceptable. This does not mean that people who have sinned like this shouldn't receive absolution, love, and to be treated with human dignity.Could you explain to me the term "intrinsic moral evil"? Because it kinda sounds to me like it's saying that someone's very nature is evil.
I realize that. It's just often used as an inflamatory word; that's why I made that comment.I use sick in the clinical term since not only are these gays evil by nature, they also have a "disorder" according to the Pope which makes them, by definition, sick.0 -
So you just compared homosexuality with zoophilia. Ok, good to know where you stand on this issue.An “intrinsic moral evil” is an act that is morally flawed by its very nature. In other word, it is an action that cannot conceivably be “right” in any context. For instance, it is wrong to blaspheme God. It is inherently “disordered” or morally evil to curse God. It is intrinsically wrong to “marry” a dog or a cat. That phrase certainly does not mean that human nature is evil as such but that certain actions, that humans can commit, are inherently disordered or “distorted” and therefore cannot be approved as morally acceptable. This does not mean that people who have sinned like this shouldn't receive absolution, love, and to be treated with human dignity.
So you knew exactly what I meant and you chose to ignore that meaning to try to make it sound inflammatory as a means of excusing the point. Also good to know.
I realize that. It's just often used as an inflamatory word; that's why I made that comment.I use sick in the clinical term since not only are these gays evil by nature, they also have a "disorder" according to the Pope which makes them, by definition, sick.0 -
I am Catholic and I have absolutely nothing against gays.
To take this in the spirit of the thread, you ally yourself with an institution that takes a decidedly different view of homosexuality in principle and in action, despite its proclamations to the contrary. When the Pope decalres, "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." We respect the gays, they're just sick and evil.. You actually contribute financially to those views with every dollar you give to the church.
I'm torn on the whole Chick-Fil-A fight. On one hand, I recognize that the owner's a *kitten* who gives money to hateful causes. On the other I recognize that probably most of the owners of the franchises are local folks who had no idea of this guy's hate when they signed up. I guess they ought to be standing up and fighting him by releasing statements, but in this economy they're probably terrified they'll lose their franchises. Who knows what the legal ramifications are anyway? They might be contractually obligated to support him. But, I think a boycott will inevitably hurt a lot more people than the guy they want to target. Maybe the cause is worth it, but like I said, I am torn on this. Maybe this is why I prefer pre-emptive, specifically targeted military strikes to economic sanctions.
Yes, I am Catholic and no I don't contribute one dime to the Catholic church (yes, how horrible?! Imagine that). Last time I gave a dime to the church was probably when I was 15 and my mother made me drop a $1 bill in the basket they pass around at mass. One doesn't have to agree with every single aspect of a religion or an institution to be allied with them. Just like there are likely some Democrats and Republics that don't agree with a certain stance their party stands for or Islamic people who don't agree with radical Islamic views on politics and treatment of women. It's a toss up. I am perfectly content being a Catholic. I am pro-choice, I am pro-planned parenthood, approve the use of condoms, I don't care who you married. A lot of people toss around this idea of a "relationship with G-d", that is exactly what I have. I go to mass and follow the ten commandments. Horrible Catholic? Probably, but then again that's my problem and mine alone. I don't go around pushing my ideals, moral values or my views on religion on anyone nor do I go around criticizing and analyzing other religions or the people that practice them.0 -
An “intrinsic moral evil” is an act that is morally flawed by its very nature. In other word, it is an action that cannot conceivably be “right” in any context. For instance, it is wrong to blaspheme God. It is inherently “disordered” or morally evil to curse God. It is intrinsically wrong to “marry” a dog or a cat. That phrase certainly does not mean that human nature is evil as such but that certain actions, that humans can commit, are inherently disordered or “distorted” and therefore cannot be approved as morally acceptable. This does not mean that people who have sinned like this shouldn't receive absolution, love, and to be treated with human dignity.
NO, I didn't!!! I was giving you other examples of things that would be considered intristically morally evil. And, what I gave you was the definition, not any of my personal feelings. Nice try, though.So you just compared homosexuality with zoophilia. Ok, good to know where you stand on this issue.
False, yet again. You're trying to get me into a heated debate that paints me out to be a homophobe, which is crazy.So you knew exactly what I meant and you chose to ignore that meaning to try to make it sound inflammatory as a means of excusing the point. Also good to know.0 -
Yes, I am Catholic and no I don't contribute one dime to the Catholic church (yes, how horrible?! Imagine that). Last time I gave a dime to the church was probably when I was 15 and my mother made me drop a $1 bill in the basket they pass around at mass. One doesn't have to agree with every single aspect of a religion or an institution to be allied with them. Just like there are likely some Democrats and Republics that don't agree with a certain stance their party stands for or Islamic people who don't agree with radical Islamic views on politics and treatment of women. It's a toss up. I am perfectly content being a Catholic. I am pro-choice, I am pro-planned parenthood, approve the use of condoms, I don't care who you married. A lot of people toss around this idea of a "relationship with G-d", that is exactly what I have. I go to mass and follow the ten commandments. Horrible Catholic? Probably, but then again that's my problem and mine alone. I don't go around pushing my ideals, moral values or my views on religion on anyone nor do I go around criticizing and analyzing other religions or the people that practice them.
I don't really have enough background to answer this, but doesn't that just make you kind of a methodist who takes communion?
Or put more appropriately, at what point can you no longer legitimately claim to be Catholic. Like what are the basic requirements for being a Catholic if you don't accept the Pope's authority on so many issues.0 -
I keep trying to explain to my "pro traditional marriage" friends that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or this president of chick filet's religous views. It has everything to do with him taking those views, just one of many christian views on the topic, backed my money, and using religious organizations to trample homosexual rights.
This is kind of where I'm coming from, Adrian. If it were merely CFA taking a stand on traditional families, I wouldn't mind so much. It's the organizations it funds who I take direct issue with. So, CFA is guilty by association to me and I can not knowinly support that.0 -
I think some people need to keep in mind that just because someone is Catholic, does not mean they agree 100% with all of the Church's teachings. I know tons of Catholics who have had pre-marital sex, are on birth control, don't go to church every Sunday, etc. Does that make us "bad" Catholics? No. That makes us humans. Be careful of thinking that all Catholics preach what comes out of the Pope's mouth.
And, when I'm asked for a definition or an explanation of something in the bible or that is taught by the Church, I'm giving the Church's position on it. NOT Patti's personal view.0 -
I think some people need to keep in mind that just because someone is Catholic, does not mean they agree 100% with all of the Church's teachings. I know tons of Catholics who have had pre-marital sex, are on birth control, don't go to church every Sunday, etc. Does that make us "bad" Catholics? No. That makes us humans. Be careful of thinking that all Catholics preach what comes out of the Pope's mouth.
And, when I'm asked for a definition or an explanation of something in the bible or that is taught by the Church, I'm giving the Church's position on it. NOT Patti's personal view.
Which begs my question, what's the point of being Catholic versus other some other form of Christianity if one disagrees with the Vatican on a certain % of issues. At point do you look at that percentage and say, "Ya know, those Lutherans do some funky things with their chapels, and we seem to agree on a lot stuff..."0 -
Because I love my faith. I love the Catholic mass and everything it stands for. In studying all religions, Catholicsm is what I'm most comfortable with. I respect the Pope and much of what the Catholic church does for humanity. There are much bigger things in my mind than the issue of birth control.Which begs my question, what's the point of being Catholic versus other some other form of Christianity if one disagrees with the Vatican on a certain % of issues. At point do you look at that percentage and say, "Ya know, those Lutherans do some funky things with their chapels, and we seem to agree on a lot stuff..."0 -
An “intrinsic moral evil” is an act that is morally flawed by its very nature. In other word, it is an action that cannot conceivably be “right” in any context. For instance, it is wrong to blaspheme God. It is inherently “disordered” or morally evil to curse God. It is intrinsically wrong to “marry” a dog or a cat. That phrase certainly does not mean that human nature is evil as such but that certain actions, that humans can commit, are inherently disordered or “distorted” and therefore cannot be approved as morally acceptable. This does not mean that people who have sinned like this shouldn't receive absolution, love, and to be treated with human dignity.So you just compared homosexuality with zoophilia. Ok, good to know where you stand on this issue.
Uh huh.NO, I didn't!!! I was giving you other examples of things that would be considered intristically morally evil. And, what I gave you was the definition, not any of my personal feelings. Nice try, though.So you knew exactly what I meant and you chose to ignore that meaning to try to make it sound inflammatory as a means of excusing the point. Also good to know.
Oh you're doing fine without my help.False, yet again. You're trying to get me into a heated debate that paints me out to be a homophobe, which is crazy.0 -
. Also good to know.False, yet again. You're trying to get me into a heated debate that paints me out to be a homophobe, which is crazy.
I am? Maybe I'm missing said heated debate.Oh you're doing fine without my help.0 -
So you just compared homosexuality with zoophilia. Ok, good to know where you stand on this issue.NO, I didn't!!! I was giving you other examples of things that would be considered intristically morally evil. And, what I gave you was the definition, not any of my personal feelings. Nice try, though.Uh huh
You really can't go back and read my explanation without seeing that I was giving other examples? And how do you know anything about my personal feelings?0 -
I'm torn on the whole Chick-Fil-A fight. On one hand, I recognize that the owner's a *kitten* who gives money to hateful causes. On the other I recognize that probably most of the owners of the franchises are local folks who had no idea of this guy's hate when they signed up. I guess they ought to be standing up and fighting him by releasing statements, but in this economy they're probably terrified they'll lose their franchises. Who knows what the legal ramifications are anyway? They might be contractually obligated to support him. But, I think a boycott will inevitably hurt a lot more people than the guy they want to target. Maybe the cause is worth it, but like I said, I am torn on this. Maybe this is why I prefer pre-emptive, specifically targeted military strikes to economic sanctions.
I was told, by more than one owner of the "franchise," that part of the deal of opening a Chick-Fil-A is, to put it bluntly, you have to agree with everything the Cathy family stands for, and you have to prove that. The Cathy family basically is going to be all up in your grill and wants to see that you support what they stand for. I sincerely doubt that any "franchise" owner is gay, bisexual, or transgender...and I sincerely doubt they'd grant a "franchise" to someone who supported equals rights.0 -
Because I love my faith. I love the Catholic mass and everything it stands for. In studying all religions, Catholicsm is what I'm most comfortable with. I respect the Pope and much of what the Catholic church does for humanity. There are much bigger things in my mind than the issue of birth control.Which begs my question, what's the point of being Catholic versus other some other form of Christianity if one disagrees with the Vatican on a certain % of issues. At point do you look at that percentage and say, "Ya know, those Lutherans do some funky things with their chapels, and we seem to agree on a lot stuff..."
Respectfully, that didn't really answer my question. It answers a question, just not the one I posed. It doesn't answer it because I added the qualifier that someone doesn't just have a few issues that they disagree with the church on; instead there are a lot.
It seems like at some point, if one did disagree with the church on a number of major, core issues, and yet that person still describes themselves as Catholic, there must be some non-religious cultural value at play. Perhaps they just like their church because they consider the people family. Maybe they like the pageantry of it. That's not a flippant statement. Ritual is an important aspect of humanity, and if the Catholic church provides an important ritual to someone, maybe they'd still consider themselves Catholic even if they disagreed with every other stance the church takes. But at that point their reasons for belonging to a specific religion are less and less religious.
*I* wouldn't happen to accept their claim to be Catholic at that point, but it's not as if that matters much, either.0 -
Which begs my question, what's the point of being Catholic versus other some other form of Christianity if one disagrees with the Vatican on a certain % of issues. At point do you look at that percentage and say, "Ya know, those Lutherans do some funky things with their chapels, and we seem to agree on a lot stuff..."Respectfully, that didn't really answer my question. It answers a question, just not the one I posed. It doesn't answer it because I added the qualifier that someone doesn't just have a few issues that they disagree with the church on; instead there are a lot.
It seems like at some point, if one did disagree with the church on a number of major, core issues, and yet that person still describes themselves as Catholic, there must be some non-religious cultural value at play. Perhaps they just like their church because they consider the people family. Maybe they like the pageantry of it. That's not a flippant statement. Ritual is an important aspect of humanity, and if the Catholic church provides an important ritual to someone, maybe they'd still consider themselves Catholic even if they disagreed with every other stance the church takes. But at that point their reasons for belonging to a specific religion are less and less religious.
*I* wouldn't happen to accept their claim to be Catholic at that point, but it's not as if that matters much, either.
Oh...gotcha. Sorry, I was taking it as a personal question. I agree with you. If someone has an issue with the majority of what the Church teaches, they should probably seek out another denomination. Then, we also have the C and E Catholics...0
