diamond said:
What I found in the 7 plus years of discussing issues here is that no matter how personal the issue is to someone's heart, the person that loses is the one who resorts to name calling.
No. You do not get to set the rules here. If you resort to ignoring facts, ignoring reality, and resorting to bigoted stereotypes, then you lose--every time.
If the truth were known you would realize that *you* know a lot less about me than you may think, and if you want to label me as a bigot and a troll, because I say that I'm against Gay Marriage, but for Gay Matramonial Unions,either Secular or Holy, that would be to your own consternation.
Ah yes...we're supposed to believe that the man who constantly depicts homosexuality as something "unnatural," more or less, is really secretly a good person.
Here's a thought:
How about constructing a coherent sentence that reflects that, rather than leaving us to just "trust" your word? Right now? I have zero reason to believe that you're nothing more than a misinformed, albeit good natured, bigot. And that's unfortunate, really, because there are certainly moments where you
can post a thought-provoking thread, such as your contributions to threads regarding NDEs and even some of your comments in the "demon possession" thread. There's moments when I think that we are so faraway, yet so close when it comes to our respective approaches to religion.
Maybe some here will think that I'm being harsh on you. Consider it, instead, as my contribution to you "thinking outside the box."
You also seem to have a subconscious dysfuntional emotional attachment with Catholism that rears its occassional ugly head for whatever reason, but that is not for me to speculate on nor judge you on.
Again, to take a page from Allan Bloom and conservative political philosophy, it is noted that it is often the Marxist response to take a look at classical philosophy and automatically dismiss it as "patriarchal" or "autocratic." The thing is, these labels are not contested. Indeed, it is noted that all philosophy, prior to the late 18th century or so, will be one or the other, if not both, but that does not mean that certain truths cannot be derived from classical philosophy.
I take the same approach with Catholicism. Very few worldly entities are entirely good or entirely bad. It is up to reason, logic, and philosophy to determine what is of value and what is harmful. I can find numerous qualities in the Catholic Church--and any church or religious sect, for that matter--that has doctrines that are of positive value and negative harm.
Regardless, I do not see how your comment here has any relevance, short of you disliking my nuanced approach to religion.