"Duck Dynasty"...is our freedom of speech being stifled?

Quote: Beethoven9th

You're a brave man for posting in this thread. Twird will jump in at any moment now. Just watch.

You're a troll. Twirdman was civil, but your behavior is not close to civil. I know, because I engaged at your level with you.

You're disruptive as trolls are and what you pass off as debate isn't fit to be called much of anything but trolling.

If the Wizard doesn't think so, I challenge him to show up under an anonymous name and engage you for awhile. Watch the crap he pulls if he thinks you aren't a conservative.

But maybe you will get smart and change your behavior.

Quote: rxwine

You're a troll...

You're disruptive as trolls are...

But maybe you will get smart and change your behavior.

More personal attacks from a warm & friendly liberal. Hope you get reported. *sigh*

Quote: Beethoven9th

More personal attacks from a warm & friendly liberal. Hope you get reported. *sigh*

Lets face it though you were acting like a troll I gave you an example of something you said couldn't happen the church changing its stance on abortion and you just ignored it and claimed victory because certain church teachings can't be changed. You repeatedly said I was wrong about it even though in my first post I admitted there were things the pope couldn't change so when are you going to admit the catholic church can change rules regarding abortion?

Also this kind of projection is great. Republican calls liberal godless heathen, lazy, good for nothing, Marxist, Communist, and the list goes on and yet that's accepted. A liberal says someone is wrong or a troll and suddenly oh no feelings were hurt why are liberals so mean.

Quote: rxwine

You're a troll.

Wait a minute, I thought I was the in house
troll around here. It hurts that you libs are
so fickle, seeing trolls behind every tree. I'm
much better at it than B9, please take me
back.

I also just realize the source you kept siting was from Catholics.com a site for the laity and was written by Jim Blackburn again a member of the laity with no degree in philosophy or theology how did he suddenly become the foremost expert on Catholocism?

Quote: Beethoven9th

You're a brave man for posting in this thread. Twird will jump in at any moment now. Just watch.

Well, it took 1 hour, 48 min for my prediction to come true. ;)

Quote: Twirdman

Lets face it though you were acting like a troll...

Twird...buddy, pal. Here's what you did in the span of 30+ pages:

We were talking about Phil Robertson.....THEN you switched to gay marriage.....THEN you switched to interracial marriage.....THEN you switched to Brigham Young.....THEN you switched to Mormon doctrine.....THEN you switched to Catholic doctrine.....NOW you're switching to abortion...

I mean, when does the madness end?!?

I suppose I'm partly to blame because I engaged you and was acting as your enabler, but c'mon man. If I had responded to your latest bait-and-switch (re: abortion), we'd still be arguing. Then you'd probably switch to some other non-related issue!

Quote: Twirdman

Republican calls liberal godless heathen, lazy, good for nothing, Marxist, Communist, and the list goes on and yet that's accepted.

No need to lie now, Twird. No member said any of that stuff. *FACEPALM*

Quote: EvenBob

Wait a minute, I thought I was the in house
troll around here. It hurts that you libs are
so fickle, seeing trolls behind every tree. I'm
much better at it than B9, please take me
back.

LOL

Quote: Beethoven9th

No need to lie now, Twird. No member said any of that stuff. *FACEPALM*


LOL

Really you're a fan of fox news and claim liberals aren't routinely called Marxist, Socialist, Communist, or how about the constant calls about a liberal war on Christmas to show they are godless heathens? Also about abortion you brought that up. You said the church could not change its stance on abortion if you want I can find the original post where you did.

Quote: Twirdman

Really you're a fan of fox news and claim liberals aren't routinely called Marxist, Socialist, Communist, or how about the constant calls about a liberal war on Christmas to show they are godless heathens?

Twird, none of that was said here. One of your buddies DID throw around a personal attack though (re: "troll").

Just take a deep breath & let this one go, bro.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Twird, none of that was said here. One of your buddies DID throw around a personal attack though (re: "troll").

Just take a deep breath & let this one go, bro.

You repeatedly called me a hypocrite even if you can find no hypocrisy. You called me a hypocrite for not saying priest shouldn't be labeled as child molesters, even though I did say they shouldn't. You tried to lump me in with hypocrites for the polygamy question even though I support both gay marriage and polygamy. And you called me a hypocrite for saying A&E had a right to fire this guy because they are a private network yet I said that a private company should also have the right to fire a liberal commentor also for instance Martin Bashir. So why is he you get to continually insult me as a hypocrite but the second you're insulted all liberals are meanies.

Oh also you keep talking about me changing the subject but again was you first who brought up marriage, specifically polygamy to catch me in a trap. You also proudly said your not anti-gay your for traditional marriage. Then when I brought up the fact so were people against interracial marriage you said that was never part of any official church rule. Then when I showed you you claimed people can't change church rules and in fact the pope can't change rules regarding abortion which I again showed to be false. So you keep saying I switch topics but I'm just following you to refute your points.

Let it go, Twird. I can tell this is really bothering you. (Anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to wade through this thread will know that you refuted nothing) *facepalm*

Anyway, like I said, just let it go, man. Let it go.

I challenged the Wizard to come in as anonymously and find out for himself what this Troll member really is when the Troll doesn't know who he is dealing with.

I see no reason to take back what I said.

And I don't plan to stop calling him a troll.

Now he may play a different game, and reform. But it didn't happen, and wouldn't have happened otherwise, if it happens at all.

We'll see. Maybe I get banned, but it won't change my opinion one iota.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Let it go, Twird. I can tell this is really bothering you. (Anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to wade through this thread will know that you refuted nothing) *facepalm*

Anyway, like I said, just let it go, man. Let it go.

So are you denying that you said the pope can't change rules regarding abortion because I'll find the place where you said it. Or are you instead denying that I pointed out an article showing you 5 popes have done it in the past?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let it go, Twird. *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven9th

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let it go, Twird. *facepalm*

Again you're dodging the question because you're wrong so admit you're wrong.

How long are you trying to keep this arguing going, Twird?

Where did you come from anyway? You registered a few months ago, but then all of a sudden you came out of nowhere and posted like 100 messages in 2 days. That is very, very unusual.

I think you should educate everyone about asexuals. You don't have to talk about anything personal, but just educate us ignorant people about what the heck an asexual is.

Quote: Beethoven9th

How long are you trying to keep this arguing going, Twird?

Until you admit you're wrong. I know you expected to ride right over me and have me say oh you're, but you're clearly wrong about this. Again here is another article showing you are wrong http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Quote: Beethoven9th

Where did you come from anyway? You registered a few months ago, but then all of a sudden you came out of nowhere and posted like 100 messages in 2 days. That is very, very unusual.

I think you should educate everyone about asexuals. You don't have to talk about anything personal, but just educate us ignorant people about what the heck an asexual is.

If you want to be educated about asexuality there are plenty of books or websites. Again private life is private.

Quote: Twirdman

If you want to be educated about asexuality there are plenty of books or websites. Again private life is private.

I'm not asking you about your private life. I just want to hear general information. How come you don't want to educate us?

Quote: Beethoven9th

I'm not asking you about your private life. I just want to hear general information. How come you don't want to educate us?

Don't be silly any question of my sexuality is personal. I don't begin to speak for the entire asexual community since we are incredibly varied. It would be like asking you what do straight people find attractive. You can't answer that question for anyone but you and answering it for you is inherently private. If you want a general overview there are plenty of websites, books, and forums you can go to. The other reason is what good would it do. I mean really why do you want to know. How long would you be educated before you disregard it all and think what you want. So think of asexual as anything you want it to be if you are too lazy to actually look it up.

EDIT: Oh and another thing for someone who kept claiming I changed topics and derailed the topic you seem hellbent on making this about my sexuality I mean I just don't get it. Why do you care at all who I am or was attracted to I don't care at all what kind of people you are attracted to.

Quote: Twirdman

So think of asexual as anything you want it to be if you are too lazy to actually look it up.

No need to get all angry, Twird. I'm just genuinely curious because I've never met an "asexual" before. In fact, I didn't even know you guys existed. I thought you were joking at first, but then I realized you were dead serious. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Quote: Twirdman

It would be like asking you what do straight people find attractive. You can't answer that question for anyone but you...

That's not true. Regular guys find this attractive. (This is Victoria's Secret model Candice Swanepoel)

Quote: Twirdman

I don't begin to speak for the entire asexual community since we are incredibly varied

There's an entire community?!? Wow. I never knew that.

So how come you'll talk about your most personal beliefs & opinions, but you won't talk about your "community" in general? You're not ashamed of it, are you?

Quote: Twirdman

Don't be silly any question of my sexuality is personal. I don't begin to speak for the entire asexual community since we are incredibly varied. It would be like asking you what do straight people find attractive. You can't answer that question for anyone but you and answering it for you is inherently private. If you want a general overview there are plenty of websites, books, and forums you can go to.

Don't be silly; any question of Robertson's religious beliefs is personal. He doesn't begin to speak for the entire religious community since it is incredibly varied. It would be like asking which religion has the better deity, and which is right and which is wrong. Robertson cannot answer that question for anyone except himself, yet GQ asked him to answer a question on a personal, private matter. If GQ wanted a general overview, there are plenty of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. they could have visited.

Quote: rob45

Don't be silly; any question of Robertson's religious beliefs is personal. He doesn't begin to speak for the entire religious community since it is incredibly varied. It would be like asking which religion has the better deity, and which is right and which is wrong. Robertson cannot answer that question for anyone except himself, yet GQ asked him to answer a question on a personal, private matter. If GQ wanted a general overview, there are plenty of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. they could have visited.

You're very right and apparently he is far more open about his beliefs then I am about my sexuality. I mean if Robertson had wanted he was free to say sorry my religion is a deeply personal and private matter and I'm not interested in discussing it. I mean I'm not sure what equivalence you're trying to draw here did I ever say Robertson should be forced to answer question about his faith.

As to B9 question no I am in no ways ashamed I just don't believe in talking about sexuality with random strangers. I mean some people draw lines at different places but my line is basically drawn at a statement of orientation, asexual, unless I am speaking to people I know closely. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say fine if you really want to know the only thing that one can use to try and group asexuals together is they all have a lack of interest in sex. Prevalence is roughly 1% of the population. Some asexuals consume porn and masturbate though some aren't interested in any forms of sexual stimulation including self, and before you think about answering I will definitely not answer that question. Some asexuals even do engage in sex to please a romantic partner and asexuals can be anything from aromantic so no romantic attachment to members of either gender or hetero or homoromantic which is exactly as they sound a romantic attachments to members of the opposite or same gender or they can be biromantic which is both. There are more but that is a good enough for introduction. Oh and again not going to answer that question either. If you want to actually know http://www.asexuality.org/en/ here is a forum with people willing to answer far more questions about their sexuality than me. Also wikipedia gives some good explanations of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Romantic_relationships_and_identity

Oh as to why I'm more open with my beliefs then with my sexuality one it is entirely personal so when I talk about it I only talk about my beliefs and philosophies two I simply view it as less personal in terms of something not to share with people I don't know. I have no qualms about sharing one and simply prefer not to share the other.

Quote: Twirdman

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say fine if you really want to know the only thing that one can use to try and group asexuals together is they all have a lack of interest in sex. Prevalence is roughly 1% of the population.

Yeah, that's what my human sexuality prof. told me in college too 12 years ago. 1%. I'm not in it, and I'm a little surprised that many are disinterested in sex with others. But hey, I don't know your mind/brain chemistry.

If you don't want to fool around with others, that's your business. <--- Republican-like response

Quote: tringlomane

Yeah, that's what my human sexuality prof. told me in college too 12 years ago. 1%. I'm not in it, and I'm a little surprised that many are disinterested in sex with others. But hey, I don't know your mind/brain chemistry.

If you don't want to fool around with others, that's your business. <--- Republican-like response

If only that was the Republican like response. The Republican like response is the scorn and mocking we got when Red Eye decided to do a piece on asexuals after a book came out and proceeded to not invite a single asexual but did spend plenty of time laughing at them and spreading misinformation.

Quote: Twirdman

The Republican like response is the scorn and mocking we got when Red Eye decided to do a piece on asexuals after a book came out and proceeded to not invite a single asexual but did spend plenty of time laughing at them and spreading misinformation.

Forgive me, Twird, but I have to step in and play a little devil's advocate here. How do you know that Red Eye didn't try to get an asexual on the show? I asked you some questions, but you didn't want to respond. (And, of course, I totally respect that) Likewise, perhaps Red Eye asked some asexuals to appear on the show, but they all declined? It's very possible, you know. Based on what I've seen, asexuals seem like a very shy bunch.

I think you should reconsider your decision to remain silent. Asexuals need someone like you to take up the cause. They need a leader. You could use a little work on your debating skills, but it's not something we can't overcome. Who knows, maybe you are destined to become the Rosa Parks of asexuals. Wouldn't that be cool?

Quote: Twirdman

You're very right and apparently he is far more open about his beliefs then I am about my sexuality. I mean if Robertson had wanted he was free to say sorry my religion is a deeply personal and private matter and I'm not interested in discussing it. I mean I'm not sure what equivalence you're trying to draw here did I ever say Robertson should be forced to answer question about his faith.

The "equivalence I'm trying to draw" is this:
All religions teach that one should not be ashamed of their beliefs. It's rather difficult to be ashamed of the beliefs while still believing.
Most religions encourage promotion of those beliefs to others.
This is common knowledge.

If Robertson is truly dedicated to his beliefs, and he is "put on the spot" during an interview, is he supposed to leave the question unanswered?
Were he to leave the question unanswered,
1. He would be violating his personal beliefs by appearing ashamed of those beliefs.
2. Unanswered questions always leave room for speculation. Speculation easily leads to hearsay (one of the reasons it is invalid in court).

In regards to the homosexual community taking offense to Robertson's opinion, the structure for differing opinions is thus:
1. condemnation
2. tolerance
3. embrace (acceptance)

Through law, society can enforce tolerance of differing opinions, in our case via the First Amendment.
If a homosexual wishes to express distaste or even disdain for a religion because that religion condemns homosexuality, then the homosexual is free to both have and express his/her opinion. The only requirement should be that the expression is conducted in a civil manner.
Likewise, if a follower of a religion expresses a distaste or even disdain for homosexuality because the practice disagrees with his/her beliefs, then he/she is free to both have and express that opinion. The only requirement should be that the expression is conducted in a civil manner.

The problem arises when society attempts, through law, to enforce acceptance or condemnation of an opinion.
That is when the very fabric of a free society begins to unravel.
People may be persuaded or even influenced to change their opinions, but only the individuals themselves can actually decide upon a change of opinion.

If an organization such as GLAAD wishes to counter Robertson's opinion, they are certainly free to do so by expressing their own opinions.
If the homosexual community wishes to boycott A&E, then they are free to do so, but it should be realized that the act of boycotting is as far as things can be taken.
Boycotting forces acceptance of certain conditions as a premise of doing business. As no one should be forced to do business with any one particular entity, boycotting represents the ultimate case of enforcing tolerance.
The individual (or group of individuals) enforce tolerance with the wallet.
The business should also have the right to refuse business; therefore the business may also "boycott" the customer base, providing it does not expect to benefit from that same base.

Since A&E is in business, they should be well aware of the risks involved in doing business.
A&E knew Robertson's stance, but they have no problem benefitting from the ratings? I have yet to hear of having a cake and eating it, too.
The old adage about not being able to please everyone certainly holds true in business, so now A&E gets to make a business decision concerning that risk.
Whatever decision A&E makes is certainly theirs to make, but they cannot force any one opinion upon their customer base (the viewers).

Quote: rob45

The "equivalence I'm trying to draw" is this:
All religions teach that one should not be ashamed of their beliefs. It's rather difficult to be ashamed of the beliefs while still believing.
Most religions encourage promotion of those beliefs to others.
This is common knowledge.

If Robertson is truly dedicated to his beliefs, and he is "put on the spot" during an interview, is he supposed to leave the question unanswered?
Were he to leave the question unanswered,
1. He would be violating his personal beliefs by appearing ashamed of those beliefs.
2. Unanswered questions always leave room for speculation. Speculation easily leads to hearsay (one of the reasons it is invalid in court).

In regards to the homosexual community taking offense to Robertson's opinion, the structure for differing opinions is thus:
1. condemnation
2. tolerance
3. embrace (acceptance)

Through law, society can enforce tolerance of differing opinions, in our case via the First Amendment.
If a homosexual wishes to express distaste or even disdain for a religion because that religion condemns homosexuality, then the homosexual is free to both have and express his/her opinion. The only requirement should be that the expression is conducted in a civil manner.
Likewise, if a follower of a religion expresses a distaste or even disdain for homosexuality because the practice disagrees with his/her beliefs, then he/she is free to both have and express that opinion. The only requirement should be that the expression is conducted in a civil manner.

The problem arises when society attempts, through law, to enforce acceptance or condemnation of an opinion.
That is when the very fabric of a free society begins to unravel.
People may be persuaded or even influenced to change their opinions, but only the individuals themselves can actually decide upon a change of opinion.

If an organization such as GLAAD wishes to counter Robertson's opinion, they are certainly free to do so by expressing their own opinions.
If the homosexual community wishes to boycott A&E, then they are free to do so, but it should be realized that the act of boycotting is as far as things can be taken.
Boycotting forces acceptance of certain conditions as a premise of doing business. As no one should be forced to do business with any one particular entity, boycotting represents the ultimate case of enforcing tolerance.
The individual (or group of individuals) enforce tolerance with the wallet.
The business should also have the right to refuse business; therefore the business may also "boycott" the customer base, providing it does not expect to benefit from that same base.

Since A&E is in business, they should be well aware of the risks involved in doing business.
A&E knew Robertson's stance, but they have no problem benefitting from the ratings? I have yet to hear of having a cake and eating it, too.
The old adage about not being able to please everyone certainly holds true in business, so now A&E gets to make a business decision concerning that risk.
Whatever decision A&E makes is certainly theirs to make, but they cannot force any one opinion upon their customer base (the viewers).

Awesome post. Thank god for guys like you & AZ. You guys are more eloquent than I could ever be! But be careful. Twird loves to change the subject on a dime (as you have seen over the past 30+ pages).

I just caught up with this thread and to quote Beethoven - FACEPALM!

The reason you guys were dancing around the abortion issue as it regards the Catholic Church was you were obviously using different words to define the same thing. Twirdman was equating changing rules as changing doctrine. Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

You guys going at it reminds me a little of when I was discussing with Nareed a while back, however I kind of hope we were not as snarky and unwilling to admit the good points of the other person's arguments.

There is a huge values gap between The producers of TV entertainment and the consumers of that product. They often make the mistake of producing their product as if they were the audience. A & E thought they were introducing us to a bunch a quacks (no pun intended) to be laughed at. What they found was a majority of us in flyover country agreed with and admired the family. So they waited for comments they thought would be perceived as over the line so they could fire them. BACKFIRE!

The Southern California / NYC crowd are so provincial they believe the whole world sees things the way they do. When they find this is simply not true, they decide the other side of an issue is either stupid or nuts. Then the name calling starts, it has to because they have such difficulty defending their positions.

Quote: Sabretom2

There is a huge values gap between The producers of TV entertainment and the consumers of that product. They often make the mistake of producing their product as if they were the audience. A & E thought they were introducing us to a bunch a quacks (no pun intended) to be laughed at. What they found was a majority of us in flyover country agreed with and admired the family. So they waited for comments they thought would be perceived as over the line so they could fire them. BACKFIRE!

The Southern California / NYC crowd are so provincial they believe the whole world sees things the way they do. When they find this is simply not true, they decide the other side of an issue is either stupid or nuts. Then the name calling starts, it has to because they have such difficulty defending their positions.

I sense that perhaps Phil Robertson had grown weary of the way A&E controlled their religious speech on the air and decided to honestly speak his mind, as his religion would have him do...he doesn't need to worry about GLAAD or any of those folks, thank you; he is already a rich man. He also did not say anything about harming anyone in spite of how many here (okay, mostly just one or two folks) who try to turn it into something that it is not.

They weren't allowed to reference Jesus in their prayers (or it was cut). Why was A&E censoring their religion when their strong beliefs were one of the things that brought people to watching the show in huge numbers? I am not arguing that they did not have the "right" as the network to do so, it is just that the censorship in that form was likely one of the things that led to this whole flap. Who wants to be told they can't speak their beliefs?

Is it possible civility has returned to this thread?

Hey Twird, did you read that? I went ahead and highlighted the best parts for you. ;)

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Twird, you never seem to accept anything whenever I point it out, so maybe you'll listen to someone else again. You listened to boymimbo last time, so maybe you'll listen to FrGamble now.

Quote: FrGamble

You guys going at it reminds me a little of when I was discussing with Nareed a while back, however I kind of hope we were not as snarky

Aw shucks, FrGamble. :) I know that wasn't intended as a compliment, but I definitely take it as one. You see, snark and sarcasm..........that's my forte! ;)

39 pages of posts in 3 days. Since there are about five different discussions going on at once I may start splitting up this thread, although I'm impressed with how fast its growing.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Hey Twird, did you read that? I went ahead and highlighted the best parts for you. ;)

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Twird, you never seem to accept anything whenever I point it out, so maybe you'll listen to someone else again. You listened to boymimbo last time, so maybe you'll listen to FrGamble now.

Quote: FrGamble

You guys going at it reminds me a little of when I was discussing with Nareed a while back, however I kind of hope we were not as snarky

Aw shucks, FrGamble. :) I know that wasn't intended as a compliment, but I definitely take it as one. You see, snark and sarcasm..........that's my forte! ;)

Again the church can define doctrine now you can semantically argue well doctrine is unchanging and that was simply a revelation of doctrine but that supposes that there is a supreme being handing down doctrine which I disagree with.

Oh and again yours is based on laity here is the statement of Pope Pius IX defining an ex Catharda statement

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The pope wouldn't be able to define a doctrine of the church if the doctrine of the church was always in existence. Oh also the next paragraph clearly lays out that those who do not believe in the new pronouncements of the pope regarding doctrine are to be excommunicated so this is a bit stronger than just saying we'd like you to believe it to.

Oh and about the asexuality thing I did give a definition for you to read and as expected you ignored it. Also I love how you say all asexuals you know are shy wow the one you know happened to not want to answer your question must all be like that right. You are sounding incredibly ignorant given I gave you an entire forum of people who talk about their asexuality

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can't let it go.

Quote: Twirdman

You are sounding incredibly ignorant given I gave you an entire forum of people who talk about their asexuality

I'm not a member of that forum.

Quote: Beethoven9th

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can't let it go.

Again you presented the opinion of laity who do not define church rules and were never meant to I provide an official statement of the Pope and eccumenical council and somehow I am the wrong one? Given what I provided you need to find something more than just catholic.com and a bunch of lay apologist to overturn it.

Oh and you don't have to be a member of the forum to read post in it. Or you can join it I mean you clearly know how to join a forum so if you really want to educate yourself just join it and politely ask questions.

Guess someone missed this:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Quote: RonC

I sense that perhaps Phil Robertson had grown weary of the way A&E controlled their religious speech on the air and decided to honestly speak his mind, as his religion would have him do...he doesn't need to worry about GLAAD or any of those folks, thank you; he is already a rich man. He also did not say anything about harming anyone in spite of how many here (okay, mostly just one or two folks) who try to turn it into something that it is not.

They weren't allowed to reference Jesus in their prayers (or it was cut). Why was A&E censoring their religion when their strong beliefs were one of the things that brought people to watching the show in huge numbers? I am not arguing that they did not have the "right" as the network to do so, it is just that the censorship in that form was likely one of the things that led to this whole flap. Who wants to be told they can't speak their beliefs?

I watch both CNN and Fox News about equally. The Phil Robertson story is getting a lot of airtime on both networks. I don't know what MSNBC is doing as I rarely watch it. Last night I seen a film byte of Phil Robertson complaining sometime back about A & E cutting "in Christ's name we pray" out of his dinner prayer.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Guess someone missed this:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Oh well again unless FrGamble is the pope or God I don't treat his opinion as highly, when it comes to Catholic belief, as I treat Pope Pius IX, or really any pope, and Vatican I.

Quote: Twirdman

Oh well again unless FrGamble is the pope or God I don't treat his opinion as highly

Wow, no need to dis FrGamble. He knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Wow, no need to dis FrGamble. He knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.

Again he is not pope though and again in Vatican I they laid out the Pope has primacy over all questions of faith. So it would take the actions of a pope, if even that one is possible, or a higher authority namely God to change it.

Again I don't care that you have some people who agree with you thats great they are laity and do not define the church. So unless you find a pope who agrees with you their opinion is largely irrelevant since I am not of the opinion people outside of the cloth can define things about the church. So we go with people inside and over them the pope has primacy.

Quote: Twirdman

Again he is not pope though and again in Vatican I they laid out the Pope has primacy over all questions of faith.

FrGamble has issues. He has difficulty believing that his savior killed a fig tree for no good reason even though it says so right in the bible from which he purports to receive his doctrine. He is not an expert.

Quote: s2dbaker

FrGamble has issues. He has difficulty believing that his savior killed a fig tree for no good reason even though it says so right in the bible from which he purports to receive his doctrine. He is not an expert.

lol.

Quote: Twirdman

Quote: Beethoven9th

Wow, no need to dis FrGamble. He knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.

Again I don't care that you have some people who agree with you

Twird, it was entertaining at first, but I'm really starting to feel embarrassed for you now. Really. Do you know anything at all about FrGamble and what he does for a living???

Just so you know, he's a CATHOLIC PRIEST. So forget about me...forget about you. Who will most people believe on church doctrine? Catholic priest or Internet asexual?

No offense, but I think most people will go with the PRIEST. So let me repeat:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Twird, it was entertaining at first, but I'm really starting to feel embarrassed for you now. Really. Do you know anything at all about FrGamble and what he does for a living???

Just so you know, he's a CATHOLIC PRIEST. So forget about me...forget about you. Who will most people believe on church doctrine? Catholic priest or Internet asexual?

No offense, but I think most people will go with the PRIEST. So let me repeat:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

OK I was wrong to call him laity then. But again the pope has primacy. The pope in Vatican I said that an ex catharda statement can define doctrine. So given we can go from something to nothing yes there has been a change in doctrine. This has happened before both the assumption of Mary and the Immaculate conception of Mary are relatively new phenomenon. While they were somewhat believed by many and there were talks they weren't officially part of church doctrine till less than 200 years ago.


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Here is them defining doctrine to say define the Immaculate Conception

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854[)

Here is it for the Assumption of Mary

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. (On November 1, 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII )

Little weird that the first one came before Vatican I which defined ex Catharda statements as being infallible though is considered an infallible statement since it was made ex Catarda. So again there are 2 instances of a church changing doctrine by inventing it. You can argue and I'm sure this is what, Fr is doing now that I do know he is educated in the church, that these aren't changes to doctrine but actually revelations of doctrine which have always been. Again though for that you have to presuppose that they area right and I don't feel the Catholic church is right about this but I can see why Fr does. Though again for a number of people this is changing doctrine and for almost all the laity they would understand this as changing doctrine.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Twird, just admit you're wrong, brother. With all due respect, I think a Catholic PRIEST knows more about the Catholic Church than you do. *facepalm*


On matters concerning everything asexual, I will defer to you. But regarding the Church, I'll go with FrGamble. Let me repeat for you:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

Quote: Beethoven9th

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Twird, with all due respect, I think a Catholic PRIEST knows more about the Catholic Church than you do. *facepalm*

Let me repeat:

Quote: FrGamble

Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.

I cited two catholic popes who have primacy over a priest. Thats like me trying to show you something in physics and quoting a nobel physicist and then a high school physics teacher comes in "No I don't think thats right." You could then say who should I trust you or the physics teacher. The answer is neither you should trust the nobel prize winner. Same thing here you shouldn't trust either of us to make definitions you should trust the pope. Again here is vatican I written by Pope Pius IX


9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So again why should I trust a priest who is on the lowest end of the hierarchy over the pope who is at the highest end?

Again you will note I am not saying I am right by virtue of being me I am saying I'm right in virtue of being in agreement with the popes. Note not even singular there multiple popes in history on my side about being able to make doctrine.

Quote: Beethoven9th

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think a Catholic PRIEST knows more about the Catholic Church than you do. *facepalm*

I also would prefer FrGamble take your place. As in Beethoven.