tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post2055286039713921033..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Quick Takes: The Democratic National Convention EditionLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84890486557952179432012-09-11T23:03:31.479-07:002012-09-11T23:03:31.479-07:00Meg and Steve, well said! Thank you!
Meg and Steve, well said! Thank you!<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1709563088258331372012-09-11T12:26:09.809-07:002012-09-11T12:26:09.809-07:00Meg, what a wonderful description of what obedienc...Meg, what a wonderful description of what obedience means in this context. I was going to make a comment relating to the issue "existenceandessence" raised about what to do if one's own reasoning conflicts with Church teaching on a moral issue, but your comment conveys the truth far better than I could have.<br /><br />Your first point about Catholics having a responsibility to study and learn their faith is like a "to do" list for the rest of my life (I'm a fairly recent convert). The doctrines of the faith are truly gifts to us and we are obliged to learn them and use them.<br /><br />One point I would add: when confronted with a Church position with which my own logic might initially differ, I would recommend praying....for wisdom and that God might help me understand. This is in addition to studying the ample analyses of Church teachings that have been provided for us, both recently and over the centuries.<br /><br />In my own life, I've arrived at the point where I now would assume that a difference I encounter between my own logic and Church teaching is likely due to a deficiency in my understanding. I need to pursue it, but I suspect the way my inquiry will turn out.<br /><br />I know enough to know that the complete picture matters -- that the Church has a consistent, cohensive view of morality that is best understood and appreciated when seen in its entirety. Understanding that entirety is a big task; happily, it's a beautiful picture, one well worth a lifetime of study. <br /><br />Do I blindly follow? That's not how I would describe it -- I see it more as a realization that I don't necessarily understand everything yet, and it's my job to study until I do understand. That would be, it seems to me, one way to describe faith, something I prayed for for many years before receiving its great gift.<br /><br />This entire thread has been excellent. Thank you, Leila, Meg, and others.Steve - IJHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13829113158293239288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53510231896441328372012-09-10T13:17:19.917-07:002012-09-10T13:17:19.917-07:00See, to me, that's arrogant. I can say that th...<i>See, to me, that's arrogant. I can say that there is no god and that reason should dictate our morals with some amount of certainty, but I would never tell anyone to blindly agree with me. Sure, there are some situations where blind obedience may be good, but when it comes to making moral decisions, I think individual reason needs to trump authority.</i><br /><br />I know Michelle has left and I'm late to the convo, but I have to comment on this. <br /><br />It's actually the opposite of arrogance. First, no one is being asked to <i>blindly</i> agree with anything. So much has been written on the doctrines of the faith, including issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. Blind? People have no excuse to be blind! The information is there, for their consumption. John Paul II gave us the entire Theology of the Body to explain to us human sexuality. It's huge. And there's great study guides for it. No blindness. We like informed decisions.<br /><br />Second, we aren't asking people to agree with <i>us</i>, ultimately. We are asking people to be obedient and humble before GOD and the Church that He founded and He guides and protects. These aren't Leila's teachings; these are God's teachings, entrusted to the Church. And those who understand, believe and love those teachings, try to help others understand them. But ultimately, none of this is about agreeing with any individual. It's about agreeing with God. No arrogance; humility.<br /><br />Lastly, you sort of have something in common with the Church when you say this: <i> when it comes to making moral decisions, I think individual reason needs to trump authority</i> The Church would say that people are obligated to follow their consciences, which may have a bit of a different definition than your use of the term "reason", but I think we're close here. The Church wants people to follow their consciences, but we must properly form that conscience. It is our duty. If we fail to form it thoroughly and properly, we will be held accountable. And thankfully, with the completely consistent teachings of the Church as our guide, we know when we are off base on something. It takes supreme humility to learn more and to submit to the Church, but in doing so, it does help us develop our conscience so that it will lead us in the right direction.Meg @ True, Good and Beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507070127764766394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80884430182910568822012-09-10T11:03:13.769-07:002012-09-10T11:03:13.769-07:00Michelle, thanks, and I hope you will come back so...Michelle, thanks, and I hope you will come back soon!<br /><br />Nubby, it's one of the head scratchers of my life: What is the source of truth for athiests? I think it was MaiZeke who claimed that ojective truth exists but has no source? (That made my brain hurt, unless she was unknowingly making the case that Objective Truth = God, and then she just ceased to be an atheist!<br /><br />I can't get out of the idea that an atheist's truth is based on emotion. How else to describe it? For example, we can determine who/what is a human being based on science. Personhood? Not determined by science. It's totally subjective, metaphysical, philosophical. So, the part of the moral law that deals with abortion, at least for those who argue "personhood", is not based in science, it's based in emotion/subjective opinion. Other parts of the moral law, such as gay "marriage"? Like you said, it's arguments like "because they deserve to be happy" or "because it's not harming anyone" -- those are emotional arguments, not based in any objective truth system or lawful evidence.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-71873468207525097172012-09-10T10:53:06.588-07:002012-09-10T10:53:06.588-07:00That is a good comment, and it does make sense, Jo...That is a good comment, and it does make sense, JoAnna. Wasn't really what I was asking (of course, ideally someone will agree with you intellectually and not just blindly), but I get your point.<br /><br />Alright. I am going to drop out now in favor of doing the large quantities of work I have waiting for me. Thanks for the discussion!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11085600633443958942012-09-10T10:43:30.811-07:002012-09-10T10:43:30.811-07:00Nubby, I'm not going to argue about gay marria...<i>Nubby, I'm not going to argue about gay marriage with you.</i> <br /><br />I'm not asking for an argument. I asked you for your lawful evidence. What law or objective law are you hanging your hat on that says, "Yes, gay marriage is reasonable according to this, that and the other."<br /><br />Can you tell me without including any of the following:<br />1) "People deserve to be happy"<br />2) "People in love should be allowed to marry"<br />3) Any other emotionalism<br /><br />Just evidence of the lawful kind, not the emotional kind.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83979955914293074102012-09-10T10:39:41.072-07:002012-09-10T10:39:41.072-07:00JoAnna, that is perfect! I remember that comment f...JoAnna, that is perfect! I remember that comment from Monica, and I should keep it handy. I'm glad you did!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-16697887038928744532012-09-10T10:25:38.959-07:002012-09-10T10:25:38.959-07:00Looks like it's time to repost this comment fr...Looks like it's time to repost <a href="http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/12/sterilization-is-it-getting-fixed-or.html?showComment=1292529574414#c4756584699856986497" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> from Monica way back when...<br /><br /><i>I think the sentiment you expressed is one held by many- that Catholics blindly follow the Vatican, and never use their brains.<br /><br />Once a person accepts certain premises that then draws him or her to the Church, they do not cease to think for themselves. However, let's take human sexuality for an example, once I accept the premises that lead me to the Church, the Church's view of human sexuality is infinitely logical and well-reasoned. Even difficult teachings, such as those on sterilization for women who risk their lives during pregnancy, or the teaching that gays must remain celibate, fit perfectly with the tapestry of life that the Church teaches. It doesn't make them easy teachings, but their "ease" is totally unrelated to their "reasonableness" or "truthfulness".<br /><br />And when those premises are accepted, and a person then hears another Catholic teaching, they don't think to themselves, "Well, that makes no sense, but I'll follow blindly." They hear it, and they think, "Yes, this fits. Another piece of the puzzle that fits perfectly." And if a member of the Catholic clergy starts spouting nonsense, well, then a thinking Catholic will call him on it. This happens regularly.<br /><br />Because of the absolute consistency in Catholic teaching, it is nice to be able to look up the answers in the back of the book, so to speak. But as someone who has gone through (hopefully) a thorough catechism, a Catholic realizes they aren't answers pulled out of thin air, they are well-reasoned under the premises of Christianity. And so, when a question like the infamous "trolley car switch" comes up, we might do a quick google search on Catholic Answers and feel pretty confident with the answer and reasoning provided.<br /><br />I am not a moralist or a theologian, and so I let the experts do what they are meant to do- look at situations like tubal pregnancies, euthanasia, etc, and reason it out. I am smart enough to then follow their logical explanation and agree that it's logical. In the same way, I agree to let oncologists treat a cancer, because they are the experts. But if a doc suddenly tells me I need to sleep with a quartz crystal under my pillow, I would sense a logical problem and do a bit more digging. I hope that comparison makes sense.</i>JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36636190502300869742012-09-10T10:18:05.925-07:002012-09-10T10:18:05.925-07:00See, to me, that's arrogant. I can say that th...See, to me, that's arrogant. I can say that there is no god and that reason should dictate our morals with some amount of certainty, but I would <i>never</i> tell anyone to blindly agree with me. Sure, there are some situations where blind obedience may be good, but when it comes to making moral decisions, I think individual reason needs to trump authority.<br /><br />Nubby, I'm not going to argue about gay marriage with you. It's a complete tangent, no one here has ever said a convincing thing about it, and I don't have time. Sorry, maybe another time, but not now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62195303773832714952012-09-10T08:48:15.678-07:002012-09-10T08:48:15.678-07:00If I were to tell you right now that even though I...<i>If I were to tell you right now that even though I cannot for the life of me arrive at a conclusion that tells me gay marriage is wrong, I am going to believe what the Church says <b>even though I don't believe reason points to it</b>, would you say that that is a better decision than continuing to believe what my reason tells me? </i><br /><br />I'd say that's some faulty reasoning on your part.<br />Take into account evidence, and leave emotion at the door.<br /><br />1) Natural law: If gay people can't naturally, biologically reproduce then natural law goes against you. Humans are not biologically built for that. Check that off the reasoning list.<br /><br />2) Moral law goes against it, too. Two strikes against your reasoning.<br /><br />What other laws are you going to try to hang on to? <br />A what point do you just reconsider that your reasoning is incorrect? Never? <br /><br />In this case, there's a lot of straight up reason going against you.<br /><br />At what point do you have enough humility to say, "Hey, I might be wrong in my reasoning."<br /><br />What is your reasoning, beyond your emotions, that tells you this is lawfully and objectively a-ok? Take emotions and feelings out of it, what's left? Again, without emotion, what is your lawful reasoning?<br />Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10809886635194878622012-09-10T08:37:36.850-07:002012-09-10T08:37:36.850-07:00Where does reason come from?
And, if one is a Cat...Where does reason come from?<br /><br />And, if one is a Catholic, and if one has a cohesive, consistent view of human sexuality that has been beautifully been exhorted and unpacked in multiple ways and layers, and then something jarring comes in that unravels the entire philosophy and truth of human sexuality (which gay sex does, if you try to place it in the Catholic vision of sexuality), then why would one assume that the Church (who has the consistent vision) is wrong and the person (who frankly just came on the scene, with a particular cultural bias) is rightly reasoning?<br /><br />I would never be so prideful to think that I could put a discordant, sour note into a completed masterpiece concerto and then tell the composer that this definitely "fits", so your piece was wrong.<br /><br />Can you at least grasp the concept of what I'm trying to get across to you? Even if you don't agree? <br /><br />Gay sex has no place in the Church's vision of marriage or human sexuality. It is a discordant, sour note in the concerto.<br /><br />Whether you like the concerto or not, the sour note imposed there does not fit.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-8891738676502011742012-09-10T08:31:31.265-07:002012-09-10T08:31:31.265-07:00If Jesus is God and if the Church teaches truth, t...If Jesus is God and if the Church teaches truth, then yes, you would submit to his Truth.<br /><br />If there is no God, and no legitimate authority to submit to, then objective truth doesn't exist and you can believe whatever you want.<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70903982638745507002012-09-10T07:40:37.566-07:002012-09-10T07:40:37.566-07:00Let me try to get at this from another angle, beca...Let me try to get at this from another angle, because I don't think my question is unreasonable.<br /><br />Basically, if someone has logically and carefully thought out the answer to a moral issue where the Church has taken a strong position, and their answer disagrees with the Church, you would rather that they set aside their own reasoning and promote the Church's view, even if their reasoning tells them otherwise. If I were to tell you right now that even though I cannot for the life of me arrive at a conclusion that tells me gay marriage is wrong, I am going to believe what the Church says even though I don't believe reason points to it, would you say that that is a better decision than continuing to believe what my reason tells me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9158766826510985952012-09-10T07:11:40.650-07:002012-09-10T07:11:40.650-07:00Many people use their better judgement to torture ...Many people use their better judgement to torture and kill.<br /><br />And, I did answer you. In this universe, if the "Church" suddenly said rape (or gay marriage, or contraception) was a "good", then it's a false church and I would leave. <br /><br />Said that, a couple of times.<br /><br />So, ???Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35183500958313014392012-09-10T07:10:17.237-07:002012-09-10T07:10:17.237-07:00Note the consistency of truth. It was not and is n...Note the consistency of truth. It was not and is not the Church whose teaching on Hiroshima (indiscriminate bombing) is inconsistent with the "whole" of her teaching. The inconsistency is with any Catholic, including my husband, who was FOR the bombings, while being in line with the rest of the Church's teachings. It was his challenge, then, and a certain path to further holiness, to bend his will and make his will align with the Church's teachings (i.e., God's will). Humility, obedience. These are hallmarks of the saints.<br /><br />Consistency on the issue of contraception, as well… Many Catholics align their wills on abortion with the Church. But they reject the Christian teaching on contraception, preferring instead the easy route, and they align themselves instead not with the consistent teaching of Christianity, but with the abrupt break from it, and instead align their beliefs with the enemy of the Church and the enemy of life and chastity: Planned Parenthood. So, you get this unnatural, abrupt and harsh break that is inconsistent. (When you tell them they are embracing Planned Parenthood values in opposition to the Church's unbroken teaching…. they cannot even respond except to continue to defend their own (and Planned Parenthood's) opinion as to why it's okay to break from the moral law as its always stood.<br /><br />Anyway, consistency.<br /><br />If the Church suddenly put rape as consistent with chastity, life and love, then you'd see a complete break with consistency of Truth. It won't ever happen.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19564722018865356012012-09-10T07:03:43.671-07:002012-09-10T07:03:43.671-07:00No, you are dodging. I asked specific questions an...No, you are dodging. I asked specific questions and you didn't answer them directly. But what I gather from your response: yes, you would change your mind if the Church contradicted your deeply held convictions.<br /><br />I think that's wrong. I don't think of "truth" in the same way you do - I think of it as the set of all facts about the universe, plus a bit of what you're pretty sure about the universe. I wrote a post about it here that explains it better: http://existenceandessence.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/truth/ (I hate when people post links to their own blog, but I think I comment here enough that I can get away with it once!). See, for me, morality does not exist outside of us, and so moral judgments must be arrived at through reason. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions - a utilitarian framework is often going to give you a different conclusion than a deontological framework, for instance. My own moral judgments have led me to conclude that the death penalty and Hiroshima were wrong, and I didn't need anyone to tell me that. Once you start relying on someone else to distinguish right and wrong for you (as in the case of bending your opinion of waterboarding to the Church's), I think you can run the risk of devaluing the importance of your own better judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90453716495411359912012-09-10T06:43:59.955-07:002012-09-10T06:43:59.955-07:00Meaning, the Hiroshima bombings might help you see...Meaning, the Hiroshima bombings might help you see better the subject we've been discussing. Didn't mean to make it seem like it was analogous to the death penalty (it's not).Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90434048060218374592012-09-10T06:38:47.836-07:002012-09-10T06:38:47.836-07:00First, you don't understand the teaching on th...First, you don't understand the teaching on the death penalty, so here is this from when Pope Benedict was prefect for the CDF:<br /><br /><i>Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals,<b> it may still be permissible</b> to take up arms to repel an aggressor or <b>to have recourse to capital punishment</b>. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.</i><br /><br />Death penalty is not intrinsically evil.<br /><br />Now, for an example that might help you see this better. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Church teaches that the indiscriminate bombing of large populations is inherently evil. Do you know how many Americans, good people, think it's okay? Many. Many, including me at one time, and including my husband who still struggles with it today (if he didn't mightily struggle to submit to the Church, he would still be a strong proponent of it). That is true submission to legitimate authority, even when your instinct tells you that something is wrong. In this case (as in so many others, like contraception, for example) a soul must choose. If you know who God is, and if you know how Truth comes to us, you submit, and that is a struggle at times, but it's a joy in the end.<br /><br />Is your "truth" based solely on what your opinion is? If so, then what is the difference between truth and opinion? (One atheist long ago admitted to me that for her, truth = opinion; unfortunately, that goes contrary to the words' definitions, but I can see why that is so for an atheist, and I appreciated her admission.)<br /><br />If you think that answering the question from about five different angles, in every incarnation possible, is dodging, then so be it. It could be that you simply don't understand.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1201848160682946512012-09-10T05:50:28.348-07:002012-09-10T05:50:28.348-07:00I do still think you're dodging, but I can'...I do still think you're dodging, but I can't force you to answer.<br /><br />I do want to bring it back to the idea that got me started on this tangent, though. <br /><br /><i>If the Church taught something as intrinsically wrong, and I thought it was okay, I would absolutely bend my will and submit to the Church, and vice versa.</i><br /><br />So, if you were dead certain that waterboarding was cruel and unusual, and the Church said, no, it's totally fine to dump water on someone's face so that they inhale it and feel like they're drowning, you would change your mind? If you'd started out as anti-death penalty and the Church approved of it, you would change your mind? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-5980268618340535372012-09-09T22:19:29.522-07:002012-09-09T22:19:29.522-07:00And we've told you, if the Church suddenly rev...And we've told you, if the Church suddenly reversed her moral teachings, then she's not the Church. Principle: The Church does not change (nor does she have authority to change) the moral law. If that were somehow to change (which it won't), she is then a fraud.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9364721361359306782012-09-09T22:17:15.531-07:002012-09-09T22:17:15.531-07:00Michelle, you are missing something. If God handed...Michelle, you are missing something. If God handed down the moral law and there was something that just sort of "stuck out" as being illogical in it (rape) that was utterly inconsistent with everything else that the moral law said, then either there is something very wrong with my ability to reason, or else there is something very inconsistent and incoherent about the moral law (which means it's not from God, who is perfectly coherent and perfectly consistent).<br /><br />So, again, you think I'm dodging, but you haven't set up a coherent hypothetical. But if you are asking what if God had a whole different moral law, and a whole different (reversed) type of "good", and if He was in fact that different "Goodness" himself, then when He created us (and created our minds to reason), then he would have made us to see, through reason, the consistency of that (different) "good". We would not see glaring contradictions in the moral law of even this "other" God, assuming he was actually "the" God. <br /><br />Let's apply principles. <br /><br />I believe that God is a God of non-contradiction. <br /><br />So He cannot hand down a law that is all good except for rape. The only way that could be the case <i>is if rape were seen and known as a good by men and women</i>, the ultimate end of which brought us to our greatest happiness. And if it were, then…. there is no problem.<br /><br />Now again, that is silly, because it's a "moon made of green cheese" argument. <br /><br />Actually, hypotheticals to me are about testing one's principles, and you can't test a principle on something that has no basis in truth or reality. <br /><br />By the way, just to be technical: The Church was founded BY Christ, and not just on the basis of His teachings. To put a finer point on it: The Church <i>is</i> the Mystical Body of Christ. <br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70524911445965550012012-09-09T21:11:59.074-07:002012-09-09T21:11:59.074-07:00By "believe it" I of course mean "b...By "believe it" I of course mean "believe that rape is good".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42742156733971580392012-09-09T21:11:02.096-07:002012-09-09T21:11:02.096-07:00A man named Jesus is born of a virgin and says he&...A man named Jesus is born of a virgin and says he's the son of God and performs miracles and preaches about morality and then dies and comes back to life. A church is founded on the basis of his teachings. Only problem: one of the things he preached was that rape was good. Everything else is perfectly logical and lines up with reason. Do you believe it or not?<br /><br />Basically, what I'm asking: if you reason something to be bad, but the being dictating your morals tells you you're wrong, it's actually good, would you believe something that runs counter to your reason? I sense you're trying to avoid answering my question, but that is what hypotheticals are about - forcing you to think about a situation that doesn't necessarily need to be possible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50052745016329767962012-09-09T20:47:11.442-07:002012-09-09T20:47:11.442-07:00No, Michelle, no. It's not the same.
Your pr...No, Michelle, no. It's not the same. <br /><br />Your principle exists on earth. There are tons of folks who believe as you do that, ultimately, the end justifies the means. That there is no intrinsic evil.<br /><br />That is not analogous to what you are proposing, which is, "Well, what if the moon WAS made of green cheese?" or "What if the earth WAS flat?" or "What if pigs COULD fly?" You are wanting me to operate in a hypothetical WORLD, not in a hypothetical situation grounded in THIS world. <br /><br />And, the fact that you keep saying "You would believe whatever the Bible told you" still gives me a suspicious that you don't fully know the difference between a Catholic paradigm and a Protestant one. Which is okay, but it just strikes me odd to hear you use that phrase.<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-57749060423050448112012-09-09T20:37:04.198-07:002012-09-09T20:37:04.198-07:00Leila, of course you didn't put words in my mo...Leila, of course you didn't put words in my mouth. I never once said you did. But you are trotting out something that I have said I would condone in a hypothetical that <i>I do not think could ever happen</i>. Just like you don't believe that the Church could ever reverse position on something. <br /><br />Your principle is that you would believe whatever the Bible told you, regardless of what it said. You're twisting my hypothetical to make it sound otherwise, but if the Bible said rape was good and the rest of the world said it wasn't (forget whether or not it would actually say that, the point of a hypothetical is that it doesn't have to actually be possible), you would say rape was good. Right?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com