tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post3894393164349647978..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: The shockingly offensive statement that got my facebook account shut down for "violating community standards"Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger541125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54392607747621988132013-05-02T17:32:44.121-07:002013-05-02T17:32:44.121-07:00Valid.Valid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05742346493999055540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76619534930228791492012-06-22T10:58:02.971-07:002012-06-22T10:58:02.971-07:00Chelsea, I find the consent argument for animals a...Chelsea, I find the consent argument for animals awkward. Most societies, including our own, don't believe animals can give consent for anything. They don't consent to be our food, our pets, our companions. They don't consent to work on farms or as part of rescue missions or at tourist attractions, etc. So I find it odd that people argue about consent for animals when it comes to sex. They aren't like children, because they aren't people. Who is to say that sex is harmful for animals? Eating them harms them. Placing them in captivity arguably harms them. <br /><br />I definitely do not think bestiality is okay. But their arguments, in light of our society's moral relativism and our lack of logic regarding sexual relationships, are hard to counter. It's easy for a Catholic to counter, but not so easy for current society as ideas on "love" and sex have evolved.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90741885464155358432012-06-22T07:41:37.593-07:002012-06-22T07:41:37.593-07:00Chelsea, if you read closely, they say that truly ...Chelsea, if you read closely, they say that truly loving animals and having sex with them will not hurt them, and that the animals like it, too. In fact, one of them said that the animals sometimes gave them "cues" and they initiated the sex acts! So, they believe it's consensual.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67639361934069620522012-06-22T07:39:41.135-07:002012-06-22T07:39:41.135-07:00Chelsea, I agree about the button!! It makes me cr...Chelsea, I agree about the button!! It makes me crazy, ack!!!!<br /><br />Second, yes, they were talking about sexual acts and then also sexual "intercourse" (if you can call it that) with animals. That is the whole point, and that is what they want to be accepted for. That is what they want to do (and that they do do). They want sex with animals.<br /><br />And, the last sentence you wrote used to be said about homosexual acts, and even more about same-sex "marriage".Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6813021727112481392012-06-22T04:35:26.860-07:002012-06-22T04:35:26.860-07:00Firstly, where is the wonderful button that said &...Firstly, where is the wonderful button that said "Last Page" I miss it. The load more does not do this thing justice. <br /><br />Secondly. You were right, it does not talk much about marriage, just acceptance. The one thing that confused me was what they were talking about. When I think of beastality, I think of having sex with animals, therefore, hurting the animals. But they said that they could never hurt animals, so did that mean no sex? <br /><br />If it's only loving animals, and no sex is what they are talking about. Then OK, a few extra hugs for the pets I guess is no big deal. But still, a pet can not consent like a human can, marriage or no marriage. I do not think there is a problem of it becoming widely accepted.Chelsea Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03057807243781310289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56630603435855326492012-06-14T14:28:49.833-07:002012-06-14T14:28:49.833-07:00Again, for the social science folks out there, her...Again, for the social science folks out there, here is a much more detailed analysis of the two recent studies which show that children of same-sex unions do NOT fare better than or even equal to those of traditional parents:<br /><br />http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640<br /><br />Fascinating stuff, and shows why the other "makes no difference" studies were so flawed.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23791884587469198612012-06-11T15:33:58.319-07:002012-06-11T15:33:58.319-07:00Hi Chelsea! Did you read all six pages of that art...Hi Chelsea! Did you read all six pages of that article from a secular site carefully? It was not about animal/adult "marriage", it was about acceptance of animal/man sex as a sexual orientation.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10114928023272209712012-06-11T13:47:07.921-07:002012-06-11T13:47:07.921-07:00Whoa, did you just compare an adult to an animal? ...Whoa, did you just compare an adult to an animal? Is a dog able to sign a marriage certificate?Chelsea Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03057807243781310289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-48115887145099883692012-06-11T10:05:33.613-07:002012-06-11T10:05:33.613-07:00Michelle, here's a heads up for what's com...Michelle, here's a heads up for what's coming down the pike (along with pedophilia acceptance, which the APA already almost normalized):<br /><br />http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/<br /><br /><i>Now Beck believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves "zoos," can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.</i>Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12213789937546110332012-06-10T20:52:58.591-07:002012-06-10T20:52:58.591-07:00I would really like that info! Thanks.I would really like that info! Thanks.maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45219146211006616702012-06-10T20:33:42.150-07:002012-06-10T20:33:42.150-07:00For those of you who live and die by social scienc...For those of you who live and die by social science studies, there are two new ones out stating that children fare better with their married mother and father:<br /><br />http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=1Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25698671295788020572012-06-10T18:20:26.394-07:002012-06-10T18:20:26.394-07:00Damn, I missed a lot while I was goneDamn, I missed a lot while I was goneMarti B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07378390553564220983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14781677316717612612012-06-10T15:32:03.822-07:002012-06-10T15:32:03.822-07:00Michelle,
Tell me how abiogenesis answers anythin...Michelle,<br /><br />Tell me how abiogenesis answers anything about origins of life "to a reasonable degree of certainty" when it's nothing more than a theory, non-tested at that? <br /><br />Abiogensis is a theory. <br />Abiogensis says that life springs from non-life. <br />So, I don't know about you, but my logical route goes this way:<br /><br />I'm somehow asked to accept that non-living material brought forth life without any <b>initial energy, or life</b> behind it. To boot, it's also asking me to accept that this dead matter which brought forth life managed to perfectly organize itself, though it's random, into a very precise life form, and how coincidental it is that the constants of physics in our universe just happen to be in place and sustain this life, which came from non-life.<br /><br />Huh.<br /><br /><i>First of all, no, I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that life is "springing up all over the place" - it's a theory for the origin of life, which occurred under very different environmental conditions than what we have today.</i> <br /><br />I know what it is. It's a hypothetical. And it was your comment in response to mine, so yes, you are trying to sell me on it. If you're not, then answer the many relevant questions already put to you. <br /><br />Abiogenesis discounts any starting point of any life. Let's not talk to it like it's a fact.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, it's no more hypothetical that a god putting us (or the first cells) here, which can't be tested at all.</i><br /><br />How about DEDUCED, logically? Metaphysically? How about never refuted historically? How about archaeologically not one shred of evidence rebuts the resurrection? Gather the evidence and <i>deduce</i>, Michelle. <br /><br />Behind the first cells was an energy necessary to create those cells. It is highly plausible and highly likely that a Higher Intelligence must exist, given all that we know about the physical world in which we live.<br /><br /> <i>Abiogenesis can be tested, at least in part, and may be reproducible under the right conditions (I'd elaborate if I could, but I'm not familiar with the kinds of relevant experiments out there).</i><br /><br />Funny you mention "right conditions". Let's explore. The right conditions are only there because of previous "right conditions" called constants. Which didn't spring from dead anything. According to the Big Bang model, those constants came into being right at the time of the explosion of the universe. Boom. Every physical law was <i> created </i>, and has remained a stabilizing force to our universe since then, and will continue long after we're gone. <br /><br />Where did that initial thrust come from? Where did that initial bang + 1 come from? Certainly the universe can't generate that much energy hanging out on its own. <br /><br /><i>Finally, you mention the argument that the universe is fine tuned for us, which is true. The way I look at it is not that it had to be perfect for us to get to where we are, but that we're here because the conditions were as they were.</i><br /><br />You're saying the same point with two phrases. Constants. Because of constants that regulate physical laws, "we got where we are" and "we're here because the conditions were as they were". It's all because the universe's laws haven't changed, Michelle. Do you know how highly improbable it is that the conditions are just so, just right so as to create and sustain our universe?<br /><br /> <b>If they weren't, we might be totally different or not exist at all. </b><br /><br />If the gravitational constant or weak force constant were higher or lower by .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (that's 49 zeroes and a 1) then the universe would've collapsed or exploded. No, we would not be here at all.<br /><br />Chance, Michelle? Or very plausible design?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56493479607191203762012-06-10T15:18:52.208-07:002012-06-10T15:18:52.208-07:00And, Michelle, some dogmatic Catholic creationists...And, Michelle, some dogmatic Catholic creationists drive me a little nutty too :). I think the discussion is fascinating, and we have a lot of leverage for our own interpretations; however, we have to acknowledge flexibility here. Science has not determined the origins of life. The Church has not declared one line of thought with the exception of listed parameters to guide our thinking. Sometimes it feels like dogmatic Catholic creationists aren't choosing their battles well. We do, after all believe in freedom of thought, pursuit of truth, and science as a means to understand the natural world.<br /><br />Now many Protestants believe in creationism on a religious/theological basis, and so I understand their zeal more. Creationism is a matter of faith for them, and so they are understandably more defensive over it.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46638751257634746502012-06-10T14:55:53.550-07:002012-06-10T14:55:53.550-07:00I do appreciate this conversation as well, Michell...I do appreciate this conversation as well, Michelle. It has allowed me to articulate in very clear terms exactly what we're trying to say from a secular point of view (I'm going to try and condense my comments down and put them into a post on my own blog at some point soon).<br /><br />I hope you realize that we are not some sort of single-minded group who is out to spoil everyone's good time. But rather we come to this from a spot of genuine love for our fellow human beings. We just see the definition of love vastly differently, because, for us, love cannot exist with God. <br /><br />That being said, I will leave this with one last "food for thought" for you and anyone else,<br /><br />You said, <i> I think it's safe to say that while you can of course get fulfillment and strengthen your relationship and bond with others outside of sex, it simply isn't the same thing</i><br /><br />You are right it isn't the same thing, because the nature of those relationships is not the same.<br /><br />Why is it supposed to be? Remember: <b>Fair</b> does NOT mean <b>Equal</b>.Bethanyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726068736912870899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12793689408306871192012-06-10T14:51:29.077-07:002012-06-10T14:51:29.077-07:00I'll have to locate the studies, but some scie...I'll have to locate the studies, but some scientists do believe, based on DNA, that we all originated from one man and one woman. Other scientists disagree. I don't think that has been settled in the scientific community, but I will have to dig around for more details. The idea that mankind came from one couple, though, is not purely religious.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-886555132851800822012-06-10T14:49:11.713-07:002012-06-10T14:49:11.713-07:00Oh, Mary, I'm not fully interpreting the Bible...Oh, Mary, I'm not fully interpreting the Bible on the "dust" thing...I would have to do a lot more research on so many other facets of the Bible to adequately interpret "dust", but the links I posted indicate that we frankly don't know those details. I just found it interesting that God created Man out of dust and not out of nothing and that this was mentioned. It's more intriguing than anything. He did create earth and matter, etc., out of nothing. <br /><br />As far as the exact point where God infused man with a soul...That's another huge and tough question, and we don't know that answer. That is also assuming that evolution actually occurred. And while it is a decent theory, again, it's not scientific law. So we are speculating on something that may not have even happened with regard to the creation of Man. So that makes it even more difficult to answer. I will have to do more research on those thoughts. It would all be speculation, since it brings in many areas of study -- theology, geology, biology, archaeology, etc. <br /><br />I did find one conversation fascinating recently with regard to twins, since I am twin -- At what point do identical twins have separate souls, since they are from the same egg? Were the two souls present from the beginning and forced the break, since one body cannot have two souls? Did the two souls come about spontaneously when the bodies split? Did the second soul follow the original soul if at the time of the split or were two entirely different souls formed with the break? Anyway...fascinating stuff that we can never really answer :). This is an example of the "measurable" body and the immeasurable soul.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45711191787806092122012-06-10T14:35:39.415-07:002012-06-10T14:35:39.415-07:00Um, Nubby. I was pretty sure we were talking origi...Um, Nubby. I was pretty sure we were talking origins of life, so I brought up abiogenesis, which is a theory for the origin of life. ...sorry? I'm not sure why you're being so nasty about it; everyone else has been really nice all this time.<br /><br />First of all, no, I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that life is "springing up all over the place" - it's a theory for the origin of life, which occurred under very different environmental conditions than what we have today. Furthermore, it's no more hypothetical that a god putting us (or the first cells) here, which can't be tested at all. Abiogenesis can be tested, at least in part, and may be reproducible under the right conditions (I'd elaborate if I could, but I'm not familiar with the kinds of relevant experiments out there).<br /><br />Finally, you mention the argument that the universe is fine tuned for us, which is true. The way I look at it is not that it had to be perfect <i>for</i> us to get to where we are, but that we're here because the conditions were as they were. If they weren't, we might be totally different or not exist at all. I know from a Christian perspective the universe was created for us, so I know this sounds backwards, but from an atheist perspective, the universe and earth could have come and gone without us and we'd never have been any the wiser.<br /><br />Alright. I said I wasn't going to get into this argument from the beginning, and I'm going to stick to that. Sorry - I'm sure it'll come up again sometime, but I really am going to call it quits now!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35169132348460498312012-06-10T14:08:14.486-07:002012-06-10T14:08:14.486-07:00Nubby, look up "abiogenesis" and you'...<i>Nubby, look up "abiogenesis" and you'll find what I'm referring to (this may be a good starting point).</i><br /><br />Really. So you dodge every valid point and off road us onto abiogenesis. Which has nothing to do with anything in terms of a defense for origins of life, Michelle. But let's go there.<br /><br />Abiogensis isn't tested, is it, Michelle? It's a hypothetical.<br />In fact, you're trying to sell me on the idea that life is just springing up all over the place from nothing. <br /><br />But, wait, it's not. Tell me why the conditions of earth and of the universe must be so precise for abiogensis to even take place, Michelle? For abiogenesis to even occur, certain physical conditions must already be aligned.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67744401934547739152012-06-10T14:04:59.777-07:002012-06-10T14:04:59.777-07:00Elizabeth,
I am intrigued if you think Adam and Ev...Elizabeth,<br />I am intrigued if you think Adam and Eve are merely stories about the first two pre-Homo sapiens, or the first actual Homo sapiens that were deemed intelligent enough to be given souls? Clearly we evolved from pre-human hominids, and when exactly those hominids became "human" is an interesting point to ponder. But, to say that Adam was created from "dust" seems like an odd way to express that. <br /><br />That link is interesting on how the Church believes we must have descended in a monogenist fashion for the stain of Original Sin to have any claim over all of humanity, rather than descending from a group of first humans. <br /><br />I just find it hard to believe that one pair of copulating first Homo sapiens were able to dominate over all other competitors and fill the earth with their decedents.maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-5811848986414806762012-06-10T13:54:31.035-07:002012-06-10T13:54:31.035-07:00I actually appreciated Elizabeth's posts more ...I actually appreciated Elizabeth's posts more than I made it look like (sorry, Elizabeth!). I've had discussions with Catholics who don't accept evolution and it was <i>painful</i>, so while I think I would personally have trouble wholly reconciling Genesis and evolution (though these links seem to do a decent job of it), I'm happy enough that you guys aren't part of the appalling 46% of Americans who are strict creationists. :) (And, you're right about evolution not explaining the origin of life - I think that probably falls best under the domain of chemistry - but once life is there, evolution does make sense as a means of getting to where we are today.)<br /><br />Sebastian, no, I haven't read CS Lewis (except for the Narnia books when I was little), but I've heard good things. I may tackle them one day! And yes, I did know that about the Big Bang. Gregor Mendel was a friar and his work was <i>enormously</i> important for biology. Religion and science definitely don't have to be at odds!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90288229963582934802012-06-10T13:40:55.052-07:002012-06-10T13:40:55.052-07:00Bethany- I am laughing at the "exercise"...Bethany- I am laughing at the "exercise" benefit of intercourse ;)maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88869765993500202352012-06-10T13:30:37.514-07:002012-06-10T13:30:37.514-07:00Nubby mentioned the Big Bang - Michelle, did you k...Nubby mentioned the Big Bang - Michelle, did you know the first person to come up with that theory was, of all possibilities, a Belgian Catholic priest, George Lemaitre? As far as I'm aware, that did not change his belief in God one bit, nor was he prevented by the Church from doing his research or publishing it. I know there was Galilei (a case more complicated than commonly known), but does that tell you something?<br /><br />I wonder if you have read C.S. Lewis, in whose "veins ran the blood of an atheist" (his words). He was also a fellow and tutor at Oxford and later Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. He was viscerally and proudly atheist for a good part of his life. I think you could relate to his thinking. He said the following about a key reason that made him eventually believe in God (paraphrasing here): Jesus Christ, who claimed He was God, was logically one of three things: A megalomaniac, a lunatic, or the Person He claimed He was. From reading the accounts of the gospels as a classic and literature expert he dismissed the first two options (this is very abbreviated and does not do Lewis justice, but time and space are too short here).<br /><br />Once he came to believe, many things began to make sense that before he just could not see. This is an experience I have often had myself. Think about it. His logic is awesome, and he's an easy (but not overly easy) read. Something to consider for the beach, perhaps? Most of his apologetics are fascinating, but good ones to start with are Mere Christianity, Miracles, or Surprised by Joy (autobiography, and name of his wife, whom he met and married shortly before she contraced cancer and died). I imagine you might struggle less with certain questions that would then be self-evident, and logical, to you as well. Enjoy!Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03993048824594772782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31370769874089145272012-06-10T13:13:26.263-07:002012-06-10T13:13:26.263-07:00Bethany, WELL stated case. Thank you. And a totall...Bethany, WELL stated case. Thank you. And a totally secular case at that. (Used to be that everyone reflexively understood that gay sexual activity "is not like" the sexual union of a male and female. It's almost eerie that people now cannot see any difference (but then again, they can't see that men and women are different, and that is double eerie!).<br /><br />Michelle, thanks for hanging in, I know how tiring it can be! I am surprised, to be honest, that you didn't say much more in response to Elizabeth, seeing how she and her husband have been scientists for a long time, and you are still in school. Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39211540398659773702012-06-10T12:03:31.112-07:002012-06-10T12:03:31.112-07:00Thanks, Elizabeth. Nubby, look up "abiogenesi...Thanks, Elizabeth. Nubby, look up "abiogenesis" and you'll find what I'm referring to (<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html" rel="nofollow">this may be a good starting point</a>). In science, you can't, however, prove a theory true as you suggest - you can only make falsifiable hypotheses and prove them false. I'm not an evolutionary biologist and haven't read too deeply into this subject, but I think just like we can get decent (not perfect, of course) ideas of our planet's geological and biological past, we can get a decent idea of how life might have begun. (Leila, there isn't actually near-certainty [or a consensus] yet, but science does have the capability to approach that one day.)<br /><br />Bethany, I think it's safe to say that while you can of course get fulfillment and strengthen your relationship and bond with others outside of sex, it simply isn't the same thing. I think you're right to make a distinction between making a case for and failing to make a case against something, because for me, even if there were no case for it (though I believe there is a case for it), if there's not a good case <i>against</i> it, then that's good enough. I can't make a good case against lawn chairs, so they might as well continue not to be considered evil, to use my old example. When I support my gay friends' relationships, its not lying or misleading for me to do so (though, for you to do it, from your perspective, it would be, which I understand). Hopefully that makes sense! You do write clearly and I appreciate your knack for making distinctions that I would not have thought to make. Thank you!<br /><br />Okay, really this time, I'm done. Thank you all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com