The "Tolerant Left" Strikes Again

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#494 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Church doctrine does not support moral relativism, Tony.
The moral teachings are cut and dried.
Then there should be no problem describing them to people who may not know what they are if you are going to expect those people to agree to abide by them. Or do you not believe a contract requires "a meeting of the minds"?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#495 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Church doctrine does not support moral relativism, Tony.
The moral teachings are cut and dried.
You are making yourself look ridiculous.
Celt for that one-man- one-woman thing

Little bit all over the place on that one

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#496 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not my book; it's God's.
Written by (fallible) men, interpreted by (fallible) men, to control (fallible) men.

No thanks.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#497 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject matter was, again, a WT editorial with direct quotes from various GOP reps, etc.
I suppose you pooh-pooh the WT as well.
Or anything that happens to disprove your political positions.
Second hand journalism quoting anonymous party staffers is already on shaky ground no matter who it is. Throw in a strong self-protective agenda and there is ample reason for skepticism.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#498 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there should be no problem describing them to people who may not know what they are if you are going to expect those people to agree to abide by them. Or do you not believe a contract requires "a meeting of the minds"?
To assert that an employee of the Church would not know his or her moral expectations -- particularly, in regard to sexual behaviors -- is absolutely ludicrous.

Previous generations were not confused with respect to moral sexual behaviors.
And here you are...prentending to know nothing, expecting to be spoonfed...only so that you may spit out the truth.
Smith

Wadsworth, OH

#499 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Written by (fallible) men, interpreted by (fallible) men, to control (fallible) men.
No thanks.
People arguably have to be controlled, no man is an island.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#500 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Written by (fallible) men, interpreted by (fallible) men, to control (fallible) men.
No thanks.
Well...it's not about you, though I sense you have some issues.

It is about Ms. Hale.
And Ms. Hale agreed to be controlled by it within the terms of her employment.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#501 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a heterosexual marriage only a heterosexual marriage in the privacy of one's home?
Are you suggesting that homosexuals can be married? And that such marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#502 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Second hand journalism quoting anonymous party staffers is already on shaky ground no matter who it is. Throw in a strong self-protective agenda and there is ample reason for skepticism.
Because HuffPo, MotherJones and DailyKos NEVER do that...
Face it, you are eternally skeptical of anything presenting an opposite perspective.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#503 Apr 22, 2013
Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
People arguably have to be controlled, no man is an island.
Tony yearns for a Lord of the Flies world.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#504 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that homosexuals can be married? And that such marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage?
Of course not.

Heterosexual marriage exists.
Homosexual partners pretend.

The point is that you are claiming the relationship exists only in the privacy of one's home.

So...do relationships with significant others exist only in the privacy of one's home?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#505 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
But a relationship in the privacy of one's home is somehow different?
BTW, the church would have the option of returning to exclusive employment of a called faculty and formally integrate religious education throughout the curriculum. That is closer to the Michigan school.
Unfortunately, the demand for qualified teachers at Catholic schools is greater than the availability of professed religious--nuns or priests. You do realize that we do not have enough of either, correct, within the US?

When graduated high school in the 70s, even then the staff was about half lay/half nuns. I may be dating myself, but there was a waiting list then and not enough nuns to teach all classes. The waiting list and demand for these schools is revealing in itself. Parents want a specific type of education for their kids, one that includes and reinforces their religious education with their morals.

I just totally disagree with you, from all perspectives. The Catholic church's doctrine isn't up for debate.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#506 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
To assert that an employee of the Church
POTENTIAL employee... at the time she signed the contract)
would not know his or her moral expectations -- particularly, in regard to sexual behaviors -- is absolutely ludicrous.
I daresay everybody thinks what they do is normal until it is pointed out by someone else that it isn't (and sometimes even THAT doesn't change their minds).
Previous generations were not confused with respect to moral sexual behaviors.
Really? Then why did your self-authenticating book need to spell it out?
And here you are...prentending to know nothing, expecting to be spoonfed...only so that you may spit out the truth.
When you are engaging in creating contracts, it is not considered good practice to assume what somebody else knows.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#507 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not.
Heterosexual marriage exists.
Homosexual partners pretend.
The point is that you are claiming the relationship exists only in the privacy of one's home.
So...do relationships with significant others exist only in the privacy of one's home?
Hopefully the sexual parts of the relationships do...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#508 Apr 22, 2013
Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
People arguably have to be controlled, no man is an island.
Well, there's a reason we have a government. And without that control, what would the libs do?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#509 Apr 22, 2013
Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
People arguably have to be controlled, no man is an island.
There is no logical reason to control behaviors that don't harm anyone or violate their superior rights. Society demands control, but liberty demands as little as necessary of it.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#510 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that homosexuals can be married? And that such marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage?
They can in, what is it, seven, eight states now? Soon to be 50.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#511 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully the sexual parts of the relationships do...
What about if they are on a webcam?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#512 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are engaging in creating contracts, it is not considered good practice to assume what somebody else knows.
I am not sure this is the case.

Hale has children, presumably she was married prior or had at least a heterosexual relationship previously. Additionally, I can't assume she's Catholic just by reading that obit (the church gave it away--the one that held the mother's service). HOWEVER, because she was teaching there 19 years, one cannot assume she was unaware of the Catholic's moral stance on homosexual relationships. She, indirectly, stated in a video interview, that she avoided talk of certain aspects of her life to her students. Sometimes what is NOT said is most revealing, Tony. Methinks, and it's just an educated guess, she went into that relationship with full knowledge of what that moral clause meant.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#513 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Because HuffPo, MotherJones and DailyKos NEVER do that...
Face it, you are eternally skeptical of anything presenting an opposite perspective.
Seems pretty rational.

As it happens, I am skeptical of many things. Leads to curiosity and examination.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dems in disarray- Well, yeah! 31 min Mojo Risen 255
Russia Investigation 2 hr d pants 21
Robert Mueller Investigating Donald Trump 4 hr Dangerous Dan 176
Satan / Trump: Father of All Lies 4 hr Dangerous Dan 4
Trump Will Win Again in 2020 5 hr Dangerous Dan 7
No breasts at Comfest 7 hr Nip Nip 15
Health Care/The Wall 7 hr Duke for Mayor 109

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages