Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Izz]

It might be well and good for us to stop the Catholic bashing, unless the person who put this on the homepage, "ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT TOLERATED HERE. PERIOD." be considered a hypocrite.

If I posted responses to a Jewish leader's idea that that traditional family is the way to go, would we be seeing a bunch of anti-Jewish rhetoric? I doubt it. So why is it OK to do it with Catholics?
Just curious.

It's not technically okay. But when one person says the Catholic family is slowly but surely getting ride of the...can't remember the wording, something about the 'disease of liberalism'..you have to expect some liberals to fight back.

I know one catholic, and it's my grandfather. He keeps trying to convert me and my mother still retains psychological damage because of him. I do not like that one catholic. Oh, yeah, and a religious leader with his own city state and a potential army makes me nervous too.

 

[crux]

When Jesus died, the Temple Veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a Temple made with hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that Temple and its religious system and worship forever, and the Temple and Jerusalem was left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in 70 A.D. just as Jesus prophesied it would in Luke 13:35. As long as the Temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 indicates that the way to the sanctuary was not yet open “as long as the outer tent” still stood, being symbolic of “the present age.” The “present age” refers to the age that was passing away even as the New Covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13).

Are we still denying Jesus is the son of GOD, and now the fact that he sit's at the right hand of our father?

anti-semetic, anti christian, i wish one of you would explain the difference, why is one form of religion allowed to be chastised on thi forum, yet the other is protected from scrutiny at all cost?

It is obvious to all that visit, that hypocrites still hide behind a veil.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If the "traditional family" is the key to world peace, could someone tell me when it was that there was world peace because of traditional families? I don't recall anytime in human history when there was world peace.

And just exactly what is a "traditional family"? The tribal group that dominated most of our history? The multi-generational family that was the model for most of the rest of our history? Or is it the single family dwelling with the old folks in a care facility that is the most recent model?

 

[numinus]

And just exactly what is a "traditional family"?

That would be the relationships that come from the union of a man and a woman.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That would be the relationships that come from the union of a man and a woman.

One man and one woman? What about all the other cultural combinations that have been used by people all down through history? What is the source of your authority to announce what is the "traditional family"?

 

[9sublime]

ilikeboobs, I understand where your coming from that it is only fair not to attack Catholicism if we don't allow people to attack Judaism - but it is fine to point out the faults in the ideologies of the religion, just like it is fine to attack the policy of a government.

it is when you group, stereotype and insult all followers of something in an offensive and non-joking way that it becomes unacceptable.

 

[numinus]

One man and one woman? What about all the other cultural combinations that have been used by people all down through history? What is the source of your authority to announce what is the "traditional family"?

Logic.

 

[Coyote]

Logic.

The "traditional" nuclear family is not really so traditional.

Like monogamy - bigamy was a common and successful practice in many cultures for raising a family. Closely bonded extended family situations have a lot of merit for children - lots of "aunts" and "uncles".

What is so logical about a so-called traditional family?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The "traditional" nuclear family is not really so traditional.

Like monogamy - bigamy was a common and successful practice in many cultures for raising a family. Closely bonded extended family situations have a lot of merit for children - lots of "aunts" and "uncles".

What is so logical about a so-called traditional family?

It's also good to remember that logic changes with time. At one time it was logical to everyone that the Earth was flat, that if you went too close to the edge you'd fall off, that heavier than air flight was impossible, that only men were equipped to rule the world... Sometimes loud claims of "logic" are nothing more than a lack of knowledge bolstered by human ego.

 

[Coyote]

It's also good to remember that logic changes with time. At one time it was logical to everyone that the Earth was flat, that if you went too close to the edge you'd fall off, that heavier than air flight was impossible, that only men were equipped to rule the world... Sometimes loud claims of "logic" are nothing more than a lack of knowledge bolstered by human ego.

Good point

When it comes to the composition of families...I fail to see how logic applies at all you know?

Does this mean all past ideas of "family" in other cultures are wrong?

 

[numinus]

The "traditional" nuclear family is not really so traditional.

Like monogamy - bigamy was a common and successful practice in many cultures for raising a family. Closely bonded extended family situations have a lot of merit for children - lots of "aunts" and "uncles".

What is so logical about a so-called traditional family?

Try googling humanae vitae or the udhr.

 

[numinus]

It's also good to remember that logic changes with time. At one time it was logical to everyone that the Earth was flat, that if you went too close to the edge you'd fall off, that heavier than air flight was impossible, that only men were equipped to rule the world... Sometimes loud claims of "logic" are nothing more than a lack of knowledge bolstered by human ego.

How about you try looking up some epistemological theories before you post nonsense on fallacy becoming logical through the sentiment of the majority.

 

[numinus]

Good point

When it comes to the composition of families...I fail to see how logic applies at all you know?

Does this mean all past ideas of "family" in other cultures are wrong?

Since when is the biological imperative of pro-creation separated from the concept of family?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How about you try looking up some epistemological theories before you post nonsense on fallacy becoming logical through the sentiment of the majority.

I gather from your response that you still have nothing to support your position except an attack on me.

It is not that one wishes to separate pro-creation from the family--typical debate techique of presenting a false choice--but rather not simply focusing on ONE aspect of the human family to the exclusion of all other aspects. Setting up your definition of family as the only valid one is not only egotistical but also short-sighted in that it denies to many people one of the most important aspects of our shared humantiy: the ability to form meaningful relationships. The time of procreation in our lives is fairly short in comparison to our whole existence and to make it the sole focus of all of human "family" life shortchanges all of us.

 

[numinus]

I gather from your response that you still have nothing to support your position except an attack on me.

You gathered wrong.

A fallacy will remain a fallacy regardless of the amount of people who believe it is true. The converse, of course, follows.

The earth is neither flat, nor spherical, nor oblate. The actual shape of the earth, the geoid, is the summation of the differential surfaces normal to the lines of gravity in all directions.

It is not that one wishes to separate pro-creation from the family--typical debate techique of presenting a false choice--but rather not simply focusing on ONE aspect of the human family to the exclusion of all other aspects. Setting up your definition of family as the only valid one is not only egotistical but also short-sighted in that it denies to many people one of the most important aspects of our shared humantiy: the ability to form meaningful relationships.

Nobody is denying anything, least of all the abilty to form meaningful relationships. Defining the family as the conjugal union between a man and a woman does not preclude anyone to form bonds with his fellow man.

The time of procreation in our lives is fairly short in comparison to our whole existence and to make it the sole focus of all of human "family" life shortchanges all of us.

I never meant procreation to mean the act of sexual reproduction alone -- although it most definitely commences from conjugal union.