The "born Gay" Hoax

[Socrates]

You've got the right idea.

Here's a definition from a glossary of terms for [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i]:
[quote][b]Material Evil[/b] Evil is a privation of some due good. A material evil has no moral connotations. Blindness is material evil, and the blind person is not morally responsible (usually) for that blindness. Any injury to the body is a material evil, and all by itself, it has no moral connotation. Once an actual moral evil occurs, such as the intentional killing of an innocent person, it may well involve a material evil as well, in this case the physical act of killing.[/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/WTC_difficult_questions.htm"]Here's an article touching on the subject.[/url]

Edited April 21, 2008 by Socrates

[carrdero]

[quote]Scofizzle writes: God is not offering the ability to act on homosexuality. He has given us the gift of sexuality, and man has preverted it, because of evil.[/quote]
So sexuality is like the apple in the Garden Of Eden. We can eat from any tree as long as the tree is a different sex, is that it?

[quote]Scofizzle writes: He easily could have programmed us to never act on any sexual urge that is not good and holy, but then we would not have free will. We would have restricted will.[/quote]
Which do you think would take priority then? Our will, or God’s? If God becomes discouraged, angered, disappointed or offended with our “wrong” choice of sexuality, why would God expose Himself to such frustration? Does God get offended and angered at homosexuality or not?

[quote]Scofizzle writes: God may have known we would fall from his grace, but still loved us enough to give us free will. Meaning we could do whatevr we choose no matter if it offends him or not. God does not make choices for us. We have to make our own choices or we are not free. If there is no free will can we really love God, if we are not free to make that choice?[/quote]

Would this understanding of love and free will extend to looking over what seems to some humans to be a proper choice towards expressing their love and sexuality? Is there no grace and love from God for the homosexual? Or do they have to repent?

[quote]Scofizzle writes: God has infinite faith in us to do the right thing.[/quote]

So why would homosexuality be the "wrong" thing then, and what happens to God’s infinite faith when it betrays Him or does not pan out as God had “hoped”?

[quote]Scofizzle writes: God is not keeping me from pulling the trigger. I have the freedom to shoot or not. And if I decide to kill that person it would most definately would offend God.[/quote]

So if you had the decision to pull the trigger of a gun, your decision to do so would not be based on what God would think of you if you did, am I following this coreectly?

[quote]Scofizzle writes: The legality of the argument was not meant to even be of concern. The analogy was to show a contrast between good and evil, not legal and illegal. So please don't accuse me me doing something I have'nt.[/quote]
Yes, but you never did evidence to me that homosexuality is evil. This was the exact thing that I was accusing you of [b][i]not doing[/i][/b].

Edited April 21, 2008 by carrdero

[the 13th papist]

if you want an amazing book on the development of homosexual tendencies and their origins, read "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." It is a very good and thorough source.

[carrdero]

[quote name='the 13th papist' post='1505280' date='Apr 21 2008, 03:09 AM']if you want an amazing book on the development of homosexual tendencies and their origins, read "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." It is a very good and thorough source.[/quote]
The 13th Papist, isn't this book written by the same author who wrote [b][u]Cracking the Bible Code[/u][/b]?

[Deb]

Homosexuality is not evil. The acts however are a sin.
My having sex would not be evil but, it would be a sin.
The two have nothing to do with each other not does that last sentence even make sense to me. I just thought I would interject something here.
Bye

[carrdero]

[quote name='Deb' post='1507058' date='Apr 22 2008, 07:28 PM']Homosexuality is not evil. The acts however are a sin.
My having sex would not be evil but, it would be a sin.
The two have nothing to do with each other not does that last sentence even make sense to me. I just thought I would interject something here.
Bye[/quote]
I do not know if this was addressed to me but I do not believe it is evil, sinful or an offense to GOD. It may be unnatural but just because some people consider it unnatural does not make it wrong.

Edited April 23, 2008 by carrdero

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Deb' post='1507058' date='Apr 22 2008, 09:28 PM']Homosexuality is not evil. The acts however are a sin.
My having sex would not be evil but, it would be a sin.
The two have nothing to do with each other not does that last sentence even make sense to me. I just thought I would interject something here.
Bye[/quote]

All sin is evil. If something is a sin, it is evil.



[quote name='carrdero' post='1507325' date='Apr 23 2008, 09:01 AM']I do not know if this was addressed to me but I do not believe it is evil, sinful or an offense to GOD. It may be unnatural but just because some people consider it unnatural does not make it wrong.[/quote]

If you believe in God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you would be wrong to think that same sex acts are not evil, not sinful, not an offense to God.

Morallity does not change. It's not that some people consider it unnatural, it IS unnatural. If you can't see that then you have a misunderstanding of what the word "natural" means. Same sex acts are wrong.

If you really believe in God, then you should really study Him, because it's obvious from this post of your that you have some very large misunderstandings that put your soul in danger.


[b]Romans 1:25 [/b]
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
[b]26 [/b]Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[b]27 [/b]and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
...
[b]32 [/b]Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

[b]1 Corin. 6:9 [/b]
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals.

[b]1 Tim 1:5 [/b]
The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
[b]6 [/b]Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
[b]7 [/b]wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.
[b]8 [/b]We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
[b]9 [/b]with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
[b]10 [/b]the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
[b]11 [/b]according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.



Early Christian Teachings...
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teac...mosexuality.asp[/url]
Article...
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp[/url]
More Scripture...
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html[/url]



Society is built on families... Father, Mother, and Children. Same sex acts and partnerships are anti-society.

Same sex attraction is a disorder. The acts are wrong.

Now, if you believe in the Trinity, there is no logical, or reasonable reason to believe that there is nothing wrong with same sex acts. If you don't believe in God, then you have no right to say anything is wrong... if there is no God, then there is nothing evil and we can do whatever we wish to others with the only regard to getting caught.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[carrdero]

[quote]Ironmonk writes: If you believe in God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you would be wrong to think that same sex acts are not evil, not sinful, not an offense to God.[/quote]
If the Truth existed and was clearly evidenced that homosexuality was evil, sinful or an offense to God, then I would clearly be in the wrong but since it remains in the realm of belief, it may be wrong for you but right for others.

[quote]Ironmonk writes: Morallity does not change.[/quote]

It doesn’t?

[quote]Ironmonk writes: If you really believe in God, then you should really study Him, because it's obvious from this post of your that you have some very large misunderstandings that put your soul in danger.[/quote]

Let’s study God then.

[color="#000080"][b]Incest[/b][/color]

[color="#000080"]Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife[/color] [b](I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Adam [i]"knew"[/i] her too)[/b]; [color="#000080"]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

[b]Adultery[/b]

Genesis 16:1-4
16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

[b]Rape[/b]

1 Kings 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

[b]Polygamy[/b]

1 Kings 11:1
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:
11:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. [/color]

Ironmonk, do you believe that incest, adultery, rape and polygamy are moral or immoral?

If morals do not change (and in consideration of the scriptures that I quoted) do you think that God still approves of these sexual practices or disapproves?

[quote]Ironmonk writes: It's not that some people consider it unnatural, it IS unnatural. If you can't see that then you have a misunderstanding of what the word "natural" means. Same sex acts are wrong.[/quote]

I can see and understand that the parts and process still works with homosexual acts. Men and women both become excited and fluids are still secreted during orgasm. The only thing missing is the conception of a child but I am sure all homosexuals are already aware that they will not be producing offspring from their sexual acts.
[quote]Ironmonk writes: Same sex attraction is a disorder. The acts are wrong.[/quote]

And I still contend that same sex attraction is a preference and it may not be [i]"right"[/i] for everyone.

[quote]Ironmonk writes: Now, if you believe in the Trinity, there is no logical, or reasonable reason to believe that there is nothing wrong with same sex acts. If you don't believe in God, then you have no right to say anything is wrong... if there is no God, then there is nothing evil and we can do whatever we wish to others with the only regard to getting caught.[/quote]

I do believe in GOD but I find it difficult to understand why someone would promote or enforce a God who created a need and ability for people to love but would be so spiteful not to extend this personal expression to homosexuals.

Edited May 8, 2008 by carrdero

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1522106' date='May 8 2008, 04:59 AM']I do believe in GOD but I find it difficult to understand why someone would promote or enforce a God who created a need and ability for people to love but would be so spiteful not to extend this personal expression to homosexuals.[/quote]


The reality you are not going to listen to logic or reason or references to natural moral law or reference to scriptural denials of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with "promoting or enforcing A God" and everything to do with understanding objective truth of a God beyond us. It seems that you have already painted your own convenient image of God to worship that doesn't challenge your views or hold you acccountable. You have missed every single piece of useful information in this thread by appealing to logical fallacies as a way of undermining sound arguments. Read JPII's/Christopher West's Theology of the Body. Read Humanae Vitae. Read something authoritative and published by Catholic thinkers and then RESPOND to their arguments on this thread instead of taking people's thread responses to illogical conclusions.

[quote name='CrossCut' date='April 16 2008, 10:39 PM']Homosexuality deals entirely with attraction, emotion, and behavior. There is nothing physically distinct about a homosexual person that could be contrasted to a heterosexual person.

No one can be BORN gay because being gay is nothing something programmable by genes. Genes only program physical things where, as I have stated, homosexuality is a developmental issue.
A person may however acquire these homosexual thoughts, tendencies, etc because of the way they develop, the way their brain chemically responds to stimuli around them as they grow.
It COULD happen in the womb (as someone has stated already) by stress caused by the mother. Those chemical reactions pass to the baby and may cause developmental damage to the brain.[/quote]

You make a good point that I would like to expound upon. I don't want to go off the end with the science and I'm not trying undermine God's involvment in this whole issue, but I feel it necessary to respond to the ridiculous scientific claims on scientific terms alone. I get really ticked off when contemporary culture so easily bows to the 'omniscient' whims of pseudoscience. Throw the words gene or DNA around and suddenly you have a socially acceptable scientific theory. I just completed my undergraduate studies in Biology and took several courses on Genetics, Organic Evolution, Cell Biology, Physiology, etc. The funny thing is that the idea of a 'gay gene' is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard of. The entire concept of evolution is built upon the idea of mutation and differential heritable variation (that some genes are better suited to the environment and so the individuals with those genes have MORE kids and increase the number of those genes in the population). Homosexuality, by its very nature, is not ordered to procreative sex. Therefore the possiblity for inheriting a gay gene in the 'wild' (BEFORE artificial insemination) is virtually non-existent. Hence, there would be no parsimonious argument why a potential 'gay gene' could ever possibly persist in human populations. There IS no empirical evidence for a gay gene and there is no scientifically parsimonious reason to purport the existence of a gay gene. The development of homosexual orientation is NOT genetic. Therefore it must primarily be an environmental phenomenon that builds upon natural (and reproductively necessary) physiological processes that drive humans toward the other sex in order to 'spread their genes' so to speak. The microenvironment of the uterus is not 'out of the question' for a location where environmental factors could begin altering developmental physiology. So while not genetic, it is still possible that homosexual could be 'born' with the discposition to develop disordered attraction to their same sex. Add early sexual abuse and societal sexual confusion to this and you have a sound hypothesis for homosexual developement. I am just trying to say as vehemently as possible that homosexuality is NOT genetic and that the genetic argument is fallacious.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1502110' date='Apr 17 2008, 08:06 PM']The thing is, maybe to you, choosing to be homosexual would be "icky" and "unnatural." But what about those who are homosexual and the idea of choosing to be heterosexual is icky and feels unnatural to them? You aren't considering feelings. Choices and feelings are not the same thing. For the most part, feelings tend to govern our choices -- i.e. we choose what is good for us, avoid what is bad.[/quote]

If heterosexuality is 'icky and unnatural' to people with homosexual orientation, then God gives them the beautiful opportunity to live chastely within the confines of Scriptural and Church teaching and to offer it up.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1502760' date='Apr 18 2008, 04:16 PM']What about predisposition that impairs one's ability to distingish good from bad or impairs free will, which then may lead to an action that would normally be a sin?

Just thought I'd throw that in there, I'm curious. I know that if one can't excersize their will, then it's not necessarily a sin.[/quote]


While I definitely think that will plays an important role in culpability, there is also the important issue of hardness of heart. Are people with 'impairments of will' truly free to act on disordred impulses without fear of God? Or does God perhaps know that their incapacity to respond to his grace is more of a 'hardness of heart' issue and less of a 'impaired will' issue? I don't really know that I have an answer, but I think its an important question...its tempting to just throw in the towel with the 'impaired will' argument, but it could be a very dangerous path to tread.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1503161' date='Apr 19 2008, 01:48 AM']Then why would God offer the option of free will and the ability to enact on homosexuality if He is only opening Himself to the possibility to become offended, discouraged or disappointed? If God knew a human in the womb before it’s physical existence than this Supreme BEing must have also been privy to the knowledge that homosexuality does exist and have also known that this entity would have the option (the possibility, the desire and preferrence) to express homosexuality tendencies and to encourage homosexual relationships.

Are you implying that our lives are dedicated (and accountable) to the amount of faith (and hope) that God (a BEing of Truth) expresses in us to do “right” or “good”? If it is love (and the free will that extends from this love) that this relationship (between God and human) is based upon, don’t you think that GOD woud be happy and understanding of our decision to choose and love a life partner no matter what gender, race, creed or color?
And yet you offer another example of human behavior that is also not evidenced as offendable or punishable by GOD. Do you think that God is holding you back from pulling the trigger?[/quote]


Your first argument: "why would God offer the option of free will and the ability to enact on homosexuality if He is only opening Himself to the possibility to become offended, discouraged or disappointed?" This is illogical garbage that could be used to justify any sin, which leaves us wallowing in a bog of relativism and indifference. I won't even respond further because if we are in said-bog, there is no swimming out.

Your second argument: "yet you offer another example of human behavior that is also not evidenced as offendable or punishable by GOD." Have you read the Old Testament? Have you read of Lot's predicament and the sin of the Benjamites? Have you read the Levitical sexual proscriptions? Have you completely missed the quotes from the new testament MAINTAINING these sexual proscriptions as immoral and damnable? Again, no Catholic on this website is going to try to sell or push 'their version' of God on you. We are trying to open your eyes up to the possiblity of an objective truth, an objective morality, and an objective God that holds us accountable. If we are all wrong and God doesn't care what we do, then all of these discussions are dust (the ultra-handsome).

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1522106' date='May 8 2008, 04:59 AM']If the Truth existed and was clearly evidenced that homosexuality was evil, sinful or an offense to God, then I would clearly be in the wrong but since it remains in the realm of belief, it may be wrong for you but right for others.
It doesn’t?
Let’s study God then.

[color="#000080"][b]Incest[/b][/color]

[color="#000080"]Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife[/color] [b](I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Adam [i]"knew"[/i] her too)[/b]; [color="#000080"]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

[b]Adultery[/b]

Genesis 16:1-4
16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

[b]Rape[/b]

1 Kings 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

[b]Polygamy[/b]

1 Kings 11:1
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:
11:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. [/color][/quote]

Again, you are trying to push logical fallacies on us in order to propel your argument. Quoting OT passages about 'other' sexual sins as a basis for defending homosexuality is completely non-sequitur The examples you cited of incest, adultery, and polygamy are obviously not God-sanctioned in the text and are therefore completely irrelevant to our discussion outright. With regard to the rape quote, it could be possibly conceived that someone could view it as God willing evil in the world, but again this has absolutely NOTHING to do with our discussion of homosexuality. At best these arguments are ordered toward a relativistic view of God that discards objective truth and reduces this entire conversation to drivel and waste of your time.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Veridicus

[carrdero]

[quote]Veridicus writes: The reality you are not going to listen to logic or reason or references to natural moral law or reference to scriptural denials of homosexuality.[/quote]
If you produce a book that says that God is offended to homosexuality and if I produce a book that says that GOD [b][i]is not [/i][/b]offended to homosexuality, where does logic and reason go from there?

[quote]Veridicus writes: It has nothing to do with "promoting or enforcing A God" and everything to do with understanding objective truth of a God beyond us.[/quote]

Where is this truth? Who told you that homosexuality is immoral? What real truth do you have that God has any concern that homosexuals are committing sin?

[quote]Veridicus writes: It seems that you have already painted your own convenient image of God to worship that doesn't challenge your views or hold you acccountable.[/quote]

The GOD that I desribe does not require worship and my understanding was obtained in [b][i]exactly the same manner[/i] [/b]that your primitive authors proclaim that they received their inspirations.

[quote]Veridicus writes: You have missed every single piece of useful information in this thread by appealing to logical fallacies as a way of undermining sound arguments. Read JPII's/Christopher West's Theology of the Body. Read Humanae Vitae. Read something authoritative and published by Catholic thinkers and then RESPOND to their arguments on this thread instead of taking people's thread responses to illogical conclusions.[/quote]

I have read everything that has been presented in this thread and yet reality dictates to me that homosexuality is permitted to continue. There are not any laws, rules, judgment or retribution forthcoming from God. Does your reality remotely indicate that God is offended by homosexuality or could you just be faithfully hoping that there is a judgment for these “sinners” that awaits them upon death that would justify that you are living a “good,” "right" or “natural” life?

[quote]Veridicus writes: Your first argument: "why would God offer the option of free will and the ability to enact on homosexuality if He is only opening Himself to the possibility to become offended, discouraged or disappointed?" This is illogical garbage that could be used to justify any sin, which leaves us wallowing in a bog of relativism and indifference. I won't even respond further because if we are in said-bog, there is no swimming out.[/quote]

No reason to be uncharitable. All you had to say was “I do not know the answer to this question.”

[quote]Veridicus writes: Your second argument: "yet you offer another example of human behavior that is also not evidenced as offendable or punishable by GOD." Have you read the Old Testament? Have you read of Lot's predicament and the sin of the Benjamites? Have you read the Levitical sexual proscriptions? Have you completely missed the quotes from the new testament MAINTAINING these sexual proscriptions as immoral and damnable?[/quote]

Were/Are they immoral? Were/Are they damnable?

It is good to have to beliefs but eventually you will have to compare them to what you
K(NOW) today?
[quote]Veridicus writes: Again, you are trying to push logical fallacies on us in order to propel your argument. Quoting OT passages about 'other' sexual sins as a basis for defending homosexuality is completely non-sequitur[/quote]

Who is “us”? The response was addressed to Phatmass member ironmonk on the erroneous belief that the morals of the God he is describing do not change.

[quote]Veridicus writes: The examples you cited of incest, adultery, and polygamy are obviously not God-sanctioned in the text and are therefore completely irrelevant to our discussion outright.[/quote]

The examples I have cited were referenced from a study guide that ironmonk could relate to. I have effectively shown that not only do God's morals change but that God does not seem to have any strong (or the same) moral (or immoral) opinions to human's sexual preferrences as ironmonk believes.

[quote]Veridicus writes:With regard to the rape quote, it could be possibly conceived that someone could view it as God willing evil in the world, but again this has absolutely NOTHING to do with our [color="#000080"][b][i](carrdero’s note: who is “our”?)[/i][/b][/color] discussion of homosexuality.[/quote]

But it does have everything to do with sin, which I noticed was mentioned quite frequently in this thread. The subject was not whether "homosexuality is a sin" but whether people were born gay. Are you preparing to correct and respond to every Phatmass member that introduced sin to this conversation or do you have a specific purpose or reason why you are just selecting my responses?

Edited May 9, 2008 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

"natural law" in this case means that nothing can be used contrary to its natural purpose.

biologists the world over agree: the natural purpose of sperm cells is to enter into a woman to potentially become a baby. it is designed to enter into that environment and no other environment.

you can say that you don't think natural law must be followed in this case, but you cannot disagree that natural law says that sperm are intended according to natural law to swim and seek out eggs. your position is simply that we do not have to follow natural law... it's a fine enough position if you'll just be honest that that's what it is. your position is that sperm may be used in ways that do not fulfill the purpose of sperm, ie that the natural law does not need to be followed. whether or not you hold homosexuality to be something good or something bad, it is inherently something which is not natural. many things are not natural of course, such as flying in airplanes, so the question becomes if it is contrary to nature... but everyone ought to agree it's not natural whether or not they're in favor of it.

I will not discuss this in relation to God with you because when I use the term God, you interpret that to mean the being whom you refer to as "GOD" who is in fact some form of pagan monotheism but is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing I am referring to, it's not even in the same philosophical category. yours is some powerful personality, mine is a primordial force who is Three Persons. there is nothing similar about them except the three letters we use to talk about them.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1523042' date='May 9 2008, 04:06 AM']If you produce a book that says that God is offended to homosexuality and if I produce a book that says that GOD [b][i]is not [/i][/b]offended to homosexuality, where does logic and reason go from there?
Where is this truth? Who told you that homosexuality is immoral? What real truth do you have that God has any concern that homosexuals are committing sin?
The GOD that I desribe does not require worship and my understanding was obtained in [b][i]exactly the same manner[/i] [/b]that your primitive authors proclaim that they received their inspirations.
I have read everything that has been presented in this thread and yet reality dictates to me that homosexuality is permitted to continue. There are not any laws, rules, judgment or retribution forthcoming from God. Does your reality remotely indicate that God is offended by homosexuality or could you just be faithfully hoping that there is a judgment for these “sinners” that awaits them upon death that would justify that you are living a “good,” "right" or “natural” life?
No reason to be uncharitable. All you had to say was “I do not know the answer to this question.”
Were/Are they immoral? Were/Are they damnable?

It is good to have to beliefs but eventually you will have to compare them to what you
K(NOW) today?
Who is “us”? The response was addressed to Phatmass member ironmonk on the erroneous belief that the morals of the God he is describing do not change.
The examples I have cited were referenced from a study guide that ironmonk could relate to. I have effectively shown that not only do God's morals change but that God does not seem to have any strong (or the same) moral (or immoral) opinions to human's sexual preferrences as ironmonk believes.
But it does have everything to do with sin, which I noticed was mentioned quite frequently in this thread. The subject was not whether "homosexuality is a sin" but whether people were born gay. Are you preparing to correct and respond to every Phatmass member that introduced sin to this conversation or do you have a specific purpose or reason why you are just selecting my responses?[/quote]

I guess it is a mistake to assume that you give credence to any authority outside yourself in this life. But since you ask for a book, I will go out on a limb and quote the Bible as its the only book with the authority you are asking for. See [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html[/url] for a compilation of scriptural passages referencing homosexuality and its inherent offensiveness to God. Actually get a Bible out and read the passages, even if [i]you [/i]don't think they are authoritative you have to recognize this is the basis for most the posts on this thread. I know homosexual acts are immoral and distasteful to God because of Scripture and the consistent teaching of the Church on the issue. I'm not sure what 'other book' you would have to offer that shows [i]my [/i]God is not offended (becaus as Aloysius said, you and us do not follow the same God). Pointing to apparent discrepancies in other sexually natured sins doesn't count, I've already addressed how this has little application to homosexuality.

If you are concerned about logic and reason and natural law, see Aloysius post immediately above mine. I think he did a very good job. The alternative is that you have decided that sperm are for pleasure and procreation is the side-effect, in which case I would ask you to cite a credible authority to legitimize this claim.

I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.

The reailty is that Scripture is FULL of references to laws, rules, judgement for actively participating in homosexuality (see the website above). Beyond that, I think it requires a juvenile intellect to base all view of reality on immediate retributive justice. Thoughts like: God isn't shooting lightning at homosexuals so he must not have anything wrong with it. God isn't shooting lightning at kids stealing cookies from the cookie jar so he must not have anything wrong with it. God didnt' shoot lighting at Hitler and the Nazis so there must not be anything wrong with genocide. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at satanists so they must be okay in God's eyes. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at abortion clinics so he is obviously not offended by abortion. God didn't shoot lightning at slave owners, so racial subjugation is apparently okay with God. Now most people would logically and emphatically agree that these preceding statements are outright garbage...which they are. But basing your view of God's morality on the observability of immediate retributive justice is equally fallacious. We don't have to get caught stealing cookies from the jar in order for it to be wrong. We don't have to get caught cheating on our taxes for it to be wrong. These are wrong by its very nature regardless of an immediate supernatural retribution. Ignoring your imagined views of [i]my [/i]God, if you cannot accede to this basic human reality then there is little point in furthering this conversation after my post.

Despite your apparent preocupation with retributive justice as a sign of God's will, I am not looking forward to any punishment for sinners of any sort. God wills all people to achieve salvation and sanctification; everyone on this board is expressing their views to this end because we recognize that living as closely to [i]our [/i]God's law is the best way to achieve this sancification. We submit to scripture and follow its precepts. That is how we 'know' our answer.

You state that it is "good to have beliefs" but you have, to be honest, done a shoddy job of backing your own beliefs. Furthermore, if you read the preceding posts you will see that I SPECIFICALLY address the issue of 'being born gay' in a concise post concerning genetics and the potential science of asserting the existence of a 'gay gene' that causes people to be 'born gay.'

I am sorry if you feel offended that I singled you out in my subsequent responses. By the time I entered this thread the issue of 'born gay' and 'sin' were already on the table...I just responded. As you mentioned above, it is good to have beliefs and I felt that mine were being sloppily trodden over. So I responded in as rational of a way as possible in order to try and offer an opposing view to your a priori assumptions about God, morailty, and the purpose of sexaulity. In my response to the existence of 'gay genes' I relied almost entirely on a scientific basis for refutation. However, most of the members of this forum (myself included) also turn to scripture and their belief systems to help them address the possiblity of 'being born gay.' And since for us homosexuality as a practice [i]is [/i]sinful and homosexual orientation by its very nature [i]is [/i]disordered, these issues will inevitably come into play during the discussion.

Peace

Edited May 9, 2008 by Veridicus

[Didacus]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1523212' date='May 9 2008, 10:31 AM'][snip]
I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.
[snip]
Peace[/quote]

I second taking offense.

It is my firm belief that those who hold doctorate degrees in philosophy, science and others in this modern era would be stunned at the coherence and intelligence of the 'ancient thinkers' if ever they were able to meet.

It is a wide brush that paints ancient times as simply being ignorant, stupid or superstitious as a whole. Anyone, in my opinion, who has taken the time to read and genuinely attempt to understand their ideas will forceably admit these people had brilliant intellect (although at times misused and at other times in error).

[carrdero]

[quote]Alysious writes: "natural law" in this case means that nothing can be used contrary to its natural purpose.[/quote]
I understand that.
[quote]Alysious writes: biologists the world over agree: the natural purpose of sperm cells is to enter into a woman to potentially become a baby. it is designed to enter into that environment and no other environment.[/quote]
Whether one agrees that homosexuality is natural or unnatural, whether one agrees that there is more sperm that is spilled to the ground to sperm that actually gets introduced to the vagina, whether Les Paul intended the invention of the guitar to be played or whether he intended Jimi Hendrix to sleep in the same bed with it, the fact remains evident, that it is not a natural (or unnatural) act that can be ascribed (currently) as a law that is an offense to God, punishable by God.

[quote]Alysious writes:you can say that you don't think natural law must be followed in this case, but you cannot disagree that natural law says that sperm are intended according to natural law to swim and seek out eggs. your position is simply that we do not have to follow natural law... it's a fine enough position if you'll just be honest that that's what it is.[/quote]

I can be honest with that correspondence but I am also indicating that this particular natural law is a preferred choice with no right or wrong. God knows and understands that through a homosexual act that homosexuals cannot produce children and homosexuals know through their sexual performances that they cannot produce children. Does this mean that homosexuals cannot have children? No of course not, they can adopt children if they want to. Is adoption unnatural?

[quote]Alysious writes: but everyone ought to agree it's not natural whether or not they're in favor of it.[/quote]

The point that I am trying to understand is how anyone can attribute or conclude from this natural (or unnatural) law that homosexuality is a right or a wrong. I can see how one can conclude whether the sexual practice is right or wrong for them but I do not see how others can conclude that this sexual preference is right or wrong for others.

[quote]Alysious writes: I will not discuss this in relation to God with you because when I use the term God, you interpret that to mean the being whom you refer to as "GOD" who is in fact some form of pagan monotheism but is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing I am referring to,[/quote]

With the obvious derogatory misunderstanding of the GOD that I describe already implied, I could not see you qualifying or enduring a reasonable discussion in relation to GOD on this topic.

[carrdero]

[quote]Veridicus writes: I know homosexual acts are immoral and distasteful to God because of Scripture and the consistent teaching of the Church on the issue.[/quote]

I am aware of these teachings but unfortunately you and Alysious do not seem to know if this knowledge is truth or untruth. Gathering and fortifying faith behind your responses does not conclude the belief that homosexuality is immoral or distasteful to God.

[quote]Veridicus writes:I'm not sure what 'other book' you would have to offer that shows my God is not offended (becaus as Aloysius said, you and us do not follow the same God).[/quote]

And it is the “followship” of this God that I am trying understand. As I have clearly demonstrated with your own resource, the God you describe does not seem to have a problem establishing relationships with primitive humans of questionable sexual preferences and morals.

[quote]Veridicus writes: The alternative is that you have decided that sperm are for pleasure and procreation is the side-effect, in which case I would ask you to cite a credible authority to legitimize this claim.[/quote]

And you would assuredly be pleading the impossible. Credible authority does not exist, just ask any religion that is not your own.

[quote]Veridicus writes: If you are concerned about logic and reason and natural law, see Aloysius post immediately above mine. I think he did a very good job.[/quote]

Yes, he related it to biologists very succinctly but had forgotten to emphasize and evidence where this law is an offense to GOD.

[quote]Veridicus writes: I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.[/quote]

Which part are you taking offense at. The fact that I described them as primitive or the fact that they did not conclude the truth (or untruth) about God?

[quote]Veridicus writes: The reailty is that Scripture is FULL of references to laws, rules, judgement for actively participating in homosexuality (see the website above). Beyond that, I think it requires a juvenile intellect to base all view of reality on immediate retributive justice.[/quote]

Would you prefer that I stretch my imagination and surrender to faith that there is a judgmental, punishable consequence for homosexuality at the hand of a loving and forgiving God?

[quote]Veridicus writes: Thoughts like: God isn't shooting lightning at homosexuals so he must not have anything wrong with it. God didnt' shoot lighting at Hitler and the Nazis so there must not be anything wrong with genocide.[/quote]

And yet some would have me believe God’s claim to fame for bringing down Sodom and Gomorrah. This God cannot even keep his anger and offense consistant. Is He offended or not?

[color="#000080"][b] Genesis 19:24 [/b]
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at satanists so they must be okay in God's eyes. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at abortion clinics so he is obviously not offended by abortion. God didn't shoot lightning at slave owners, so racial subjugation is apparently okay with God.[/quote]

And yet this God would immediately react and respond to other offenses.

[color="#000080"][b]Exodus 4:23 [/b]
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

[b]Exodus 15:6 [/b]
Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: God isn't shooting lightning at kids stealing cookies from the cookie jar so he must not have anything wrong with it.[/quote]

How about cursing and striking a parent?

[color="#000080"][b]Exodus 21:17 [/b]
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: But basing your view of God's morality on the observability of immediate retributive justice is equally fallacious.[/quote]

It is not my view but the perception of primitive Biblical authors. Are you admitting that these views are also fallacious?

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: You state that it is "good to have beliefs" but you have, to be honest, done a shoddy job of backing your own beliefs.[/color]

Would you prefer that I document them in a book so that 2000 years after my death these beliefs could become validly seasoned and acceptable?

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: Furthermore, if you read the preceding posts you will see that I SPECIFICALLY address the issue of 'being born gay' in a concise post concerning genetics and the potential science of asserting the existence of a 'gay gene' that causes people to be 'born gay.'[/color]

I never accused you of not addressing the point what I have pointed out is that people could not resist debating their personal opinions about whether homosexuality was a sin or not.

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: I am sorry if you feel offended that I singled you out in my subsequent responses.[/color]

I am not offended but was more curious as to know why. I had already addressed my position to the OP and didn’t mind engaging in a active discussion of why people believe homosexuality to be a sin.

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: I just responded. As you mentioned above, it is good to have beliefs and I felt that mine were being sloppily trodden over.[/color]

By who? Me? The only thing that I did was compare and challenge them.

[carrdero]

[quote]Didacus writes: It is my firm belief that those who hold doctorate degrees in philosophy, science and others in this modern era would be stunned at the coherence and intelligence of the 'ancient thinkers' if ever they were able to meet.[/quote]

There is no doctorate or degree that one can receive or display to validate inspiration from GOD.

[quote]Didacus writes: It is a wide brush that paints ancient times as simply being ignorant, stupid or superstitious as a whole. Anyone, in my opinion, who has taken the time to read and genuinely attempt to understand their ideas will forceably admit these people had brilliant intellect (although at times misused and at other times in error).[/quote]

It is a wide brush that paints a God that doesn’t inspire, relate and reveal revelation to modern humans or that primitive Biblical prophets hold claim to truth or authority. As far as I am concerned, the knowledge and understanding of GOD is an open field of study, the verdict about GOD and his attributes and preferences remain unproven.

Edited May 9, 2008 by carrdero