Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[HauntedJame]

:clapping:

It’s not right to tar all Catholics/Christians with the same brush, but it’s sad that a lot of those I have met and spoken to use snippets of the bible, taken out of context and often used in an incorrect context to support their own personal prejudices…and the worst thing is, they don’t recognise it, they hide behind it being a religious belief instead of having the guts to just stand up and say ‘I don’t like it’. At least atheist homophobes just admit that it’s because they plain don’t like it instead of hiding behind something else.

Agreed!

Just because people are scared of something doesn’t mean then can hide behind religion from it. Honesty works best…I’d rather know exactly where I had one person than them just throwing out random biblical quotes!

 

[vsedriver]

Neither is it unnatural, because some animals have homosexual behaviour and what is more uncorrupted and natural than animals?

Animals do not engage in homosexual behavior because they are gay. It is either because of a lack of available mates or dominance. Put two male animals in a room with a willing female and the males will not look at each other except to take one another out.

 

[larkin31]

That is precisely why the world is in the mess of today – wallowing in perception and taste, and this from a self-styled “Catholic”. This prejudice is identical to self-serving feeling, and very appropriate to fools rush in where angels fear to tread – as the poster knows nothing about the natural moral law. Don’t you know that St Paul characterizes lesbian and homosexual activity as a heinous sin in Rom 1:26-32, “shameful”, from a “debased mind”, “error” as well as “against nature”?

There is ample evidence of the fact of the natural moral law, and the fact that pagans, Ancient Egyptians, Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.), Roman jurists, Sodom and Gomorrah, attest to it, and to the fact that it must be followed or the consequences must be paid, plus the simple steps that show the immorality of sodomy, the disorder of the homosexual, and the success of reparative therapy programs that enable many so afflicted to lead a normal life.

The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.

All your examples are the institutionalization of cultural mores and tastes of their times. Many of those mores continue today. Many do not. Apologists try to justify the abandonment of some mores and the maintianing of others. But all are culturally relative (at least to a degree) and nearly all systems have undergone change over time.

There is no objective natural moral law that exists anywhere except in human minds and discourse.

 

[HauntedJame]

Animals do not engage in homosexual behavior because they are gay. It is either because of a lack of available mates or dominance. Put two male animals in a room with a willing female and the males will not look at each other except to take one another out.

Depends on which animal. There have been cases of King Penguins mating, for life, with another male. Domestic tomcats can also display such behaviour, as well as Cheetahs and dolphins, to mention a few.

 

[colmcille1]

:clapping:

It’s not right to tar all Catholics/Christians with the same brush, but it’s sad that a lot of those I have met and spoken to use snippets of the bible, taken out of context and often used in an incorrect context to support their own personal prejudices…and the worst thing is, they don’t recognise it, they hide behind it being a religious belief instead of having the guts to just stand up and say ‘I don’t like it’. At least atheist homophobes just admit that it’s because they plain don’t like it instead of hiding behind something else.

You are now(unwittingly, I presume) taking the thread into a familiar by-road where some non-believers feel very comfortable. We must now wonder about the NUMBERS of people you have spoken with, the depth of their belief, social status and any number of other imponderables.
THIS by-road is far more secretive and remote and a fail-safe haven in which to “hide” than ANYTHING any believer posts here.
Your post is vile and betrays a sad and simplistic view of humanity.

 

[HauntedJame]

You are now(unwittingly, I presume) taking the thread into a familiar by-road where some non-believers feel very comfortable. We must now wonder about the NUMBERS of people you have spoken with, the depth of their belief, social status and any number of other imponderables.
THIS by-road is far more secretive and remote and a fail-safe haven in which to “hide” than ANYTHING any believer posts here.
Your post is vile and betrays a sad and simplistic view of humanity.

Actually, I disagree. I am a believer and I have seen this too, the “picking and choosing”, without any real meaning. Now, I have to admit I have too been guilty of it, but I have never said a bible quote to someone. And whenever you do take a quote, it is taken out of context of the rest of the Bible, and the person who is told it might not get its true meaning. I am sure MichaelR has some religious background, based on his posts, and more importantly an understanding of his perception of things.

And you are very bias, and I find that your post is a personal attack against Michael who hasn’t said anything personal to insult you. So would you please lighten your tone and stop attacking posters just because you disagree with them? This is getting dangerously close to name-calling.

 

[colmcille1]

Depends on which animal. There have been cases of King Penguins mating, for life, with another male. Domestic tomcats can also display such behaviour, as well as Cheetahs and dolphins, to mention a few.

I know you are responding to a post in which the animal kingdom was posited as a kind of comparative analysis scenario but can I ask you please not to use this as part of your argument. If you read over ALL the posts that have dealt with this, you will see that it has been worked upside, inside, every which way and I was convinced of its ineffectual “logic”.
If an idiot like me can follow the logic of this arguments’ dismantling, then surely anyone can.

 

[Abu]

larkin31
There is no objective natural moral law that exists anywhere except in human minds and discourse.

Great example of how to deaden a conscience – repeat the mantra long enough and, hey presto, anything goes. The ancient philosophers, St Paul and Christ Himself, the Son of God, mean nothing in this wilderness.
No mere mortal can change the natural moral law, hence the evils that accompany the perversions.

Leela
Jesus was at his most tender in dealing with those guilty of sexual sin, he reserved his scorn for the self-righteous,

Sin? I thought that word was reserved for those who really believe in good and evil, grace and sin, and the natural moral law. Another great example of the confusion and twisting that is employed over the actions and teaching of Jesus, when it suits to mention the Christ at all, but His clear condemnation of the pervert actions in Sodom and Gomorrah are blithely dismissed! So we now know who is being self-righteous in trying to excuse sexual sin.

Apart from commanding the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more” the Christ commanded us to
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

And St Paul, following the Master:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching to what is good and what is evil.

Such chaos that is imagined to be thought is unconcerned with the facts of the Original Sin which has brought our proneness to evil, the effects of which remain and which is the reason for the redemptive nature of Christ’s Passion, Crucifixion, death and Resurrection. That is precisely why He gave us His Church so that we would not be left orphans – as some seem to have chosen to be.

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (Jn 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (Jn 14:26) "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (Jn 16:13).

BTW, HauntedJame is haunted by animals not knowing that the natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.

 

[colmcille1]

Actually, I disagree. I am a believer and I have seen this too, the “picking and choosing”, without any real meaning. Now, I have to admit I have too been guilty of it, but I have never said a bible quote to someone. And whenever you do take a quote, it is taken out of context of the rest of the Bible, and the person who is told it might not get its true meaning. I am sure MichaelR has some religious background, based on his posts, and more importantly an understanding of his perception of things.

And you are very bias, and I find that your post is a personal attack against Michael who hasn’t said anything personal to insult you. So would you please lighten your tone and stop attacking posters just because you disagree with them? This is getting dangerously close to name-calling.

First off, if you are a believer, may I ask you to indicate that on your name tab? Thanks.
And there are no personal attacks going on anywhere. (Believe me, if there were, those guilty would be knocked straight out of this site by the adjudicators.)
I am" attacking"(to use YOUR loaded word) the words which are posted. I do not know any of the posters personally so would not be in any position to engage in robust(that’s a nice word)conversation which could legitimately employ colourful language.Friends bawl each other out all the time.Then they make up because their friends.
His" perception of things" is the issue here, not his character.

 

[colmcille1]

Actually, I disagree. I am a believer and I have seen this too, the “picking and choosing”, without any real meaning. Now, I have to admit I have too been guilty of it, but I have never said a bible quote to someone.

Can I ask you to explain this?

 

[HauntedJame]

First off, if you are a believer, may I ask you to indicate that on your name tab? Thanks.
And there are no personal attacks going on anywhere. (Believe me, if there were, those guilty would be knocked straight out of this site by the adjudicators.)
I am" attacking"(to use YOUR loaded word) the words which are posted. I do not know any of the posters personally so would not be in any position to engage in robust(that’s a nice word)conversation which could legitimately employ colourful language.Friends bawl each other out all the time.Then they make up because their friends.
His" perception of things" is the issue here, not his character.

Why should I indicate it? It is really my own business. I consider myself a Christian, I was raised Catholic but at this point in time, I belong to no church. I don’t consider myself Protestant, or Catholic. I just believe in God.

And it seemed to me that you were attacking MichaelR personally in your post. A person’s word is a personal thing, and you attacked the post rather viciously. I sincerely doubt you would consider MichaelR or myself friends, so it makes that rather redundant. Also, the perception of something is a part of a person’s character. It’s just how it is.

 

[HauntedJame]

Can I ask you to explain this?

Well, I have often said things that others perceive out of context just because I know the background of the idea. There are parts of the Bible I disagree with and I say it openly. However, I do not throw biblical quotes around, because for me they are something that is a part of a greater concept. I think to pick out the quotes and pasting them is wrong, because not everyone has read the full Bible, but rather been raised on its ideals. But that is just my opinion.

 

[colmcille1]

Why should I indicate it? It is really my own business. I consider myself a Christian, I was raised Catholic but at this point in time, I belong to no church. I don’t consider myself Protestant, or Catholic. I just believe in God.

And it seemed to me that you were attacking MichaelR personally in your post. A person’s word is a personal thing, and you attacked the post rather viciously. I sincerely doubt you would consider MichaelR or myself friends, so it makes that rather redundant. Also, the perception of something is a part of a person’s character. It’s just how it is.

For someone who feels free to dispense(erroneous) advice on how others should behave, you seem to be inordinately sensitised to even the most innocuous question.
And, sorry, but when I refer to believers I am talking about Catholics. Apologies about my innocent oversight.
And this is my last reference to this: who is the best person to relay the info about the nature of my post to the other poster? I am. And I’m now telling you it was NOT a personal attack. I can’t change how you feel nor would I presume to. You will have to take it on trust.
What are you talking about re:friendship?? You have missed my point entirely.
A perception CAN be changed. Thats the whole point of this site.

 

[colmcille1]

Well, I have often said things that others perceive out of context just because I know the background of the idea. There are parts of the Bible I disagree with and I say it openly. However, I do not throw biblical quotes around, because for me they are something that is a part of a greater concept. I think to pick out the quotes and pasting them is wrong, because not everyone has read the full Bible, but rather been raised on its ideals. But that is just my opinion.

But would it not be a good thing to see said biblical quotes as helpful and worthy of consideration rather than as weapons issued by a malevolent mind?

 

[HauntedJame]

For someone who feels free to dispense(erroneous) advice on how others should behave, you seem to be inordinately sensitised to even the most innocuous question.
And, sorry, but when I refer to believers I am talking about Catholics. Apologies about my innocent oversight.
And this is my last reference to this: who is the best person to relay the info about the nature of my post to the other poster? I am. And I’m now telling you it was NOT a personal attack. I can’t change how you feel nor would I presume to. You will have to take it on trust.
What are you talking about re:friendship?? You have missed my point entirely.
A perception CAN be changed. Thats the whole point of this site.

Not really, I just don’t see why it was relevant.

So…rather than believers, you could for instance have said Catholics, and non-believers could be…non-Catholics? Just to keep it clear?

Perhaps you are the best to explain what you meant, however I merely called it as I saw it.

A perception can be changed, but with it changes the person. We are what we are

 

[HauntedJame]

But would it not be a good thing to see said biblical quotes as helpful and worthy of consideration rather than as weapons issued by a malevolent mind?

I think it depends entirely on the situation. I personally feel uncomfortable with it, because it feels as if I am trying to be sneaky

 

[Abu]

HauntedJamie
There are parts of the Bible I disagree with… I do not throw biblical quotes around…. I just believe in God

As a Catholic, you have a great opportunity to follow Christ who is the Son of God and who proved it by His Resurrection.

Now He did not give us any writings but founded and left us His Catholic Church to infallibly show us the Way to Heaven, and She gave us the Sacred Scriptures to lead the Way to Him. Jesus of Nazareth used the Jewish Scriptures and His Church teaches His truths through His Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures.
The Scriptures are not to be so neglected nor despised as meaningless. She interprets them so that we have the light who is Christ.
So if you disagree with parts of Her Scriptures you need to stop and reflect and pray that you see the light of His truth.

Further She knows our weaknesses and the remedies. That is why faithful Catholics offer the remedies for any and all weaknesses – the remedies provided by faith and reason, through the Mass, the sacraments and sound psychology. After all She built Western civilization. How else can any of us learn unless we turn to those who know – and who knows better than Christ and His Church?

There is tremendous care and concern for those inflicted with the disorder, and it is only because of this that the opportunities for reparative therapy have been enabled with outstanding results. Those helped have chosen to help themselves by receiving such therapy.

 

[Leela]

But would it not be a good thing to see said biblical quotes as helpful and worthy of consideration rather than as weapons issued by a malevolent mind?

Depending on the context and considering that Leviticus endorses stoning homosexuals, far from being worthy of consideration throwing certain Bible quotes around qualifies as hate speech which is not only not helpful but prosecutable.

Here HauntedJamie is identified as a Christian but “undecided” as for religion and rather than being extended the love of Christ, she gets bombarded with quotes about what an abomination he is. As the face of the Church in this conversation, you and Abu have have squandered an opportunity to reflect the Church as other than what he has already experienced and instead merely confirmed his sense of Christian hypocrisy.

I’ve said it before to Abu, but it is worth asking again. Did you ever notice that while Jesus was at his most tender in dealing with those guilty of sexual sin, he reserved his scorn for the self-righteous, for those with all kinds of ideas about how other people can improve at no cost to themselves? I’d like you to give that some serious thought. How do you think that Jesus would approach someone who is guilty of sexual sin (in your view, not mine) and has indicated that he has felt rejected and condemned by her fellow parishioners. Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, aren’t we all sinners? Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, asked Jesus, when you don’t notice the log in your own?

Jesus said that we will know a Christian by his love. That is one prophesy that has certainly not yet come true.

Best,
Leela

 

[antroji]

Abu and Colmcille1,

Leela’s post # 1074 is an example of why I posted Gandhi’s statement about Christ/Christians and the whole idea of good and religion only appearing to be congruent. Leela claims no religion, but she is an example of good. The Truth of the Church itself is what it is. It’s members still are born, educated, and mature, or not, in the meaning as well as the form of their Faith. Most of us, I am afraid, are faithful and religious by habit and have fallen prey to the propensity of the human mind to make itself right whatever its position is. And, unfortunately, the easiest default position is to align oneself with what we think deity or an ultimate authority is or says.

God is Love. The very word “God,” if I am not mistaken, means “good.” And we always wish to strive for what is good. This is even so in the face, often, of what is true. There is a practical reason for this. Do you, when say, encountering a person who could obviously and for their own good, loose some weight, yell out medical facts from studies on obesity and their guidelines? Why not? They are true, are they not? Or maybe they are referent to a condition that doesn’t apply to the person we are yelling at? Or there is some cause of their problem even genetic, that is not susceptible to any remedy we might, with our limited knowledge, even know of?

Yet we have set ourselves up in this example as judge, jury, and doctor prescriber! Would not Good as a principle have you treat any individual as yourself? Have you not put on the shoes of the person you are dealing with? Even looked at them and wondered if you could put them on as an experiment to see if your perceptions are accurate? Maybe not.

All I am saying is that some of us are habituated to righteousness by association with what rightfully is True, but wield it as a weapon rather then a medicine. Instead of administering a homeopathic tincture, we wish to administer the whole danged crop and knock the problem out of our experience because we don’t want to deal with it and are personally offended. As if we were purity itself. And we put that blaming off on God. I’m sorry, I don’t see God wielding a club down here. Neither do I see God handing out prizes.

More importantly, I don’t see that any religion including ours has a corner on the market for good, compassion, kindness, empathy, decency, etc. We believe that we adhere to a faith that is the embodiment of the teaching of the Son of God. And we may have superb reasons for doing that. But that does not give us instant emotional maturity, nor a doctorate in Godolgy from His perspective. And who are we to say who or what we are driving away from right relationship with our quotes and righteousness. You decide. I’m, for my part, certainly not attracted to your methods or your manner.

 

[colmcille1]

Depending on the context and considering that Leviticus endorses stoning homosexuals, far from being worthy of consideration throwing certain Bible quotes around qualifies as hate speech which is not only not helpful but prosecutable.

Here HauntedJamie is identified as a Christian but “undecided” as for religion and rather than being extended the love of Christ, she gets bombarded with quotes about what an abomination he is. As the face of the Church in this conversation, you and Abu have have squandered an opportunity to reflect the Church as other than what he has already experienced and instead merely confirmed his sense of Christian hypocrisy.

I’ve said it before to Abu, but it is worth asking again. Did you ever notice that while Jesus was at his most tender in dealing with those guilty of sexual sin, he reserved his scorn for the self-righteous, for those with all kinds of ideas about how other people can improve at no cost to themselves? I’d like you to give that some serious thought. How do you think that Jesus would approach someone who is guilty of sexual sin (in your view, not mine) and has indicated that he has felt rejected and condemned by her fellow parishioners. Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, aren’t we all sinners? Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, asked Jesus, when you don’t notice the log in your own?

Jesus said that we will know a Christian by his love. That is one prophesy that has certainly not yet come true.

Best,
Leela

The neat insertion of the Leviticus reference (“stoning”) and the word “throwing” with reference to “quotes”. This is a criticism of your use of these words together for maximum impact.

Personally, I haven’t used a single quote in my posts.

Next up, where exactly did I post that I am “the face of the Church”?

As far as I can see, a lot of energy has been expended from ALL sides on familiarising oneself with anothers ways of thinking. This, in my view, is far from hate speech. If you are a practising attorney well-versed in this field, I will of course bow to any evidence you can show from these posts that reek of “hate speech”.
(Can I add a personal note here? A while back, I joined a internet forum, not a religious one, but for friendship over the web. Like this site, it had forums. I jumped in to one and the topic centred around God as authority. As soon as I indicated that I am Catholic, the level of personal abuse and ridicule I was subjected to was astounding. When I pointed this out and, I admit, when I indulged in some of this behaviour, I was instantly reminded
that I was the loving Christian and now I was a hypocrite as well. So I was seen to be fair game for personal abuse and was not allowed, as it were, to respond in kind because personal abuse is a sin and so on and on it went ad nauseum. I left that site straightaway.
It has given me no end of food for thought. Real bitter hatred for Catholics exists in this world. I would not even repeat some of the vile, sickening, nauseous stuff I came across on other sites. I swear to you now, if I live to be 150, I know for a FACT that I could never
ever stoop to this level as a human being, irregardless of whatever religious persuasion
I hold.)

But what I will do is defend what I hold precious. I am a sinner like the next man. I make no claims for myself on this site except what appears on my name tab. I am a Catholic.