Confusing tolerance with beliefs

[TMC]

You do not have the ability to read and comprehend what you read. Nobody said homosexuality was a form of schizophrenia nor caused by drug abuse. That is the problem debating with "gay’ apologist they are so use to a twisted truth, they will twist anything and all things in order to promote their twisted ideas for thier twisted passions.

Why do you feel the need to attack or insult me? I have avoided doing that. Do you feel it advances your arguments?

As to whether any here has said that homosexuality is a form of schizophrenia or caused by drug abuse, I guess I should be fair and ask you what you meant by post 51. I think the thrust of your comments was that people attracted to those of the same sex have similar mental problems, with probably similar root causes, as prostitutes and rapists. You did not conclusively determine that ALL homosexuals are schizophrenics, true, but sounded to me like you are putting homosexuals in a similar group. Isn’t that what you meant?

 

[PaulinVA]

TMC said, 'Until Catholics can deal with the fact that God created homosexuals the way they are, the Church won’t be able to deal with this issue in a productive manner."

TMC, Catholics believe that we are not as God intended because of the fall of Adam and Eve and sin entering the word.

God did not purposely create someone a homosexual anymore than he purposely created my first son with a terrible birth defect. Because we are fallen, these things happen.

To deny this is to espouse the heresy of Palegianism. Palagius said that there was no original sin, no effects of original sin, and man can work out his own salvation without need of Jesus.

You can see why homosexualists need to embrace Palagius. They need to hold the belief that they were actually created by God as homosexuals. Of course, then you have the problem of the dictators, birth defects, alcoholicsm, etc. Did God create THEM that way? If so, why?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Politically and socially, the difference between tolerance and acceptance has been blurred. On purpose, too. As fellow Americans, we can tolerate others’ behavior, in a civil sense, whether it be homosexuality, adultry, etc., but that doesn’t mean we have to be accepting of it.

Certain political/social agendas are geared toward forcing us to not only tolerate immoral and sinful behavior, whatever it may be, but accept it and embrace it.

Jesus never said it would be easy.

Well said.

 

[KathleenElsie]

That sounds funny, coming from someone whose religion demands conversion.

Catholicism is evangelical in that it wants everyone to become Christian. Throughout it’s two thousand year history, one of it’s primary missions has been conversion. And yet you disapprove of people trying to convince you that there’s nothing harmful about being gay?

Heh. Sounds rather hypocritical to me, to be quite honest.

Are you saying that being gay is your religion and faith belief system? It sounds like you are saying that gays are evangelizing and if that is the case then do you feel that you can change someone to or from being gay? ( IMHO it is many times a chosen option but not always).

 

[TMC]

TMC said, 'Until Catholics can deal with the fact that God created homosexuals the way they are, the Church won’t be able to deal with this issue in a productive manner."

TMC, Catholics believe that we are not as God intended because of the fall of Adam and Eve and sin entering the word.

God did not purposely create someone a homosexual anymore than he purposely created my first son with a terrible birth defect. Because we are fallen, these things happen.

To deny this is to espouse the heresy of Palegianism. Palagius said that there was no original sin, no effects of original sin, and man can work out his own salvation without need of Jesus.

You can see why homosexualists need to embrace Palagius. They need to hold the belief that they were actually created by God as homosexuals. Of course, then you have the problem of the dictators, birth defects, alcoholicsm, etc. Did God create THEM that way? If so, why?

I do not understand the relationship between my statements and Pelagianism. Pelagiansim, as you note, is the denial of original sin. To say that God created homosexuals the way they are has nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. Catholics believe that all men are created as a reflection of the image of God. All men share the dignity that God’s individual creation imparts.

Orginal sin was mankind’s movement away from God. It did not undo the creative act, or transform man into a vile creature. I am sorry that your son has to carry such a burden. I have to say, however, that I am unaware of any Catholic doctrine that the physical characteristics with which we are born are the result of sin.

 

[Bennie_P]

Why do you feel the need to attack or insult me? I have avoided doing that. Do you feel it advances your arguments?

As to whether any here has said that homosexuality is a form of schizophrenia or caused by drug abuse, I guess I should be fair and ask you what you meant by post 51. I think the thrust of your comments was that people attracted to those of the same sex have similar mental problems, with probably similar root causes, as prostitutes and rapists. You did not conclusively determine that ALL homosexuals are schizophrenics, true, but sounded to me like you are putting homosexuals in a similar group. Isn’t that what you meant?

For the fact that you pulled two words out of what I wrote and concocted something that was not said.

My comments had to do more behavoir then mental illness and the possibilty of disordered sexual behavoir having some common enviromental root causes. I also indicated that the complexity of the causes cannot place homosexuality as a innate condition such as being born male or female, or born to a certain race. My reference to schizophrenia was actually used to dismiss that homosexual behavoir is in the class of behavoir such as schizophrenia, and that acting out on SSA is something one can choose to control as opposed to the actions caused by schizophrenia, which does have known genetic and physiological root causes behind the psychological disorder and behavoir. Though I mention I did know of schizophrenia in a couple of friends I have known to be also homosexual, I infered that one didn’t cause the other, nor vice verse, nor that the two had the same root causes. Like I said you just took a couple words out of what I wrote and then made a complete false statement about what I was attempting to say.

By the way I do know or have known person’s that are homosexual that have been, or are, prostitues, porn addicts, drug addicts, alcoholics and rapist and that have been victims of child abuse: sexual, physical, and/or mental. As well having had parents that had similar problems. this not the same as saying the root cause of all homosexual behavoir is the same and that all people with SSA act out in the same manner. but the occurence of compound disordered behavoirs are high among all, both homosexual and hetersexual, that act on disordered or immoral sexual behavoir.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Part of my tolerance of others is based on their truthfulness and openness. In my lifetime I have know many persons that were not heterosexually inclined. The ones I respected were those that told me who they were and did not try to make me believe that there lifestyle was something I had to agree with. Out of mutual respect for each person it was just not discussed unless the other asked a question. If asked we spoke honestly with one another.

I did not talk about my relations with my husband and they did not talk about their relations with their significant others. That did not mean we did not talk about our lives we did. But sex was not part of our discussions.

Approval of another’s life decisions is not something I hold responsibility for. If I can’t change a situation I won’t be responsible for it.

 

[TMC]

Part of my tolerance of others is based on their truthfulness and openness. In my lifetime I have know many persons that were not heterosexually inclined. The ones I respected were those that told me who they were and did not try to make me believe that there lifestyle was something I had to agree with. Out of mutual respect for each person it was just not discussed unless the other asked a question. If asked we spoke honestly with one another.

I did not talk about my relations with my husband and they did not talk about their relations with their significant others. That did not mean we did not talk about our lives we did. But sex was not part of our discussions.

Approval of another’s life decisions is not something I hold responsibility for. If I can’t change a situation I won’t be responsible for it.

I think this is a sensible position. I, too, appreciate when people treat with me honestly. Some gay people are afraid to be very honest, not just because they don’t want to be met with ‘disapproval’ or even the more neutral lack of approval you refer to. Its also because they know that there is a decent chance that their honesty will result in them losing their jobs.

In my experience homosexual people aren’t expecting anyone to ‘accept’ their sexuality, just to leave them be. I can understand, without necessarily agreeing, that many people think that same sex marriage goes beyond ‘leaving them be.’ I can’t understand the resistance to laws protecting them from discrimination in the workplace.

 

[Exalt]

Acting out on SSA is still the wrong thing to do, your continue use of very bad anologies still doesn’t make it the right to act out on SSA.

By the I way I don’t think you are ridiculous, just confused.

It’s not a bad analogy at all. This is an application of a rule, used by the person I was quoting for homosexuality, to football.

Hypothesis: Homosexuality is immoral. Evidence: homosexuality is linked to higher rates of depression (in some studies, up to twice the population average).

Hypothesis: Football is immoral. Evidence: football is linked to greater severity of depression (in some studies, eight times the normal symptoms of depression).

Those are extremely similiar pieces of evidence trying to prove a very similiar thing - and yet one is permissible and one isn’t?

If the depression argument doesn’t work with for football it ought not to be used for homosexuality.

It’s sort of like when your 13 year old teenager comes to and asks if he or she can stay out at a party past 1 A.M. and says “everyone else is doing it” and you say “if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

See my last post for sources, btw.

 

[Exalt]

Are you saying that being gay is your religion and faith belief system? It sounds like you are saying that gays are evangelizing and if that is the case then do you feel that you can change someone to or from being gay? ( IMHO it is many times a chosen option but not always).

No.

I’m saying that there are many people out there, both gay and straight, trying to pursuade people that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (most would say that a sexual orienation change via therapy is extremely rare, difficult/impossible, and probably harmful).

Similiarly, there are many people out there trying to pursuade people that Catholicism is true. This site, being an apologetics website, is part of that crew, I think.

If you have a problem with the former, you ought to have a problem with the latter.

 

[Exalt]

Ah I see your point. You’d be right in saying that it is not the incidence of depression that causes me to conclude that homosexual sex is immoral. I apologize if I gave that impression.

In reality, I believe homosexual sex is morally wrong because it is incompatible with Natural Law. If you reject Natural Law and its teleological view of the purpose of the universe, then I can surely see why you would object to the application of its implications in matters like sexuality. I cited the incidence of things such as depression, and so on not as proof, but as supporting evidence of my assertion that homosexual sex violates the Natural Law, not the main point. The main point is that NL gives clear and certain evidence of the proper and intended function of our sexuality - and sodomy is not it.

If you do not start from a worldview in which there are immutable rights and wrongs knowable from natural law, then I don’t know how to argue with you in the first place. I’m not sure where any of your convictions find their source, other than expediency.

Ah, the Natural Law thing.

Well, let’s start with this statement:

The term “Natural Law” is as clever a way to hide “God” from the discussion - just as the term “Intelligent Design” is a clever way to hide God from creationism.

Natural Law, as it is understood by Catholics today, invokes a diety, first and foremost. Those who do not believe in a personal, Judeo-Christian God tend to not believe in Natural Law. You say “sexuality is designed to do such and such” and I think “Designed? Designed by what? A greater intelligence - namely - God.”

Furthermore, Natural Law is unevenly applied. It’s frequently applied to issues of social justice and sexuality, but rarely applied anywhere else. It’s not a good system for determining of behaviors are right and wrong, because of the artificial world we live in. Did God design us to drive cars? To wear Nikes? To create genetically-engineered foods?

How would you know? Are you thinking about the Bible right now? Ah, I bet you are. And there you have the core of Natural Law - the Bible. Which doesn’t really convince me any more than if you pointed to the Enuma Elish.

 

[Keikiolu]

Keikiolu - it seems we can agree on one thing, that this exchange stopped being of any value a while back. Maybe its me, but I can not understand what your point is. I think we disagree on this issue, but I’m not sure how much. So I think we should just leave it at that.

You think that homosexual-sex-acts are “normal”, and have no bearing on how people should behave toward one and other whatsoever.

I think that homosexual-sex-acts are “perversions” which should be reacted to by informing the practitioners and the general population that it is a sin, and that practitioners should be helped in a Christian way to deal with their affliction, while not offending their dignity as persons in any way.

Since you aren’t seeing my point, and have no interest in doing so, for whatever reason, have a lovely day.

Best to 'ya…!

 

[Keikiolu]

Ah, the Natural Law thing.

…{snip}…

Did God design us to drive cars? To wear Nikes? To create genetically-engineered foods?

Yes.

How would you know? Are you thinking about the Bible right now? Ah, I bet you are. And there you have the core of Natural Law - the Bible. Which doesn’t really convince me any more than if you pointed to the Enuma Elish.

Since you believe in no God, any mention of God is “nonsense” to you.

Are we here to convince you God exists? No.

We’re here to tell you how our beliefs lead us to act.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, as are we.

That we consider your nonsense utter nonsense, just as you consider our nonsense utter nonsense should be acceptable to you,… unless you are trying to convince US that your “belief system” is the truly correct one.

Are you here to “convince” us you’re right and we’re wrong?

Good luck with that.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[PaulinVA]

I do not understand the relationship between my statements and Pelagianism. Pelagiansim, as you note, is the denial of original sin. To say that God created homosexuals the way they are has nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. Catholics believe that all men are created as a reflection of the image of God. All men share the dignity that God’s individual creation imparts.

Orginal sin was mankind’s movement away from God. It did not undo the creative act, or transform man into a vile creature. I am sorry that your son has to carry such a burden. I have to say, however, that I am unaware of any Catholic doctrine that the physical characteristics with which we are born are the result of sin.

TMC, thank you for the gracious response.

I am interested that you believe that we are all as God intended. We clearly are not, since we sin, and need the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus.

Look at Matthew 19:8:
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Our hearts are hardened, and that is not what God intended. However, the fall and sin entering the world has changed us from what God intended.

We were created in the image and likeness of God. What does that mean? Look at Ephesians 5:31:

• “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
  32
  This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

We are created in the image and likeness of God in that we are made to be creative, to mirror the Trinity - Husband and wife become one, and out of their union comes a third, a child.

The husband and wife also mirror Christ and his Church. This is what the image and likeness of God mean, not that God has two hands and two feet.

So, we are not as God intended. We sin. Our hearts have been hardened.

You didn’t address the underlying question of my post - since there are so many things that people are born with that are not good - birth defects, alcoholism, breast cancer - why do you make the leap from homosexuals were born that way to AND it is good?

Just because you were born a certain way does not mean that God “created” you that way and it is good.

 

[manualman]

Exalt, we are now at the true crux of the problem.

As Catholics, we DO believe in God. We believe that we as humans have a special value above monkeys precisely because we were created special by God. Furthermore, we have found over the course of 5,000 years (appropriating the lessons of our elder brothers the Jews, of course), that the universe has a certain order to it. Furthermore, certain human actions consistantly lead to certain outcomes. This is not solely based on the Bible, but on observation and reflection on the history of mankind.

Your examples betray that you do not have a good grasp on what is meant by Natural Law. There is no violation of NL involved in wearing Nikes or riding in a car. There is no violation of the very nature of a human in covering his feet or moving faster than his legs can take him, regardless of how artificial the means are. Sadly, I am an engineer with no formal philosophy education. Logic I do. Words - not so well. I hope you will be curious to read some good catholic sources about what Natural Law really is. I’d rather you give your one shot to someone who can articulate it better than I can. (Anybody who wants to suggest an author speak up!)

I do wonder though. Since it appears that you reject any sort of Divine revelation or teleological assumption as a basis for your worldview, how DO you personally decide what is right and wrong? I’m genuinely curious.

 

[Exalt]

Exalt, we are now at the true crux of the problem.

As Catholics, we DO believe in God. We believe that we as humans have a special value above monkeys precisely because we were created special by God. Furthermore, we have found over the course of 5,000 years (appropriating the lessons of our elder brothers the Jews, of course), that the universe has a certain order to it. Furthermore, certain human actions consistantly lead to certain outcomes. This is not solely based on the Bible, but on observation and reflection on the history of mankind.

Your examples betray that you do not have a good grasp on what is meant by Natural Law. There is no violation of NL involved in wearing Nikes or riding in a car. There is no violation of the very nature of a human in covering his feet or moving faster than his legs can take him, regardless of how artificial the means are. Sadly, I am an engineer with no formal philosophy education. Logic I do. Words - not so well. I hope you will be curious to read some good catholic sources about what Natural Law really is. I’d rather you give your one shot to someone who can articulate it better than I can. (Anybody who wants to suggest an author speak up!)

I do wonder though. Since it appears that you reject any sort of Divine revelation or teleological assumption as a basis for your worldview, how DO you personally decide what is right and wrong? I’m genuinely curious.

I’m actually a theology student - I have extensive training in natural law philosophy, and the idea that natural law is definately *not *universally applied is common.

My personal philosophy is humanism. I think it makes the most sense. Basically, I think we all are in this human condition together and we ought to do the best we can to help eachother make the best of it. No silly ideas about eternal damnation or eternal reward as a motivation for behavior. Our own capacity for evil is motivation enough to keep ourselves from descending into unethical behavior. If someone rejects that idea, they would reject God-focused ethics as well, I think.

 

[manualman]

What theology school is teaching that wearing Nikes is a violation of Natural Law?

Now I’m really intrigued. You are studying theology, yet you reject the Divine revelations of christianity (Jesus clearly speaks of hell and the devil of course)? To what end are you studying? Isn’t the word for theology without God just Philosophy?

This has been a unique conversation. I don’t know anybody else like you. :tiphat:

 

[Keikiolu]

I’m actually a theology student - I have extensive training in natural law philosophy, and the idea that natural law is definately *not *universally applied is common.

My personal philosophy is humanism. I think it makes the most sense. Basically, I think we all are in this human condition together and we ought to do the best we can to help eachother make the best of it. No silly ideas about eternal damnation or eternal reward as a motivation for behavior. Our own capacity for evil is motivation enough to keep ourselves from descending into unethical behavior. If someone rejects that idea, they would reject God-focused ethics as well, I think.

A humanistic theology student.

Hmmm,… sounds like making God out of man to me.

Which is perfectly congruent with basing ethics on the threat of hell on earth if people don’t behave according to the majority.

Of course, behaving according to the majority may BE hell on earth to some.

Any “good ethic” that such a system would create would have been stolen from natural law and Christian ethics, of course, as only those ethics ARE good.

So,… you end up with a baseless bunch of stolen ethics, which could be “revoked” at any time by the whim of the majority, and another collection of “evil” ethics (mostly along the lines of some form of eugenics) invented by slave owners for slave owners.

What sort of “Theo” does one study to arrive at that conclusion?