Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

Do you suggest that morality, came from catholicism? Are you suggesting that the catholic church speaks a kind of absolute truth. There is no evidence for a holy spirit or that Jesus was the son of a god. It would be welcome if the church did tell the truth. A little less faith and a little more truth.

What is the “truth” about the observably disordered dysfunction of homosexuality?

 

[aprilfloyd]

It is an instinctive trait for heterosexuals to naturally be repulsed at observable displays of homosexuality.

If you have no natural repulsion, it was most likely learned.

Where did you get that from?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Where did you get that from?

A lifetime of observation.

Where did you get your reaction from?

 

[scipio337]

Hi Scipio,

I worry very much about the new “normal” when it comes to human sexuality. I’ve seen the damage it has done to real people, both young and old. The older folks can’t seem to find any peace or happiness and the young wander lost and afraid. I also believe that what our Church teaches is really the solution. My problem is how to get them to listen to what I’m saying.

It’s the tone of our brethren that makes me upset. There is so much vindictive in it. It is so unhelpful. Cor Cordis has gone off the deep end and I shouldn’t be the only one objecting to a blanket characterization of a group of people based on their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is part of us, it is not a sin. It is what we do with our sexuality that matters.

You don’t think this statement crosses the line from hating the sin to hating the sinner?

I’m not sure it “crosses the line”, but I agree that same sex attraction isn’t a sin. Perhaps we can convince people who feel differently what the Church teaches.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I feel the same pity for someone with same sex attraction as a I those who are addicted to porn, masturbation or sexual addiction. I imagine the difficult part is convincing the person acting out on same sex attraction that it’s a sin, and to repent.

 

[scipio337]

Do you suggest that morality, came from catholicism? Are you suggesting that the catholic church speaks a kind of absolute truth. There is no evidence for a holy spirit or that Jesus was the son of a god. It would be welcome if the church did tell the truth. A little less faith and a little more truth.

Do you think morality is relative, or absolute?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You make too many assumptions - not a good habit if you want to be a scholar. Even if you had “credentials” (M.S.?, Ph.D.? ) you should know there is no reason why I should simply take your word for it.

Too bad for those inaccurate assumptions of yours. I do have degrees (several) . But the point is that I and others who know their Scripture are not going to let you get away with outright inaccuracies on the Gospel of Matthew. You need to read the following:
John Meier
Dale Allison
Bruce Chilton
Daniel Harrington
Raymond Brown

That’s just for starters, to get you some religion. There are lots of scholars of whom the Church approves and who are in accordance with authentic Catholic doctrine on Matthew. What you have written so far does not represent authentic Catholic doctrine,

Second, this is not the Sacred Scripture forum. You’re deliberately derailing the thread so that you can try to delegitimatize someone with superior academic credentials to you, as has already been pointed out.

nothing you have written is terribly creative or demonstrates any talent for thinking outside a very narrow conservative box.

(Poor losers tend to engage in character destruction. )

Analysis of Scirpture is not about “creativity.” It’s about authenticity, training, and accuracy. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church.

Third, “what I have written” is not “conservative.” That’s a political label. What I have written is academically accurate and is also authentic from the Roman Church’s own analysis of Matthew by its illustrious scholars. Oh, and by the way, the above starter list for your education and edification includes some Protestants. I am also informed, as is the Church, by a number of Jewish scholars in this respect. (Oh, but wait, I guess both the Church and I can’t “think outside the box.” ) The Matthean scholars most respected within the biblical community are in fact those who are the most creative, but again if you really had studied Matthew on the graduate level, in Catholic graduate theology school, you would already have actually known that. The fact that you don’t know that reveals how little information you have about the topic and about the history of the analysis of this Gospel.

Finally, we do not engage in private interpretation of scripture in the Roman Church. It’s a process not for amateurs. There is something called lectio divina, but that’s a prayer process that is separate from discernment of doctrine.

You’re just out of your league in this department. Best not to keep attacking.

 

[bellasbane]

Really?

So how did homosexuals reproduce in this evolutionary process?

I think this was already covered somewhere in this thread.

Evolution is all about making sure your genes get passed on. For some species, that means only the “leaders of the pack” get to reproduce. In other species only the “Queen” bee does while all her sisters act as workers to keep the next generation alive.

There is every reason to believe there is an evolutionary advantage to having an extra adults in the family who do not have children of their own, but who help their sisters & brothers to raise their children. Granted, this translates to only 25% rather than 50% of a person’s genes being passed on, but that is better than 0% if none of the children survive.

 

[bellasbane]

Too bad for those inaccurate assumptions of yours. I do have degrees (several) . But the point is that I and others who know their Scripture are not going to let you get away with outright inaccuracies on the Gospel of Matthew. You need to read the following:
John Meier
Dale Allison
Bruce Chilton
Daniel Harrington
Raymond Brown

That’s just for starters, to get you some religion. There are lots of scholars of whom the Church approves and who are in accordance with authentic Catholic doctrine on Matthew. What you have written so far does not represent authentic Catholic doctrine,

Second, this is not the Sacred Scripture forum. You’re deliberately derailing the thread so that you can try to delegitimatize someone with superior academic credentials to you, as has already been pointed out.

(Poor losers tend to engage in character destruction. )

Analysis of Scirpture is not about “creativity.” It’s about authenticity, training, and accuracy. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church.

Third, “what I have written” is not “conservative.” That’s a political label. What I have written is academically accurate and is also authentic from the Roman Church’s own analysis of Matthew by its illustrious scholars. Oh, and by the way, the above starter list for your education and edification includes some Protestants. I am also informed, as is the Church, by a number of Jewish scholars in this respect. (Oh, but wait, I guess both the Church and I can’t “think outside the box.” ) The Matthean scholars most respected within the biblical community are in fact those who are the most creative, but again if you really had studied Matthew on the graduate level, in Catholic graduate theology school, you would already have actually known that. The fact that you don’t know that reveals how little information you have about the topic and about the history of the analysis of this Gospel.

Finally, we do not engage in private interpretation of scripture in the Roman Church. It’s a process not for amateurs. There is something called lectio divina, but that’s a prayer process that is separate from discernment of doctrine.

You’re just out of your league in this department. Best not to keep attacking.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think this was already covered somewhere in this thread.

Evolution is all about making sure your genes get passed on. For some species, that means only the “leaders of the pack” get to reproduce. In other species only the “Queen” bee does while all her sisters act as workers to keep the next generation alive.

There is every reason to believe there is an evolutionary advantage to having an extra adult in the family who does not have children of their own, but who helps a sister or brother to raise their children. Granted, this translates to only 25% rather than 50% of a person’s genes being passed on, but that is better than 0% if none of the children survive.

Yeah, I’ve read that theory. And it is about as original as the tireless concept of nanny’s themselves. It is also baseless since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to substantiate it.

Or did the combined efforts of paleontology and archaeology uncover some new “evidence” that I am unaware of?

Weren’t you the one who was castigating the Church for it’s lack of use of the Scientific Method in the 17th century?

Oh and, homosexuality is still an evolutionary dead-end in the most literal sense.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think this was already covered somewhere in this thread. .

It was covered, last night.

And I’m the one who debunked the ridiculous study on it’s flawed unscientific premise.

 

[aprilfloyd]

What is the “truth” about the observably disordered dysfunction of homosexuality?

I really do feel you are here to wind people up. Evolution is accepted science. You will need to come up with some stunning evidence to change that acceptance and no doubt get a Nobel prize, when you do

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I really do feel you are here to wind people up. Evolution is accepted science. You will need to come up with some stunning evidence to change that acceptance and no doubt get a Nobel prize, when you do

Psst. I actually accept the science of evolution.

And speaking of accepted science, when did homosexuals become capable of natural reproduction?

You will need to come up with some stunning evidence of that anomaly and if you do, I’ll personally drive you to your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.:tiphat:

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually, Elizabeth’s response was quite convincing.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Psst. I actually accept the science of evolution.

And speaking of accepted science, when did homosexuals become capable of natural reproduction?

You will need to come up with some stunning evidence of that anomaly and if you do, I’ll personally drive you to your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.:tiphat:

Why do you say anomaly? Do you think a homosexual man or woman, can’t reproduce.

Where do you think homosexuals come from?

Homosexuals are not a seperate species.

You know this, so I guess you are just being silly for the sake of it.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Why do you say anomaly? Do you think a homosexual man or woman, can’t reproduce.

Where do you think homosexuals come from?

Homosexuals are not a seperate species.

You know this, so I guess you are just being silly for the sake of it.

 

[PRmerger]

april! could you please answer my question that I posed a while back? Not sure if you saw it.

It had to do with whether you believe that sex, to be moral, has to involve love between the people.

And it had to do with whether you think sex, to be moral, has to be between 2 people, or can there be more?

Thanks.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Why do you say anomaly? Do you think a homosexual man or woman, can’t reproduce.

Do you think they can without engaging in a natural heterosexual act?

Do homosexual acts produce offspring? Is homosexuality conducive to our natural design? Can you say "anomaly?

Where do you think homosexuals come from?

Heterosexual sex. Where do you think they come from?

Homosexuals are not a seperate species.

When did I say they were?

You know this, so I guess you are just being silly for the sake of it.

I think I’m going too fast for you here. I’m sorry.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Do you think they can without engaging in a natural heterosexual act?

Do homosexual acts produce offspring? Is homosexuality conducive to our natural design? Can you say "anomaly?

Why is not conducive to our natural design when homosexuality is prevalent in many other species so why would it be an anomaly that it also exists in the human species?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Why is not conducive to our natural design when homosexuality is prevalent in many other species so why would it be an anomaly that it also exists in the human species?

sigh

I covered this 11 pages ago:

“Homosexual” behavior has supposedly been noted in 1500 species. And many of those observations and conclusions are dubious.

But even given the benefit of the doubt, 1,500 species out of the estimated total of 8.7 million species still leaves a statistical percentage of 0.01724%.

And THAT, my friend, IS the statistical definition of an anomaly.

But more to the point: Outside of asexual reproduction, “homosexuality” is not the natural paradigm of any species. It is still an anomaly even within the species it has been observed. And many of those noted “observations” are dubious at best. The simple fact is, homosexuality is the ultimate evolutionary dead-end. Period.

But more to the point, if homosexual advocates have to point to the animal behavior of amoral lower species to grant moral acceptance to homosexuality, then I would suggest to you that you have already lost any and all credible moral justification to begin with.

After all, why stop there? Why not embrace all our unbridled animal desires and adopt all the whims of lower species?

How about incest, polygamy, murder without moral reservation, cannibalism, and pederasty?

But tell me, what exactly IS natural about homosexuality?

 

[aprilfloyd]

A lifetime of observation.

Where did you get your reaction from?

Reading about evolutionary biology.