HomoSexuality a Mental Disorder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Toten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok…so a disorder can still manifest itself into sin?
Click to expand...
Sure. Consider the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. The shooter is said to have been suffering from a mental disorder. While his psychological condition was obviously not a sin, the murders which may have been a manifestation of his illness certainly were.
 
GreenJeans said:
And it’s someone’s opinion that by its very nature an act deserves punishment. Some people have their own opinions. Some use others’ opinions.
Click to expand...
Morality is not an opinion; it’s a fact of life. An evil wrong cries out for justice by its very nature because it is in opposition to an objective force. (Justice by its nature demands correction); that is how we know that something is basically wrong because it’s out of order in reflection to prefect reason, love and order. It isn’t the case that we have reflected upon something and decided it is wrong; we know it’s wrong because morality is written in the minds of every man and woman; and evil stands out on a good background. Otherwise, how can we comprehend such a thing?

If it were not the case that morality is something more then a moral opinion, we would have no comprehension of the wrongs that we committed and there for would have nothing to create an opinion on; so yes we have moral opinions, but only based upon the fact that an objective morality exists apart from us and upon that foundation is the motivation to create an opinion about what is right and wrong. In the end however, there is an ultimate right that conforms perfectly to good, and it is this good that humanity either rejects or strives for.

If homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality, it would have never been an issue because we would have never comprehended it to be anything but normal.
 
freesoulhope said:
Morality is not an opinion; it’s a fact of life. An evil wrong cries out for justice by its very nature because it is in opposition to an objective force. (Justice by its nature demands correction); that is how we know that something is basically wrong because it’s out of order in reflection to prefect reason, love and order. It isn’t the case that we have reflected upon something and decided it is wrong; we know it’s wrong because morality is written in the minds of every man and woman; and evil stands out on a good background. Otherwise, how can we comprehend such a thing?

If it were not the case that morality is something more then a moral opinion, we would have no comprehension of the wrongs that we committed and there for would have nothing to create an opinion on; so yes we have moral opinions, but only based upon the fact that an objective morality exists apart from us and upon that foundation is the motivation to create an opinion about what is right and wrong. In the end however, there is an ultimate right that conforms perfectly to good, and it is this good that humanity either rejects or strives for.

If homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality, it would have never been an issue because we would have never comprehended it to be anything but normal.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Dietary laws, laws against idolatry, laws regarding sacrifices, laws regarding argriculture, etc. do not necessarily have a moral compenent based on your definition. THey are not laws that should occur naturally to us as being right.

And how is there not love and order in a homosexual relationship?
 
Valke2 said:
I disagree. Dietary laws, laws against idolatry, laws regarding sacrifices, laws regarding argriculture, etc. do not necessarily have a moral compenent based on your definition. THey are not laws that should occur naturally to us as being right.?
Click to expand...
I never ment to imply that we can understand perfect law by reason alone or religious duty by philosophising what God might want us to do. We are also dependent upon Gods revelation regarding things that we cannot possibly know by are selves.
However it is plainly obvious that it would be irational to give laws to creatures that do not have a natural capacity to understand morality. We have that natural capacity to understand it, and we also regognise the good in it once we conform to it.
Valke2 said:
And how is there not love and order in a homosexual relationship?
Click to expand...
They may certainly be in love; but whether or not there homosexual desire for each other is in conformity to the perfect order or not, is a different matter.

It is perfectly obvious that homosexuality is a disordered state of mind, however we blind are selves to that matter of fact for some reason or other.

They would not love eachother in the same way if they woke up with heterosexual desires the next day. Where is that love then?
Or was that love in actual fact based upon a sexual perversion? I have a best freind, i love him; im sure that if we had a sexual attraction towards eachother that we could become lovers; but the desire in its self is a perversion of a natual freindship that fellow man share with eachother.
 
Valke2 said:
I disagree. Dietary laws, laws against idolatry, laws regarding sacrifices, laws regarding argriculture, etc. do not necessarily have a moral compenent based on your definition.

?
Click to expand...
Please explain why these laws dont have a moral component?
 
freesoulhope said:
Please explain why these laws dont have a moral component?
Click to expand...
there is no obvious moral law underlying them. It is not as if one knows instinctively, for example, that eating milk and meat together is wrong. Or that it is wrong not to use produce form a fruit tree (grown in Israel) for the first three years.

It is only through the study of Torah that the moral component becomes apparent.
 
I think some of the problem lies in the fact that women are allowed to compliment each other on good looks but men are not. And I am still not sold on the idea that same sex attraction can be changed in everyone. It might very well have some genetic component. Why must we constantly look at just the attraction as being immoral? This is not even the view of the Church.
 
freesoulhope said:
Morality is not an opinion; it’s a fact of life. An evil wrong cries out for justice by its very nature because it is in opposition to an objective force. (Justice by its nature demands correction); that is how we know that something is basically wrong because it’s out of order in reflection to prefect reason, love and order. It isn’t the case that we have reflected upon something and decided it is wrong; we know it’s wrong because morality is written in the minds of every man and woman; and evil stands out on a good background. Otherwise, how can we comprehend such a thing?

If it were not the case that morality is something more then a moral opinion, we would have no comprehension of the wrongs that we committed and there for would have nothing to create an opinion on; so yes we have moral opinions, but only based upon the fact that an objective morality exists apart from us and upon that foundation is the motivation to create an opinion about what is right and wrong. In the end however, there is an ultimate right that conforms perfectly to good, and it is this good that humanity either rejects or strives for.

If homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality, it would have never been an issue because we would have never comprehended it to be anything but normal.
Click to expand...
If an objective moralty exists, how do we determine if a particular opinion is a correct discernment of that objective morality?

Comprehended by whom?
 
GreenJeans said:
If an objective moralty exists, how do we determine if a particular opinion is a correct discernment of that objective morality?

Comprehended by whom?
Click to expand...
You are right. Man cannot do this himself. That is why we rely on absolute truth aka God and Revelation.
 
Valke2 said:
there is no obvious moral law underlying them. It is not as if one knows instinctively, for example, that eating milk and meat together is wrong. Or that it is wrong not to use produce form a fruit tree (grown in Israel) for the first three years.

It is only through the study of Torah that the moral component becomes apparent.
Click to expand...
As you know, the dietary and sacrificial laws in Leviticus are not binding on Christians. They are relative to the Jews because they uphold the rituals and practices of the rabbinical priesthood and were understood by the Jews to be laws delivered from God to keep them separate from the gentiles. Dietary restrictions were understood to have deeper meaning (milk and meat = life and death) and were practiced in accordance with God’s directives. With the coming of Christ, Christians were freed from these rituals and their fulfillment occurred with the life, death and resurrection of our Saviour.

Moral laws guiding prohibitions of sexual immorality, murder, etc, do remain however, and are reinforced in the NT.
 
GreenJeans said:
If an objective moralty exists, how do we determine if a particular opinion is a correct discernment of that objective morality?

Comprehended by whom?
Click to expand...
Several ways.

One way would be a reasoned reflection on human nature.

Another way would be to look to Divine Revelation.

Yet another way would be to look to sociological evidence. If a particular activity has a tendency to rot society, like contraception, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, spousal abuse, rape, etc., etc., it’s probably bad.

Still another way would be the much more subjective appeal to the conscience. If you have guilty knowledge (not necessarily guilty feelings – there’s a difference), the chances are that you’re right. And, needless to say, Divine Revelation is always right.

I’m sure there are more ways, but these are a few off the top of my head. If you go through a few of these and find overlapping confirmation, chances are you’re on solid ground.

In my experience, people seldom have difficulty knowing what’s wrong. Unfortunately, what’s wrong to do is often what’s most expedient, and people as a whole love taking the easy road. I like to call that ‘concupiscence’ – you may call it what you will.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
Several ways.

One way would be a reasoned reflection on human nature.

Another way would be to look to Divine Revelation.

Yet another way would be to look to sociological evidence. If a particular activity has a tendency to rot society, like contraception, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, spousal abuse, rape, etc., etc., it’s probably bad.

Still another way would be the much more subjective appeal to the conscience. If you have guilty knowledge (not necessarily guilty feelings – there’s a difference), the chances are that you’re right. And, needless to say, Divine Revelation is always right.

I’m sure there are more ways, but these are a few off the top of my head. If you go through a few of these and find overlapping confirmation, chances are you’re on solid ground.

In my experience, people seldom have difficulty knowing what’s wrong. Unfortunately, what’s wrong to do is often what’s most expedient, and people as a whole love taking the easy road. I like to call that ‘concupiscence’ – you may call it what you will.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
You have described the process. How does one know the result of the process is a correct discernment of objective morality?
 
GreenJeans said:
What happened to Natural Law?
Click to expand...
Natural law is written into our hearts by God.

[1954](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’)😉 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top