Homosexuality in geneology?

[jcrichton]

Although I can’t prove it with documentation, I think it has been shown that some people are more inclined to alcoholism than others. I can’t remember if it is because of a missing gene, chromosome, or what. But looking at the reactions our Native Americans have after drinking alcohol should give an indication that some adverse physical reaction is occuring when they drink alcohol. Of course poverty and hopelessness play a part in this too. But the early settlers soon found the way to make NAs helpless and crazy was to give them liquor.

…yet, alcoholism and drug addiction are not hereditary due to some internal anomaly; they are the cause-effect of abuse by the progenitors (especially the female in whose womb the child is supposed to be nurtured).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[elts1956]

…yet, alcoholism and drug addiction are not hereditary due to some internal anomaly; they are the cause-effect of abuse by the progenitors (especially the female in whose womb the child is supposed to be nurtured).

Maran atha!

Angel

Okay, hate to ask this, but can you give me a source? Thanks.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Thanks, Pope Voco.

SK

Dear SilentKnight,
I was not intending to criticize Church theology.
I accept that in some, possibly in the majority of cases, homosexual practise is a perversion to be abhorred.
However, gender is not a simple matter of “XX”, or “XY”, nor are “XX” and “XY” the only possible combinations.
Thus, there are some cases, indeed, it may be that in many, or even all cases, the apparent gender is an illusory indicator.
That in a nutshell is the science.
Making the judgements on homsexuality based upon conjectures based upon incomplete science, as found in early writings, no matter how holy, is not valid science, any more than the assumption that the Earth is flat, and is the centre of the universe.
To her credit, Mother Church accepts that she is not qualified to make judgements of science, but is qualified to make judgements of Faith and Morals.
Unfortunately, if a judgement on Faith and Morals is founded upon a defective science, such as the postulate that gender comprises male and female only, and there are no indeterminate states, then the falsity of that postulate results in falsities in judgements of whether a person is attracted to a member of the same sex, or whether a person of indeterminate gender can possibly be so attracted.
Once the concept of indeterminate gender is accepted, the category of SSA becomes an illusion.

 

[jcrichton]

Okay, hate to ask this, but can you give me a source? Thanks.

…do you mean a source about alcoholism and drug addiction being pass to the offspring by the abusive parents or that they are not hereditary due to an internal anomaly?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[elts1956]

…do you mean a source about alcoholism and drug addiction being pass to the offspring by the abusive parents or that they are not hereditary due to an internal anomaly?

Maran atha!

Angel

Both please. Thanks.

 

[SilentKnight]

Dear SilentKnight,
I was not intending to criticize Church theology.
I accept that in some, possibly in the majority of cases, homosexual practise is a perversion to be abhorred.
However, gender is not a simple matter of “XX”, or “XY”, nor are “XX” and “XY” the only possible combinations.
Thus, there are some cases, indeed, it may be that in many, or even all cases, the apparent gender is an illusory indicator.
That in a nutshell is the science.
Making the judgements on homsexuality based upon conjectures based upon incomplete science, as found in early writings, no matter how holy, is not valid science, any more than the assumption that the Earth is flat, and is the centre of the universe.
To her credit, Mother Church accepts that she is not qualified to make judgements of science, but is qualified to make judgements of Faith and Morals.
Unfortunately, if a judgement on Faith and Morals is founded upon a defective science, such as the postulate that gender comprises male and female only, and there are no indeterminate states, then the falsity of that postulate results in falsities in judgements of whether a person is attracted to a member of the same sex, or whether a person of indeterminate gender can possibly be so attracted.
Once the concept of indeterminate gender is accepted, the category of SSA becomes an illusion.

Just because something exists or is possible does not mean that it should be. I’m perfectly capable of picking up a gun and mowing down many people with it. This bare fact does not translate into human beings shooting people being a valid “past time”.

A young girl, I believe it was in India, was born earlier this year with eight limbs, rather than four. Most people label this an “abnormality”. It is. It’s something that, yes, indeed, did happen but should not have.

You’re right. It is not the Church’s prerogative to be making scientific judgments, nor is it Science’s prerogative to be making spiritual judgments. Thus, Science is perfectly capable of telling us that “We see gender ambiguity in nature” and it is capable of telling us the scientific reason why. It is outside the bounds of Science to say that this is the way it “should be”, that gender ambiguity is “normal”. Science can tell us that it occurs often (not that it does, I’m just saying…). It cannot tell us that it should occur often. (That it’s normal, or part of God’s design for the universe.) That is religion’s call. And our religion is very clear. God designed mankind to be one or the other - male or female. If there are variations that occur post-fall, these are abnormalities and must be carried as a cross accordingly (until such time as science is able to correct the abnormality in the womb by way of “genetic therapy” or however that might play out).
Voco:

Making the judgements on homsexuality based upon conjectures based upon incomplete science, as found in early writings, no matter how holy, is not valid science, any more than the assumption that the Earth is flat, and is the centre of the universe.

You’re absolutely right. But listen to what you just said. “Making judgments based on faulty science is not valid science.” The Church doesn’t do science. And it does not base it’s teaching on the existence of only two genders on science, but on divine revelation (God’s declaration that “This is how things are…”). Thus, whatever science may or may not have said in the past about gender doesn’t really matter or apply here.

Peace,

SK

 

[jcrichton]

Both please. Thanks.

As soon as I’m able, I’ll look for some info for you.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[elts1956]

As soon as I’m able, I’ll look for some info for you.

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks. I don’t know if there is just not enough info. out on genetics of homosexuality, or alcoholism, but I HAVE read somewhere that both can be a result of genetics. I truly don’t know the answer, but trying to clear it up for myself.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think many use the whole church doctrine thing as a fall back when they can no longer provide any good argument against something even when an excellent one is presented for it. I mean we all know what the church has to say about this issue, so what then is the point of this anyway? The church is run by humans and it is possible for them to be wrong, they still have free will. And about the Bible, the words itself are not ambiguous, anyone can see that - I have read it dozens of times. They are ambiguous because of the context in which they were written and the questionable translation - we are not reading God’s original words. And even if you do believe that the church is never wrong, I really maintain that the Bible is not referring to committed, loving, monogamous, same sex couples because that particular idea of homosexuality did not exist when it was written. And say that is true - then the church would be wrong.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun! Everything we have today we dealt with before - from bigamy, temple prostitution, Spartan ideals of man-boy homosexual mentorship, sexual partnership between men… It has been done

Prager On Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

Even if something is framed in terms of “Committed loving, monogomous” etc. (one wonders why those values need to be clarified as though simply juxtaposing homosexualism unto traditional marriage… (“Ozzie & Harriet” meets “Ozzie & Scott” I guess…) Those positive qualities (especially beneficial not just for the happiness of the couple, for the creation of sound families!) don’t in and of themselves “wash away” or open up for consideration a re-assesment of the nature of man and woman and the function of the genitalia.

 

[comfort1st]

I said what I said in response to another poster, one who was drawing a false rhetorical dichotomy between the phrase “CHRISTIAN church” and “Catholic Church” in an attempt to imply some kind of difference.

Fone Bone, I believe you were accusing me of “drawing a false dichotomy”. My point was that the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I, as an Anglican, am not Christian just because I do not belong to what is commonly referred to by other Christians as the RCC. The catholic church (lower case c deliberate) is the universal church which includes all Christians. Where the Roman church differs in its teaching from the others there is a clear difference. There is, therefore, nothing false about my statement.

All I ask is for some respect for the opinions of your non-RC brothers and sisters.

Steven

 

[elts1956]

Fone Bone, I believe you were accusing me of “drawing a false dichotomy”. My point was that the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I, as an Anglican, am not Christian just because I do not belong to what is commonly referred to by other Christians as the RCC. The catholic church (lower case c deliberate) is the universal church which includes all Christians. Where the Roman church differs in its teaching from the others there is a clear difference. There is, therefore, nothing false about my statement.

All I ask is for some respect for the opinions of your non-RC brothers and sisters.

Steven

I haven’t debated this issue other than on another thread, but I for one, do consider Protestants/Anglicans/Presbyterians etc. Christians. As Pope John Paul II has said, all churches that believe in the Trinity, have bishops etc. are members of the RCC in some element, or another.

Please read Et Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II regarding Ecumenism.

 

[comfort1st]

… if a judgement on Faith and Morals is founded upon a defective science, such as the postulate that gender comprises male and female only, and there are no indeterminate states, then the falsity of that postulate results in falsities in judgements of whether a person is attracted to a member of the same sex, or whether a person of indeterminate gender can possibly be so attracted.
Once the concept of indeterminate gender is accepted, the category of SSA becomes an illusion.

Thanks Dave. Nice to see someone with the same logic as I’ve had (and espoused) for years. Pastoral care for those who fall in the gap has some chance!

Steven

 

[comfort1st]

… it does not base it’s teaching on the existence of only two genders on science, but on divine revelation (God’s declaration that “This is how things are…”).SK

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the expression of the divine revelation on which you depend was written by men who had only the black-and-white image from which to choose. If the understanding of a revelation is incorrect then the declaration which results will be unfounded.

Not putting scripture in its context can be a dangerous practice.

Steven

 

[comfort1st]

I for one, do consider Protestants/Anglicans/Presbyterians etc. Christians.

Thankyou, but that’s not what the current Pope has been telling Anglicans over the last few months, and it’s not the impression given when a Roman Catholic diocese tells its Anglican neighbour that it’s sending out information to “other faiths” (meaning other Christian denominations)

As Pope John Paul II has said, all churches that believe in the Trinity, have bishops etc. are members of the RCC in some element, or another.

Please read Et Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II regarding Ecumenism.

I would have preferred “catholic church” rather than RCC, which has unpleasant conotations. It has been noted in many circles that Ecumenism was dealt a severe blow with the election of Pope Benedict.

 

[elts1956]

Thankyou, but that’s not what the current Pope has been telling Anglicans over the last few months, and it’s not the impression given when a Roman Catholic diocese tells its Anglican neighbour that it’s sending out information to “other faiths” (meaning other Christian denominations)

I would have preferred “catholic church” rather than RCC, which has unpleasant conotations. It has been noted in many circles that Ecumenism was dealt a severe blow with the election of Pope Benedict.

To me, that doesn’t mean I won’t try to practice it. Most dialogue is between two people. So let’s keep dialogueing.

And as for Pope Benedict XVI dealing ecumenism a severe blow, I think the foundation of his statements is that many, many Catholics need to be pulled back into line and be reeducated in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We will have to wait and see.

 

[SilentKnight]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the expression of the divine revelation on which you depend was written by men who had only the black-and-white image from which to choose. If the understanding of a revelation is incorrect then the declaration which results will be unfounded.

Not putting scripture in its context can be a dangerous practice.

Steven

And what does an Anglican define as “context”? What is the framework within which understanding of divine revelation must take place?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Thankyou, but that’s not what the current Pope has been telling Anglicans over the last few months, and it’s not the impression given when a Roman Catholic diocese tells its Anglican neighbour that it’s sending out information to “other faiths” (meaning other Christian denominations)

Really, “Christian” is the name of the person, “Catholic” is the name of the Church. All Christians are Christians. The pope has never suggested otherwise. He has simply been honest and precise in noting that there are certain things that qualify one for being in communion with the Church and Anglicans do not have all those things. Anglicans are Christians but they are not in full communion with the (Jesus founded only one) Church.

It has been noted in many circles that Ecumenism was dealt a severe blow with the election of Pope Benedict.

This is so silly. Define “ecumenism”. If by “ecumenism” one envisions all Christian denominations affirming each others difference as valid, then it isn’t ecumenism we’re talking about.(And we have some serious logical deficiencies that we’re working with as well.) Ecumenism is Christians gathering together to dialogue honestly about our differences and to see, in the context of this honest dialogue, what we can’t do about mending those differences. This in contrast with the former reciprocal apporach of:

“You’re the heretic!”

“No, you’re the heretic!”

“No, you’re the heretic!”

If its authentic ecumenism you want, you could hardly ask for a better “captain” than Ratzinger.

SK

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Thanks Dave. Nice to see someone with the same logic as I’ve had (and espoused) for years. Pastoral care for those who fall in the gap has some chance!

Steven

Hi steven,
I have thought further upon this, and have been drawn to the conclusion, that it is not only Mother Church who is remiss on this facet of truth, but most religions, and most governments.
It has to be said though that, at least in English law, gender, if not obvious, is allocated as a matter of legal convenience, and there is, at least some acceptance in higher legal circles, that this allocation-of-convenience is just that, and the allocation can be challenged.
However, the gender of ‘n/a’, which is in many cases correct, is still not legally recognised.
There is still a long way to go.

 

[8eofilos]

Silent Knight, that is an interesting theory on where homosexuality comes from, but who knows if that is true. I think calling homosexual relationships things like “material” once again refers to them as being selfish. I’m not totally understanding your explanation as to why the romantic sense of homosexual relationships are not legitimate. So I guess all I can do is to maintain my opinion that they are because I have seen it. As for the anatomy, I understand that rod A fits slot B, but that’s not the only way it can work…As for 8eofilos…this should be interesting. I am already prepared to take issue with several of the statements made in your little paragraph, but I am dying to know, where do you get the ideas for your potential “book”. Please, I would love to hear your ideas about gays and gay marriage, please do expound on all your ideas.

My ideas come from my own thinking. I was born an “absolute” lover. For me there is no midway but only left and right. Midway brings you somewhere away from your path. I know 1+1=2 and that can never change. The same way I see these ideas of reality and know I am right. If there were not for condoms they would all be getting the worst infections from there sexual acts in the colon. Just because technology today has advanced , does not mean that God has to change His theory on gay. He will always be more advance than anyone. As Peter said, let the normal things be used for normal things. As for the colon to extract waste and not to insert potential babies…God knows and people are just trying to find excuses to do their own things. Well they are free to do it as long as they do it in their own selfish religion of EGO and self pleasure. I can imagine two 70 year old men looking at each other and what a comfort that will be. No children no grandchildren, nothing to look back for…am I too absolute?

 

[jcrichton]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the expression of the divine revelation on which you depend was written by men who had only the black-and-white image from which to choose. If the understanding of a revelation is incorrect then the declaration which results will be unfounded.

Not putting scripture in its context can be a dangerous practice.

Steven

…it seems that you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit had it wrong… that somehow He did not reveal the Truth but a reproduction of it, which was flawed from its design and that modern theologians and scholars now have the task if defining what the Word of God truly mean to disclose.

As Paul said, if Jesus did not raise from the dead then our hope is sterile: if the Holy Spirit’s Revelations are flawed than we living in error and our hope is futile.

Maran atha!

Angel