How can I explain that homosexuality is wrong to a gay man?

[EBSSTF4]

Read Matthew again, very carefully, and note how the account crystalises in detail following the calling of Matthew.
Before that point, Matthew is writing hear-say, afterwards, he is writing witness.
He was a scribe, a civil servant, a record keeper, and tax collector.
He is our verbatim recorder.
He is a reliable witness.
His random scribblings, which he later assembled into his Gospel are referred to by others as ‘Q’.

Random scribings are a verbatim record? And in all his time with Jesus did he write every word? That would have been quite a task with the resources available.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

not really

CCC

It sounds like a weak excuse to blame the translations with all the available versions to read. The Ideas are clear, and of course the Catechism is an excellent reference when doubts arise to any belief of the church.

I think, that if you research the scriptures, with reference to their inerrancy, you will find that the assessment I gave is not far adrift.
That is, copies and translations do not have the kharisma of inerrancy.

 

[EBSSTF4]

I think, that if you research the scriptures, with reference to their inerrancy, you will find that the assessment I gave is not far adrift.
That is, copies and translations do not have the kharisma of inerrancy.

Inerrancy as in free from any mistake or falsehood? I doubt they are. However as long as I play along I find your arguments rather textbook, and see as an anti-catholic, or Heretic you have presented nothing I have not seen before. It also seems we have gotten way off subject and while I would not wish to disparage your presumed sexual preferences, I would like to see any text that allows acting on it.

Catholic teachings say to embrace our homosexual brothers and sisters, love the sinner not the sin.

 

[fix]

You are speaking from faith, I am speaking from science.

I am speaking of an intellect illuminated by faith. I understand that faith and reason do not contradict each other. Reason, without faith, is limiting. It often leads to agnosticism and relativism.

You may comfort yourself that by adhering to the homosexual behaviour delineated by their abnormal psyches, the unfortunate afflicted ones are abstaining from procreating their defective genotype. This is actually a behaviour patern which is beneficial to mankind.

If that were true there would be no homosexuality.

Normal variation is not necessarily advancement. It is a calumny to so suggest. Variation is caused by genetic errors.The vast majority of such errors have a negative survival value. Insisting that homosexuals follow a normal life-style, negates the negative survival value of this defect. Permitting, even encouraging their ‘natural’ life-style has the positive effect of removing the genetic error from the gene-pool, hence it should not be discouraged, indeed, that was the intent of the OT, and Koranic teaching, isolating them from the normal population.

You seem to start from a faulty premise, then go on to form faulty conclusions. Where is the scientific proof that homosexual attraction is genetic? And if there were to exist certain proof why would such a deviation be deemed morally accepatble?

This last paragraph shows the position of faith.
It is not for me to criticise that position.
I can only say: it is not my position.

The position of the Church is the authentic and true position. It seems you start from a position where truth cannot be known therefore we search to find it and it is found through reason alone and exclusively in science?

 

[setter]

NO, this is NOT a moral disorder, it is a PHYSICAL disorder in the detailed set-up of the aflicted brain, and so psyche.

I explained why it is a moral disorder – man is more than biological.

Actually, Our Lord said that whosoever looked upon another with desire, has already committed adultery. The physical act is not an essential part of the sin.

Mt. 5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Mt. 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

True.

NO, I was maintaining that it is unreasonable, and un-natural to expect a person with an abnormal psyche to behave in a normal manner, and that provided that this abnormal behaviour was not damaging, that it should not be considered a serious matter.

The moral expectation from a biblical, Christian point of reference is that the person not engage in sinful activity (thought, word, deed) based on an “abnormal psyche”, i.e., psychological disorder.

 

[yugnok]

(Homosexual acts by definition are contraceptive.)

.

I liked everything you said.

I’ve just got a comment about terminology:

I don’t think homosexual acts could properly be called contraceptive. They don’t even get that far. Conception is never even a possibility. I would say that contraception is only possible if the has a possibility of conceiving exists in the first place, i.e. they have the proper equipment. For example, if someone is using a condom or the pill while engaging in a homosexual act, it does not alter the sinfulness of the act because they can’t even commit the sin of contraception. Homosexual acts do not have the same positive will against life that would exist in a fertile couple using contraception. They do not make the effort to impede God’s creative act because it was never possible in the first place. I guess you could call them non-conceptive.

This does not mean that homosexual acts are less sinful. The fact that someones sexual urge is directed to something that, by nature, will never be conceptive speaks to the matter of how disordered homosexual acts are. They are wrong because, as you said, its contrary to the purposes of sexuality and treats the person as an object of pleasure–not to mention that what they say about ones relationship with God.

So I agree with your reasoning–just not the terminology.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Random scribings are a verbatim record? And in all his time with Jesus did he write every word? That would have been quite a task with the resources available.

Of couse he did not write every word.
You are unfamiliar with his tools.
Two pieces of cedar wood, 4" x 6" x 1/4", each hollowed out on one side to a depth of 1/8", and the recess filled with bees’ wax.
The two panel hinged together with twine, so that, folded, the wax was protected, and a bronze pin, which fitted through loops on the opening edge, which locked the pair closed.
One end of the pin was flattened out to form a spatula, used to erase text, and the other was sharpened to a point, for writing. This was the stylus.
Using Latin characters, you could get, using 1/4" high characters, about the limit of smallness permitted by the technology, you could get about 20 characters per line, and about 20 lines of text on each panel. That is about 800 characters total, or about 100 words, more if abbreviations were used, maybe up to 200, using a kind of short-hand.
This amounts to three, possibly four verses by KJV reckoning.
A diligent scribe may pack a number of these tablets, but the recording capacity is severly limited.
The scribe would only note down striking things. This indeed is the form of the recorded verbatim.
This indeed is the form of the collection of aphorisms referred to as ‘Q’.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Of couse he did not write every word.
You are unfamiliar with his tools.
Two pieces of cedar wood, 4" x 6" x 1/4", each hollowed out on one side to a depth of 1/8", and the recess filled with bees’ wax.
The two panel hinged together with twine, so that, folded, the wax was protected, and a bronze pin, which fitted through loops on the opening edge, which locked the pair closed.
One end of the pin was flattened out to form a spatula, used to erase text, and the other was sharpened to a point, for writing. This was the stylus.
Using Latin characters, you could get, using 1/4" high characters, about the limit of smallness permitted by the technology, you could get about 20 characters per line, and about 20 lines of text on each panel. That is about 800 characters total, or about 100 words, more if abbreviations were used, maybe up to 200, using a kind of short-hand.
This amounts to three, possibly four verses by KJV reckoning.
A diligent scribe may pack a number of these tablets, but the recording capacity is severly limited.
The scribe would only note down striking things. This indeed is the form of the recorded verbatim.
This indeed is the form of the collection of aphorisms referred to as ‘Q’.

I see you have done your research, but I guess I miss the point only a little less than you have.

 

[yugnok]

I think, that if you research the scriptures, with reference to their inerrancy, you will find that the assessment I gave is not far adrift.
That is, copies and translations do not have the kharisma of inerrancy.

Usually people invoke this argument when the Bible or Jesus says something they don’t like. So, they try to make Jesus conform to their ways. It is a common misconception that there were multiple copyist errors in the bible.

We have multiple early manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Actually, over a thousand. I forget the actual number its around 1600 fragments. (By the way, that number is **huge **for ancient manuscripts. No other ancient document compares to the New Testament in terms of the number of available manuscripts.) Biblical scholars are able to piece together these fragments and recreate the writings of the New Testament as it would have existed in the early Church to around 97% accuracy. Furthermore, they will admit that among some strands there were very few copyist errors none of which had great bearing on the meaning of the passages. Furthermore, contemporary Biblical scholarship reflects these variations in their footnotes.

So, we can be confident that Church did in fact preserve the Bible. As a Catholic, I believed this because that was the task appointed to the Church: the spread, elucidate, and preserve the teachings Christ. And yes copyists do have inerrancy, as long as their work is done as members and under the auspices of the Church. As individuals, they do not have that charism. Its nice to also believe that this is backed up by historical research.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You quote the tent maker, I quote Our Lord.
You seem to value your tent maker more highly than Our Lord.
I do not share that position.

First of all, do not call the Apostle Paul “your tentmaker” – that is both insulting and blasphmeous.

Secondly, what quote do you have from Our Lord? I have not seen any quote that approves of Homosexual acts?

 

[yugnok]

Actually, science on the whole, backs moral laws.
For instance, it is recognised as dangerous to eat the meat of near specie animals, as the risk of CJD is grossly enhanced thereby. This was the primary cause of ‘mad-cow-disease’. Cattle were fed meal made from waste cattle meat!
One has to ask, though: in extremis, is it sinful to eat the flesh of a dead human, if that is the only way to avoid fatal starvation, as it the aircraft crash incident that occurred in the Andes? The lives of some survivors were thereby saved, but they bear grave guilt, for they were forced to break a deep-seated taboo, by unforgiving circumstances.

I don’t think your analogy works. The analogy of cannibalism doesn’t say anything about the moral “ought.” It refers to the practical “ought”.

In other words, the practical ought says if I do or don’t want to go from A to B, I ought to do this.

The moral ought, says if I want to be good I ought to do this.

The above research about health speaks about the practice of bodily health. If I want to be healthy I ought not do this (eat people).

It doesn’t say anything about why it would be morally wrong. That falls within the domain of philosophy and theology. One could say one shouldn’t eat people because they ought to be shown reverence as a human being. Or one ought not eat people because health is a natural good and in damaging your health you are injuring a natural good. (and other such arguments)

The Catholic position on the cannibalism example you sited would say that under normal circumstances the bodies of the dead are to be shown reverence because they were a creature made in the image and likeness of God–something sacred. However, in the extreme circumstance of starvation, those who engage in cannibalism do no wrong and bear no guilt. Unlike, homosexual acts, cannibalism is not an intrinsic evil (always and everywhere wrong). People don’t die if they abstain from homosexual acts.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Out of your own mouth…
Clearly you value Our Lord very little.

Come to think of it you do not “value the words of our lord”, you value the writing of Matthew, and what he attributed to Jesus. Than again it is just as likely you are valuing the writings of a disciple of Matthew, unless you have those original “notes” of his stashed somewhere.

I take to heart the Bible as a whole; I do not pick and choose the parts I like.

 

[yugnok]

Come to think of it you do not “value the words of our lord”, you value the writing of Matthew, and what he attributed to Jesus. Than again it is just as likely you are valuing the writings of a disciple of Matthew, unless you have those original “notes” of his stashed somewhere.

I take to heart the Bible as a whole; I do not pick and choose the parts I like.

Also, seeing as the Bible and the spoken Gospel do not preserve themselves and seeing as they do not interpret themselves, if Our Lord did not give the authority to anyone to do these things–preserve and interpret his teachings–he did not reveal anything at all (except to a few people for the couple of years during his public ministry). Fortunately, he gave that authority to the Church by the Holy Spirit. Thanks be to God.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I am speaking of an intellect illuminated by faith. I understand that faith and reason do not contradict each other. Reason, without faith, is limiting. It often leads to agnosticism and relativism.

If, in truth, you have never had to look again at what you took as ‘Gospel’, having openly accepted science, then indeed, either your definition of open acceptance is strange, or you are remarkably fortunate.
Science does not deny the possibility of miracles, indeed, the ‘uncertainty principle’ makes possible physics that Newtonian science defined as miracles.

If that were true there would be no homosexuality.

The effect of Darwinian elimination is not to eliminate a genetic trait, but to make it progressively rarer. No-one is posulating a queer gene. There are many genes that give a propensity to SSA. Not all these genes will be expressed in all subjects with SSA, so the gene elimination will be slow, and incomplete. It may be that mutations which generate SSA propensity genes are happening throughout time. The effect of this elimination is to reduce the incidence of SSA genes. If efforts of queer bashers succeeds in forcing straight behaviour, then this moderation of the SSA gene pool will be lost, and the SSA gene pool will grow.

You seem to start from a faulty premise, then go on to form faulty conclusions. Where is the scientific proof that homosexual attraction is genetic? And if there were to exist certain proof why would such a deviation be deemed morally accepatble?

We have proof that genetics is involved in more obvious cases of faulty gender differentiation. SSA is just a less obvious form of faulty gender differentiation.

The position of the Church is the authentic and true position. It seems you start from a position where truth cannot be known therefore we search to find it and it is found through reason alone and exclusively in science?

It is clear here that where there is evidence that questions faith, you reject the evidence.
So here is my challenge: Google “Faulty gender differetiation” genetic. I will do likewise.

 

[setter]

It is clear here that where there is evidence that questions faith, you reject the evidence.

It is evidence and interpretation there of informed and enlightened by faith. That is encompassing the fullness of reality, is it not?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Usually people invoke this argument when the Bible or Jesus says something they don’t like. So, they try to make Jesus conform to their ways. It is a common misconception that there were multiple copyist errors in the bible.

We have multiple early manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Actually, over a thousand. I forget the actual number its around 1600 fragments. (By the way, that number is **huge **for ancient manuscripts. No other ancient document compares to the New Testament in terms of the number of available manuscripts.) Biblical scholars are able to piece together these fragments and recreate the writings of the New Testament as it would have existed in the early Church to around 97% accuracy. Furthermore, they will admit that among some strands there were very few copyist errors none of which had great bearing on the meaning of the passages. Furthermore, contemporary Biblical scholarship reflects these variations in their footnotes.

So, we can be confident that Church did in fact preserve the Bible. As a Catholic, I believed this because that was the task appointed to the Church: the spread, elucidate, and preserve the teachings Christ. And yes copyists do have inerrancy, as long as their work is done as members and under the auspices of the Church. As individuals, they do not have that charism. Its nice to also believe that this is backed up by historical research.

OK friend, here is a problem:
We have two versions of the Vulgate, one constructed by scholars of, shall we say, literary archeaology, namely, the Stuttgart version, of Biblia sacra vulgata, and the Catholic version, namely, the Biblia Sacra Vulgata Clementina.
Here is a verse from each, with its translation, based on the Douay Rheims translation:
Mt. 21:31
Stuttgart:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris dicunt novissimus dicit illis Iesus amen dico vobis quia publicani et meretrices praecedunt vos in regno Dei

Which of the two did the father’s will? They say: The youngest. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall be, within the kingdom of God, before you.

Clementine:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris ? Dicunt ei : Primus. Dicit illis Jesus : Amen dico vobis, quia publicani et meretrices præcedent vos in regnum Dei.

Which of the two did the father’s will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.

The meaning of the verse as in the Clementine Latin is diametrically opposed to that in the Stuttgart.
The Stuttgart, however makes good sense in terms of Roman law, where, as now in military law, disobedience is a serious matter, whereas non-compliance is trivial. Also, the curse our Lord utters, therein, says not that publicans and harlots will enter heaven before the Pharisees, but that within the kingdom, they will sit in higher seats.
The Clementine Latin however, makes no sense in either case.

Yes, I am in agreement with you that errors accout for less than 3% of the text, making it better than 97% accurate, but these errors can, as given above, be significant, if not to faith, certainly to understanding.
I had already, in my work come to the conclusion that Matthew and John were better than 95% accurate.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I see you have done your research, but I guess I miss the point only a little less than you have.

Yes friend so I did.
However, my point was that what I scrubbed around with the word ‘random’, was meant to cover highlights of Our Lord’s utterances, and some of his astounding actions.
In terms of sequence, these were essentially random, though in terms of importance, they were not.
It is the very nature of the limited recording system, that only the most important of utterances or actions would be thereby reported ‘live’.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It is evidence and interpretation there of informed and enlightened by faith. That is encompassing the fullness of reality, is it not?

I’m sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.

 

[yugnok]

OK friend, here is a problem:
We have two versions of the Vulgate, one constructed by scholars of, shall we say, literary archeaology, namely, the Stuttgart version, of Biblia sacra vulgata, and the Catholic version, namely, the Biblia Sacra Vulgata Clementina.
Here is a verse from each, with its translation, based on the Douay Rheims translation:
Mt. 21:31
Stuttgart:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris dicunt novissimus dicit illis Iesus amen dico vobis quia publicani et meretrices praecedunt vos in regno Dei

Which of the two did the father’s will? They say: The youngest. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall be, within the kingdom of God, before you.

Clementine:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris ? Dicunt ei : Primus. Dicit illis Jesus : Amen dico vobis, quia publicani et meretrices præcedent vos in regnum Dei.

Which of the two did the father’s will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.

The meaning of the verse as in the Clementine Latin is diametrically opposed to that in the Stuttgart.
The Stuttgart, however makes good sense in terms of Roman law, where, as now in military law, disobedience is a serious matter, whereas non-compliance is trivial. Also, the curse our Lord utters, therein, says not that publicans and harlots will enter heaven before the Pharisees, but that within the kingdom, they will sit in higher seats.
The Clementine Latin however, makes no sense in either case.

Yes, I am in agreement with you that errors accout for less than 3% of the text, making it better than 97% accurate, but these errors can, as given above, be significant, if not to faith, certainly to understanding.
I had already, in my work come to the conclusion that Matthew and John were better than 95% accurate.

You are comparing two translations in Latin. I was refering to Greek manuscripts. I was saying that the reconstructed manuscripts are 97% accurate in the sense of 97% recounstructed–not in the sense that they are 3% erroneously copied. And, any copyist errors were deemed small to the point of insignificance – even by many of those scholars that would like to discredit the Bible.

You are now raising another point which is how do we know that our translations are reliable. The Church is the Divinely appointed authority on such matters (appointed by Jesus). But, I am not aware of any translators (Catholic, atheist, or whatever) that would honestly translate parts of the Greek New Testament that would alter the authors’ expressed meaning in speaking of the serious sinful nature of homosexual acts.

 

[blessedtoo]

homosexual behaviour delineated by their abnormal psyches,

First of all, you continue to make claims that have not been supported scientifically. There is still PLENTY of debate on the actual “causes” of homosexuality. If you want to do a stat battle, I am sure we could all come up with plenty of links supporting our own sides. I am curious how you can continue to refer to “abnormal psyches” when homosexuality as a disorder of any kind was removed from the DSM many decades ago. Do you still adhere to the “metal disorder” concept?