Is Homosexuality Genetic?

[buffalo]

I’ve tried but I can’t make sense of that statement.

I will try to clarify.

The Church alone is not absolute truth. The Church depends on Christ who is absolute truth. Because Christ (who is absolute truth) founded the Catholic Church He infused and protected it from error. Christ could not lie or deceive or sin. Whatever He did or taught or infused can only be truth. Therefore the church has the “fullness” of truth but is not absolute truth by itself. Make sense?

Now how do we tap into truth? We look to the Church to transmit it to us.

 

[thewalrus]

I will try to clarify.

The Church alone is not absolute truth. The Church depends on Christ who is absolute truth. Because Christ (who is absolute truth) founded the Catholic Church He infused and protected it from error. Christ could not lie or deceive or sin. Whatever He did or taught or infused can only be truth. Therefore the church has the “fullness” of truth but is not absolute truth by itself. Make sense?

Now how do we tap into truth? We look to the Church to transmit it to us.

Right, but the Church is made up of imperfect humans. If Christ’s truth must transmit through imperfect humans (as it did in Scripture), there is room for error.

 

[estesbob]

I’ve tried but I can’t make sense of that statement.

Probably because you do not want to accept as truth what they are teaching .

 

[thewalrus]

Probably because you do not want to accept as truth what they are teaching .

Yeah you got me, I’m just too stubborn. Lend me a hand if you get a chance.

 

[buffalo]

Right, but the Church is made up of imperfect humans. If Christ’s truth must transmit through imperfect humans (as it did in Scripture), there is room for error.

This is a great argument why the protestant idea of Sola Scriptura is wrong. Private interpretation is subject to error.

Christ knowing what you said is true set it up this way:

We need Tradition
We need Scripture
We need an authoritive interpreter and teacher called the Magisterium

The Magisterium is the defender of the deposit of faith. She does this communion with the Pope and Bishops together. So the Pope is our guy but He needs the Bishops.

The whole thing is akin to a three legged stool. The Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition are the legs. Take any one away and the stool topples.

God absolutely knew what He was doing. It really is pretty neat.

There isn’t a better system.

 

[estesbob]

Right, but the Church is made up of imperfect humans. If Christ’s truth must transmit through imperfect humans (as it did in Scripture), there is room for error.

However there is a three-pronged test the truth. It is supported by Scripture? It is supported by tradition? It is supported by the unchanging teachings of the magestrium?

Since we’re talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality in this thread it is evident that this passes all three requirements. If this teaching is wrong that means that 4000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings have been in error. If that is true then Catholic Church is a farce and we can trust absolutely nothing it teaches.

We simply cannot pick and choose what teachings are correct. Either they are all correct or all are suspect. And if we examine ourselves closely we will find out that the teachings we have the most problems with our teachings that go against the way we want to live our lives-at least I know that is the way it is in my case.

 

[thewalrus]

This is a great argument why the protestant idea of Sola Scriptura is wrong. Private interpretation is subject to error.

Christ knowing what you said is true set it up this way:

We need Tradition
We need Scripture
We need an authoritive interpreter and teacher called the Magisterium

The Magisterium is the defender of the deposit of faith. She does this communion with the Pope and Bishops together. So the Pope is our guy but He needs the Bishops.

The whole thing is akin to a three legged stool. The Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition are the legs. Take any one away and the stool topples.

God absolutely knew what He was doing. It really is pretty neat.

There isn’t a better system.

Well, I’m certainly not saying the Protestants are any better about this issue. I just think Catholics are in the same boat - either way humans have to transmit the teachings of Christ, which means there’s imperfection that will occur.

 

[thewalrus]

However there is a three-pronged test the truth. It is supported by Scripture? It is supported by tradition? It is supported by the unchanging teachings of the magestrium?

Since we’re talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality in this thread it is evident that this passes all three requirements. If this teaching is wrong that means that 4000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings have been in error. If that is true then Catholic Church is a farce and we can trust absolutely nothing it teaches.

We simply cannot pick and choose what teachings are correct. Either they are all correct or all are suspect. And if we examine ourselves closely we will find out that the teachings we have the most problems with our teachings that go against the way we want to live our lives-at least I know that is the way it is in my case.

Well, the last statement works both ways. I can easily say you are just justifying the way you want the world to be.

Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium are all ways humans transmit truth. There’s error in all of them. I’ve never bought into the “it all must be true or none of it’s true” argument. It seems way too easy to be accurate. Regardless, I don’t think Scripture addresses homosexuality as we know it. Scripture must be read contextually. But yes, humans have made mistakes that thousands of years later were revealed to be so.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I’m certainly not saying the Protestants are any better about this issue. I just think Catholics are in the same boat - either way humans have to transmit the teachings of Christ, which means there’s imperfection that will occur.

No - as you can see the Catholic faith has the “fullness of truth”. The protestant system is derailed and will completely fail over time. The protestants will once again be Catholic. It’s happening now.

Our language is imperfect. We have trouble communicating with each other all the time. Some renderings of Latin to English have been insufficient. Over time they are adjusted.

All this is true.

The Catholic Church does its best.

Christ added one more thing to this whole mix. We know it as the Holy Spirit as the guarantor of truth. Jesus assured us that He would not let the Church fall into error. The track record for 2,000 years is pretty good don’t ya think?

 

[thewalrus]

No - as you can see the Catholic faith has the “fullness of truth”. The protestant system is derailed and will completely fail over time. The protestants will once again be Catholic. It’s happening now.

Our language is imperfect. We have trouble communicating with each other all the time. Some renderings of Latin to English have been insufficient. Over time they are adjusted.

All this is true.

The Catholic Church does its best.

Christ added one more thing to this whole mix. We know it as the Holy Spirit as the guarantor of truth. Jesus assured us that He would not let the Church fall into error. The track record for 2,000 years is pretty good don’t ya think?

Actually, I don’t see anything. I’m really not concerned with the Catholic/Protestant battle. But the way language works, there is no perfect correspondence. Study some linguistic theory and you’ll see what I mean.

But the answer to your last question is no, I don’t think the track record has been very good.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, I don’t see anything. I’m really not concerned with the Catholic/Protestant battle. But the way language works, there is no perfect correspondence. Study some linguistic theory and you’ll see what I mean.

But the answer to your last question is no, I don’t think the track record has been very good.

OK - I have done the best I could to show you how it works.

 

[estesbob]

Well, the last statement works both ways. I can easily say you are just justifying the way you want the world to be. [/qipte]

Except for the fact that I am embracing the way the church’s has taught things consistently for the last 2000 years. You are going to have to give me a lot better reason than your personal opinion as to why should turn my back on this

Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium are all ways humans transmit truth. There’s error in all of them. I’ve never bought into the “it all must be true or none of it’s true” argument. It seems way too easy to be accurate. Regardless, I don’t think Scripture addresses homosexuality as we know it. Scripture must be read contextually. But yes, humans have made mistakes that thousands of years later were revealed to be so.

 

[thewalrus]

OK - I have done the best I could to show you how it works.

buffalo, I appreciate it. I do understand how it works theoretically; I’m just saying I don’t think it works practically.

 

[thewalrus]

Except for the fact that I am embracing the way the church’s has taught things consistently for the last 2000 years. You are going to have to give me a lot better reason than your personal opinion as to why should turn my back on this

Is only been within the last 30 or 40 years that man decided that the Scripture verses on homosexuality should be reinterpreted. And they did it backwards. They decided that homosexuality was okay and then went to Scripture to try to justify it. And it has led to absolutely absurd interpretations starting with the idea that God would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because Lot wouldn’t invite strangers in for dinner.

That is why is important that we not let our culture determine the truth. If there is absolute truth it does not change.

Most biblical scholars agree that the Sodom and Gomorrah passage concerns the issue of hospitality, not homosexuality. I’m sorry that they disagree with you but I’m siding with them.

If you don’t want culture to determine the truth, then maybe you should consider changing your mind, because culture has determined this particular “truth” for far too long. It’s time for the Church to speak truthfully towards this issue. I am glad that more and more Christians are coming around on it. There was one person on this forum who did the other day and it made me proud.

 

[estesbob]

Most biblical scholars agree that the Sodom and Gomorrah passage concerns the issue of hospitality, not homosexuality. I’m sorry that they disagree with you but I’m siding with them.

Find me any Biblical scholar prior to 50 years ago who intepreted it this way. You assertion . BTW, that “most” biblical scholars beleive this is false. it is a very small minority all of whom have bought into the 'homosexual rights" agenda.
.

If you don’t want culture to determine the truth, then maybe you should consider changing your mind, because culture has determined this particular “truth” for far too long. It’s time for the Church to speak truthfully towards this issue. I am glad that more and more Christians are coming around on it. There was one person on this forum who did the other day and it made me proud.

The truths entrusted to the Church have stood steadfast for 2,000 years and have prospered through inumerable cultures. The church is speaking truthfully but since the truth interferes with the way you want to live your life you reject it. And if the church did come around to accept your version of the truth why would we trust anything it says. ?

 

[thewalrus]

Find me any Biblical scholar prior to 50 years ago who intepreted it this way. You assertion . BTW, that “most” biblical scholars beleive this is false. it is a very small minority all of whom have bought into the 'homosexual rights" agenda.

I’m sure I can do that but I’m at work right now and do not have access to the source I think would have it. But just for curiosity sake, why do you think people in 1950 were smarter than in 2009? If you’re an anti-intellectual who believes the “liberals” in the academy have infected things blah blah blah then I need to go no further with this conversation. If you want to have a reasonable conversation that’s not all “liberals” are evil stuff, then let’s go with it.

The truths entrusted to the Church have stood steadfast for 2,000 years and have prospered through inumerable cultures. The church is speaking truthfully but since the truth interferes with the way you want to live your life you reject it. And if the church did come around to accept your version of the truth why would we trust anything it says. ?

I understand that you and others have a need to see the Church as perfect. I do not share that view. I support the Church and hope it does well, honestly, but I have seen it fail too many times to be considered perfect, or even close. Again, that’s my opinion. No need to quote magisterial teaching at me. If the church comes around and accepts “my version of the truth,” well, it’ll make me happy for my friends and all those who have waited for equal rights for far too long. I can assure you I’ll take no credit in the matter. I’ll just be happy for them and proud of the Church for doing what’s right, despite its past shortcomings. Humility sometimes requires admitting mistakes. I believe it would help the Church’s credibility tremendously and not hurt it at all.

 

[estesbob]

I’m sure I can do that but I’m at work right now and do not have access to the source I think would have it. But just for curiosity sake, why do you think people in 1950 were smarter than in 2009? If you’re an anti-intellectual who believes the “liberals” in the academy have infected things blah blah blah then I need to go no further with this conversation. If you want to have a reasonable conversation that’s not all “liberals” are evil stuff, then let’s go with it.

Why do you think that people in 2009 are wiser than all those who went before them? What new insight did theses Biblical scholars have that eluded everyone who read scripture for the past 2000 years??

I understand that you and others have a need to see the Church as perfect. I do not share that view. I support the Church and hope it does well, honestly, but I have seen it fail too many times to be considered perfect, or even close. Again, that’s my opinion. No need to quote magisterial teaching at me. If the church comes around and accepts “my version of the truth,” well, it’ll make me happy for my friends and all those who have waited for equal rights for far too long. I can assure you I’ll take no credit in the matter. I’ll just be happy for them and proud of the Church for doing what’s right, despite its past shortcomings. Humility sometimes requires admitting mistakes. I believe it would help the Church’s credibility tremendously and not hurt it at all.

I have yet to see you show us anywhere the Chruch has failed. Rejecting your version of the truth is not failure.Again i ask why would anyone trust anything a Church teaches if it makes a 180 degree turn on a 4,000 year old moral teaching? If they were wrong about homosexuality how can i trust them on the assertion Jesus rose form the dead? How can i trust them on the assertion Jesus was the son of God?

As far as to whether those who engage in homosexual behavior have equal rights we have can leave that for another thread.

 

[Arandur]

Right, but the Church is made up of imperfect humans. If Christ’s truth must transmit through imperfect humans (as it did in Scripture), there is room for error.

Are you saying that the imperfect humans who were Divinely Inspired to write Scripture wrote in errors?

I support the Church and hope it does well, honestly, but I have seen it fail too many times to be considered perfect, or even close.

Does “well” in what way?
“Failed” how?
What do you mean by “perfect?” The Church guards and transmits the Truth. Its members fail frequently to do so well, or even to practice that Truth. No Catholic that I know of would ever suggest that Catholics act perfectly. But the core infallible teachings are perfect, and necessarily so. Just what yo mean by “perfect” matters because the Church only bears that gift in a limited respect, that respect which is in fact Divine in origin.

I believe it would help the Church’s credibility tremendously and not hurt it at all.

Has the Anglican/Episcopalian church gained credibility for promoting gay marriage and lifestyles?

Truth is not relative, so your “version” by which you judge the Church really has no bearing on the actual Truth by which the Church is judged.

 

[thewalrus]

Why do you think that people in 2009 are wiser than all those who went before them? What new insight did theses Biblical scholars have that eluded everyone who read scripture for the past 2000 years??

I do not think they are necessarily wiser. They do have an advantage at times, however, because they can build on previous scholarship. But to answer your earlier question, Derrick Sherwin Bailey wrote a book called “Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition” that was first published in 1955. He documents quite convincingly the tradition of how the Church came to interpret the Sodom story to be about homosexuality. It’s a fascinating and compelling read and I commend it to you.

I have yet to see you show us anywhere the Chruch has failed. Rejecting your version of the truth is not failure.Again i ask why would anyone trust anything a Church teaches if it makes a 180 degree turn on a 4,000 year old moral teaching? If they were wrong about homosexuality how can i trust them on the assertion Jesus rose form the dead? How can i trust them on the assertion Jesus was the son of God?

As far as to whether those who engage in homosexual behavior have equal rights we have can leave that for another thread.

Well, this is beyond the scope of this thread but I feel that the Church has failed on a number of things: The Crusades, the Jewish Ghettos, the Holocaust, civil rights of African Americans, etc. There’s plenty of literature documenting the Church’s direct and indirect involvement in these and others. Trust me, it’s not hard to find. The Catholic Church’s relationship to Jews alone has been downright shameful. You can start with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s “A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.” Disturbing stuff. So yes, I have no problem critiquing the Church at any point. It seems that you need some kind of foundationalism for you to feel secure in your faith. I do not need that. So, you can keep calling this “your version of the truth” all you want, I’m cool with that. But it might serve you better to think through the issues.

 

[thewalrus]

Are you saying that the imperfect humans who were Divinely Inspired to write Scripture wrote in errors?

Of course, like you said, they were imperfect humans. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.

Does “well” in what way?
“Failed” how?
What do you mean by “perfect?” The Church guards and transmits the Truth. Its members fail frequently to do so well, or even to practice that Truth. No Catholic that I know of would ever suggest that Catholics act perfectly. But the core infallible teachings are perfect, and necessarily so. Just what yo mean by “perfect” matters because the Church only bears that gift in a limited respect, that respect which is in fact Divine in origin.

See what I wrote above in response to estesbob on this issue.

Has the Anglican/Episcopalian church gained credibility for promoting gay marriage and lifestyles?

Truth is not relative, so your “version” by which you judge the Church really has no bearing on the actual Truth by which the Church is judged.

I think the Anglican/Episcopalian church has absolutely gained credibility. If you mean “has it gained credibility from conservative churches?” then of course not. But credibility from those outside the church like me? You bet, my friend.

Well, I know of many people in the Church who are willing to listen to those on the outside as they believe it is a humble exercise in the faith. If you think my little truth has nothing to say to Big Truth, then, well, keep on truckin’…