Scientific cause of homosexuality

[Wads42]

Sorry, none of my cousins swing from trees.

Actually they do still, Chimps and monkeys are our cousins. May I remind you that the Catholic Church accepts Evolution, even though they call it “Theistic Evolution”, and insert God and souls into it here nd there?

 

[Wads42]

God of Science is the Same as God of Faith.
Simply most of us see only one side of the coin and attack the other side as a foreign body…

No, you are commiting the logical fallacy of “Reification”. Science is not a “thing”,-it is a process of diiscovery of the natural world. If there is any “faith” involved, it is enthusiasm and hope that science will continue to advance our knowledge.

 

[Wads42]

If there was a scientific reason then identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. That has proven to not be the case. If there is no choice then why are there bisexuals? It’s the same for everyone, genetics, environment, parenting.

No, identical twins are not exact clones; they grow up in different environments which influences their preferences.

 

[Wads42]

Maybe my question was misunderstood so some clarification.

 - Homosexuality as in living a homosexual lifestyle not SSA
 - My point with sex being different from other things (my example was clothes) is that it would not be the same as a "food" gene because sex is on another plane then food. Sense well Pope John Paul II wrote a whole book, *Theology of the Body* on it (but not eating or clothes).
- Something causes the difference between hetero and homo sexuality and if it was ultimately determined by genes whether you had predominantly SSA feelings or OSA you can't really reverse that and it is not a choice, it is your sexual being something Pope John Paul II felt was important and emphasized with *Theology of the Body*.

Also from the why atheists sign up on CAF well I did it to learn others morals. Also some seem to think atheists sign up to just cause trouble, I know this is not a light topic so I would like to emphasize I am not trying to troll.

Quite; as another atheist I am not trying to be a trouible-maker, but simply to try and shed some light into the closeted lives of many unworldly Catholics… Though I suppose that is making trouble,-o dear!

 

[Tietjen]

Even though you dont want it, your cousins are swinging from trees by the thousands. You know facts do not depend on opinions.
Dont take at heart. St. Francis called Brother Wolf and Brother Sun and Sister Moon. We are created by God…

I don’t take at heart. I just don’t believe my relatives are chimps. As far as “facts not depending on opinions,” I await your facts proving that my family reunions are held in trees. But perhaps you can start a new thread to present the facts that man was originally created by God as an animal (without a soul) and then perhaps you’ll explain further the reason why today we still have chimps… if they “evolved” into humans (having souls) why did some of them not evolve and remain in the trees? Again… in a different thread.

 

[Tietjen]

Actually they do still, Chimps and monkeys are our cousins. May I remind you that the Catholic Church accepts Evolution, even though they call it “Theistic Evolution”, and insert God and souls into it here nd there?

You may. However, the Church does not specifically say that my cousins swing (or swung) in trees. And while the Church will agree with evolutionists that the Earth is older than 4,000 years old; it has not proclaimed that man started out as ameba or even as a chimp. In fact, the Church has not stated very much at all concerning the topic of my cousins swinging from trees. Ex cathedra or otherwise.

 

[friendster324]

In fact, the Church has not stated very much at all concerning the topic of my cousins swinging from trees. Ex cathedra or otherwise.

Sadly, you’re right. John Paul II stated that evolution “is more than an hypothesis,” but that really is the extent of the church’s statements. As most the Apologists on here say, “evolution is a matter for science, not faith.” Which doesn’t really answer the question…

As to your question about why there are still chimps if we evolved from them. We didn’t evolve from chimps. We have a common ancestor (neither human nor chimp) from which we both came.

 

[Nate13]

Sadly, you’re right. John Paul II stated that evolution “is more than an hypothesis,” but that really is the extent of the church’s statements. As most the Apologists on here say, “evolution is a matter for science, not faith.” Which doesn’t really answer the question…

As to your question about why there are still chimps if we evolved from them. We didn’t evolve from chimps. We have a common ancestor (neither human nor chimp) from which we both came.

Now I’m no great scientist here, but isn’t 4,000 years like an eye blink in evolutionary science? Human development seems to have a whole different pace of evolution than any other creature do we not?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No, you are commiting the logical fallacy of “Reification”. Science is not a “thing”,-it is a process of diiscovery of the natural world. If there is any “faith” involved, it is enthusiasm and hope that science will continue to advance our knowledge.

Reificantio? I never thought I was that importan…but I could not understand how I am am doing that. Please leaborate.
Who said science was a thing?
So, shall I imply that your faith is that God does not exist? You have faith that after death you will not encounter God? Please elaborate.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I don’t take at heart. I just don’t believe my relatives are chimps. As far as “facts not depending on opinions,” I await your facts proving that my family reunions are held in trees. But perhaps you can start a new thread to present the facts that man was originally created by God as an animal (without a soul) and then perhaps you’ll explain further the reason why today we still have chimps… if they “evolved” into humans (having souls) why did some of them not evolve and remain in the trees? Again… in a different thread.

I could put here the pictures of your cousins in trees but you may see them in the web?
Did I say that GOD DID not create the human soul? Where.
So that you may see what I think, God created, creates and will create each one of us. “each one of us” equals to each individual “me”. “me” is my soul. “Me” is created when a human spermatozoa joins the ovula. “Me” is created by God, at the image of God, is eternal and will not die when the body dies. “me” will meet His Creator after Death. “me” will join his body in the ressurrection of the dead, in the end of the world as stated in the creed.

That is why our cousins stayed in the trees. God did not, does not, and it seems, will not create a human,individual, imaterial, eternal soul for each one of them.

No, I reply here, because I dont want to follow orders. Second, the subject appeared here and you are not opening any thread. thrid, once I saw an information from a Moderator that this subject was delicate and so on and should be not talked about. Later on, another Moderator sais that this was not so and that it depended on the Moderators.

I know that in the Stated there are huge fights on the subject going the subject up to the courts. I do not want to enter in fights as I have no time, no patience for that. I just want plain discussion.

My view is inspired in Teillhard de Chardin.

 

[Wads42]

I don’t take at heart. I just don’t believe my relatives are chimps. As far as “facts not depending on opinions,” I await your facts proving that my family reunions are held in trees. if they “evolved” into humans (having souls) why did some of them not evolve and rema But perhaps you can start a new thread to present the facts that man was originally created by God as an animal (without a soul) and then perhaps you’ll explain further the reason why today we still have chimps… in in the trees? Again… in a different thread.

With respect, your beliefs do not matter. There are such things as facts concerning the natural world.
“My family reunions are held in trees”.
What does this mean? Your “family” covers the whole range of hominids and their ape cousins,-most of whom are now extinct. Evolution occurs throuhout deep time,-not all at once in the present moment. I think we have a case of severe cognitive disonnace here, which might possibly be remedied if you were to study Evolution and genetics.

You say:
“they “evolved” into humans (having souls) why did some of them not evolve and rema But perhaps you can start a new thread to present the facts that man was originally created by God as an animal (without a soul) and then perhaps you’ll explain further the reason why today we still have chimps… in in the trees? Again… in a different thread.”

The Catholic Church is not a Scientific Institute, and the Bible is not a scientific text-book. In natural science, “souls” are not recognised as existant or created by anyone. neither humans nor chimps have “souls”, so your question is meaningless.

The answer to your second questions is that evolution occurs mainly by cladogenesis, that is,–branching off from the original stock. Chimps remained in a jungle environment and continued evolution in one direction, but some of them moved to a different environment and became isolated from the main stock;-they interbred and random variations accumulated until they changed into what we to-day call humans. (Evolution is “descent with modification”). We have descended from a common ancestor and become modified so as to appear and behave quite different from modern Chimps. Try reading Darwin.
The reason why humans are different from their apish ancestors is the same reason that children are different from parents. You may as well be asking “If children exist, why are there still parents?”
Anyway, this is all proven; there is no argument. No faith is involved.
But I realize I am wasting my breath. The conflict is between Naturalism and Supernaturalis. The two are incompatible. Science and religion do not mix, except at a basic level where there is no conflict. Even a Christian can (perhaps) understand that two chemicals mixed together produce a different product, -without prayer, belief, or magic being involved,–just plain rational science.

 

[Wads42]

Reificantio? I never thought I was that importan…but I could not understand how I am am doing that. Please leaborate.
Who said science was a thing?
So, shall I imply that your faith is that God does not exist? You have faith that after death you will not encounter God? Please elaborate.

Reification is a common fallacy, and goes back to Plato. It muddles existing things with mere events and processes. That was the impression I received; maybe I was mistaken.
Plato was not a scientist either)

Furthur down in the thread, which I was coming to, but will comment on here,- you mention how you obtain your inspiration from Teilhard de Chardin. This is another case of a religious person attempring to air his views on scientific matters. I suggest you read Sir Peter Medawar’s comments on Teilhards “The Phenomen of Man”. They are much more inspiring as well as entertaining. Medawar was a real scientist and biologist.

 

[Wads42]

Sadly, you’re right. John Paul II stated that evolution “is more than an hypothesis,” but that really is the extent of the church’s statements. As most the Apologists on here say, “evolution is a matter for science, not faith.” Which doesn’t really answer the question"

I think it very much does. JPII is quite correcr, except that in his position he had to be guarded and cautious. Evolution is considerably more than a hypothesis, and is definitely a matter for Science, and none at all for Faith.
Why is “Faith” required when considering the massive evidence for Evolution?–the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, continental drift, molecular biology and gene sequencing, the use of actual evolution to genetically modify bacteria to produce useful drugs like Insulin, the observation that children are variants of their parents, and not clones of them,-and some others that I cannot think of at the moment.

 

[Wads42]

You may. However, the Church does not specifically say that my cousins swing (or swung) in trees. And while the Church will agree with evolutionists that the Earth is older than 4,000 years old; it has not proclaimed that man started out as ameba or even as a chimp. In fact, the Church has not stated very much at all concerning the topic of my cousins swinging from trees. Ex cathedra or otherwise.

I put it to you that the reason the Church does not pronounce on the topic of Amoebae or the common primate ancestors of what would eventually, over about 50 million years or so evolve into what we now label “Huiman” or “Chimp”, is because the Church is not a scientific academy and does not know anything about Evolutionary Biology. Why not leave science to the scientists? You are poaching upon territory that you do not understand.

As for conflicting threads about whether Evolution is a “delicate” subject for discussion or not,–I further put it to you and others here, that everything should be open to discussion, and nothing should be hidden.
Otherwise the Church might as well suppress all free scientific and philosophical enquiry, and restore the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Back to the Dark Ages?

 

[Tietjen]

I could put here the pictures of your cousins in trees but you may see them in the web?

Respectfully, I don’t understand your question.

Did I say that GOD DID not create the human soul? Where.

Straw man response since I did not say that you said that God did not create the human soul. What I said was that I do not hold to the view that God created man (who has an eternal soul) from animals (which do not have eternal souls). In other words, Chimps are animals without eternal souls agreed? You appear to be suggesting that God used evolution to create mankind (who has eternal souls) from creatures. If one holds that theory, the next step is to ask, “how did God create the monkeys? What sub-creature (also not having an eternal soul) was used to create them?” Eventually, (using the theory of evolution) one can take this process back all the way to single cell creatures and say that man is a direct descendant of bacteria and/or archaea. I have no problem with some aspects of evolution; however, that ends when it comes to one kingdom evolving into a different kingdom altogether. Members of the animal kingdom can share certain physical aspects, but an animal will remain an animal, a plant will remain a plant, bacteria will remain bacteria… they will not evolve into man no matter how many eons pass.

So that you may see what I think, God created, creates and will create each one of us. “each one of us” equals to each individual “me”. “me” is my soul. “Me” is created when a human spermatozoa joins the ovula. “Me” is created by God, at the image of God, is eternal and will not die when the body dies. “me” will meet His Creator after Death. “me” will join his body in the ressurrection of the dead, in the end of the world as stated in the creed.

And this I can agree on. However, you stated above that, “Me is created when a human [sperm] joins the [ovum].” Now, how did a male chimp get human sperm and a female chimp get a human ovum? By your statement, a human (“me”) requires human sperm and a human egg. At some point in the past, according to your theory, there must have been a male and female chimp walking around with these requirements and luckily they met.

That is why our cousins stayed in the trees. God did not, does not, and it seems, will not create a human,individual, imaterial, eternal soul for each one of them.

I apologize; I must have missed the explanation of how/why if chimps evolved into humans, why we still have chimps today.

No, I reply here, because I dont want to follow orders.

Okay, well for the record you and I are both technically pushing the line on the form rules then by posting off-topic posts. This isn’t supposed to be a thread on evolution as it relates to where man came from. For that reason, I will give in and should you decide to respond to this post, you may have the last word. I will not continue this discussion in this thread.

Second, the subject appeared here and you are not opening any thread.

Yes, it did appear here when you posted…

We are basically poligamists as our cousins monkeys and that does not make adultery, prostitution, poligamy any good…

Since my cousins are not monkeys, I wanted to possibly clear up the misunderstanding. Also, since I did not wish to discuss the subject of evolution, I did not create a new thread to do so. It is the responsibility of the one who wishes to discuss such a topic (your original post suggests that you wish this) to create the thread.

thrid, once I saw an information from a Moderator that this subject was delicate and so on and should be not talked about. Later on, another Moderator sais that this was not so and that it depended on the Moderators.

Generally, there is no problem discussing this topic. Assuming all parties are respectful and the topic is in the correct thread.

I know that in the Stated there are huge fights on the subject going the subject up to the courts. I do not want to enter in fights as I have no time, no patience for that. I just want plain discussion.

My view is inspired in Teillhard de Chardin.

Interesting since the 1950 encyclical Humani generis condemned several of Teilhard’s opinions. But enough is enough. I will concede that if you wish to believe that your cousins are chimps, you can do so. I will continue to believe that God created man from dust, breathed life into him and infused an eternal soul in him from creation forward. God bless.

 

[friendster324]

I apologize; I must have missed the explanation of how/why if chimps evolved into humans, why we still have chimps today.

I answered you in my previous post. We didn’t evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor (that is neither chimp nor human) which, over time, diverged enough to become separate species.

 

[LilyM]

So it’s ok for God to take inanimate matter (dust) and create from that inanimate matter an animate being (man) by breathing His spirit into it. Yet somehow it’s inconcievable that God create an animate but not immortally ensouled being (hominid primates) and fashion them into human beings by ensouling them with His own breath?

 

[Tietjen]

So it’s ok for God to take inanimate matter (dust) and create from that inanimate matter an animate being (man) by breathing His spirit into it. Yet somehow it’s inconcievable that God create an animate but not immortally ensouled being (hominid primates) and fashion them into human beings by ensouling them with His own breath?

Yes.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Reification is a common fallacy, and goes back to Plato. It muddles existing things with mere events and processes. That was the impression I received; maybe I was mistaken.
Plato was not a scientist either)

Furthur down in the thread, which I was coming to, but will comment on here,- you mention how you obtain your inspiration from Teilhard de Chardin. This is another case of a religious person attempring to air his views on scientific matters. I suggest you read Sir Peter Medawar’s comments on Teilhards “The Phenomen of Man”. They are much more inspiring as well as entertaining. Medawar was a real scientist and biologist.

Medawar is a scientist as Teilhard but Teilhard was also a master in Philosophy and a master in Theology.
Now, you may see the difference.
You did not answer my question: do you have faith that after death, there is nothing? “There is nothing” makes no sense, is there is then it it not nothing, if it is nothing then there is not “there is”. Well we must talk somehow !!!
So, after death, you just evaporate, no?

 

[Joe_5859]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

Welcome to CAF!

Whether or not the homosexual inclination is genetic, environmental, or a combination of the two has no bearing on the Catholic teaching whatsoever. Even if the causes are exclusively environmental, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the inclination is a “choice”.

We may not have control over our personality traits or inclinations, but we do have control over our actions. Sin is always a choice. That is why simply having a homosexual inclination is not a sin (even though it is disordered). It is the acts that are sinful.

Certainly, God may take into account the strength of our disordered dispositions in mitigating our personal culpability, but we don’t want to fall into the sin of presumption and assume that we can do as we please because God will forgive us anyway.

There are all sorts of dispositions people are “born” with that don’t give us a free pass to behave however we want. Some people are more quick-tempered. That doesn’t give them the right to be abusive. Some say that alcoholism is genetic. That doesn’t make it okay for those people to go out binge drinking.

We each have our crosses to bear. Some seem heavier than others. But God will give us the grace to persevere.