Sexual diversity, God's design, and the Catholic explanation

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sexual diversity? Over 99.9% of human beings are born genetically male or female. An intersex condition is a rare genetic defect. Male or female are the default categories for human beings. As to sexual practices and sexual preferences, those are all over the map, but those are preferences and learned behaviors, not biological categories.:

The Church doesn’t necessarily take a literal view of Genesis. It does take a literal view of biology–human beings are male and female.
The “Blue Prints” for the human being includes 2 eyes that function, 2 ears that function, sexual capacities and biology designed to mate with the opposite sex to produce a child, and so forth. For various reasons, not all understood, humans coming off the “production line” may vary from the Blue Print. It is weird thinking to encounter a person who deviates from the Blue Print and argue that there is no deviation, but rather compliance with a different model of the Blue Print. The simpler explanation - something went wrong - is the more rational course.
 
The “Blue Prints” for the human being includes 2 eyes that function, 2 ears that function, sexual capacities and biology designed to mate with the opposite sex to produce a child, and so forth. For various reasons, not all understood, humans coming off the “production line” may vary from the Blue Print. It is weird thinking to encounter a person who deviates from the Blue Print and argue that there is no deviation, but rather compliance with a different model of the Blue Print. The simpler explanation - something went wrong - is the more rational course.
I agree. It is rational and honest.

Ed
 
Do you think what I mentioned in my post earlier makes sense? Do you see my dilemma? I think you grasp my understanding that evolution is a natural process among other natural factors that God built-in to the universe. And these natural processes allow for disease and disorder.

What do you think about all this?
I still am not sure if I completely understand your objection. Are you saying that the Church’s use of the Genesis creation story as a basis for its teachings on sexuality doesn’t allow for a proper explination of the sexually related variances we see today?
 
I still am not sure if I completely understand your objection. Are you saying that the Church’s use of the Genesis creation story as a basis for its teachings on sexuality doesn’t allow for a proper explination of the sexually related variances we see today?
Though I have trouble accepting and understanding that the Fall causes such variances, party due to what I am about to say, I want to focus on the basic principles underlying the Catholic understanding of the Fall’s introduction of physical evils in the human world…

The traditional Catholic narrative states that the Fall introduced evil introduced physical evils (and moral evils) into the human world. This would mean that it was the Fall that brought about human diseases, sickness, and disordered conditions.

However, this explanation seems awkward and out-of-place in that accepting this view would be to say that the first humans were placed in a world that already included natural processes, such as biological evolution, that renders a Universe imperfect and corruptible. When we especially consider biological evolution and related processes, we have to recognize the features built into nature that allow for imperfections, sicknesses, and disease. For example, consider animals before the fall. I do not think anyone honestly open to scientific evidence would say that animals did not feel pain or get sick before the fall. Or that poisonous spiders and snakes did not exist. Or even destructive natural forces like earthquakes and storms.

The gist of what I’m saying is that the natural properties that allow for sickness and disorders in humans (such as Down Syndrome, same-sex attraction, or anything you want to consider destructive to a creature’s well-being) have always been built-into nature as part of our Universe.

The basic dilemma then becomes: Why a world set up like this, in the first place? Why place humanity in a world that consists of natural processes that allow for disease, destruction, and disorder? It does not make much sense to me to say God made a world like that but desired to alter how humans particularly experience that world (with divine protections, for example). We know that one day, in a New Heaven and Earth, there will not be natural processes with the same effects. Why, then, create a Universe at first with these effects? Why place Man in such a universe?
 
Why do you accept the scientific consensus here:
I do not think anyone honestly open to scientific evidence would say that animals did not feel pain or get sick before the fall.
But then deny the scientific consensus here:
We know that one day, in a New Heaven and Earth, there will not be natural processes with the same effects.
There is no scientific evidence of a new heaven and a new earth, or that it would be devoid of natural processes. Any scientist would say there is no scientific evidence that Jesus miracles were real. They would also say Jesus did not rise from the dead as that’s scientifically impossible.

Wouldn’t you agree that we need to be careful listening to scientists (and double check their interpretation of the scientific evidence)? To blindly follow them would be to deny Jesus ever resurrected from the dead.

Scientists don’t always get things right. They’re fallible human beings and their interpretation of the scientific evidence (such as the fossil record) is fallible.
 
Why do you accept the scientific consensus here:

But then deny the scientific consensus here:

There is no scientific evidence of a new heaven and a new earth, or that it would be devoid of natural processes. Any scientist would say there is no scientific evidence that Jesus miracles were real. They would also say Jesus did not rise from the dead as that’s scientifically impossible.

Wouldn’t you agree that we need to be careful listening to scientists (and double check their interpretation of the scientific evidence)? To blindly follow them would be to deny Jesus ever resurrected from the dead.

Scientists don’t always get things right. They’re fallible human beings and their interpretation of the scientific evidence (such as the fossil record) is fallible.
Science has nothing to say about heaven. Science does not make assertions about things outside its domain.
 
Temporally, the new earth isn’t here yet. As such, it cannot be investigated by science.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top