M
Moore11
Guest
GM Foods.
- Status
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
Nice try, but no I am not presupposing that. Your understanding is false and misdirected.
I am merely demonstrating with examples that there are many behaviors that occur in nature that we do not approve of. Why then, must we approve of a behavior solely because it can be found in nature? That is what I assert.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Just because someone doesn’t choose something doesn’t mean that it’s genetic. Statics show that most Pedophiles were themselves victims of pedophilia. They didn’t choose to be sexually attracted to children, but the evidence shows that social factors were involved in their disordered attraction. The same principle applies to homosexual attraction especially since there is no such thing as a “gay gene”.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Poseidon,
OK. Now do you have an objective reference for this so-called ‘well-established fact’? Your process of elimination is really begging the question because you are trying to establish your position as the answer.
Just show me the documentation.
God bless
OK. Now do you have an objective reference for this so-called ‘well-established fact’? Your process of elimination is really begging the question because you are trying to establish your position as the answer.
Just show me the documentation.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Bri89,
Take a minute and re-read what you wrote.
Dismissing another’s argument because it conflicts with your particular view of reality is hardly conducive to discourse. So, take a look at some objective data that does not really involve the Catholic Church or any other group you want to dismiss for being ‘simplistic’ - let’s try the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
This group really is not into hunting for mystery genes - there is enough serious disease being spread to keep them quite busy.
Here are two links from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
cdc.gov/stdconference/200…STDGay2000.htm
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/index.htm
I am quite confident that there are no reliable references that claim that the homosexual life style is as healthy as the heterosexual life style. I am also quite confident that with our current President, if there really a ‘Gay Gene’ we would all know about on a daily basis.
God bless
Take a minute and re-read what you wrote.
Dismissing another’s argument because it conflicts with your particular view of reality is hardly conducive to discourse. So, take a look at some objective data that does not really involve the Catholic Church or any other group you want to dismiss for being ‘simplistic’ - let’s try the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
This group really is not into hunting for mystery genes - there is enough serious disease being spread to keep them quite busy.
Here are two links from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
cdc.gov/stdconference/200…STDGay2000.htm
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/index.htm
I am quite confident that there are no reliable references that claim that the homosexual life style is as healthy as the heterosexual life style. I am also quite confident that with our current President, if there really a ‘Gay Gene’ we would all know about on a daily basis.
God bless
B
buffalo
Guest
We should be especially careful there as we now know that the genome of the food we consume communicates with our own.
M
Moore11
Guest
It just gets old. GM is responsible for cancer, autism, global warming, the cubs not winning a series, and me getting older, sin, any bad thing anyone can think of. It is the go to excuse, and now homosexuality?
The GM food that I am involved in is intragenetic anyway. Meaning it is using the genes from one variety of a crop into another. Just a more complicated version of cross breeding. In reality, GM products can work to help the world’s problems, like drought resistance, disease resistance, and more productivity per acre. And with the extreme times we live in regarding government regulation and approval, you can be assured that anything you consume that is a GM product has gone through more regulation than any sort of pesticide did 20 years ago.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
So, how exact are the tools for genetic insertion?It just gets old. GM is responsible for cancer, autism, global warming, the cubs not winning a series, and me getting older, sin, any bad thing anyone can think of. It is the go to excuse, and now homosexuality?
M
Moore11
Guest
It is exact because it is rare. By that I mean it is dang hard to genetically modify in a natural way. Lets say you have an onion (one of the easiest to modify) and you want to make that onion have a trait that another onion has, say, less acrylimide when fried. So the goal is to take a species that has less cancer causing agents when fried and put that into the one that is commonly fried without altering the taste. You cannot just breed it in. So you expose thousands of plants and maybe 20 get the gene, then from that you breed those 20.
No gene has been “created” no non onion parts are there. It is all onion and safe. This is not common GM but it is what I am involved with. There are some GM processes that are more complicated and less natural.
One of the most famous GM products was the “roundup ready” gene in crops such as corn. This little invention is one of the reasons you dont have to eat DDT anymore when you buy corn.
And to stay on topic. No one has ever eaten any onion and then slept with the same sex because of it. Though to be honest and to disclose everything I do work with several homosexual people. But I also work with many eastern people as well so maybe a study should be done.
Come to think of it many of my coworkers commit a ton of sexual sins. We may be on to something here. If we can isolate the chastity gene, or any sinful gene, and modify a banana to have an agent that destroys the premarital sex gene in people, we can eradicate sin from the world!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Moore11,
That was an interesting cause-and-effect sequencing you did there …
Ah, but if the mere presence of non-sexual type GM activities leads some to vandalism (bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18140957) I can only image the furor of a new ‘green reveolution’ that would take off if premarital sex was somehow even suspected of being modified out! 
There there is that pesky ‘free will’ gene … who knows what will be next?!
God bless
That was an interesting cause-and-effect sequencing you did there …
Ah, but if the mere presence of non-sexual type GM activities leads some to vandalism (bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18140957) I can only image the furor of a new ‘green reveolution’ that would take off if premarital sex was somehow even suspected of being modified out! There there is that pesky ‘free will’ gene … who knows what will be next?!God bless
It is exact because it is rare. By that I mean it is dang hard to genetically modify in a natural way. Lets say you have an onion (one of the easiest to modify) and you want to make that onion have a trait that another onion has, say, less acrylimide when fried. So the goal is to take a species that has less cancer causing agents when fried and put that into the one that is commonly fried without altering the taste. You cannot just breed it in. So you expose thousands of plants and maybe 20 get the gene, then from that you breed those 20.
No gene has been “created” no non onion parts are there. It is all onion and safe. This is not common GM but it is what I am involved with. There are some GM processes that are more complicated and less natural.
One of the most famous GM products was the “roundup ready” gene in crops such as corn. This little invention is one of the reasons you dont have to eat DDT anymore when you buy corn.
And to stay on topic. No one has ever eaten any onion and then slept with the same sex because of it. Though to be honest and to disclose everything I do work with several homosexual people. But I also work with many eastern people as well so maybe a study should be done.
Come to think of it many of my coworkers commit a ton of sexual sins. We may be on to something here. If we can isolate the chastity gene, or any sinful gene, and modify a banana to have an agent that destroys the premarital sex gene in people, we can eradicate sin from the world!
M
Moore11
Guest
Yes, terrorism is a concern. Most of these types are the gaia worshiping types you would expect. Ignorance and fear are rampant. Alas, wouldn’t it be awesome if people would put half as much effort into faith as they do these causes.Hi, Moore11,
That was an interesting cause-and-effect sequencing you did there …
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Poseidon,
Were you able to find any of those ‘well-established fact’ you were talking about?
I was really waiting… but not for long.
Seriously, there is so much nonsense that tries to pass itself off as a ‘well-established facts’ that unless there are efforts at serious documentation to validate statements we just wind up chasing shadows. This is a very serious issue and one that deserves more than cliches.
So, it is time to put up or move on.
God bless
Were you able to find any of those ‘well-established fact’ you were talking about?
I was really waiting…
but not for long.Seriously, there is so much nonsense that tries to pass itself off as a ‘well-established facts’ that unless there are efforts at serious documentation to validate statements we just wind up chasing shadows. This is a very serious issue and one that deserves more than cliches.
So, it is time to put up or move on.
God bless
M
meme1961
Guest
You are right, it is not sinful to be born with the temptation of same sex attraction, nor is it sinful to be born with pedophiliac tendencies, nor to be born a man (the vast majority of whom will be sorely tempted to engage in all kinds of sexual impurity, whether heterosexual or homosexual).
It is, however, a sin to engage in homosexual acts, to molest children, or to engage in fornication, masturbation, adultery and rape.
All of the above sinful acts are “natural”, in the sense that they can be performed, but they are also immoral. It is a mistake to equate “possible”, with “moral”. If there were no difference between “possible”, and “moral”, then there would be no use for sentience, the gift of reason, or free will.
Thus what the Church teaches is not that the temptation is immoral, but that succumbing to and engaging in the acts are immoral.
Hope that clears it up.
M
meme1961
Guest
There is strong evidence that pedophiles are hardwired “that way” too.
To test your reasoning: if being “hardwired” that way makes the desires people have automatically moral, would pedophilia then be moral if the above-cited evidence turns into proof?
As a man, I’m “hard-wired” to seek to spread my genes out as widely as possible. Does this then justify fornication, adultery and rape?
I would assert this quite strongly:
“A desire to perform an action does not prove that said action is morally right.”
Would you disagree?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Voctor,Does that change how we have to look at homosexuals?
The way it would appear to me is that if homosexuality is genetic, then it is not chosen or caused by outside factors. Would that mean that God has made someone gay? And if so, does that mean we have to acknowledge that homosexuality is natural, since how could we question the intentions of God if he chooses to make people gay?
Edit: I don’t intend to make all my posts here about homosexuality. Just an issue that has raised a lot of questions concerning my faith.
This is not sensible. What if? You are taking XX and XY and suggesting that within that mess of Deoxyribonucleic acid there is something that orders or disorders sexual orientation. I cannot and will not fathom that.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
S
Shacoria
Guest
Even if that gene exists it would not change the Catholic Church’s teachings at all. The Catholic Church acknowledges that many people have homosexual attraction, why they have it is unimportant. They have it. They, of course, don’t choose to have it. That doesn’t make it any less wrong. I have heterosexual attraction and I didn’t choose to have it, but it’s still wrong for me to fornicate. It’s also wrong for a homosexual to fornicate. Fornication is a sin, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. Sex should only take place inside of a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, there should be no homosexual sex. However, we must always remember to treat those with homosexual attraction with compassion(as the catechism says).
B
buffalo
Guest
We are all born with concupiscence.
M
meme1961
Guest
I commend you for not wanting to “blindly follow the teachings of the Magisterium.”You are right. I struggle with blindly observing the magesterium. I know they are guided by the Holy Spirit but I have a hard time accepting it because it goes against what I feel is right.
Indeed, you shouldn’t. What you should do to the best of your ability is to try to understand the reasoning behind the teachings of the Church. Catholicism is a religion of both faith and reason, and as such, when you devote yourself to studying it, you quickly realize that Church teaching is not just random statements designed to satisfy someone’s desire to exercise control over others, but instead, rational, reasonable, and provably true. Chesterton was not only right, he was VERY right: The teaching of the Catholic Church, by virtue of its truth, frees us, it does not constrain us.
I found my way to Holy Mother Church more as an act of reason, than one of faith. I started by falsifying Protestantism, then moved on to reject bodily those religions that require blind faith, continued by rejecting those non-Abrahamic religions that were either falsifiable as a whole, or that were reducible to “Man is God”, and ended up with really only one choice.
Catholicism. We have 2,000 years of not just Church teaching, but both philsophical and theological arguments to back up said teaching. I would strongly encourage you to pick out even just one drop of that vast ocean of reasoning, and study it.
Like all philosophies, of course, you must start with a set of basic axioms. There in lies the rub. Those axioms must be taken on faith, but this is true for Natural Philosophy, every branch of mathematics, and all philosophical arguments that don’t touch on theology.
Where natural law comes in is that, unlike mathematics or Natural Philosophy (science, basically), Church teaching is all-inclusive, dependent and complete, and thus provably true against and within those aspects that rest (depend on) the natural. The natural law argument against the oxymoronic concept of “gay marriage” is trivially easy to make, and were this an issue to be addressed solely by reason, this discussion would have been over before it began.
But it is in the fallen nature of man to create facile, emotionally powerful, but ultimately irrational “arguments” to support our desire to indulge in temptation. Been there, done it myself, so I’m very sympathetic.
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status