lol, your representation of my views in this post are hilarious. I said morally I see nothing wrong with a guy having sex with his dad. If both are adults, it is definitely odd, definitely disordered, but nothing about it (IMO) is intrinsically wrong. I was saying that in terms of what is natural and what is not, homosexuality is just as natural as chosen celibacy. I don’t think either are morally wrong.It is interesting to see what occurs when one basesmorality on their personal discernment of what is right. One poster sees nothing immoral about a father having sex with his adult son but thinks there’s something disordered about lifetime celibacy while another sees nothing wrong with having sex with 30 different partners since he was married and believes the only problem is that people don’t realize that sex is just sex…
I think I will stick with the Judeo-Christian version of morality.
We have established natural sexual urges are for a man and a woman to have relations. You yourself have agreed to this. Chosen celibacy is not going against this nature (i.e. perverting it), but simply controlling it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is expressly opposite this nature, making it unnatural. And even if you don’t think either are morally wrong, you have yet to express a moral code supporting homosexual sex, outside of religion, other than ‘what you think is right and wrong,’ which is a combination of the Golden Rule (seen throughout most religions, including Christianity) and hedonism.I was saying that in terms of what is natural and what is not, homosexuality is just as natural as chosen celibacy. I don’t think either are morally wrong.
You really think there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a father having sex with his son? Wow. I think this is the point where I unsubscribe from this thread. This argument is ridiculous. And, homosexuality is not “just as natural as chosen celibacy.” It would be truer to say that homosexuality is as natural as beastiality. Neither are natural, of course. If you and your brethren are too sexually perverse to comprehend some one making a choice to simply not have sex with anybody, then I’m very sorry for you. I tried to be kind and respectful to you in my previous posts, but you are just talking nonsense at this point. I now leave this discussion with the following points:lol, your representation of my views in this post are hilarious. I said morally I see nothing wrong with a guy having sex with his dad. If both are adults, it is definitely odd, definitely disordered, but nothing about it (IMO) is intrinsically wrong. I was saying that in terms of what is natural and what is not, homosexuality is just as natural as chosen celibacy. I don’t think either are morally wrong.
Though I agree with most other things you have said, remember that, though unnatural and perverse (in the true definition, not the insulting way), homosexuality itself is not immoral or sinful, but committing homosexual actions is (just like having premarital sexual relations).
- Homosexuality is not natural. It is perverse and immoral. It is a sin.
Absolutely. I agree with everything you just said. What you clarified is indeed what I meant. Thanks.Though I agree with most other things you have said, remember that, though unnatural and perverse (in the true definition, not the insulting way), homosexuality itself is not immoral or sinful, but committing homosexual actions is (just like having premarital sexual relations).
I’m sure this is what you intended, I just wanted to clarify (and hopefully not step on your toes) so it isn’t another nitpicking point.
Well, to be honest, I don’t really think that homosexuality is unnatural. If homosexuality was actually unnatural then people that are gay and didn’t want to be gay would just change. Obviously that doesn’t happen.We have established natural sexual urges are for a man and a woman to have relations. You yourself have agreed to this. Chosen celibacy is not going against this nature (i.e. perverting it), but simply controlling it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is expressly opposite this nature, making it unnatural. And even if you don’t think either are morally wrong, you have yet to express a moral code supporting homosexual sex, outside of religion, other than ‘what you think is right and wrong,’ which is a combination of the Golden Rule (seen throughout most religions, including Christianity) and hedonism.
To be honest I think there likely is some sort of God or life force in the universe connecting all of us. I think it is too complex to comprehend and I don’t think any religion has a grasp on it…but if I had to pick one religion that likely had the best grasp on the concept of God, it would be Hinduism (and I think Buddhism has the best moral system and blueprint on how to be a better person).Here’s the problem with hypotheticals to begin with. Bingbang, you can continue to change your hypothetical because it was your creation, and you have eventually shaped it and ruled out our arguments as we present them as ‘not being in line’ with what you wanted.
Ultimately, you got to the point that you wanted to focus on the Church being wrong. So why homosexuality? Why not just ask about if the Church were wrong? We went about answering why it couldn’t be wrong, thus making your hypothetical moot.
A hypothetical isn’t out there to discuss any idea a person may have. If that were the case, I could come up with the hypothetical “What if Bingbang isn’t married with a son - what if he is a freshman philosophy major having doubts about God and feels anti-religious, so he wants to start an argument he doesn’t really care about with people who are sure in their faith?” Now, I do not believe that statement, in any part or in the aggregate, but it is a hypothetical that could reasonably be discussed.
Now, I’m not speaking for you, but my human experience has shown me that a person in that situation would likely try to dispel the possibility of that statement, ultimately proving it impossible. Yes, you may dabble in the ‘what if’ nature, but the overall zero probability of the matter occurring would prevail as the main point of discussion. This is the way myself (and seemingly many others) view this thread. We have attempted to prove (and I believe we have quite thoroughly) that homosexual sex is immoral, unnatural, and non-beneficial to society - I won’t go so far as to say it is detrimental, but it surely does not assist it.
So if this isn’t what you’re looking for, please be straight forward. Get down to the point of the matter and let us have a real debate about it. If you are now ‘having doubts’ about the existence of God, please explain why and let’s get to the root of the matter.
I believe that all can agree that it is at the least, disordered. Participating in an act of homosexuality is unnatural, and yes the human freewill can chose not to live that lifestyle. You know, one of sin. People live without sin everyday, living according to ones whims is of course living outside of God’s friendship. Simply choose, live in God’s friendship or live outside of it. That is the paradox that tests us all as humans. No one can really defend living outside God’s friendship to obtain live inside God’s friendship.Well, to be honest, I don’t really think that homosexuality is unnatural. If homosexuality was actually unnatural then people that are gay and didn’t want to be gay would just change. Obviously that doesn’t happen.
Post #82 - not to mention the other times we have asserted your agreement with our arguments on whether it is ‘natural or not’ and you hav remained silent. At least try and not contradict your own argumentsWell, to be honest, I don’t really think that homosexuality is unnatural. If homosexuality was actually unnatural then people that are gay and didn’t want to be gay would just change. Obviously that doesn’t happen.
Why Hinduism? You are now polytheist? You may like some aspects, but I want you to break-out the key points of Hinduism and why you think that’s it. Is it reincarnation? The caste system? Funny that for someone who is all about equality, you agree with labeling people as ‘untouchable’ and condemning them to a life of servitude. That’s not very fair, and some is being harmed. Not exactly in line with any of your arguments. And what about Buddhist’s moral philosophy - which tenets exactly, and let us see how they match up with Christianity’s - I bet the most important ones will be pretty similar…To be honest I think there likely is some sort of God or life force in the universe connecting all of us. I think it is too complex to comprehend and I don’t think any religion has a grasp on it…but if I had to pick one religion that likely had the best grasp on the concept of God, it would be Hinduism (and I think Buddhism has the best moral system and blueprint on how to be a better person).
You say these things with reservations like ‘probably’ which means you really don’t know. And how do you know any sacred texts have been properly preserved? Where are the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments? Do you need the original source for everything you read? Guess books are worthless to you unless they come straight from the author’s typewriter, huh? Things are copied so they can be dispersed and easily available(i.e. Guttenberg’s printing press), and 2,000 years+ is a long time to preserve paper scraps at a time when speaking aloud on the matter would have you killed - and this lasted for close to 300 years from the onset of Christianity. Also, religion has always been questioned without being scandalous. Answers are provided (normally from the Bible and ECFs), and if people don’t like them, they sometimes become heretical, and that is where issues occur.The problem I have with Christianity is lack of proof. The gospels probably weren’t written by eye witnesses, and paul certainly wasn’t an eye witness. We don’t have any of the original copies of these documents and there is a lot of room for error in the copies we do have. Each gospel writer seems to have some sort of agenda and paints a slightly different picture of Jesus. I think that the explosion of Christianity came from Constantine and subsequent emperors of Rome making Christianity the religion of Rome. From there it spread to all the countries in Europe and was passed down from generation to generation. Full countries became Catholic and Christian and these countries largely stayed that way until now. Now is the first time that people are really starting to question religion on a wide scale without being extremely scandalous.
Then start your own religion, because you have created your own theology. The funny thing is, you are still basing it on Christ and then saying the Church and other Christians are wrong on the matter. I know you want a ‘free admission’ policy to Heaven, and I’ve discussed how God and all Catholics want that too, but we send ourselves to Hell. If you can’t agree that unrepentent sinning leads to damnation, then you don’t believe in Hell, and I would strongly consider your belief in God at that point.I also think that there is a big chance that Christianity and Catholicism is missing the point that Jesus was trying to make. I don’t agree with the concept of heaven and hell and how you get there.
Why are you angry? Does this personally affect you, affect a relative/friend, or because you are angry at the Church? I noticed that on the Talking with Atheists & Agnostics Thread, your post (#9) said you disagree with many teachings of the Church. What would drive you to continue practicing the religion? If you believe the Catholic Church carries on the word of Christ through the apostolic succession, than your objections can only be based on your attachment to this world and neglect of the Father’s will.I think that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality are wrong. It makes me very angry.
First of all Hinduism is not Polytheistic. Brahman is the one true God. All other gods and godesses are just incarnations.Why Hinduism? You are now polytheist? You may like some aspects, but I want you to break-out the key points of Hinduism and why you think that’s it. Is it reincarnation? The caste system? Funny that for someone who is all about equality, you agree with labeling people as ‘untouchable’ and condemning them to a life of servitude. That’s not very fair, and some is being harmed. Not exactly in line with any of your arguments. And what about Buddhist’s moral philosophy - which tenets exactly, and let us see how they match up with Christianity’s - I bet the most important ones will be pretty similar…
You say these things with reservations like ‘probably’ which means you really don’t know. And how do you know any sacred texts have been properly preserved? Where are the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments? Do you need the original source for everything you read? Guess books are worthless to you unless they come straight from the author’s typewriter, huh? Things are copied so they can be dispersed and easily available(i.e. Guttenberg’s printing press), and 2,000 years+ is a long time to preserve paper scraps at a time when speaking aloud on the matter would have you killed - and this lasted for close to 300 years from the onset of Christianity. Also, religion has always been questioned without being scandalous. Answers are provided (normally from the Bible and ECFs), and if people don’t like them, they sometimes become heretical, and that is where issues occur.
Sadly, the proof you so badly want is only found rooted in faith, and I pray you will get there. There is plenty of proof to support faith, but you need a little faith for the last proof of God.
Then start your own religion, because you have created your own theology. The funny thing is, you are still basing it on Christ and then saying the Church and other Christians are wrong on the matter. I know you want a ‘free admission’ policy to Heaven, and I’ve discussed how God and all Catholics want that too, but we send ourselves to Hell. If you can’t agree that unrepentent sinning leads to damnation, then you don’t believe in Hell, and I would strongly consider your belief in God at that point.
Where do you get this idea from?If Jesus endorses people becoming eunuchs, then why must Catholic priests have at least one working testicle?
So multiple gods and goddesses, just checking. If you say they are monotheistic, then go for it…BTW - you really love wikipedia. Which in this case is fine for the point you are making, but not great for offering statistics or presenting facts (as opposed to explanations like you did above).First of all Hinduism is not Polytheistic. Brahman is the one true God. All other gods and godesses are just incarnations.
So your point is that several religions in that area have similar moral codes, and a lot of those moral codes were against homosexuality. And I’m sorry, but your opinion of why there are 2 billion Catholics in the world doesn’t mean much to me. I like to think that it is the strength of faith by those who faced Crucifixion, death in the arena, or some other form of execution rather than deny Christ as God.As for the Bible and Christian beliefs…a lot of them can be traced back to other Ancient Near Eastern religions of the time. I just think the fact that there are 2 billion Christians today has a lot more to do with tradition than the actual truth of the religion. I guess that can be said about all religions though.
As for my theology being based on Christianity…I don’t think that is really true. I don’t know if Jesus was an incarnation of God, and if he was, then he was likely not the only human incarnation in history. I do believe that many of his moral teachings are great moral teachings and should be listened to. As for heaven and hell, I am not sure what happens when we die, but I HIGHLY doubt it is either heaven or hell.
So if my intent was purely for my own pleasure and not the benefit of anyone else, it would be considered a selfish act? What could I use as an example for this…As for Buddhism, I like how it is a little more optimistic about people. There isn’t any original sin and anyone can achieve enlightenment. Also, meditation is emphasized which is something I think is beneficial for anyone and everyone. Most of the moral teachings are similar to Catholicism, but the morality of an action depends on the intended purpose of an action. So if you help an old lady across the street because you want to help her, it is a good action. If you help an old lady across the street to impress a girl, it isn’t for the right reasons, and isn’t going to produce merit.
I also like the fact that Buddhism is open to interpretation. You have to figure things out on your own. It isn’t like Catholicism where you should just take everything that the Church says is fact. In Buddhism you should ponder the nature of things and morality and come up with your own ideas.
Yeah, I could say that Buddhism is somewhat like a moral guide. And I’m not talking about morals when I say that Christianity borrowed ideas from other Ancient Near Easetern religions…I am talking about things like the devil, heaven, hell, etc. These Christian ideas were undoubtedly derived from earlier pagan religions.So multiple gods and goddesses, just checking. If you say they are monotheistic, then go for it…BTW - you really love wikipedia. Which in this case is fine for the point you are making, but not great for offering statistics or presenting facts (as opposed to explanations like you did above).
So your point is that several religions in that area have similar moral codes, and a lot of those moral codes were against homosexuality. And I’m sorry, but your opinion of why there are 2 billion Catholics in the world doesn’t mean much to me. I like to think that it is the strength of faith by those who faced Crucifixion, death in the arena, or some other form of execution rather than deny Christ as God.
So if my intent was purely for my own pleasure and not the benefit of anyone else, it would be considered a selfish act? What could I use as an example for this…
The idea of original sin is that it is now human nature, through our own free will and not by the will of God, to be sinful. But that doesn’t mean man cannot achieve enlightenment (i.e. the Beatific Vision). I’ve told you repeatedly that God and all Catholics are optimistic - we believe EVERYONE to be predestined to Heaven. It is selfishness, lust, and overall sinfulness that rejects God’s love and we condemn ourselves to Hell.
Also, Buddhists are not the only ones who meditate. While they are trying to get in touch with the ‘inner light of truth and guidance’, Christians are doing the exact same thing, either in prayer or in Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, because we believe Christ is that truth and guidance. It even says in the Bible to go into a quiet place, be all alone, and speak with God in your heart. That is what meditation is, trying to align yourself with that light. For Christians, that light is Christ.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be saying that you use Buddhism as a tool to create your own morality, thus making it not be a moral code but rather a guide.
I was told this by a priest in training at a Catholic camp when I was a child.Where do you get this idea from?
Just because there are similarities doesn’t mean it derived from them - if you want to present them as such, have some backing for it because you yet again are making empty claims. To be blunt, give credible, unbiased statistics showing this trend or a set of facts proving Christianity adopted Heaven and Hell from pagan religions and it was not revealed by God.Yeah, I could say that Buddhism is somewhat like a moral guide. And I’m not talking about morals when I say that Christianity borrowed ideas from other Ancient Near Easetern religions…I am talking about things like the devil, heaven, hell, etc. These Christian ideas were undoubtedly derived from earlier pagan religions.
And just because Hinduism has gods and godesses doesn’t mean it is polytheistic. If you want to take that approach I could say that the trinity means that Catholics are polytheistic.
I also like the fact that Buddhism doesn’t seem to promote focusing on the bad things one has done. I feel as though Catholics promote guilt where as Buddhism doesn’t. You could say that Catholicism doesn’t promote guilt but I bet you could find a whole lot of people that left the church for that very reason. You shouldn’t focus on the bad things you have done, you should try not to do them again and get on with your life. I doubt that there are as many scrupulous Buddhists as their are Catholics as I believe scrupulosity aligns with Christianity far more than Buddhism.
To clarify a few points - do you mean a seminarian, or an actual ordained priest. Not that it matters greatly, I’m just trying to properly identify the source for everyone.I was told this by a priest in training at a Catholic camp when I was a child.