Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Here is my 2 cents.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexu...loset.html

Check the above links. Homosexual behavior is common in the animal world. It strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is biological in origin and not by choice.

Furthermore, for the heterosexuals, could you engage in heterosexual behavior? If you say "yes" out of the technicality, then could you do so without feeling revolted? Obviously, people who regularly engage in homosexual behavior don't feel revolted as heterosexuals would. I think it's just as obvious therefore that they don't choose that behavior - it comes from natural desires.

So my points for Catholics are as follows:

1) You believe your god created all humans. The above 2 points - the animal support for biological origin and the logic regarding choice - strongly suggest that homosexuals are born homosexuals. Therefore, your god created homosexuals. But then he condemns them to hell for their homosexual behavior that is his doing. Dodgy

2) Other than "God says so", exactly what is morally wrong with homosexuality? Please don't cite the health risks as an answer. God doesn't condemn people (according to Christianity anyway) for doing dangerous things or for making unwise choices. So those aren't moral issues. It's arguable anyway whether homosexual behavior is any more risky than heterosexual behavior (VD, etc.) or even other activities (smoking, etc.) that aren't considered sins.

3) Many Catholics are inclined to say "who cares?" to #2 and "'God says so' is enough". Well, really? Why? God creates homosexuals, condemns them for his own doing, and there is absolutely no logical reason for considering homosexuality sinful, but it's ok with you that your god condemns them to burn in hell for eternity for it? WHY?

4) The main argument that I heard when I used to be Catholic is that homosexuality is not natural. It is sinful because our sexuality was designed by God for the sole purpose of reproducing. Use of it any other way is not natural and is therefore sinful because it goes against God's design. Well I think the homosexuality in the animal world argues that it IS natural. In addition, it's not natural to use your body for hang gliding either. Is that also a sin? God didn't have a rest for eyeglasses in mind when he gave us noses so is wearing eyeglasses a sin? Exactly what about adding to God's intended purposes for our bodies makes something a sin?

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
18-10-2013, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2013 09:08 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
At the end of the many month process of the California Prop 8 Appeals Court Case,
after months of expert testimony, one of the judges asked the plaintiff's attorneys :
"how exactly does same sex marriage threaten traditional marriage".
The attorney replied : "Your honor, .... I don't know .... I don't know".

Science has proven the "natural law" argument to be false.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...122106.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Here's my stupid theory. In the time the scriptures were written every one had a very high mortality rate, children often didn't survive long enough to have children of their own and women had to have multiple babies since infant death rates were also high. Homosexuals at the time were considered threats since they could never produce a child to keep the population growing. Now because of this persecution or threats to their lives they took wives and had children they wouldn't of had otherwise thus increasing the human population. Since a homosexual who had a homosexual lifestyle didn't increase the human population it was considered a sin or immoral. This is not the case now. With modern medicine, cleaner cities and all other modern advancements people are living longer and healthier lives. Since homosexuality isn't causing any harm to the human population at all now it can no longer be thought of as sin or immoral. Today some homsexuals also still have wives since this persecution never went away. They shouldn't need to be forced to live under the radar anymore. When are catholics going to learn? Not everything in the bible should be considered timeless. Legislation against homosexuals can not be passed since it is derived from religious reasons. I can't even think of a reason that wasn't religiously derived.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
18-10-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century. There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight. There was also no notion of a continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality), as science recognizes today. Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.
The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.
The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".
There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.
#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture. The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around. There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.
The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Another point that I think should be made is that the planet could consist of 100% homosexuals and our species could still survive. How so? Homosexuals could choose to engage in heterosexual sex specifically to propagate our species. Now, before someone brings up my earlier remark about choice, I didn't say it wouldn't be revolting for homosexuals to do so. But the importance of survival would be a strong reason to do so whereas heterosexuals "choosing" homosexuality wouldn't have any such motivating factor.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-10-2013 11:44 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:16 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  "Why do we feel it is a moral right to legislate against homosexuality?"

We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful. All sins offend God and injure man.

However, Catholics do not believe that every sin should be a law in government.

"Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which a human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder,
theft, and suchlike.” (S.T. I-II, p.96, a. 2)" St Thomas Aquinas

Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

What about non-Catholics? Should they be forbidden from homosexual acts?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 12:03 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:16 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

Why exactly would it offend god if a homosexual act is commited?

We believe that Homosexual acts offend God because of revelation from God that such acts offend him. In fact we believe that all sexual acts which would involve the wasting of seed are wrong to him, these accounts are in the book of Genesis.

Secondarily, there is logic (using things for their intended use) and evidence (the bodily, psychological and spiritual turmoil that all forms of sex out of place cause), but these are held in a far secondary position to us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 12:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:16 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  "Why do we feel it is a moral right to legislate against homosexuality?"

We believe that we have the right to legislate against homosexuality because such acts are sinful. All sins offend God and injure man.

However, Catholics do not believe that every sin should be a law in government.

"Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which a human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder,
theft, and suchlike.” (S.T. I-II, p.96, a. 2)" St Thomas Aquinas

Homosexual acts are something which the majority can abstain from and thus it is helpful to forbid them for the pleasure of God and the sake of public virtue.

Hi, and welcome to the forum. Please digest the following facts.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred catholic clergy perpetrators in the USA had been reported by their own dioceses as child sex abusers since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. This is good evidence that most catholic priest paedophiles are homosexuals. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

Estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...of-God.htm , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...550.html).

Richard Sype, who has authored six books about child sex abuse by priests, claims that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Now please answer these questions...

Given the disproportionately high rate of homosexuality in the catholic priesthood, and that most of them are, or have been, no doubt, sexually active in one way or another, don't you think it's rather hypocritical of catholics to be preaching against homosexuality?

Is not the rape of little children a heinious crime, whereas sex between two consenting
adults hurts no one?

Shouldn't the catholic church remove the plank from it's own eye before searching for the speck in others, particularly as it has protected the homosexual paedophiles in it's own ranks, thereby endangering thousands of children?

I agree that the Church should absolutely purge itself of the Clerics, Bishops, and enablers and homosexual sexually deviant clerics. In the past the punishments for such crimes would be considered cruel today.

However, most of the condemnations in this matter has not been coming from the diocese, bishops or clerics that are deviants. It has been coming from the faithful who abstain or have repented of such behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:49 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 12:03 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Why exactly would it offend god if a homosexual act is commited?

We believe that Homosexual acts offend God because of revelation from God that such acts offend him. In fact we believe that all sexual acts which would involve the wasting of seed are wrong to him, these accounts are in the book of Genesis.
Hitler was offended by Jews and tried to get rid of them all. We know he was offended because he said so and proved it with his actions. This, of course, has NOTHING to do with whether his position was a moral one and we all know full well that it wasn't. You're going to have to do better with explaining why homosexuality is objectively offensive.

(18-10-2013 09:49 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  Secondarily, there is logic (using things for their intended use) and evidence (the bodily, psychological and spiritual turmoil that all forms of sex out of place cause), but these are held in a far secondary position to us.
What logic? What evidence?

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 10:03 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Here is my 2 cents.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexu...loset.html

Check the above links. Homosexual behavior is common in the animal world. It strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is biological in origin and not by choice.

Furthermore, for the heterosexuals, could you engage in heterosexual behavior? If you say "yes" out of the technicality, then could you do so without feeling revolted? Obviously, people who regularly engage in homosexual behavior don't feel revolted as heterosexuals would. I think it's just as obvious therefore that they don't choose that behavior - it comes from natural desires.

So my points for Catholics are as follows:

1) You believe your god created all humans. The above 2 points - the animal support for biological origin and the logic regarding choice - strongly suggest that homosexuals are born homosexuals. Therefore, your god created homosexuals. But then he condemns them to hell for their homosexual behavior that is his doing. Dodgy

2) Other than "God says so", exactly what is morally wrong with homosexuality? Please don't cite the health risks as an answer. God doesn't condemn people (according to Christianity anyway) for doing dangerous things or for making unwise choices. So those aren't moral issues. It's arguable anyway whether homosexual behavior is any more risky than heterosexual behavior (VD, etc.) or even other activities (smoking, etc.) that aren't considered sins.

3) Many Catholics are inclined to say "who cares?" to #2 and "'God says so' is enough". Well, really? Why? God creates homosexuals, condemns them for his own doing, and there is absolutely no logical reason for considering homosexuality sinful, but it's ok with you that your god condemns them to burn in hell for eternity for it? WHY?

4) The main argument that I heard when I used to be Catholic is that homosexuality is not natural. It is sinful because our sexuality was designed by God for the sole purpose of reproducing. Use of it any other way is not natural and is therefore sinful because it goes against God's design. Well I think the homosexuality in the animal world argues that it IS natural. In addition, it's not natural to use your body for hang gliding either. Is that also a sin? God didn't have a rest for eyeglasses in mind when he gave us noses so is wearing eyeglasses a sin? Exactly what about adding to God's intended purposes for our bodies makes something a sin?

1) We believe through Revelation God made man perfect and that through the Sin of Adam we fell. Thus all humans are born with an inclination to sin, and having a sexual appetite in excess of what is neccessary for the propogation of the Human race is one aspect of it. God does not make anyone a homosexual.

2) In addition to God said so. We believe all behavior in excess to be sinful, even eating and drinking. Lust is a vice where a person seeks inordinate sexual pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

3) God did not create them that way, Man suffers because of his fallen nature, God is willing to forgive us and help us and died on the cross so we can be forgiven of our Sins, we all feel the inclination to sin so we should love and help one another.

4) I think the problem is the use of the word natural. When we say natural we tend to mean natural law, which is a way a person lives by observing cause and effect. A man knows that if a man and a women have sexual relations they possibly might have a child, and if a man and women love each other and raise that child he will be inclined to virtue. The desires of a homsexual may infact come from his body, but his body like a mans intellect is inclined to sin because of our fallen nature.

I hope I have answered all of your questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: