Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:Well, as far as I'm concerned, the Old Testament is in contradiction on this issue. Both homosexual relationships and lying are explicitly sinful, yet according to Chrisianity a gay man or woman is expected to pretend to not be gay by denying a part of themselves that they cannot choose to change. Either you live a life of sin by having a homosexual relationship, or you actively choose to lie about who/what you are. Strictly speaking, both living a homosexual life and living a lie of a life are sinful, and therefore equally evil. Worse yet, there is really no winning scenario...You can be repentant, but if you can't actually stop sinning one way or the other, they appear to be part of a vicious circle.

Speaking from the biblical stand point, it becomes about overcoming ones sinful urges.
One may have the urge to steal or even kill, but NOT doing them is NOT lying but overcoming those urges to do what one knows is wrong.
So, NOT indulging in a homosexual relationship is not LYING about being a homosexual but overcoming ones urges that are deemed sinful.

The thing is, how does ONE do that?
Certainly a life of celibacy is a possibility, though I don't know how realistic that could be.
Some say that no person is truly homo or hetro, but Bi, I don't know how true that is but I have my doubts.
Sexual urges are things that the human animal CAN control.

I am gonna make a comparison ONLY for the SAKE of comparrison and NOT to compare homosexuality with pedophila.
Ok?
Being a pedophile is a sexual deviancy, like homosexuality ( deviant from the norm) and, much like homosexuality, there is a view that the person is born that way. We most certainly find that it is correct to suggest that a pedophile NOT engage in his sexual inclinations and we certainly believe that He/she can still have a life without doing that.
Perhaps so can homosexuals?

Again, I am making it clear that I do NOT view homosexuality in the SAME way that I view pedophila and I am STRICKLY speaking in the terms of control of sexual urges and that one can still have a life.

PaulSacramento wrote:Some say that no person is truly homo or hetro, but Bi, I don't know how true that is but I have my doubts.

I'd say brain studies (where they examine sexual activity in the brain in response to certain stimuli) would deem this pretty inaccurate, mono-sexuality certainly exists. Although, heightened libido correlates with higher probability of bisexuality in women - who can really say?

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Well, I guess that's a place where we differ. One reason I'm not the Catholic church's biggest fan is exactly that reason (although I'm certainly not saying that every Catholic thinks this way), that they believe they have the authority to build upon or revise the Scriptures, which is against Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19), and Jesus Himself specifically spoke out against in Mark 7:6-9.
And saying that we shouldn't care about homosexuality when there are suffering people who need our care, doesn't really make sense. I understand what you're saying, but it's not like the church has to choose one or the other. As the body of Christ, it's our duty as beleivers to spread love throughout the world and alleviate any and all suffering that we can, but as a faith we have morals that we try to live by and follow. Why do these two things need to be mutually exclusive? If as Christians we honestly believe living in a homosexual lifestyle (not living with same-sex attraction, but living in a way where you live by that attraction) is harmful to people and against G-d's Will and Intentions for our lives, than why is it wrong for us to share this view with people out of sincerity and love? If we truly accept what our faith says, than wouldn't it be wrong of us not to try and share the truth with those who we believe are living in a lifestyle that's not good for them, even if you disagree?

Ivellious wrote:Well, as far as I'm concerned, the Old Testament is in contradiction on this issue. Both homosexual relationships and lying are explicitly sinful, yet according to Chrisianity a gay man or woman is expected to pretend to not be gay by denying a part of themselves that they cannot choose to change. Either you live a life of sin by having a homosexual relationship, or you actively choose to lie about who/what you are. Strictly speaking, both living a homosexual life and living a lie of a life are sinful, and therefore equally evil. Worse yet, there is really no winning scenario...You can be repentant, but if you can't actually stop sinning one way or the other, they appear to be part of a vicious circle.

It never says in the Bible to pretend to not be homosexual if you honestly have attraction to the same sex. The Bible only says not to indulge in those attractions. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Paul here, while condemning the homosexual lifestyle, also recognizes that members of his audience used to be partakers in that same lifestyle (as well as in the other things listed). Living the homosexual lifestyle is not the unpardonable sin, and it's not something that needs to be denied and never spoken of. I'm not saying Christians have always dealt with this issue the best, but what I am saying is that that's not the way G-d said it should be. Homosexuals are no more condemned or immoral than any promiscuous heterosexual, or liar, or gossip. I think a lot of the problem is that many of those with same-sex attraction are given a false dichotomy, by being told on one hand that they need to accept everything about them and their tendencies exactly how they are (by atheists and liberal Christians), or to deny that it's even a part of them at all (by uncompassionate or non-understanding members of the church). Homosexuality shouldn't be treated as it is, like some kind of horrible, irregularly wrong/sinful thing to struggle with, but as any other sin that fallible human beings struggle with.

cheezerrox wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Well, I guess that's a place where we differ. One reason I'm not the Catholic church's biggest fan is exactly that reason (although I'm certainly not saying that every Catholic thinks this way), that they believe they have the authority to build upon or revise the Scriptures, which is against Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19), and Jesus Himself specifically spoke out against in Mark 7:6-9.
And saying that we shouldn't care about homosexuality when there are suffering people who need our care, doesn't really make sense. I understand what you're saying, but it's not like the church has to choose one or the other. As the body of Christ, it's our duty as beleivers to spread love throughout the world and alleviate any and all suffering that we can, but as a faith we have morals that we try to live by and follow. Why do these two things need to be mutually exclusive?

We live in a world with limited resources, time and money being key. When people are spending millions of dollars to oppose gay marriage legislation and many hours protesting it, that is time and money spent for a cause which is not shown to be harmful in any way. It's not Christ-like in the least, as far as I can tell. You should be helping those who are suffering and in need. The nuns thought this much and this is why they were reprimanded by the papacy. Any reasonable cost-benefit analysis will lead you to this conclusion.

If as Christians we honestly believe living in a homosexual lifestyle (not living with same-sex attraction, but living in a way where you live by that attraction) is harmful to people and against G-d's Will and Intentions for our lives, than why is it wrong for us to share this view with people out of sincerity and love? If we truly accept what our faith says, than wouldn't it be wrong of us not to try and share the truth with those who we believe are living in a lifestyle that's not good for them, even if you disagree?

There is no harm that results from homosexual relationships. If you are trying to argue against homosexuality on moral reasons, you cannot use any consequentalism - that leads directly to the permissibility of homosexuality. You cannot pretend the Universe is different and homosexuality somehow does cause harm either when there's no empirical support for it. It's not about disagreeing or agreeing, it's about whether or not a claim is true. Homosexual relationships are not harmful. You can claim it as sin, but only because it violates some virtue or objective moral code, not because it causes harm. Otherwise, you've accepted the burden of proof for a claim and must demonstrate this harm.

Homosexuality shouldn't be treated as it is, like some kind of horrible, irregularly wrong/sinful thing to struggle with, but as any other sin that fallible human beings struggle with.

But that is how every other sin is treated, that's just being consistent. You can recognize it as not being a sin at all, or you can condemn it. This is something I see Christianity evolving on, much as they did with slavery, much as they did with women's rights, much as they did with many other things. But the change is certainly coming.

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Huh? Would you mind site official Catholic sources that would even contemplate such a preposterous statement as the underlined?

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Huh? Would you mind site official Catholic sources that would even contemplate such a preposterous statement as the underlined?

Sure. Keep in mind, when I say revise you might be thinking reinterpret. But it's all the same to me. Give me a bit, need to find some examples.

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Huh? Would you mind site official Catholic sources that would even contemplate such a preposterous statement as the underlined?

Sure. Keep in mind, when I say revise you might be thinking reinterpret. But it's all the same to me. Give me a bit, need to find some examples.

No, it's the exact opposite. You are the one who might be thinking they are the same when they aren't. But I will wait for your sources anyway.

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Huh? Would you mind site official Catholic sources that would even contemplate such a preposterous statement as the underlined?

Sure. Keep in mind, when I say revise you might be thinking reinterpret. But it's all the same to me. Give me a bit, need to find some examples.

No, it's the exact opposite. You are the one who might be thinking they are the same when they aren't. But I will wait for your sources anyway.

I'll be careful to note that they never change scripture, as might be meant by most definitions of revise. I simply think they take a radically new approach to interpreting it, and such, with their epistles and councils, altar what was most commonly inferred from reading scripture. Perhaps revise is the wrong word then, but radically reinterpret seems correct. I'm having trouble coming up with a great example to demonstrate my point (I'm really not good at doing this type of research), and I don't exactly know where to find the epistles. One that sort of sticks in my head was when the church abandoned geocentricism.

Anyway, here's a quote from St. Augustine to demonstrate my point: He says (with reading the scripture)"not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate." In other words, the bible can be reinterpreted whenever new knowledge would indicate a new interpretation is necessary. I think this will very clearly be used by the Church to justify homosexual marriage within, say, 100 years. Maybe a bit longer, since the church can be slow about things, but I think it's a good estimate. And the change is surely coming.

Honestly, I don't think you will ever get any orthodox religion to condone homosexuality, it just goes against TOO Many orthodox teaching with NO way to find anything "for it".
Maybe you can TWIST what Paul said in regards to "there is no male or female"...bu that is a HUGE twist since Paul is VERY vocal and clear that homosexuality is a perversion and unnatural act the God "gives people into their lusts" ( lets them do what they please ie: Their will be done instead of His).
Homosexual marriage is even a greater issue than homosexuality because the bible and orthodox teaching is 100% clear that it i suppose to be between Man and Woman.

PaulSacramento wrote:Honestly, I don't think you will ever get any orthodox religion to condone homosexuality, it just goes against TOO Many orthodox teaching with NO way to find anything "for it".
Maybe you can TWIST what Paul said in regards to "there is no male or female"...bu that is a HUGE twist since Paul is VERY vocal and clear that homosexuality is a perversion and unnatural act the God "gives people into their lusts" ( lets them do what they please ie: Their will be done instead of His).
Homosexual marriage is even a greater issue than homosexuality because the bible and orthodox teaching is 100% clear that it i suppose to be between Man and Woman.

There's some ways to do it. I've seen it argued by one person quite well (although I can no longer find his web page, I'll keep looking) and there's also this book:

The point is, we will have to take into account facts about what is psychologically healthy. And it's all too apparent that suppressing homosexuality is not healthy but leads to harms like depression. Same goes for masturbation. There will be a continuing rift between the Opus Dei movement, which seems to glorify suffering in the name of leading moral livelihood, and the modern progressive constituents of the church. Who knows, maybe it will lead to another schism.. I think it's hilarious that the Church forbids homosexual men from becoming preists - as if everyone doesn't know that almost all of the current priests are gay (celibacy through priesthood is a good alternative, yes?).

The pressure is definitely rising, but the church members views are progressing without the support of the church. The church will either have to change their views or they will begin hemorrhaging members rapidly. This is going to escalate in the next 10-20 years.

Hmmm, even IF one was to accept a sinful behavior as being what is best for a person's mental health ( and in doing so it would no longer be sinful per say), that is still a LONG way from legitimizing something like marriage under the orthodox church.
You can't make the comment that "almost all current priests are gay", that just makes any argument you may have, lose credibility.

PaulSacramento wrote:Hmmm, even IF one was to accept a sinful behavior as being what is best for a person's mental health ( and in doing so it would no longer be sinful per say), that is still a LONG way from legitimizing something like marriage under the orthodox church.
You can't make the comment that "almost all current priests are gay", that just makes any argument you may have, lose credibility.

I know, I don't have any evidence to back the claim up, and I don't want to come off as ignorant - apolgies. But I know that about half the pastors I had as a kid were gay (and I even talked to some of them about it). This seems to be common, in my experience. For the church to demand that homosexual men must both suppress their urge, but not allow them to become priests (where they, I think the term is, marry the church and Jesus.. isn't that a little gay?) just seems ridiculous and disrespectful. It seems like the perfect alternative to homosexuality and yet the church wants them to stay out.

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Huh? Would you mind site official Catholic sources that would even contemplate such a preposterous statement as the underlined?

Sure. Keep in mind, when I say revise you might be thinking reinterpret. But it's all the same to me. Give me a bit, need to find some examples.

No, it's the exact opposite. You are the one who might be thinking they are the same when they aren't. But I will wait for your sources anyway.

I'll be careful to note that they never change scripture, as might be meant by most definitions of revise. I simply think they take a radically new approach to interpreting it, and such, with their epistles and councils, altar what was most commonly inferred from reading scripture. Perhaps revise is the wrong word then, but radically reinterpret seems correct. I'm having trouble coming up with a great example to demonstrate my point (I'm really not good at doing this type of research), and I don't exactly know where to find the epistles. One that sort of sticks in my head was when the church abandoned geocentricism.

Anyway, here's a quote from St. Augustine to demonstrate my point: He says (with reading the scripture)"not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate." In other words, the bible can be reinterpreted whenever new knowledge would indicate a new interpretation is necessary. I think this will very clearly be used by the Church to justify homosexual marriage within, say, 100 years. Maybe a bit longer, since the church can be slow about things, but I think it's a good estimate. And the change is surely coming.

FYI, quoting Augustine is not the same thing as quoting official Catholic sites but be that as it may, the Catholic Church believes it has interpretive authority, no revision or re-interpretation. It is no different than any other non-Catholic who reads scripture and believes they come to conclusions aided by the Holy Spirit, except in one case there is a final authority to decide on disputes and the other case there isn't. To state then that the Catholic Church re-interprets or revises the meaning of scripture is false, or at a minimum is the same as any other. And such is the nature of studying any literary work anyway, the more we read it the more is revealed through deeper understanding of the literature. Unless, of course, one wants to claim that all that can be understood from scripture is understood the first time it is read, making future and deeper understandings impossible. But that is of course absurd.

And another FYI, geocentrism, while perhaps a widely held belief at some point, was never defined as a de fide dogma so you can't use that as an example of the Catholic church re-interpreting scripture.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Hmmm, even IF one was to accept a sinful behavior as being what is best for a person's mental health ( and in doing so it would no longer be sinful per say), that is still a LONG way from legitimizing something like marriage under the orthodox church.
You can't make the comment that "almost all current priests are gay", that just makes any argument you may have, lose credibility.

I know, I don't have any evidence to back the claim up, and I don't want to come off as ignorant - apolgies. But I know that about half the pastors I had as a kid were gay (and I even talked to some of them about it). This seems to be common, in my experience. For the church to demand that homosexual men must both suppress their urge, but not allow them to become priests (where they, I think the term is, marry the church and Jesus.. isn't that a little gay?) just seems ridiculous and disrespectful. It seems like the perfect alternative to homosexuality and yet the church wants them to stay out.

I am not sure if you are serious or not...
The church issue with homosexuality is that it is incorrect (deviant or abnormal, whichever you prefer) behavior. They can't condone it because it is wrong.
If a thief is still stealing, then he is still doing what is wrong.
If a thief stops stealing, no matter how much he wants to, no matter how much he HAS to, then he is doing what is right.
Since for some, stealing is a mental illness that they are born with and they can surpress it, then, according to some, so can a homosexual.
It may well be that because of our fallen state, many are born with various "mental differences" that cause them to steal, kill, lie, cheat, be addicted to sex, be homosexual, be transgendered, etc.
But if people can control the most powerful of urges such as anger and homicidal tendencies, then surely a purely "biological" one can be controlled to, yes?

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Honestly, I don't think you will ever get any orthodox religion to condone homosexuality, it just goes against TOO Many orthodox teaching with NO way to find anything "for it".
Maybe you can TWIST what Paul said in regards to "there is no male or female"...bu that is a HUGE twist since Paul is VERY vocal and clear that homosexuality is a perversion and unnatural act the God "gives people into their lusts" ( lets them do what they please ie: Their will be done instead of His).
Homosexual marriage is even a greater issue than homosexuality because the bible and orthodox teaching is 100% clear that it i suppose to be between Man and Woman.

There's some ways to do it. I've seen it argued by one person quite well (although I can no longer find his web page, I'll keep looking) and there's also this book:

The point is, we will have to take into account facts about what is psychologically healthy. And it's all too apparent that suppressing homosexuality is not healthy but leads to harms like depression. Same goes for masturbation. There will be a continuing rift between the Opus Dei movement, which seems to glorify suffering in the name of leading moral livelihood, and the modern progressive constituents of the church. Who knows, maybe it will lead to another schism.. I think it's hilarious that the Church forbids homosexual men from becoming preists - as if everyone doesn't know that almost all of the current priests are gay (celibacy through priesthood is a good alternative, yes?).

The pressure is definitely rising, but the church members views are progressing without the support of the church. The church will either have to change their views or they will begin hemorrhaging members rapidly. This is going to escalate in the next 10-20 years.

Seriously man, where on earth do you come up with your claims and so-called statistics? Care to provide some evidence for your claim that almost all current priests are gay? That is such an insulting and defamatory statement I can't even begin to tell you how offensive it is. I am challenging you right here and now, you either provide evidence for it or you retract your statement.