How to be an accepting Catholic

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But whats your thoughts on where/when/how it originates? Its found in the animal kingdom as well of course.

There are plenty of things found in the animal kingdom. That doesn't mean that it is biologically determined to happen. From some research that was documented in the National Geographic magazine on the topic a few years ago.

"So many papers look at these sorts of behaviors and immediately consider them from a human perspective. This paper has done a remarkable job of not sexing up the homosexuality and [instead] just asking why beetles do this."

Some researchers suggest that male animals need to practice breeding as much as they can before meeting females.

Others argue that males need to get rid of old, less effective sperm before they encounter females.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

There's plenty of research you can look up on this topic. You can find out for yourself why it occurs in the animal kingdom. There are many things that happen in the animal kingdom that we wouldn't want to emulate as humans. I'm sure you're aware of that already.

Again, I'm more interested in the root issue in the OP than I am in meaningless argument.

Corkfeen

Mintoz wrote: »

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But I dont see a clear victim here, unlike with other sins such as murder, theft and so on?

Where do you think homosexuality originates?

If one disobeys Gods law, then they will be the victim. The average life of a gay male in America is 40. Would aloving God lead them into a lifestyle which could kill them? If they separate themselves from Gods law, which is clearly understood, then they themselves are the victims.

Well, it originates from the desire for sex, with the opposite sex, so they can procreate. It's a disorder like any other, but again, it's about sex, the modern days religion. So it's justified, even if God disproves.

The average lifespan of a gay American is not 40.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

I wasn't asking you to have passion for others, but the truth. I wouldn't kill anyone from another religion either, or wage a war you've misunderstood. I am supposed to love my enemies, and I do. If I met a Muslim, I'd invite him in for tea, and maybe, a few hobnobs.

But to be honest, they're heretics. Lets not play pretend. They deny Christ's divinity, and that he will return at the end of time to destroy Chrstians.

The bible seems to separate people into two different groups: Those who love the truth, and those who don't.

But what makes your truth the correct truth? As opposed to the truth of others? And to be fair, you did say 'Christians are at war' so I don't really see how I misunderstood?

Live and let live, and all that.

philologos

How is this random argument going to help the OP answer the question?

Mintoz

Corkfeen wrote: »

That average lifespan of a gay American is not 40.

I got that figure from a leading philosopher Dr.William Lane Craig, who deabtes on the homosexuality Christianity issue. This paper shows how the life span can be significantly reduced:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

georgieporgy

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would God create some people as homosexual who are to forever feel guilty about acting out their natural instincts? Why are they denyed the possibiliy of looking forward to a proper heterosexiual relationship in marriage?

Did God create alcoholics, thieves, rapists, gluttons,paedophiles, philanderers, adulterers?

There are plenty of such folks around. All coping with a 'disorder'. The old word for this was 'vice', and people considered it 'bad'.

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But what makes your truth the correct truth? As opposed to the truth of others? And to be fair, you did say 'Christians are at war' so I don't really see how I misunderstood?

Live and let live, and all that.

I don't know, and nobody does if we have the correct truth, it's impossible to know right now. The key is whether one loves the truth, and will not sacrifice it for anything: even pretend peace. Christ wants soldiers, not sissy, pluralistic wimps.

By being at war, I mean, spiritual war.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

I got that figure from a leading philosopher Dr.William Lane Craig, who deabtes on the homosexuality Christianity issue. This paper shows how the life span can be significantly reduced:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Have you ever heard of the term 'biased source'?
Of course an education website for a group that is anti gay is going to spead anti gay lies. How is that not blindingly obvious to you?
If someone puts up a counter argument stating that gay men live to an age of 136, taken from a website called 'gayz4truth.com', are you going to take it at all seriously?

Andrewf20

Mintoz wrote: »

If one disobeys Gods law, then they will be the victim. The average life of a gay male in America is 40. Would aloving God lead them into a lifestyle which could kill them? If they separate themselves from Gods law, which is clearly understood, then they themselves are the victims.

Well, it originates from the desire for sex, with the opposite sex, so they can procreate. It's a disorder like any other, but again, it's about sex, the modern days religion. So it's justified, even if God disproves.

Perhaps discrimination leading to depression and suicide drastically reduces the average lifespan of homosexuals. If discimination was drastically reduced it would surely lead to an increase in average lifespans?

But why such vitriol? Why is smoking not viewed in the same light for example. Why is smoking not a sin, seeing as it curtails life?

Extinction

Mintoz wrote: »

I got that figure from a leading philosopher Dr.William Lane Craig, who deabtes on the homosexuality Christianity issue. This paper shows how the life span can be significantly reduced:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Maybe you shouldn't believe catholic websites so easily and do a bit more independent research.

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I have no passion, or respect for that matter for people who justify war and hatred against others based on the fact they worship a different supernatural being, no.

Don't slander, I don't hate others.

There is only one God, but many conceptions. It's just the way it is.

Mintoz

Extinction wrote: »

Maybe you shouldn't believe catholic websites so easily and do a bit more independent research.

William Craig is a respected philosopher, there's no way he'd of made it up. He said in America it is, but maybe there was a specific place he was talking about.

I was being lazy, and should have researched, I know.

philologos

Does anyone want to help the OP yet?

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

How is this random argument going to help the OP answer the question?

I think it may be of interest to the OP to see how conversations related to this topic can unfold among people with different viewpoints but agreed, probably best to not get too bogged down on 1 branch of the subject.

Mintoz

philologos wrote: »

Does anyone want to help the OP yet?

Oh yes, that. Well, love gay people, treat them with respect and be sensitive to their situation, I couldn't even imagine the cross they have to carry, even if they do try to remain single. Pray for them, understand them, you know, Christ like.

Let God do the rest.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

You're being biased. He uses logic, so there's not much chance he is a nutjob.

You used a website called catholic education to back up your incorrect statement about gay males, and now you're calling me biased.

Andrewf20

georgieporgy wrote: »

Did God create alcoholics, thieves, rapists, gluttons,paedophiles, philanderers, adulterers?

There are plenty of such folks around. All coping with a 'disorder'. The old word for this was 'vice', and people considered it 'bad'.

Im not so sure sexual orientation is a choice in the same way are these things are that you mention. Gay sexual acts between 2 consenting adults in their privacy shouldnt impinge on others unlike rapists, thieves, paedophiles, adulterers and so on.

Im happy to leave the discussion at that.

Alactric

Mintoz wrote: »

You're being biased. He uses logic, so there's not much chance he is a nutjob.

Lo-Logic? "Gay people on average live to 40" ...:D

Extinction

Mintoz wrote: »

William Craig is a respected philosopher, there's no way he'd of made it up. He said in America it is, but maybe there was a specific place he was talking about.

I was being lazy, and should have researched, I know.

Who is he respected by? Christians by any chance? Of course he didn't make it up, why would a biased christian make anything up to suit their own agenda? The information in the following christian website couldn't possible be made up to either http://christwire.org/2012/01/nasa-discovers-god-declares-atheists-idiots/ Or could it?

Doctor Jimbob

As for helping the OP, well, OP you can't really be part of the Catholic religion while refusing some of it's teachings. As much as I disagree with a lot of the teachings myself, people are entitled to their beliefs, once they aren't using them against others.

I'd suggest researching other branches of christianity, to see which one fits more closely to your own personal belief system. On the other hand, if feeling alone is your main concern, there are groups you could be a part of that aren't religious.

Mintoz

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Perhaps discrimmination leading to depression and suicide drastically reduces the average lifespan of homosexuals. If discimination was drastically reduced it would surely lead to an increase in average lifespans?

But why such vitriol? Why is smoking not viewed in the same light for example. Why is smoking not a sin, seeing as it curtails life?

It's a big deal because it;s to do with sex I'd imagine, and Gods initial plan for sex regarding marriage and sexuality.

Smoking actually is a sin, turning to a nico stick for comfort and relief instead of God is a sin I'd imagine, not mentioning, whilst simultaneously mentioning, the fact that, the body is a temple of the holy spirit and belongs to God, it is designed for honouring and glorifying him, through praise, work, charity etc.

If someone smokes, they should try to remove this attachment if they can, but God understands still, nicotine is difficult to get off, I know!

irishconvert

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I have no passion, or respect for that matter for people who justify war and hatred against others based on the fact they worship a different supernatural being, no.

I have no passion, or respect for that matter for people who justify war and hatred against others based on any reason whatsoever.

Mintoz

Extinction wrote: »

Who is he respected by? Christians by any chance? Of course he didn't make it up, why would a biased christian make anything up to suit their own agenda? The information in the following christian website couldn't possible be made up to either http://christwire.org/2012/01/nasa-discovers-god-declares-atheists-idiots/ Or could it?

No, he wouldn't have got it from that website, you're just going too far now. Picking one of the worst sites, come on.

He is repsected, as Sam Harris says so himself. Watch the Sam Harris and Craig debate, he's impressive. (Didn't follow any of Sam's red herrings either).

Is it possible you don't like because he's defending Christianity?

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

No, he wouldn't have got it from that website, you're just going too far now. Picking one of the worst sites, come on.

He is repsected, as Sam Harris says so himself. Watch the Sam Harris and Craig debate, he's impressive. (Didn't follow any of Sam's red herrings either).

Is it possible you don't like because he's defending Christianity?

Opinion from another respected debater

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Unless, of course, you're going to ignore his opinion because he isn't christian?

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Opinion from another respected debater

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Unless, of course, you're going to ignore his opinion because he isn't christian?

I bet that guy isn't a Christian either. But I haven't even read it, and will. I won't ignore it, no. Craig isn't perfect, but downright logical. I remember him in his audio books, saying it's 40. Considering the risk of AIDS, and how much sex they have, as much as heterosexuals, it's very likely.

Oh wait, it's Dawkins himself. Well that expalins everything. Yes, Dawkind refused to debate him because Craig explains why God commanded the driving out of the Cannanites. Dawkins felt he was defending genocide, even though for the author of life, murder, thus genocide is impossible..

Benny_Cake

The OP has probably long since departed and who could blame them? It's getting quite impossible to have a reasoned debate on this forum.

Alactric

Yeah lads... The OP is after turning to Judaism by now.

Benny_Cake

Alactric wrote: »

Yeah lads... The OP is after turning to Judaism by now.

He's probably ordered Dianetics at this point!

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The OP has probably long since departed and who could blame them? It's getting quite impossible to have a reasoned debate on this forum.

Indeed, it's a tragedy. It's a shame unfortunately that some posters have choice topics that they want to consume this forum with. It's also a shame that when people do have genuine questions that often the debate becomes more consumed with atheist trolling than it does with actually giving the OP a good explanation from a Christian perspective.

I can see why people are getting tired of it.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

I bet that guy isn't a Christian either. But I haven't even read it, and will. I won't ignore it, no. Craig isn't perfect, but downright logical. I remember him in his audio books, saying it's 40. Considering the risk of AIDS, and how much sex they have, as much as heterosexuals, it's very likely.

Oh wait, it's Dawkins himself. Well that expalins everything.

You know AIDS can also occur in heterosexual people, right?

Yes, it is dawkins. You know, the man who is actually well respected. Walk into your local bookstore. Count the number written by dawkins, then the number written by Craig.

There are respectable Christian philosophers out there, and plenty of them.
That lunatic you're taking your 'facts' from is certainly not one of them.

Alactric

Benny_Cake wrote: »

He's probably ordered Dianetics at this point!

"You see...when you're a Scientoligist. And you drive past a car crash...you just know, you're the only man who can do anything about it"

Extinction

Mintoz wrote: »

I bet that guy isn't a Christian either. But I haven't even read it, and will. I won't ignore it, no. Craig isn't perfect, but downright logical. I remember him in his audio books, saying it's 40. Considering the risk of AIDS, and how much sex they have, as much as heterosexuals, it's very likely.

Oh wait, it's Dawkins himself. Well that expalins everything. Yes, Dawkind refused to debate him because Craig explains why God commanded the driving out of the Cannanites. Dawkins felt he was defending genocide, even though for the author of life, murder, thus genocide is impossible..

I know its off topic and I shouldn't do this but the mention of Craig reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0
Apologies to
Christians
Catholics
Moderators

Doctor Jimbob

philologos wrote: »

Indeed, it's a tragedy. It's a shame unfortunately that some posters have choice topics that they want to consume this forum with. It's also a shame that when people do have genuine questions that often the debate becomes more consumed with atheist trolling than it does with actually giving the OP a good explanation from a Christian perspective.

I can see why people are getting tired of it.

Yup, let's indoctrine the crap outta people instead of helping them come to an informed decision. If you look back at my post attempting to help the OP you'll notice I suggested looking into other Christian groups, AS WELL AS, saying there are ways they can avoid feeling alone without joining a religious group.

philologos

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yup, let's indoctrine the crap outta people instead of helping them come to an informed decision. If you look back at my post attempting to help the OP you'll notice I suggested looking into other Christian groups, AS WELL AS, saying there are ways they can avoid feeling alone without joining a religious group.

I disagree. If someone asks a question about Christianity on the Christianity forum, it is entirely reasonable to provide them with the best answer from a Christian perspective.

If they wanted to ask atheists, they'd go to the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, if they wanted to ask Muslims they'd go to the Islam forum, if they wanted to ask Wiccans / pagans they'd go to the Paganism forum.

If you are coming on this thread to soapbox, that shouldn't be kosher IMO. Part of coming on here, involves listening to other peoples views. I have no problem with atheists posting as long as they do so with respect, I understand that some lines were crossed in some posts.

This forum, is intended for the discussion of Christianity in a reasonable and a gracious manner. It's not intended for a shouting match.

Mintoz

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You know AIDS can also occur in heterosexual people, right?

Yes, it is dawkins. You know, the man who is actually well respected. Walk into your local bookstore. Count the number written by dawkins, then the number written by Craig.

There are respectable Christian philosophers out there, and plenty of them.
That lunatic you're taking your 'facts' from is certainly not one of them.

Dawkins amongst serious philosophers is not well respected. Dawkins is a great scientist, but a terrible theologian and philoshoper. The number of books he has published does not determine the credibility of a mans work. Craig I'd say has written more books than Dawkins, but Richards is famous because it's going against the grain, and has been refuted try the 'The Dawkins Delusion'.

Dawkins makes terrible arguments, it's embarrasing. Because he's too busy talking about how all religious people believe in unicorns, tooth fairies and santa claus. Even though the Santa Claus story is supposed to teach children not to believe something because it makes you happy or good, but because it's the truth. It teaches to value truth.

Doctor Jimbob

philologos wrote: »

I disagree. If someone asks a question about Christianity on the Christianity forum, it is entirely reasonable to provide them with the best answer from a Christian perspective.

If they wanted to ask atheists, they'd go to the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, if they wanted to ask Muslims they'd go to the Islam forum, if they wanted to ask Wiccans / pagans they'd go to the Paganism forum.

If you are coming on this thread to soapbox, that shouldn't be kosher IMO. Part of coming on here, involves listening to other peoples views. I have no problem with atheists posting as long as they do so with respect, I understand that some lines were crossed in some posts.

This forum, is intended for the discussion of Christianity in a reasonable and a gracious manner. It's not intended for a shouting match.

I'm not coming on here to soapbox, if I were, I would hardly be suggesting the OP look at other brances of Christianity.

Just because the OP didn't originally ask for input from other groups, does not mean input from other groups won't help them.

Doctor Jimbob

Mintoz wrote: »

Dawkins amongst serious philosophers is not well respected. Dawkins is a great scientist, but a terrible theologian and philoshoper. The number of books he has published does not determine the credibility of a mans work. Craig I'd say has written more books than Dawkins, but Richards is famous because it's going against the grain, and has been refuted try the 'The Dawkins Delusion'.

Dawkins makes terrible arguments, it's embarrasing. Because he's too busy talking about how all religious people believe in unicorns, tooth fairies and santa claus. Even though the Santa Claus story is supposed to teach children not to believe something because it makes you happy or good, but because it's the truth. It teaches to value truth.

Dawkins does make some terrible arguments, and can often be far too provocative. I'm not his biggest fan for those reasons. That doesn't change the fact that he's a respected intelligent man though, certainly more so than Craig.

Mintoz

Alactric wrote: »

Lo-Logic? "Gay people on average live to 40" ...:D

I didn't say all gay people. I was referring to the average homosexual male in America. Because of all the sex they have over there. There's no way Craig woud make that up, that guy loves the truth, he's dedicated his life to his faith.

Fanny Cradock

Honestly, can we not go one thread without the mention of homosexuality?

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Honestly, can we not go one thread without the mention of homosexuality?

I know right. It's a shame that we actually don't get to discuss Christianity on this forum any more.

Corkfeen

Mintoz wrote: »

I didn't say all gay people. I was referring to the average homosexual male in America. Because of all the sex they have over there. There's no way Craig woud make that up, that guy loves the truth, he's dedicated his life to his faith.

Only got to a pc now, the stat seems to originate from Paul Cameron and this refutes it rather well...

Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.
...
Against this, Cameron and his supporters argue that, according to their survey of obits, even if they don't have AIDS, homosexual males tend to die by their mid-40s (and lesbians by their late 40s). Some downright peculiar results followed from this inference. One is that--contrary to the opinion of virtually everyone else in the world--AIDS in fact hasn't reduced gay males' life expectancy by that much--a few years, at most. Moreover, the obits also recorded lots of violent and accidental deaths. From this Cameron and company concluded not that newsworthy deaths tend to get into newspapers, but that gays must experience shockingly high rates of violent death. With a perfectly straight face they report, for example, that lesbians are at least 300 times more likely to die in car crashes than females of similar ages in general.
...
Unfortunately there really is no satisfactory measure of actual life expectancy among gay men. However, Harry Rosenberg, the mortality-statistics chief at the National Center for Health Statistics, says he's unaware of evidence that HIV-negative gays have a lower life expectancy than other males. Rosenberg also points to one reason to think the HIV-negative gay male may actually live longer on average than the straight male: Gays may have higher incomes and more education on average than straights--two factors powerfully correlated with longer life spans. (Bennett himself appears to share this view, terming gays, "as a group, wealthy and well educated.")
Complete Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1997/12/william_bennett_gays_and_the_truth.html

So Craig appears to have taken advantage of bull**** stats to grab the attention of his audience. Unless he also claims that lesbians are far more likely to die in car crashes too. Statistical manipulation is not very difficult for those who have agendas and people that want to hear such lies.

Another article that touches upon it is this.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html
Perhaps you could research rather than spout nonsense next time.

totus tuus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Honestly, can we not go one thread without the mention of homosexuality?

Yes, it's the same ol' merry-go-round!

Mintoz

Corkfeen wrote: »

Only got to a pc now, the stat seems to originate from Paul Cameron and this refutes it rather well...



So Craig appears to have taken advantage of bull**** stats to grab the attention of his audience. Unless he also claims that lesbians are far more likely to die in car crashes too. Statistical manipulation is not very difficult for those who have agendas and people that want to hear such lies.

Another article that touches upon it is this.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html
Perhaps you could research rather than spout nonsense next time.

Craig, from what I remember was being specific regarding this statistic, he did say 40, but even if he was mislead, he wasn't telling lie, because he believed it to be true. I am going to do some of my own research on this, because I want to know what's true here. And I do know athiests can be biased when they want to.

Also I think it's unfair to say I was spouting nonsense, since I believed it to be true, and for some parts of the world it could be. Now, if I knew it was nonsense and still said it, then that's a different thing.

Corkfeen

Mintoz wrote: »

Craig, from what I remember was being specific regarding this statistic, he did say 40, but even if he was mislead, he wasn't telling lie, because he believed it to be true. I am going to do some of my own research on this, because I want to know what's true here. And I do know athiests can be biased when they want to.

Also I think it's unfair to say I was spouting nonsense, since I believed it to be true, and for some parts of the world it could be. Now, if I knew it was nonsense and still said it, then that's a different thing.

Craig was also spouting nonsense. As an academic, he should be well aware of the fact that he should check if the information that he is using is reliable. I am sure he was well aware of the issues with the statistics but merely ignored it. Either way, it doesn't reflect well upon his ability in academia.

Also you specifically said it was America, you made the statement without anything to back it up. For such an extreme statement, you are expected to back it up if you don't want it to be viewed as nonsense.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.