God loves Gays, and Finally Sends Jerry Falwell to Hell

[Questioner]

Questioner - you're absolutely positively a "bold faced liar" regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church here. The Catholic church most certainly has not acquiesced to the concept that God makes people gay. There is no hard science to support it. And if there was, gays would supress it out of fear that the abortion policy they now support would be turned on them.

Indeed you are not a Catholic or you would know the church's position. You said being gay is wrong. That is entirely contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching. Having homosexual sex is still forbidden, but the Church realizes that homosexual people, like heterosexual people, have no control over their sexual attractions.

As I said before, you are not a catholic. I would guess you are a fundamentalist Southern Baptist or Pentacostalist. You are spewing their false beliefs that homosexuality is a personal choice. Which is manifestly wrong. And frankly, your knowledge of medical research is so miniscual that you should stop trying to tell a doctor the state of the science in this area.

[dflynn5656]

These post from me are beneath my own standards.

I am therefore deleting them.

Questioners quoting i=of the CCC is a step in the right direction - and I should be supporting her for it.

David

[Questioner]

Absurd - Questioner.

Catholics understand "Gay" as the "practice" or "profession" not the genetic makeup.

Indeed you are not a Catholic or you would know the church's position. You said being gay is wrong. That is entirely contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching. Having homosexual sex is still forbidden, but the Church realizes that homosexual people, like heterosexual people, have no control over their sexual attractions. Here is the part of the Catholic Catechism that addresses homosexuality:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
~ POPE JOHN PAUL II

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Note: The Catechism specifically says, "they do not choose their homosexual condition". It also says "they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity". Your hateful words against gays are unchristian and anti-Catholic.

As I said before, you are not a Catholic. I would guess you are a fundamentalist Southern Baptist or Pentacostalist. You are spewing their false beliefs that homosexuality is a personal choice. Which is manifestly wrong. And frankly, your knowledge of medical research is so miniscual that you should stop trying to tell a doctor the state of the science in this area.

Evidently you still can't read well (your obvious IQ problem is rearing its ugly head again). I said medical science still doesn't know exactly what is the source, whether it be genetic, hormonal, or a combination thereof. Try and spew your nonsense to people who are not experts in the field. You are just making yourself look stupid here.

[dflynn5656]

Incorrect assertion from the text - Questioner.

Either it's a choice or it's genetic and it is NOT a choice. Choice applies to both temptation and action - NOT just temptation (addresed in the text). You are only looking at temptation. Environmental factors and upbringing could explain gay tendancies. Not Gay practices.

The Church assumes Homosexuality (actions only) is a choice until science proves it's not. Science hasn't done so yet. Remeber Gallileo? The Church doesn't jump ahead with scientific pronouncements now a days - before research has proven the matter.

Homosexuality - per the chatechism does not ascribe the condition to an act of God EVER! - it is viewed like depression as of late. Even if a gay gene where discovered - it would change nothing.

Actions are what they teach about - temptation is another matter. They are teaching folks not to act on ANY sinful temptation - not just this "gay" one.


People who profess to be gay nowadays are talking about their condition in light of "practice" now or later - or they are reformed and though still depressed if you will - they are celibate.

It is questionable as to wether Gays who do not practice or ever intend to practice homosexuality are appropriatelty called gay by the standards of modern understanding - since they are celebate. They may be tempted - but they may never have had sex of any kind.

Temptations and trials are upon us all the time - to steal, rape and pillage. But if I see something I want, am tempted to steal it - but resist, I don't call myself a "thief".

The Church is understanding of peoples temptations - not their persistent practice of sin, and profession to be in sexual conflict with the church.

The expression from the catechism "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." applies to recieving repentant sinners BACK into grace. Not absolving them as "designed by God" to oppose his will - which is the spin YOU are putting on this.

Summing it up - "Love the sinner but hate the sin".

Your problem is confusing the churches mercy with an attempt to blame Gods "broken design" and thus absolve gays. If the church agreed with you - they would simply say it" Gays are not responsible for their temptations (I could agree with that part) but they ARE responsible for their actions. So being gay (BY PROFESSION AND PRACTICE) is NOT a sin.

I don't see that coming down the pike.

Environmental factors and upbringing could explain all of this - but blaming God does not absolve practicing or "professing to practice" homosexuals.

I must concede congratulations to you on one count - quoting the CCC. Excelent Questioner - Hats off to you on that regard.

[dflynn5656]

Several of my previous posts are beneath my own standards.

I am therefore deleting them.

Questioners quoting of the CCC is a step in the right direction - and I should be supporting her for it.

David

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Can we just agree that being gay is completely wrong?

No, we can't. And there's no rational reason to say that in the first place. Homosexuality is just as much a part of the human condition as heterosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. There is nothing inherently harmful in any of these things.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Several of my previous posts are beneath my own standards.

You're kidding. When did you develop "standards" for posting? And why haven't we heard about them before now?

[dflynn5656]

SouthernFried - you are one the the folks with the low IQ here. Try not to speak.

Questioner is "trying". And "I" was acting like a horse's "you know what".

Who cares if she's a little off temporarily - she's looking in the right places, and may just get it right - She will therefore rate higher with God then i will for stepping on her attempt to "get it right" and my being a complete horses "you know what".

[A Person]

SouthernFried - you are one the the folks with the low IQ here. Try not to speak.

Ah - an example of the high standards.

[Questioner]

SouthernFried - you are one the the folks with the low IQ here. Try not to speak.

Goodness! From what little even I know of his extreme achievements, I wish my IQ was as "low" as SFIs.

[Questioner]

Several of my previous posts are beneath my own standards.

You're kidding. When did you develop "standards" for posting? And why haven't we heard about them before now?

Be nice, SFI. That is dflynn's way of conceding an argument, and recognizing that my evidence is insurmountable.

[dflynn5656]

No...just crediting you for trying....

that's good.....

[Questioner]

Either it's a choice or it's genetic and it is NOT a choice. Choice applies to both temptation and action - NOT just temptation (addresed in the text). You are only looking at temptation. Environmental factors and upbringing could explain gay tendancies. Not Gay practices.

I'm unclear what you are saying here. The first and second sentences contradict each other.

Your first sentence that asserts homosexuality is NOT a choice is correct. Your second sentence says that choice applies to both temptation and action. Temptation as you are using it sounds like "sexual attraction to one of the same sex". That is what is not a matter of choice. Certainly having consensual sex is always a choice. I never implied anything to the contrary. But the Church is crystal clear that being homosexual is not a sin, is not evil, and is not under the homosexual person's control.

Male homosexuality is strongly (but not entirely) familial. Scientific evidence as follows:

“Male homosexuality nevertheless was strongly familial, suggesting a reconsideration of genetic and familial environmental mechanisms.”
J. Michael Bailey, Lee Willerman and Carlton Parks. (2005). A test of the maternal stress theory of human male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(3), 277-293.

“Research has generally supported the existence of familial–genetic factors for male sexual orientation, but has not shed much light on the specific nature of those influences. Gay men with gay brothers provide the opportunity to examine several hypotheses. Sixty-six men, representing 37 gay male sibling pairs, completed questionnaires assessing behavior on various measures including childhood and adult gender nonconformity, timing of awareness of homosexual feelings, self-acceptance, and the quality of family relationships. Consistent with prior findings using twins, gay brothers were similar in their degree of childhood gender nonconformity, suggesting that this variable may distinguish etiologically (e.g., genetically) heterogeneous subtypes. The large majority of gay men with brothers knew about their own homosexual feelings before they learned about their brothers' homosexual feelings, suggesting that discovery of brothers' homosexuality is not an important cause of male homosexuality.”
Khytam Dawood, Richard C. Pillard, Christopher Horvath, William Revelle and J. Michael Bailey. (2004). Familial Aspects of Male Homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(2): 155-163.

“The range of expression of homosexuality and its association with certain cultural, environmental, and genetic factors are most consistent with the concept of a multifactorial trait. Additionally, genetic heterogeneity in this phenotype (alternative mutants corresponding to a single phenotype) is highly probable. In certain nonhuman and presumably in human species the normal sexual development of the hypothalamus is guided by an appropriate exposure to androgen at a critical early stage, and this in turn presumably contributes to sociopsychologic sex development. Particularly instructive in this regard have been the monogenic experiments of nature in man-XY females with insensitivity to androgens, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and male pseudohermaphrodites (5-[alpha]-reductase deficiency). Additionally, in the human, sociopsychologic sex also appears to be molded by sex assigned at birth and sex of rearing. Several of the intersexuality syndromes and psychoses are accompanied by increased homosexuality, but a majority of homosexuals are not in these categories. A limited number of family studies, including twins, tentatively suggests a heritable risk, at least in some families.”
Headings, V. E. (1980). Etiology of homosexuality. Southern Medical Journal. 73(8 ):1024-1027.

While clearly we cannot do studies with human foeti in which we change the hormones available to the developing brain to see if that will indeed produce homosexuality with one formulation and heterosexuality with the other, studies are now proceeding with animal models (particularly chimpanzees) and at this point, the early findings indicate that androgen availability during early foetal brain development does have a causative influence on sexual orientation.

Those of us in the medical field (Christian or not) who are not influenced by religious biases about sexual orientation are at this point, quite certain that ultimately a brain chemistry etiology will be found for homosexuality, just as it has been found for depression. That of course, will bring up enormous ethical issues relevant to testing and treating pregnant women for foetal homosexuality. And possibly (although this is not certain until we know the exact basis of homosexuality) reversal treatments for teen and adult homosexuals.

[A Person]

I hold that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic or choice is completely irrelevant. Argmentum ad Pisces Rouge.

Someone's choice of partner is entirely their own concern and no business of anyone else. I choose to eat shellfish and wear poly-cotton fabrics. I also shave and cut my hair - and I have some nice brass castings. All abominations prohibited by Leviticus.

Christians who want to live by Leviticus are welcome to do so, but it's hypocritical to select the bits you like and hold others to that selective standard

I can undertand the mental anguish of someone like Haggart who's homosexuality is in conflict with his faith, but that's his problem and he deserves little sympathy.

[Questioner]

I hold that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic or choice is completely irrelevant. Argmentum ad Pisces Rouge.

Someone's choice of partner is entirely their own concern and no business of anyone else. I choose to eat shellfish and wear poly-cotton fabrics. I also shave and cut my hair - and I have some nice brass castings. All abominations prohibited by Leviticus.

Christians who want to live by Leviticus are welcome to do so, but it's hypocritical to select the bits you like and hold others to that selective standard

I can undertand the mental anguish of someone like Haggart who's homosexuality is in conflict with his faith, but that's his problem and he deserves little sympathy.

Most hypocritical to pick and choose. In part, that is why the claim of any person or religion to a literal understanding of the bible is so ridiculous. By the way, I also eat pork, an abomination according to the OT.

But unfortunately, in a political sense the argument as to whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen is not irrelevant. So long as the religious right can promote the false idea that homosexuality is a choice, they are far more able to convince others that it is OK to discriminate against gay people.

But once medical science finally proves that it is not a choice at all (which should be obvious even to the weakest intellect), then the overwhelming majority of fair minded people will realize that all discrimination against gays is itself a moral evil. Ultimately, even the Church will have to accept the fact that homosexuality is merely a relatively common variant within the human condition.

The sad thing about the Church is that the catechism makes it clear that the hierarchy now understands that it is NOT a choice, but still condemns homosexual unions. This is a false path. Logic should tell them that if God made people homosexual, then He did not intend to forbid them the joy of having sexual partners. Homosexuality hurts no one. That is how it is different from things like pedophilia and murderous impulses. Those always hurt the victim--not to mention the victim's families.

Morally, I don't see any difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual marriage. But way too many people are still living in the dark ages. The more evidence we can garner to prove the obvious--this isn't a choice--the more likely we are to be able to move society to more fair and equitable treatment of homosexual people.

The reason I say it should be manifestly obvious that nobody chooses their sexual orientation is that neither I nor any heterosexual I have ever met can identify any point in time at which they chose to be heterosexual. It just was what they were. Why cannot people see that it is the same for homosexual people?

[BecauseHeLives]

I don't think the two things are different.

Sure they are. Sheol (the unpleasant part) is where unforgiven sinners wait out until judgement day. After the white throne of judgment they will be thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

But since hell was cast into the lake of fire, are they not one and the same now?

I never said you could do anything you please. You are certainly misquoting me either on purpose or by mistake.

But you have implied that. Several times you said that once saved, you are guaranteed heaven, and in other places you have said good works are not necessary to get to heaven.

Sorry, but to me, those two things put together sound like you are saying that once saved, you can do pretty much as you please because you are guaranteed to get into heaven. If that isn't what you meant, please explain the difference.

Questioner... look at the book you are reading. Its Revelations. That's in the future. The scripture you are referring to is in that book. Therefore death and Hell have not YET been cast into the lake of fire. It would be reasonable to see that hell (sheol) and the lake of fire are NOT the same place.

As far as your 2nd question goes... its a very common misconception that others have about the Baptist doctrine of salvation. People assume that baptist think that they can do whatever they want after they are saved and there is no consequence. That's just not true. You might can compare that misconception with the one where catholics are accused of praying TO the pope. That isn't catholic doctrine but some people still do it anyways.

Bottom line is this.

1. There is no other way to salvation that through Jesus Christ.
2. We are saved by grace ALONE and NOT through any good works that we do.
3. One who is truely saved (not a person who has simply recited the prayer of salvation) will have a changed heart. That person will not WILL to do anything out of God's will. That person will wish to do good works (fruit) to glorify God - not in order to maintain salvation.
4. One who has maintained salvation WILL likely screw up. Sometimes big and sometimes small. There will be consequences because God will discipline His children either here on earth or in heaven. Jesus said that He will NEVER forsake His children.

A good analogy of this is during the original passover when the angel of death descended on Eqypt to kill all 1st born children in each household that did not have the blood of a lamb (blood of Jesus) outside their house. The angel of death did NOT go to each house and judege how nice each household had been or what eveil deeds they had done that day. It didn't matter because the blood was enough to pay their debts (sin).

[Questioner]

Questioner... look at the book you are reading. Its Revelations. That's in the future. The scripture you are referring to is in that book. Therefore death and Hell have not YET been cast into the lake of fire. It would be reasonable to see that hell (sheol) and the lake of fire are NOT the same place.

Well, it is obvious this is a place where Catholics and Baptists disagree. We believe in one Hell, which has a variety of names in the bible. Not in a separate lake of fire. We also believe that Jesus' salvation is an ongoing process. People can accept it at one stage of their lives, and reject it at another. I believe that people like Hitler who devote their lives to great evil would go to hell. Even if they were "saved" at one point in their lives, it would not matter if they went forward and chose to later reject God's commandments and commit atrocities such as did Hitler. I believe that those people go to hell regardless of any salvation experience they might have had in their youth.

[A Person]

But unfortunately, in a political sense the argument as to whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen is not irrelevant. So long as the religious right can promote the false idea that homosexuality is a choice, they are far more able to convince others that it is OK to discriminate against gay people.

I have to disagree - I know that this has been the focus but basing the argument on a false premise results in homosexuality being presented like a handicap or mental illness "He's queer poor chap, but it's not his fault so be nice to him".

Paedophiles are born with a predilection for children. It may not be a choice for them but that doesn't make it right for them to act on their desires as their 'partners' are not equal and able to adequately exercise consent.

I feel strongly that people should be free to make choices about their personal and sexual lives as long as they don't harm others (I don't consider offending someone else's religious sensibilities harm) and are between consenting adults.

[BecauseHeLives]

Questioner... look at the book you are reading. Its Revelations. That's in the future. The scripture you are referring to is in that book. Therefore death and Hell have not YET been cast into the lake of fire. It would be reasonable to see that hell (sheol) and the lake of fire are NOT the same place.

Well, it is obvious this is a place where Catholics and Baptists disagree. We believe in one Hell, which has a variety of names in the bible. Not in a separate lake of fire. We also believe that Jesus' salvation is an ongoing process. People can accept it at one stage of their lives, and reject it at another. I believe that people like Hitler who devote their lives to great evil would go to hell. Even if they were "saved" at one point in their lives, it would not matter if they went forward and chose to later reject God's commandments and commit atrocities such as did Hitler. I believe that those people go to hell regardless of any salvation experience they might have had in their youth.

I think that we could both agree that if Hitler had professed to be saved that he really wasn't. There are many people in churches today... members, deacons and even preachers and pastors... that claim to be saved but really aren't. Many come to that realization at some point but many don't. Its usually those people that grow up in church or have been in church most of their life that are in this catagory. Many never come to the realization that they've never wholly given themselves to the Lord and think that if they are in church every Sunday, give their tithes and offerings and say a prayer then they ar alright. Well that ain't necessarily the case. A saved person's heart should be changed and they shouldn't have the desire for things not in the will of God.

[A Person]

I think that we could both agree that if Hitler had professed to be saved that he really wasn't.

Surely one of the tenets of your faith is that there is no crime so heinous that cannot be forgiven by accepting Jesus and becoming 'born again'

If Hitler in his last moments in the bunker recognised the evil that he had done and repented of it and asked Jesus for forgiveness then that would be forthcoming.

Myra Hindley apparently repented of her sins (in prison) of luring, torturing and killling children. She became a quite devout Cristian and this was considered by many fundamentalists to be a good reason to release her.

You've told me before that the only crime that cannot be forgiven is denying the divinity of Jesus.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Most hypocritical to pick and choose. In part, that is why the claim of any person or religion to a literal understanding of the bible is so ridiculous. By the way, I also eat pork, an abomination according to the OT.

But unfortunately, in a political sense the argument as to whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen is not irrelevant. So long as the religious right can promote the false idea that homosexuality is a choice, they are far more able to convince others that it is OK to discriminate against gay people.

IMO, this haggling over whether homosexuality is an acceptable part of any human's life is very similar to the arguments that have always taken place between those who want to change a long-standing societal stance and those of a more conservative bent.

Those who are against changes in social attitudes have always pointed to tradition, whether orally transmitted or codified in "sacred writings," to support their fear of change. Often, change does eventually come along, though not without pain. Fear of change always guarentees that, sadly enough.

Don't believe this? Look at the history of America, and the struggles to end slavery, provide for racial and gender equality before the law... we're still seeing these struggles take place after more than 2 centuries. Heck, I understand that even Falwell preached once, long ago, that according to the Bible, black people were created to serve white people.

So if history is any guide -- and I think it is a pretty good one -- it seems to be a sure thing that gays will get their societal and legal acceptance eventually. Though religious conservatives will make the changes as painful and slow as they can manage, they will not be able to keep it from happening, no more than they were able to maintain the practice of slavery, the status of women, or the American apartheid system.

Quote the Bible all you want, it won't matter in the end... the decision in favor of incluson is inevitable.

[Questioner]

If Hitler in his last moments in the bunker recognised the evil that he had done and repented of it and asked Jesus for forgiveness then that would be forthcoming.

You are correct in your understanding of forgiveness. But the stories we have of Hitler's end (if true) are pretty much proof positive he did not repent at the end. Killing Eva Braun and then himself would not indicate repentence.

[Questioner]

IMO, this haggling over whether homosexuality is an acceptable part of any human's life is very similar to the arguments that have always taken place between those who want to change a long-standing societal stance and those of a more conservative bent.

Quote the Bible all you want, it won't matter in the end... the decision in favor of incluson is inevitable.

Agreed. I guess some of us just want the vicious and vile attacks and discrimination against gays and lesbians to end immediately. It is so frustrating to watch the religious right promote hate and discrimination in the name of One who would have abhorred their behavior toward a group that harms no one with their sexual preference, and that has given so much beauty to the world.

[Questioner]

I have to disagree - I know that this has been the focus but basing the argument on a false premise results in homosexuality being presented like a handicap or mental illness "He's queer poor chap, but it's not his fault so be nice to him".

Not at all. To me, being born a homosexual is more like being born with red hair. Lots of people discriminate against people with red hair and redheaded children are often teased unmercifully by other kids on the play yard. Discrimination against gays & lesbians is more like discrimination against redheads. It is discrimination based on the fact that someone just doesn't like that color of hair (or in this case, the other person's sexual preference).

Paedophiles are born with a predilection for children. It may not be a choice for them but that doesn't make it right for them to act on their desires as their 'partners' are not equal and able to adequately exercise consent.

I would disagree with you on two counts here. First, there is considerable evidence that the great majority of paedophiles were themselves vicitimized sexually as young children. While there may well be some people who were born with this predilection, the evidence I have seen suggests it is a result of being victimized during a sensitive period. The theories are that child's victimization causes PTSD which, in the developing brain, gets translated into an obsession with repeating the trauma over and over, but as the perpetrator rather than the victim. And of course, as you point out, paedophilia does great harm to the child. This is far from a victimless crime. When made into a criminal act by society, homosexuality is truly a victimless crime.

[A Person]

Questioner,
I don't think we disagree that much. There is a substantive difference between homosexuality and paedophilia and I am only using it as an example to show that whether the cause is genetic or choice the action must stand on its own.

Paedophilia ACTS are wrong whether or not the cause is genetic, hormonal or simply choice. The cause is irrelevant - it's the effect that's important. If someone has paedophilic tendencies they are going to have to suppress them because society now vehemently opposes sexual acts between adults and children. The child is considered unable to exercise free choice and could be harmed.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults have no such effect. Both partners can exercise free choice and there is no moral jstification for anyone else to be involved. So the question of cause is again irrelevant.

Discrimination based on features outside someones control e.g. hair or skin color, gender or the disabled is no more or less justified than discrimination based on choices e.g. religion, political affiliation or address. The discrimination is what's wrong, not the perceived cause.