Openly gay and Catholic

[Subduction Zone]

God is omnipotent. So what? What does this have to do with people being gay?

One more question.

Is God omniscient?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you may be blind. For your posts there is #123. #129. and #138 to start with. I will grant that they were not as bas as @DNB 's posts were.

Trailblazer said:
NO, I am not talking about or slandering or insulting any people. I only refer to Baha'i Laws.

Subduction Zone said:
go back and read the posts that you and the other said about gay people. You will find that he is right. I could understand him doing it. but I did not think that you would stoop that low.. I will admit that he was worse.
#154
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Not one of the following posts was about gay people. They refers to you and KH, who accuse me and DNB of judging gay people. You and KH were judging me and DNB.

DNB said: ...yes, you are correct - those that support homosexuality never seem to understand , on any level, the contrarian position.

TB said: No, they certainly don't understand, yet they expect us to understand their position...
That's called a double standard.
#123 Trailblazer, Today at 6:04 PM

DNB said: True, ...but, worse, an agenda - honestly, lgtbq proponents are some of the worst characters out there: aggressive, judgmental, vindictive, abusive, etc.... certifiably so! To the point that I believe that there defense of homosexuality is just a convenient way to make them appear compassionate, ...seriously.

TB said: And they call religious people judgmental, as they are judging us... That is called hypocrisy.
#129 Trailblazer, Today at 6:55 PM

DNB said: Yes, it's entirely ironic!!!

TB said: It is even more ironic when they can't see it what they are doing.
#138 Trailblazer, Today at 7:08 PM

 

[Trailblazer]

One more question.

Is God omniscient?

Yes, but so what?

 

[Truthseeker]

Why would you want to remove "some of the homo"? You did not get the point. That would be no different from removing some of the religions.

The word "fascist" stood out, and I was responding to that. I don't want to answer your question, because that opens the door to you slandering the Baha'i Faith, as you desire to. I expect you will, anyway. So here it goes. As you know in the Baha'i Faith gays are not supposed to have sex with each other, and it would be desirable if there be a minimal of gays Baha'is exist in my view so they won't be overly tempted to do somerthing that would break Baha'i law. It can also be a harder life to not be able to marry someone you are attracted to physically. Sex is overrated in todays world, and love is much more important than sex, but still, it can be hard when for some people when they can't have sex that they enjoy.

My gay wife Sara wasn't attracted to me physically, but she loved me, and she still does atter 40 years. She's one of the fortunate ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trailblazer said:
NO, I am not talking about or slandering or insulting any people. I only refer to Baha'i Laws.

Subduction Zone said:
go back and read the posts that you and the other said about gay people. You will find that he is right. I could understand him doing it. but I did not think that you would stoop that low.. I will admit that he was worse.
#154
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Not one of the following posts was about gay people. They refers to you and KH, who accuse me and DNB of judging gay people. You and KH were judging me and DNB.

DNB said: ...yes, you are correct - those that support homosexuality never seem to understand , on any level, the contrarian position.

TB said: No, they certainly don't understand, yet they expect us to understand their position...
That's called a double standard.
#123 Trailblazer, Today at 6:04 PM

DNB said: True, ...but, worse, an agenda - honestly, lgtbq proponents are some of the worst characters out there: aggressive, judgmental, vindictive, abusive, etc.... certifiably so! To the point that I believe that there defense of homosexuality is just a convenient way to make them appear compassionate, ...seriously.

TB said: And they call religious people judgmental, as they are judging us... That is called hypocrisy.
#129 Trailblazer, Today at 6:55 PM

DNB said: Yes, it's entirely ironic!!!

TB said: It is even more ironic when they can't see it what they are doing.
#138 Trailblazer, Today at 7:08 PM

If one supports immoral laws then that person has a problem with morality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word "fascist" stood out, and I was responding to that. I don't want to answer your question, because that opens the door to you slandering the Baha'i Faith, as you desire to. I expect you will, anyway. So here it goes. As you know in the Baha'i Faith gays are not supposed to have sex with each other, and it would be desirable if there be a minimal of gays Baha'is exist in my view so they won't be overly tempted to do somerthing that would break Baha'i law. It can also be a harder life to not be able to marry someone you are attracted to physically. Sex is overrated in todays world, and love is much more important than sex, but still, it can be hard when for some people when they can't have sex that they enjoy.

My gay wife Sara wasn't attracted to me physically, but she loved me, and she still does atter 40 years. She's one of the fortunate ones.

Why the false claim of attempting to slander? I was not doing that. Have you ever thought that perhaps your interpretation is wrong? I see two choices, either the Baha'i faith is immoral, or the interpretation of some members of it is wrong and that is an immoral interpretation.

The law that you speak of sounds like an immoral law. You might want to think about that a bit.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why the false claim of attempting to slander? I was not doing that. Have you ever thought that perhaps your interpretation is wrong? I see two choices, either the Baha'i faith is immoral, or the interpretation of some members of it is wrong and that is an immoral interpretation.

The law that you speak of sounds like an immoral law. You might want to think about that a bit.

To you, it sounds like an immoral law. Not to us. There is an unbridgeable divide there. You would have to investigate fairly the claims of Baha'u'llah and accept His claims to agree with us. When you used the word "fascist" earlier I anticipated a slander now. I am also used to atheists slandering this Baha'i law. Sorry I was wrong in my assumption. Saying the law is immoral is not a slander, just your opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

If one supports immoral laws then that person has a problem with morality.

If one rejects moral laws then that person has a problem with morality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To you, it sounds like an immoral law. Not to us. There is an unbridgeable divide there. You would have to investigate fairly the claims of Baha'u'llah and accept His claims to agree with us. When you used the word "fascist" earlier I anticipated a slander now. I am also used to atheists slandering this Baha'i law. Sorry I was wrong in my assumption. Saying the law is immoral is not a slander, just your opinion.

That tells us that you need to work on your basic morals.

What is wrong with homosexuality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one rejects moral laws then that person has a problem with morality.

Okay, but we were discussing your support of immoral laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, but we were discussing your support of immoral laws.

No, I am discussing my support of moral laws that you consider immoral.
Who sets the standards for morality, God or man?
Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man.

 

[Truthseeker]

What is wrong with homosexuality?

Let me quote what @Trailblazer just said. She said it well: Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man. For us, Baha'u'llah is the spokesperson for God.

 

[danieldemol]

No, I am discussing my support of moral laws that you consider immoral.
Who sets the standards for morality, God or man?
Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man.

In this thread you claimed you are not a creationist.

That would make hypotheticals about God creating man irrelevant to the discussion.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Let me quote what @Trailblazer just said. She said it well: Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man. For us, Baha'u'llah is the spokesperson for God.

That's a pretty big "if".
Man evolved, if you are going to claim God had anything to do with it the burden of proof is on you "logically speaking".

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me quote what @Trailblazer just said. She said it well: Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man. For us, Baha'u'llah is the spokesperson for God.

Sorry, but that fails on several levels

Once again, what is wrong with homosexuality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am discussing my support of moral laws that you consider immoral.
Who sets the standards for morality, God or man?
Logically speaking, if God created man then God would know what is moral behavior for man.

Nope. If you cannot justify your beliefs they appear to be immoral laws.

You do not even know if they are "God's laws" That is merely an unjustified assumption of yours. I would say that if God is moral they cannot be his laws.

Neither you nor the apparently ironically name @Truthseeker has said what is wrong with homosexuality.

 

[Trailblazer]

In this thread you claimed you are not a creationist.

That would make hypotheticals about God creating man irrelevant to the discussion.

In my opinion.

I am not a creationist because I do not believe God created man on day six, but I believe that God set the process of evolution in motion, so in that sense God is responsible for the creation of man.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. If you cannot justify your beliefs they appear to be immoral laws.

They appear immoral to you. They appear moral to me.

You do not even know if they are "God's laws" That is merely an unjustified assumption of yours. I would say that if God is moral they cannot be his laws.

They are beliefs, not assumptions. What you have is a personal opinion that homosexuality is moral.
Why is homosexuality moral, because so many people now believe it is acceptable?

Neither you nor the apparently ironically name @Truthseeker has said what is wrong with homosexuality.

And you have not said what is right about it.

 

[danieldemol]

I am not a creationist because I do not believe God created man on day six, but I believe that God set the process of evolution in motion, so in that sense God is responsible for the creation of man.

I'm doubtful that you understand evolution.

Evolution is an unguided process in the sense that its only guide is environmental suitability.

So even if (which is a pretty big if) God set the dice rolling there is no evidence that God has any control over the outcomes.

Also you can't cherrypick responsibility from a logical perspective.

If God is responsible for the products of evolution then God is also responsible for the parasites which cause agonising deaths or the genetic defects that kill children etc. In which case it seems a stretch to call God the All-Merciful as Baha'u'llah did.

In my opinion.

 

[joelr]

This is an article from an interview of one who is Catholic and gay. But I think it applies to all Christian religions and the faith and moral dilemma many are faced with. Please keep in mind these are not my words.

There is a basic contradiction. I completely concede that, at one level. At another level—and I confronted this, actually, with my first boyfriend, who was also Roman Catholic. When we had a fight one day, he said: “Do you really believe that what we are doing is wrong? Because if you do, I can’t go on with this. And yet you don’t want to challenge the church’s teaching on this, or leave the church.” And of course I was forced to say I don’t believe, at some level, I really do not believe that the love of one person for another and the commitment of one person to another, in the emotional construct which homosexuality dictates to us—I know in my heart of hearts that cannot be wrong. I know that there are many things within homosexual life that can be wrong—just as in heterosexual life they can be wrong. There are many things in my sexual and emotional life that I do not believe are spiritually pure, in any way. It is fraught with moral danger, but at its deepest level it struck me as completely inconceivable—from my own moral experience, from a real honest attempt to understand that experience—that it was wrong.

I experienced coming out in exactly the way you would think. I didn’t really express any homosexual emotions or commitments or relationships until I was in my early 20’s, partly because of the strict religious upbringing I had, and my commitment to my faith. It was not something I blew off casually. I struggled enormously with it. But as soon as I actually explored the possibility of human contact within my emotional and sexual makeup—in other words, as soon as I allowed myself to love someone—all the constructs the church had taught me about the inherent disorder seemed just so self-evidently wrong that I could no longer find it that problematic. Because my own moral sense was overwhelming, because I felt, through the experience of loving someone or being allowed to love someone, an enormous sense of the presence of God—for the first time in my life.

It is bizarre that something can occur naturally and have no natural end. I think it’s a unique doctrine, isn’t it? The church now concedes—although it attempts to avoid conceding it in the last couple of letters—but it has essentially conceded, and does concede in the new Universal Catechism….
That homosexuality is, so far as one can tell, an involuntary condition.

Yes, and that it is involuntary. The church has conceded this: Some people seem to be constitutively homosexual. And the church has also conceded compassion. Yet the expression of this condition, which is involuntary and therefore sinless—because if it is involuntary, obviously no sin attaches—is always and everywhere sinful! Well, I could rack my brains for an analogy in any other Catholic doctrine that would come up with such a notion. Philosophically, it is incoherent, fundamentally incoherent. People are born with all sorts of things. We are born with original sin, but that is in itself sinful—an involuntary condition, but it is sin.

You see it even in the documents. The documents will say, on the one hand compassion, on the other hand objective disorder. A document that can come up with this phrase, “not unjust discrimination,” is contorted because the church is going in two different directions at once with this doctrine. On the one hand, it is recognizing the humanity of the individual being; on the other, it is not letting that human being be fully human.

Technically, the church is asking gay people to live celibately.
Right. But let’s take that for a minute. Celibacy for the priesthood, which is an interesting argument and one with which I have a certain sympathy, is in order to unleash those deep emotional forces for love of God. Is the church asking this of gay people? I mean, if the church were saying to gay people, “You are special to us, and your celibacy is in order for you to have this role and that role and this final end,” or if the church had a doctrine of an alternative final end for gay people, then it might make more sense. It would be saying God made gay people for this, not for marriage or for children or for procreation or for emotional pairing, but He made gay people in order to—let’s say—build beautiful cathedrals or be witnesses to the world in some other way. But the church has no positive doctrine on this at all. You see, that would be a coherent position at some level—that, for some mysterious reason, God made certain people with full sexual and emotional capability and required them to sublimate that capability into other areas of life.

But, you see, I think the church, at the highest levels, does not believe this. I think that on this doctrine, more than many others actually, the church is suffering from a crisis of its own internal conviction. Because homosexuality is not a new subject for the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a distant subject. It is at the very heart of the hierarchy, so every attempt to deal with it is terrifying. But the fact of the matter is, if the church is to operate in the modern world, the conspiracy of silence is ending. So something has to be said. And the something that has to be said has to be coherent, or it will be exposed, as incoherence is always exposed.

What are the good and positive elements in the Catholic tradition that could lead us to a more coherent position?
Natural law! Here is something [homosexuality] that seems to occur spontaneously in nature, in all societies and civilizations. Why not a teaching about the nature of homosexuality and what its good is. How can we be good? Teach us. How does one inform the moral lives of homosexuals? The church has an obligation to all its faithful to teach us how to live and how to be good—which is not merely dismissal, silence, embarrassment or a “unique” doctrine on one’s inherent disorder. Explain it. How does God make this? Why does it occur? What should we do? How can the doctrine of Christian love be applied to homosexual people as well?
Interview: Andrew Sullivan on being openly gay and Catholic | America Magazine

But you cannot just change scripture. It says it's wrong. The only way out is to realize men wrote these words. There are no revelations from supernatural beings. The entire religion is based on stories and theology found in religions that are older and pre-date the Bible. The church has no obligation to teach anything except it's doctrine and theology. Everyone already knows how to be good people. They do not need religion. The doctrine of Christianity says it's wrong for a man to be gay. God didn't make homosexuals. They occur in nature. What he could do is just move on and replace supernatural sorcery with other types of ways to find fulfillment.