Homosexuality
#11
(06-22-2012, 10:53 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: "Why does God allow someone to be attracted to children or animals and not allow them to fullfil their urges? "

Excellent question and one that I think will eventually enter into the public sphere and become just as commonplace as homosexuality. Honestly what's stopping bestiality or pedophilia from becoming normalized? I'm sure there are sophists out there in academia and the media that, should the general consensus of the culture at large shift towards looking at these things with favor, concoct very serious sophisticated arguments in their favor that will eventually legitmize both. Either that or I've just gotten way to cynical about how low we can go.

I don't think so, at least not as a logical development form the "regularization" of homosexual relationships.  Because a major argument for that in the first place is rooted in the mutual consent of the people involved.  A child cannot give informed consent.  Nor can an animal.  In fact, I would think the animal rights people would fight that pretty hard.

Sure, there will be some that argue for this (there already are, sadly), but I think it will have to come from a different place than the homosexual movement, and the only clear connection between them will be that something that was once considered taboo is being accepted by society.
Reply
#12
(06-23-2012, 12:21 AM)cgraye Wrote:
(06-22-2012, 10:32 PM)Walty Wrote: Why does God allow someone to be attracted to children or animals and not allow them to fullfil their urges? 

God has allowed sin to exist.  These difficulties are he result of sin, the fall of man, and concupiscence.  God is not the Creator of evil, but the Savior from it.

And yet it was God who determined the effects of original sin.  I think the question people actually want an answer to is: why did God punish sin by making it easier to sin?
I think a good understanding of what sin really is....the separation of us from God, makes it a lot harder to sin. But I'm sure that answer won't suffice for the average non-Christian, so I would say that it’s just one more consequence of our fallen nature. We are too concerned with the body and the material world, and not as focused on the spiritual aspect of our lives. We are a soul with a body not a body with a soul.
Reply
#13
I don't know if God really determined the effects of original sin. I think the idea is more that original sin tarnished the image of God in man. The effects of original sin are just the natural consequences of sinning, especially when you remember that evil is privative. Thinking of original sin on this more ontological level avoids overly anthropomorphic conceptions of God, I think, and it also perhaps makes the doctrine easier to understand.

(06-23-2012, 12:30 AM)WesternWarrior Wrote: We are too concerned with the body and the material world, and not as focused on the spiritual aspect of our lives. We are a soul with a body not a body with a soul.

It can be phrased either way, really. The soul isn't just some "thing" that happens to be attached to another thing when it is embodied. The two belong to one another. The body desires the soul, and the soul desires the body, the soul of course being the form of the body. Obviously, the soul is in some sense superior in this relationship, but it is important to remember that, for St. Thomas, the body-soul composite forms an integral whole. We are soul and body, not just a soul with a body.
Reply
#14
(06-23-2012, 12:27 AM)cgraye Wrote: I don't think so, at least not as a logical development form the "regularization" of homosexual relationships.  Because a major argument for that in the first place is rooted in the mutual consent of the people involved.  A child cannot give informed consent.  Nor can an animal.  In fact, I would think the animal rights people would fight that pretty hard.

I've long suspected that part of God's condemnation of homosexuality is to help keep us in line from committing worse sins, sins that involve manipulating or coercing others sexually. Certainly, homosexuality is a disordered behavior and mortally wrong on its face, but when people say that pedophilia or bestiality are more wicked because children and animals can't give informed consent, they have a point. Yet, being so opposed to even consensual perversions made for a society that all the more easily opposed nonconsensual perversions, if I'm making sense.

As we can read in Scripture, those who cannot be trusted with small things cannot be trusted with greater ones, and if we can't be trusted to avoid and condemn homosexuality despite the usually consensual nature of homosexual relationships and acts, we can't be trusted to avoid worse things, like rape or pedophilia or bestiality and the like. Hell, I always broadened this to include the ban on masturbation; if we can avoid the easy sin of self-abuse, we can (or ought to) more easily avoid worse sexual sins. Faithfulness in the little things trains us for faithfulness in the big ones.

So, it's never a question of why does God allow this or that, but always a question of why do we allow it?
Reply
#15
(06-22-2012, 10:25 PM)salus Wrote: Why did God allow 2 men or 2 woman to be attracted to each other. Why must they be alone for the rest of their lives,someone asked me this what is your opinion?

Original sin?
Reply
#16
(06-22-2012, 10:53 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: "Why does God allow someone to be attracted to children or animals and not allow them to fullfil their urges? "

Excellent question and one that I think will eventually enter into the public sphere and become just as commonplace as homosexuality. Honestly what's stopping bestiality or pedophilia from becoming normalized? I'm sure there are sophists out there in academia and the media that, should the general consensus of the culture at large shift towards looking at these things with favor, concoct very serious sophisticated arguments in their favor that will eventually legitmize both. Either that or I've just gotten way to cynical about how low we can go.

A renowned Australian "philosopher" and "academic".

Reply
#17
Those God loves, He chastens  (Rev. 3:19, Heb 12:6)..all of us has been given a cross in one way or the other.

What about those born blind, deaf, mute? or those with depression? Homosexuality is simply one of those -- the saints suffered grieviously in one way or the other, and it's because of it (and the grace of God) that they attained their holiness. 

At least, that's how I make sense of it.


Reply
#18
It was explained to me that having homosexual attraction have anything to di with someone being a "particular soul"....ie, a soul chosen to suffer more than others, because God loves them so much. Not more than anyone else, but in a different way? Wouldn't that be true?
Reply
#19
(06-23-2012, 12:59 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I don't know if God really determined the effects of original sin. I think the idea is more that original sin tarnished the image of God in man. The effects of original sin are just the natural consequences of sinning, especially when you remember that evil is privative. Thinking of original sin on this more ontological level avoids overly anthropomorphic conceptions of God, I think, and it also perhaps makes the doctrine easier to understand.

"Natural" is nothing more than a term for a rule which God consistently applies.  Every consequence is something designed by God, from the result of original sin down to the laws of motion.
Reply
#20
(06-22-2012, 10:25 PM)salus Wrote: Why did God allow 2 men or 2 woman to be attracted to each other. Why must they be alone for the rest of their lives,someone asked me this what is your opinion?

Homosexuality is not mutual like you make it sound. It is merely a disorder of the flesh, like any other. For reasons which may vary (brain chemistry, hormones, etc), the natural desire to procreate is directed towards something inappropriate and because of the disorder in our flesh, that urge can be chosen over reason.

It is a simple thing, not the political quasi religious cult it is now.

I would think it would be better to ask why people can be allergic to common foods like nuts or why people grow up speaking French. It is just one of those products of a fallen world which is unfortunate, yet, still only temporal. It passes like everything in this world.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)