NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow, 17 pages. I'm impressed. Free Will, Original Sin, Papal Corruption and Infalibility. None of them discussed in anything but a extreeme overview manner, glossed over to a point where the discussion is meaningless, but interesting never the less in a bang your head against a brick wall and call it fun sort of way. :headbang:

I could fill a paperback novel just trying to respond to all of it. Fortunately I won't.

Somehow I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether Catholics follow the teachings of their church. Well if you don't follow a group's beliefs can you really claim to be a member of that group? Now some may argue, but what if I follow most of the group's beliefs? Then perhaps you can claim to be a member.

Wow, 17 pages. I'm impressed. Free Will, Original Sin, Papal Corruption and Infalibility. None of them discussed in anything but a extreeme overview manner, glossed over to a point where the discussion is meaningless, but interesting never the less in a bang your head against a brick wall and call it fun sort of way. :headbang:

I could fill a paperback novel just trying to respond to all of it. Fortunately I won't.

Somehow I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether Catholics follow the teachings of their church. Well if you don't follow a group's beliefs can you really claim to be a member of that group? Now some may argue, but what if I follow most of the group's beliefs? Then perhaps you can claim to be a member.
I would say its posible to an extent that a person might associate themselves with a group while not holding or agreeing with all of its beliefs. I know plenty of conservative catholics who are all for the social conservative aspects of catholicism while completly ignoring the social justice aspects as an example.

Wow, 17 pages. I'm impressed. Free Will, Original Sin, Papal Corruption and Infalibility. None of them discussed in anything but a extreeme overview manner, glossed over to a point where the discussion is meaningless, but interesting never the less in a bang your head against a brick wall and call it fun sort of way. :headbang:

I could fill a paperback novel just trying to respond to all of it. Fortunately I won't.

Somehow I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether Catholics follow the teachings of their church. Well if you don't follow a group's beliefs can you really claim to be a member of that group? Now some may argue, but what if I follow most of the group's beliefs? Then perhaps you can claim to be a member.

I like how you criticize the thread for "gloss[ing] over" issues, but then excuse yourself from discussing them becasue it would "fill a paperback novel."

I like how you criticize the thread for "gloss[ing] over" issues, but then excuse yourself from discussing them becasue it would "fill a paperback novel."
The only real criticism I could see being leveled at this thread is a lack of common decency on the part of some to respect the request of the op that this be used as a place for Catholics to discuss their feelings on the church with out it with out it degenerating into catholic-bashing.

The only real criticism I could see being leveled at this thread is a lack of common decency on the part of some to respect the request of the op that this be used as a place for Catholics to discuss their feelings on the church with out it with out it degenerating into catholic-bashing.

Well I am a Catholic so do I have the right to bash the Church?

The only real criticism I could see being leveled at this thread is a lack of common decency on the part of some to respect the request of the op that this be used as a place for Catholics to discuss their feelings on the church with out it with out it degenerating into catholic-bashing.

The OP should have -- and did -- know better. This is a debate forum, not a tea club.

Nor is discussing the Church's views and history necessarily bashing it. though it is curious how it is often viewed that way.

Well I am a Catholic so do I have the right to bash the Church?
Sure, I'll join you. I dislike the church's position in regardes to homosexuals, now its your turn.

The OP should have -- and did -- know better. This is a debate forum, not a tea club.
Yeah, doesn't mean it isn't rude or that som eof the posters doing the attacking haven't shown the same level of intolerance towards the religous as they critcize the religous of showing towards the secular.

Sure, I'll join you. I dislike the church's position in regardes to homosexuals, now its your turn.


Well, thats a specific issue and I like that fact that you regard my request far better than most in this thread. And yes I know its general and thats how it is, that still doesn't mean its not rude. The issue of homosexuality is often missunderstood, I am not accusing you of missunderstanding, I just want to know exactly what the position you disagree with is.

So you define free will as the difference between humans and other animals?

I guess by definition animals lack it, then. :rolleyes:


No I defined it as the ability to do what we want when we want, though obviously there are the physical limits to what we decide to do (like we cant just decide to fly) I only said that animals don't have it to clarify. Animals don't really decide anything, but people can. Now I am pretty sure that won't convince you, but still thats what I believe based upon biblical, and some scientific eveidence, with a healthy sprinkle of logic. Obiously my reasons are not enough to satisfy you since you seem to go solely on the idea that humans are nothing more than the next step in evolution. I can see why its hard for you to grasp my concept.

Alright, Catholics, what do you disagree with about the church you profess to be a member of? I want to know who thinks what of the views of the church. Also, I politely ask for an super anti catholics to avoid posting attacks, I want this to be a discussioin of the chruch between its members, I dont want it to be a Chastisement of all the churchs beliefs.
So lets start this debate and see what teh average catholic doesnt like about his/her faith.
Not a cathoic now but was

Found the churches treatment of thoes raped by priest detestable (in a VERY personell way)

That would be plenty for me to never be able to set foot in church again

No. it is not.

Wow good arguement. Yes actually its simply is the ability to choose freely, thus being Free Will


Well of course. Men wrote the Bible so guess who has the rights?

Fair enough, there is no arguement I could make to convince you to belive me when I say the bible is right. Men did write it, but they did so under divine inspiration, so the word is God's, just written by human hands. And since you probably don't even believe in God, that means nothing to you.


You haven't defined anything that sets us apart from the higher primates. They do what you just described.

What, they make free choices and posses the ability to do whatever they want? Well no they don't, they react to instinct and emotion (emotion is a chemical reation in the brain so yes they do have it just like us) neither of which constitutes free will.


So if the choice is to love and serve him or go to Hell; then how is that free will?

Well simple, you can plainly choose to go to hell, you don't have to make the right choice. But its really not that simple, the path to hell is vastly littered with false promises and fake happiness, so many people are fooled by the wiles of the Devil.

My understanding of the Church's stance on homosexuality:

-Homosexuals should not have sex, because there is no chance that life will develop from that act, so it does not fullfil the purpose of sex as given to us by God. It is trying to seperate the good feelings of sex from the possibility of the formation of life, trying to eat your cake and have it too.

-Homosexuals should not get married/the Church will not marry homosexuals, because the formation of life and the raising of the family are the fundamental purposes of marriage. While homosexuals can raise children, they cannot form life.

-The golden rule (treat others the way you want to be treated) still applies to the treatment of homosexuals. Also remember to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

My understanding of the Church's stance on homosexuality:

-Homosexuals should not have sex, because there is no chance that life will develop from that act, so it does not fullfil the purpose of sex as given to us by God. It is trying to seperate the good feelings of sex from the possibility of the formation of life, trying to eat your cake and have it too.

-Homosexuals should not get married/the Church will not marry homosexuals, because the formation of life and the raising of the family are the fundamental purposes of marriage. While homosexuals can raise children, they cannot form life.

-The golden rule (treat others the way you want to be treated) still applies to the treatment of homosexuals. Also remember to hate the sin, but love the sinner.


Yeah them old people should stop having having sex as well ... menopause hits and all the sudden it is sinfull

Yeah them old people should stop having having sex as well ... menopause hits and all the sudden it is sinfull

It is possible for a couple to conceive after they have apparently hit menopause. It is significantly less possible for someone two males or two females to conceive.

It's the Christian view of Lucifer that I can't comprehend.

Here we have a God that according to the official doctrine believes in free will. He accepts that not all humans want to serve Him, and He lets us choose. Isn't this exactly what Lucifer ensures? For that matter, isn't that exactly what Original Sin ensured? Adam and Eve were slaves to God, blindly following Him; they disobeyed God, attained knowledge of good and evil, and thus affirmed their own sovereignty, their own capability of free will. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Isn't this what God wanted - obedience freely chosen, and not compelled?

But if it is, why must we continually atone for it?


Adam and Eve always had free will, they had to have it in order to disobey God in the first place. Satan is the one whom you choose when you choose not to do the right thing. The attainment of the knowledge of good and evil only served to make it harder to choose the right thing, thats the dark little voice inside of you telling you to sin again also known as concupisence. God wanted us to choose him but we made it harder to see that he is the right choice by darkening our judgement in disobeying him.

It is possible for someone to conceive after they have apparently hit menopause. It is significantly less possible for someone two males or two females to conceive.
With current medical tests then all females around that age to make sure that they are in fact fertile yet. Because it would be a sin if they were still having sex and could not concive, we cant have people putting their soul's in jepordy.

Adam and Eve always had free will, they had to have it in order to disobey God in the first place.

But they didn't know what they were doing. They were like robots who malfunctioned, not sovereign humans making a choice.

Edit: And they still escaped the domain God dominated to a world they could control. They ran away from their master, and thus denied His authority over them; from then on, any service would involve no compulsion and no permanent commitment.

Fair enough, there is no arguement I could make to convince you to belive me when I say the bible is right. Men did write it, but they did so under divine inspiration, so the word is God's, just written by human hands. And since you probably don't even believe in God, that means nothing to you.

We take it on faith it is divinely inspired. Why else have the authors been left off? Who wrote the four main Gospels? Never mind the fact that they were written 60 or so years latter. Also, what of the fact that early Christianity had different versions(ie the Gnostics).

It's simple to dismiss me as an unbeliver/athiest isn't it?

Remember? Catholic school most of my life, alterboy, and even gave serious thought to the Priesthood.


What, they make free choices and posses the ability to do whatever they want? Well no they don't, they react to instinct and emotion (emotion is a chemical reation in the brain so yes they do have it just like us) neither of which constitutes free will.

Ahh so do we. You don't think chemical reactions aren't involved with humans?


Well simple, you can plainly choose to go to hell, you don't have to make the right choice. But its really not that simple, the path to hell is vastly littered with false promises and fake happiness, so many people are fooled by the wiles of the Devil.

Ok Free will?????

Worship me or go to hell?

It is a choice but it's not exactly free will.

Yeah them old people should stop having having sex as well ... menopause hits and all the sudden it is sinfull

Whoa, it's sinful for homosexuals also becuase it's in violation of the natural order of sex which God created. When old people do after menopause, it is still open to the chance of life though that chance is damn near none, whereas with homosexuals there is never any openess to life since its in violation of natural order and the chemistry doesn's add up to equal a baby. It has happened, there were instances in which a women past bearing age(after menopause) have given birth.(Ill have to do some research before I can present some specific cases but there is at least one I have heard of). I believe one such instance is the birth of John the Baptist in the bible it says that elizabeth was past bearing age when she had him. Point is that old people sex is still open to life, homosexuality is not.

Whoa, it's sinful for homosexuals also becuase it's in violation of the natural order of sex which God created.

So God didn't create gays? Who did?

Why do people believe that God is so boring as to sponsor only one variety of sexual orientation?

Whoa, it's sinful for homosexuals also becuase it's in violation of the natural order of sex which God created. When old people do after menopause, it is still open to the chance of life though that chance is damn near none, whereas with homosexuals there is never any openess to life since its in violation of natural order and the chemistry doesn's add up to equal a baby. It has happened, there were instances in which a women past bearing age(after menopause) have given birth.(Ill have to do some research before I can present some specific cases but there is at least one I have heard of). I believe one such instance is the birth of John the Baptist in the bible it says that elizabeth was past bearing age when she had him. Point is that old people sex is still open to life, homosexuality is not.
But we can test if it is any sort of possibility for sure

It is within our power

I am sure some woman through artificial hormone treatment can remante fertile for quite a long time but we can make sure

Nothings too much for our everlasting soul.

We have the power and the resources to test each individual and determine if they should or should not be having sex

Well, thats a specific issue and I like that fact that you regard my request far better than most in this thread. And yes I know its general and thats how it is, that still doesn't mean its not rude. The issue of homosexuality is often missunderstood, I am not accusing you of missunderstanding, I just want to know exactly what the position you disagree with is.
Oh,I understand the reasoning behind it, over 14 years in Catholic educational institutions (attended a Redemptorists' elementry/middle school, parochial high school, and am currently at a Jesuit college) has seen to that, I just don't agree with it.

Oh,I understand the reasoning behind it, over 14 years in Catholic educational institutions (attended a Redemptorists' elementry/middle school, parochial high school, and am currently at a Jesuit college) has seen to that, I just don't agree with it.
I went though Elementry/middle here ... thank god my parents did not make me continue

With current medical tests then all females around that age to make sure that they are in fact fertile yet. Because it would be a sin if they were still having sex and could not concive, we cant have people putting their soul's in jepordy.

You and your "making me think..." ;)

Yes, couples that are quite certain that they can no longer conceive should probably stop having sex.

You and your "making me think..." ;)

Yes, couples that are quite certain that they can no longer conceive should probably stop having sex.
:) hey thinking is cool dont get me wrong while ,I may dislike and not agree with a lot of these positions I do like listening ... every once and a while ya learn something new or a new point of view

Its probably why I have stuck around as long as I have :)

Some people are like "Ohhh not THIS again"

But really there are always differences in a thread even on the same arguement ...

With current medical tests then all females around that age to make sure that they are in fact fertile yet. Because it would be a sin if they were still having sex and could not concive, we cant have people putting their soul's in jepordy.
See I always asked that question too, the answer I got was that there was room in such a situation for a miracle ala Sarah or Elisabeth. Personaly that doesn't quite satisfy me.

See I always asked that question too, the answer I got was that there was room in such a situation for a miracle ala Sarah or Elisabeth. Personaly that doesn't quite satisfy me.
No I mean there is always the chance god will make one lesbian partner prego too ... there is about the same probibility lol

I went though Elementry/middle here ... thank god my parents did not make me continue
Eh, it wasn't so bad, and my mom is Professor in the pharmacy department of the college I'm at so that really does a number on tuition.

Eh, it wasn't so bad, and my mom is Professor in the pharmacy department of the college I'm at so that really does a number on tuition.
I couldent handle it anymore ... I had some ... extenuating circumstances

We take it on faith it is divinely inspired. Why else have the authors been left off? Who wrote the four main Gospels? Never mind the fact that they were written 60 or so years latter. Also, what of the fact that early Christianity had different versions(ie the Gnostics).

It's simple to dismiss me as an unbeliver/athiest isn't it?

Remember? Catholic school most of my life, alterboy, and even gave serious thought to the Priesthood.

My mistake I forgot you were in fact a believer, but your arguments present you in that light. In that case, since you do have faith in God, or so you imply, then you understand when I say divinely inspired. The authors did the will of God in their writings, though there were some who wrote falsehoods to confuse the faithful. You know who wrote the gospels, and the fact that they were written 60 years after is not of any serious inportance, since they were also divinely inspired as well as written on the actual life of Christ. Gnostics were a group of heretic who held belief in a sort of secret knowledge, which is in opposition of the church since they hold that the knowledge of God is to be made known to everyone. As for your Catholic history, I am only sorry that you decide against the Catholics and did delve further into the Church.


Ahh so do we. You don't think chemical reactions aren't involved with humans?

I even said that we have the chemical effects known as emotion. Often emotion clouds our free will, but emotion is still a good thing nonetheless. Human Emotion, though completey explained by modern science can still be influenced by God. God can trigger emotions within us.


Ok Free will?????

Worship me or go to hell?

It is a choice but it's not exactly free will.

Its entirely free, you are free to make up your mind. But when someone sins they often do it because it seems to be the thing they want most at that moment, they often do not see that it is actually a false promise or false happiness designed to lead them astray. So it's not like a one time test where God comes down and says "Ok what'll it be, Me or eternal suffering?"
You make your decision through your everyday actions and choices.

I couldent handle it anymore ... I had some ... extenuating circumstances
Yeah, I was kinda getting that from a few of your other posts.

Yeah, I was kinda getting that from a few of your other posts.
Yeah ... fun times lol I am just trying to not let it overwhelm my argument ability ... it is so easy to just hate the whole organization lol

So God didn't create gays? Who did?

Why do people believe that God is so boring as to sponsor only one variety of sexual orientation?


Whoa, I bet you think that homosexuality is genetic don't you? Look it up, there are cases in which twins(genetically identical people) have different sexual orientations. Homosexuality is a malforamtion of God's intended orientation. It is commoly believed to be caused by a parent who is lacking in their realtionship with the child. For boys it is thougth to be casued by a distant and unconnected father while having an overbearin mother. For girls its vice vers.

Whoa, I bet you think that homosexuality is genetic don't you? Look it up, there are cases in which twins(genetically identical people) have different sexual orientations. Homosexuality is a malforamtion of God's intended orientation. It is commoly believed to be caused by a parent who is lacking in their realtionship with the child. For boys it is thougth to be casued by a distant and unconnected father while having an overbearin mother. For girls its vice vers.
Commonly believed by who?

Whoa, I bet you think that homosexuality is genetic don't you? Look it up, there are cases in which twins(genetically identical people) have different sexual orientations. Homosexuality is a malforamtion of God's intended orientation. It is commoly believed to be caused by a parent who is lacking in their realtionship with the child. For boys it is thougth to be casued by a distant and unconnected father while having an overbearin mother. For girls its vice vers.
And you claim it is not? everything I have seen suggests it is a big combination of genetic predisposition, envyromental factors (pre and post birth) and early experiences

Care to show us where they have eliminated any of thoes three factors

OR does you just claiming it to be so make it so

But we can test if it is any sort of possibility for sure

It is within our power

I am sure some woman through artificial hormone treatment can remante fertile for quite a long time but we can make sure

Nothings too much for our everlasting soul.

We have the power and the resources to test each individual and determine if they should or should not be having sex


Well that ability to test still does not exlude being open to life on all natural levels. When you have sex you should be open to the possiblity as in you cannot interfere witht the natural process. If the woman is infertile, you are not interfereing with the natural process. Thats what NFP is based on. Its ok to have sex with your wife if she is incapapble of reproducing(at least normally, there are of course miracles from time to time) as long as you are open to the possiblity and not interfering witht eh natural process.

No I mean there is always the chance god will make one lesbian partner prego too ... there is about the same probibility lol

The probability of a woman developing and ejaculating sperm is about the same probability of a hormonal surge that would cause a post-menopause woman to menstruate? Or perhaps are you talking about one of the women somehow ejaculating her egg, and then the eggs somehow fusing? It seems like that is even less likely to succeed than asexual reproduction...

To be perfectly honest, I don't know a whole lot about menopause (it's not something that I have to worry about ;)), but that seems to be a bit off...

Well that ability to test still does not exlude being open to life on all natural levels. When you have sex you should be open to the possiblity as in you cannot interfere witht the natural process. If the woman is infertile, you are not interfereing with the natural process. Thats what NFP is based on. Its ok to have sex with your wife if she is incapapble of reproducing(at least normally, there are of course miracles from time to time) as long as you are open to the possiblity and not interfering witht eh natural process.
Thats ok I dated a hermaphadite for awhile so I am safe both ways (god I love being bi some days)

And you claim it is not? everything I have seen suggests it is a big combination of genetic predisposition, envyromental factors (pre and post birth) and early experiences

Care to show us where they have eliminated any of thoes three factors

OR does you just claiming it to be so make it so

That is broad and vague, there are instances where Genetically identical twins have different sexual orientaions. That eliminates the variable of genetics. Homosexuality is caused by nurture, as homosexuality is a perversion of the natureal order.

The probability of a woman developing and ejaculating sperm is about the same probability of a hormonal surge that would cause a post-menopause woman to menstruate?

To be perfectly honest, I don't know a whole lot about menopause (it's not something that I have to worry about ;)), but that seems to be a bit off...
Not just post menopause I was talking extreme age ... I would bet that in either case the probability is way below any calculatable Confidence limits or interval

That is broad and vague, there are instances where Genetically identical twins have different sexual orientaions. That eliminates the variable of genetics. Homosexuality is caused by nurture, as homosexuality is a perversion of the natureal order.

No, it doesn't. If the genetics aren't the only factor, and the other factors are different, the final results may be different, even while genetics (which are in this case identical) are the same.

No I mean there is always the chance god will make one lesbian partner prego too ... there is about the same probibility lol


No, God does not do things in probabilities, humans do. Do not apply our human limitatino to God. God can see what's right and just and can then decide to make a mircle happen. And seeing as homosexuality is a perversion of his intended design for human beings, I don't think he will be making a lesbain pregnant through divine intervention.

That is broad and vague, there are instances where Genetically identical twins have different sexual orientaions. That eliminates the variable of genetics. Homosexuality is caused by nurture, as homosexuality is a perversion of the natureal order.
Ok show us an example

Some clear example of twins


Though not sure you are going to overcome the embarasment factor, so many poor people have and still do hide their sexuality out of fear and embarasment

Edit: and like I stated before genetics is not the ONLY factor they could have differed in other ways

All that would show is that genetics may or may not have made the difference in THAT case

No, God does not do things in probabilities, humans do. Do not apply our human limitatino to God. God can see what's right and just and can then decide to make a mircle happen. And seeing as homosexuality is a perversion of his intended design for human beings, I don't think he will be making a lesbain pregnant through divine intervention.
Im not sure god cares what you think if he exists

No, it doesn't. If the genetics aren't the only factor, and the other factors are different, the final results may be different, even while genetics (which are in this case identical) are the same.
Thank you stated better then I somehow managed ... though I am sure he will ignore the better post and focus on mine lol oh well

No, God does not do things in probabilities, humans do. Do not apply our human limitatino to God. God can see what's right and just and can then decide to make a mircle happen. And seeing as homosexuality is a perversion of his intended design for human beings, I don't think he will be making a lesbain pregnant through divine intervention.

Neither do I...Then again, when's the last time he did anything?

Not just post menopause I was talking extreme age ... I would bet that in either case the probability is way below any calculatable Confidence limits or interval

I maintain that it is less likely for lesbian/gay couples to conceive than heterosexual couples that are of any extremely advanced age, but I concede that in both situations the numbers end up being so small as to be insignificant.

No, God does not do things in probabilities, humans do. Do not apply our human limitatino to God. God can see what's right and just and can then decide to make a mircle happen. And seeing as homosexuality is a perversion of his intended design for human beings, I don't think he will be making a lesbain pregnant through divine intervention.
Hey, you're the one saying God couldn't let homosexual couples reproduce if he wanted. After all if we are counting on miracles in the case of infertile heterosexual couples...

Neither do I...Then again, when's the last time he did anything?
Did he not appear on a grill chese fairly recently?

Did he not appear on a grill chese fairly recently?

Mmmm....Girlled cheese...Crap, now I'm hungry.

Did he not appear on a grill chese fairly recently?
I think that was an Easter egg.

Hey, you're the one saying God couldn't let homosexual couples reproduce if he wanted. After all if we are counting on miracles in the case of infertile heterosexual couples...

Not quite miracles, considering it is within the realm of biological possibility in the case of extreme age, even though the numbers are essentially insignificant, it wouldn't necessarily take a miracle.

I think that was an Easter egg.
Sorry it was marry I think

http://s04.imagehost.org/0606/grilled_cheese.jpg

And seeing as homosexuality is a perversion of his intended design for human beings

So God made a mistake, did He?

Wasn't careful enough on that sixth day, added a little too much pepper, and made some of His intricately crafted human beings homosexuals?

Or maybe - just maybe - God isn't as intolerant as some of His worshippers, and honors and sanctifies all kinds of consensual and egalitarian love and expressions of love?

Not quite miracles, considering it is within the realm of biological possibility in the case of extreme age, even though the numbers are essentially insignificant, it wouldn't necessarily take a miracle.
Yes, but couples where one has been left physicaly incappable of reproduction for some reason, uterous or testicular cancer victims for example, are still allowed to get married as well. It's gonna take something miraculous to let them have children.

So God made a mistake, did He?

Wasn't careful enough on that sixth day, added a little too much pepper, and made some of His intricately crafted human beings homosexuals?

No, He gave humans free will. We used that free will to disobey Him. The only mistake was ours.

So God made a mistake, did He?

Wasn't careful enough on that sixth day, added a little too much pepper, and made some of His intricately crafted human beings homosexuals?

Or maybe - just maybe - God isn't as intolerant as some of His worshippers, and honors and sanctifies all kinds of consensual and egalitarian love and expressions of love?
I sure hope so

Other wise I guess I am in trouble

Oh well his religion is responsible for my loss of homosexual virginity so I blame it on them anyways lol

Yes, but couples where one has been left physicaly incappable of reproduction for some reason, uterous or testicular cancer victims for example, are still allowed to get married as well. It's gonna take something miraculous to let them have children.

They shouldn't get married, but is much harder to regulate. You need medical tests/evidence to show that people can't concieve under heterosexual conditions, but with homosexuals, it is a very simple and straightforward thing to deny marriage to all of them because they don't meet the requirements. Trust me, I know I sound like a heartless bastard saying that, but in the words of Coldplay, nobody said it was easy.

No, He gave humans free will. We used that free will to disobey Him. The only mistake was ours.

Right, but we all aren't straight. Some of us are innately gay, that is, innately tending towards that "perversion" of God's "intended design." If God's "intended design" was heterosexuality, why are some of us innately non-heterosexual?

I would understand it if we were all straight, or even if we were all bisexual, and commanded to suppress our attractions to the same sex. But we're not.

My mistake I forgot you were in fact a believer, but your arguments present you in that light. In that case, since you do have faith in God, or so you imply, then you understand when I say divinely inspired. The authors did the will of God in their writings, though there were some who wrote falsehoods to confuse the faithful. You know who wrote the gospels, and the fact that they were written 60 years after is not of any serious inportance, since they were also divinely inspired as well as written on the actual life of Christ. Gnostics were a group of heretic who held belief in a sort of secret knowledge, which is in opposition of the church since they hold that the knowledge of God is to be made known to everyone. As for your Catholic history, I am only sorry that you decide against the Catholics and did delve further into the Church.


Well for me the final straw was the actions around the Pedophile Priests and the fact the Church had a policy of hiding and protecting them.

Take a look at Cardinal O'Conner. The man blatently protected this filth and his Punishment was to run *of course I just blanked on the name* Church at the Vatican.

I have read far too many stories that implicat some of the men currently running the Church.

When there is a formal apology; I will return. Other then that. I have my Bible and will do my own thing.

I am glad my old Priest is gone. This would have devistated him.....

They shouldn't get married, but is much harder to regulate. You need medical tests/evidence to show that people can't concieve under heterosexual conditions, but with homosexuals, it is a very simple and straightforward thing to deny marriage to all of them because they don't meet the requirements. Trust me, I know I sound like a heartless bastard saying that, but in the words of Coldplay, nobody said it was easy.
Hey, don't argue it with me I'm just giving the explination I was given by the Chaplin and one of the Religous Ed instructors at my High School.

They shouldn't get married, but is much harder to regulate. You need medical tests/evidence to show that people can't concieve under heterosexual conditions, but with homosexuals, it is a very simple and straightforward thing to deny marriage to all of them because they don't meet the requirements. Trust me, I know I sound like a heartless bastard saying that, but in the words of Coldplay, nobody said it was easy.
Yeah no body said it was easy ... so why are we taking the easy road and alowing non tested adults to marry (specialy in a church) are they not worth being sure?

Somehow I think it is more because strait people would not stand the church sticking their fucking nose in their personall busness but somehow expect homosexuals to take it lying down

Trust me, I know I sound like a heartless bastard saying that, but in the words of Coldplay, nobody said it was easy.

"Heartless bastard." Exactly. That's the problem with the whole thing. God is not a heartless bastard. In no uncertain terms, He commands us to not be heartless bastards too - "love your neighbor as yourself." Yet this intolerance of same-sex intercourse between loving couples screams "heartless bastard" - it indicates a kind of immoral persecution and intolerance that I can't associate with a truly loving deity.

Heartless bastard. Exactly. That's the problem with the whole thing. God is not a heartless bastard. In no uncertain terms, He commands us to not be heartless bastards too - "love your neighbor as yourself." Yet this intolerance of same-sex intercourse between loving couples screams "heartless bastard" - it indicates a kind of immoral persecution and intolerance that I can't associate with a truly loving deity.
{**slow applause**}

Right, but we all aren't straight. Some of us are innately gay, that is, innately tending towards that "perversion" of God's "intended design." If God's "intended design" was heterosexuality, why are some of us innately non-heterosexual?

I would understand it if we were all straight, or even if we were all bisexual, and commanded to suppress our attractions to the same sex. But we're not.

Trust me, I don't believe people have a choice of being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex. (I have several gay and bi friends, and some of them have gone through hell because of it -on a side note, I don't think they're going to hell because of it). But they do have a choice in how they respond to that attaction.

Humans, in my view, all have a natural attachment to sin, and have had one since the Fall. Each person has sins that pose a particular struggle for them when they try to overcome them. Some people are more inclined to steal than others. Some people find themselves lying habitually. Some people just can't seem to stop gambling more than they can afford to lose. Some people are gay/bi.

Trust me, I don't believe people have a choice of being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex. (I have several gay and bi friends, and some of them have gone through hell because of it -on a side note, I don't think they're going to hell because of it). But they do have a choice in how they respond to that attaction.

Humans, in my view, all have a natural attachment to sin, and have had one since the Fall. Each person has sins that pose a particular struggle for them when they try to overcome them. Some people are more inclined to steal than others. Some people find themselves lying habitually. Some people just can't seem to stop gambling more than they can afford to lose. Some people are gay/bi.
Fuck that no loving god would wish me to not be able to share my love with someone else even if that person is of the same sex.

No one I would care to worship would condem somoene to lonlyness for something so petty

No this was the work of humans not an all loving being

Heartless bastard. Exactly. That's the problem with the whole thing. God is not a heartless bastard. In no uncertain terms, He commands us to not be heartless bastards too - "love your neighbor as yourself." Yet this intolerance of same-sex intercourse between loving couples screams "heartless bastard" - it indicates a kind of immoral persecution and intolerance that I can't associate with a truly loving deity.

When have I ever suggested that I would prevent a homosexual couple from having intercourse? I would advise against it, in their intersts, but I would not prevent it.

Fuck that no loving god would wish me to not be able to share my love with someone else even if that person is of the same sex.

That is something that I can't argue with you about, because I am not God.

When have I ever suggested that I would prevent a homosexual couple from having intercourse? I would advise against it, in their intersts, but I would not prevent it.
Now that I can understand ... I dont as christians to do what is against their faith but I expect the same privilage

When have I ever suggested that I would prevent a homosexual couple from having intercourse? I would advise against it, in their intersts, but I would not prevent it.

I never said you would. I was talking about "intolerance" of it, that is, opposition to it, not legal prevention.

I never said you would. I was talking about "intolerance" of it, that is, opposition to it, not legal prevention.

Never has simple opposition to an act, opposition never acted on in a way that harmed or even really interfered with the individuals performing the act, been confronted with such harsh opposition.

I had thought that this was a forum in which people were allowed to have their own ideas about the nature of the world (you know, 1st amendment and all that), but it seems I was slightly mistaken. More to come.

Never has simple opposition to an act, opposition never acted on in a way that harmed or even really interfered with the individuals performing the act, been confronted with such harsh opposition.

I wasn't criticizing you in particular as much as a particular system of morality that plenty of people do believe in, and attempt to get other people to accept as well. There are plenty of religious gays, and when religions condemn homosexuality as immoral it does interfere with their lives, and can most definitely harm them.

I had thought that this was a forum in which people were allowed to have their own ideas about the nature of the world (you know, 1st amendment and all that), but it seems I was slightly mistaken. More to come.

I never prevented you from having any of your ideas, nor did I prevent you from expressing them. All I did was argue against them.

All I have done is state my beliefs, which are not based on me but are based on something that I believe to be greater than myself (that being God). Of course some of you believe that my beliefs are the product of all humanity's general ability to be a total ass to every other human on the planet. Maybe you're right.

But all I have done is stated my views, in as peaceful of a fashion as possible. I have come to this thread, trying to keep an open mind, so that if I am in error, I may be corrected. I came also in the hopes that all of you would do the same, and as a consequence of that openness and lack of prejudice, you would see that I am sincerely presenting my message in as peaceful of a way as possible (as is the basic foundation of my belief), and at least, as the saying goes, "see where I am coming from". But it seems you have been dealing with those violently and ridiculously opposed to homosexuality, those who are blatant hypocrites, for far too long, and have begun to automatically assume that all those who believe that having sexual intercourse in which there is virtually no chance of conception are of the same stock.

Maybe I'm right, and it is somehow wrong to have sexual intercourse in which there is virtually no/intentionally-reduced chance of conception.

Maybe I'm right, and it is important that I at least make an effort to convince you (in as purely loving manner as is possible) that homosexual sex is a sin.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I have swallowed the bait of the hatred that divides humanity hook, line, and sinker.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I am actually spreading an overt message of hate.

But the most basic message that I am trying to spread is a message of love. Perhaps I am horribly wrong concerning homosexuality. But I don't think I am wrong in thinking that it is absolutely essential that we be as generous, kind, patient, forgiving, and understanding with one another as we can be. Because it is through striving towards these goals, instead of our personal agendas, that we will, as a human race, finally somehow reach an agreement.

And this lesson doesn't just apply to the debates about abortion, homosexuality, etc. that are currently raging; it applies to every debate, every disagreement, and every controversy, ever.

Best regards and goodnight,

Gregg

I wasn't criticizing you in particular as much as a particular system of morality that plenty of people do believe in, and attempt to get other people to accept as well. There are plenty of religious gays, and when religions condemn homosexuality as immoral it does interfere with their lives, and can most definitely harm them.

In my view, it only interferes with their lives in a positive way, similar to the way religion interferes with those who lie, steal, and take the Lord's name in vain.

And Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality as immoral. It condemns homosexual sex as immoral.

I never prevented you from having any of your ideas, nor did I prevent you from expressing them. All I did was argue against them.

Then all I ask is that you try to argue against them with more sensitivity and compassion. Just because I acknowledge the fact that I sound like a heartless bastard sometimes because of my beliefs does not mean I wish to be called a heartless bastard.

But it seems you have been dealing with those violently and ridiculously opposed to homosexuality, those who are blatant hypocrites, for far too long, and have begun to automatically assume that all those who believe that having sexual intercourse in which there is virtually no chance of conception are of the same stock.

I don't think so at all. What you said in the portion of your post above the part I just quoted seems true to me; you are very far from people like Fred Phelps, and don't seem particularly intolerant. I did not mean to insult or offend you, though I seem to have; for that I apologize. Again, I was targeting the system of morality, and the attitudes it can sometimes foster, not you in particular.

Maybe I'm right, and it is somehow wrong to have sexual intercourse in which there is virtually no/intentionally-reduced chance of conception.

Maybe I'm right, and it is important that I at least make an effort to convince you (in as purely loving manner as is possible) that homosexual sex is a sin.

We disagree on basic premises. You accept divinely-ordained morality, and I do not; I do not believe that God's conception of morality need apply to me, and thus even if you could prove to me that He is opposed to same-sex intercourse, it would not change my viewpoint.

But the most basic message that I am trying to spread is a message of love. Perhaps I am horribly wrong concerning homosexuality. But I don't think I am wrong in thinking that it is absolutely essential that we be as generous, kind, patient, forgiving, and understanding with one another as we can be. Because it is through striving towards these goals, instead of our personal agendas, that we will, as a human race, finally somehow reach an agreement.

We agree on this point, at least, though I doubt that humans will ever come to an agreement. At least we can hopefully come to the point where these disagreements do not cause harm.

In my view, it only interferes with their lives in a positive way, similar to the way religion interferes with those who lie, steal, and take the Lord's name in vain.

Self-hatred is not a "positive way." If the only consequence was abstinence, it would not bother me as much.

And Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality as immoral. It condemns homosexual sex as immoral.

I know. But condemning homosexual sex inherently leads to the impression that the desire for it is wrong, and needs to be suppressed, just like the desire for murder, or the desire for rape, or the desire for theft. Negative attitudes towards homosexuality often stem directly from negative attitudes towards same-sex intercourse.

Then all I ask is that you try to argue against them with more sensitivity and compassion. Just because I acknowledge the fact that I sound like a heartless bastard sometimes because of my beliefs does not mean I wish to be called a heartless bastard.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't calling you a heartless bastard; reading over my post I see how you got that impression. You clearly are not, because you realized you sounded like one. I was repeating the term to emphasize my point.

I had thought that this was a forum in which people were allowed to have their own ideas about the nature of the world (you know, 1st amendment and all that), but it seems I was slightly mistaken. More to come.

Welcome to General.

That is broad and vague, there are instances where Genetically identical twins have different sexual orientaions. That eliminates the variable of genetics. Homosexuality is caused by nurture, as homosexuality is a perversion of the natureal order.

The fact that some identical twins have entirely different sexual preferences most certainly does not eliminate the variable of genetics - that's like saying that if I tape a lead weight to the "heads" side of a coin, the fact that it came up tails one time out of the ten I flipped it proves that the weight had no effect on the results of the coin toss. It is, in other words, just plain silly. Last I checked, twin studies have suggested that genetics is in some way a factor, because the likelihood of the identical twin of a homosexual person also being homosexual is significantly greater than the likelihood of someone who is not genetically related, but who shared a similar upbringing, being homosexual. As for "nurture" and "nature", those terms are very deceptive, as "nurture" starts rather earlier than people tend to think. Most of the research I've seen on the subject has suggested that sexual preference is most directly triggered by the level of exposure to various hormones in utero. I have never seen a single study that supports old wive's tales like "homosexuals were abused as children" or "gay men didn't have good father figures." They're unsubstantiated nonsense. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, but all the evidence is against you on this one.

They shouldn't get married, but is much harder to regulate. You need medical tests/evidence to show that people can't concieve under heterosexual conditions, but with homosexuals, it is a very simple and straightforward thing to deny marriage to all of them because they don't meet the requirements. Trust me, I know I sound like a heartless bastard saying that, but in the words of Coldplay, nobody said it was easy.

So, wait. You're honestly saying that survivors of ovarian and testicular cancer should never engage in any sort of full, loving relationship with anyone, ever again? What sort of God would say, "Because you had cancer, you no longer deserve to be loved! Too bad for you!" That doesn't sound like the God I read about in the New Testament...

Also, it seems that in your world, far more children who would otherwise be adopted should also remain unloved, since most people prefer not to raise children alone. Do those children deserve God's wrath as well, for the horrific sin of being born unwanted or of having lost their parents young?

I don't mean to be at all rude or insulting, but I genuinely have a hard time understanding how these positions can fit into a belief in an all-loving God. Could you explain?

Im not sure god cares what you think if he exists


Well I agree with that (yes I know your being sarcastic). If God does exist, and he is the God I believe, which there is no doubt in my mind about his existence. Then god does in fact care what I think. Since I am one of his many creations designed to love and serve him, he cares very much about me and all human beings and what they think.

Hey, you're the one saying God couldn't let homosexual couples reproduce if he wanted. After all if we are counting on miracles in the case of infertile heterosexual couples...


Did I say he couldn't? I said he wouldn't. God has all power. And God is always right, he is God after all.

So God made a mistake, did He?

Wasn't careful enough on that sixth day, added a little too much pepper, and made some of His intricately crafted human beings homosexuals?

Or maybe - just maybe - God isn't as intolerant as some of His worshippers, and honors and sanctifies all kinds of consensual and egalitarian love and expressions of love?


Were you not paying attention? God gave us free will. Homosexuality arises when someone does something wrong. No one is born homosexual, the perversion occurs when the proper order of raising the child is disrupted. Therefore, God made no mistake, we screwed up what he did.

Were you not paying attention? God gave us free will. Homosexuality arises when someone does something wrong. No one is born homosexual, the perversion occurs when the proper order of raising the child is disrupted. Therefore, God made no mistake, we screwed up what he did.

Evidence, please.

Trust me, I don't believe people have a choice of being attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex. (I have several gay and bi friends, and some of them have gone through hell because of it -on a side note, I don't think they're going to hell because of it). But they do have a choice in how they respond to that attaction.

Humans, in my view, all have a natural attachment to sin, and have had one since the Fall. Each person has sins that pose a particular struggle for them when they try to overcome them. Some people are more inclined to steal than others. Some people find themselves lying habitually. Some people just can't seem to stop gambling more than they can afford to lose. Some people are gay/bi.


Now agree on the general theory, but I would say that homosexuality is not an occurence of genetics. I have said it many times, homosexuality arises from fault in the raising of the child. But yes, even if they are gay/bi, they can still go to heaven, they still have the power of choice over their actions, and can thus avoid homosexual acts that are sins.

Fuck that no loving god would wish me to not be able to share my love with someone else even if that person is of the same sex.

No one I would care to worship would condem somoene to lonlyness for something so petty

No this was the work of humans not an all loving being


God didn't make the person have to deal with being attracted to the wrong thing. The fault is with people who have done such things as to disturb the proper development of the persons sexual attraction. It does really suck for the person who got screwed over, but they have to deal with it. By the way, there are reported cases of homosexuality being reversed through a long and slow process used by pschologists.

Were you not paying attention? God gave us free will. Homosexuality arises when someone does something wrong. No one is born homosexual, the perversion occurs when the proper order of raising the child is disrupted.

Wow that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Disrupted upbringing creates homosexuals?

You have no foundation to even justify that claim.

You do realize that homosexuality does occur in the wild right?

Therefore, God made no mistake, we screwed up what he did.

So if humans are imperfect and God is perfect; how does perfection create imperfection?

God didn't make the person have to deal with being attracted to the wrong thing. The fault is with people who have done such things as to disturb the proper development of the persons sexual attraction. It does really suck for the person who got screwed over, but they have to deal with it. By the way, there are reported cases of homosexuality being reversed through a long and slow process used by pschologists.
I call bullshit care to show us one?

Evidence, please.
He has yet to show one shread ... I am calling troll

God didn't make the person have to deal with being attracted to the wrong thing. The fault is with people who have done such things as to disturb the proper development of the persons sexual attraction. It does really suck for the person who got screwed over, but they have to deal with it. By the way, there are reported cases of homosexuality being reversed through a long and slow process used by pschologists.

Alright I will be your example. My father disappeared when I was 5 and my sister was 2. We were raised in a broken home and have been around hippies and homosexuals.

Why aren't we following this "perversion?"

Your "reported" cases are down right fraudulent.

The fact that some identical twins have entirely different sexual preferences most certainly does not eliminate the variable of genetics - that's like saying that if I tape a lead weight to the "heads" side of a coin, the fact that it came up tails one time out of the ten I flipped it proves that the weight had no effect on the results of the coin toss. It is, in other words, just plain silly. Last I checked, twin studies have suggested that genetics is in some way a factor, because the likelihood of the identical twin of a homosexual person also being homosexual is significantly greater than the likelihood of someone who is not genetically related, but who shared a similar upbringing, being homosexual. As for "nurture" and "nature", those terms are very deceptive, as "nurture" starts rather earlier than people tend to think. Most of the research I've seen on the subject has suggested that sexual preference is most directly triggered by the level of exposure to various hormones in utero. I have never seen a single study that supports old wive's tales like "homosexuals were abused as children" or "gay men didn't have good father figures." They're unsubstantiated nonsense. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, but all the evidence is against you on this one.

Actually its not, the fact that twins are more likely to share sexual preference is due to the fact that they are also much more likely to be subjected to teh exact same parenting as one another. Ask a gay man if he ever emotionally connected with his father at an early age and see what you find out. There are psychological studies and surveys that have substantiated my arguement.

Actually its not, the fact that twins are more likely to share sexual preference is due to the fact that they are also much more likely to be subjected to teh exact same parenting as one another. Ask a gay man if he ever emotionally connected with his father at an early age and see what you find out. There are psychological studies and surveys that have substantiated my arguement.
You can ask one right now (well at least a bi-sexual) I come from a two parent happily married home

In fact I stoped back in tonight to have dinner with them

I was very close to my dad ... not only did we work togeather every day (being raised on a farm) but we did everything togeath from boyscouts to camping to all kinds of stuff

There are psychological studies and surveys that have substantiated my argument.

Prove it. I bet they come from religious groups or are sponsored by religious groups.

God didn't make the person have to deal with being attracted to the wrong thing. The fault is with people who have done such things as to disturb the proper development of the persons sexual attraction. It does really suck for the person who got screwed over, but they have to deal with it.

Gee. You have a problem here. Animals lack free will according to you. But there are homosexual animals. God must like homosexuality.


By the way, there are reported cases of homosexuality being reversed through a long and slow process used by pschologists.

there are "reported cases" of UFO abductions, but there isn't any real science behind them either.

Prove it. I bet they come from religious groups or are sponsored by religious groups.
No shit they would just love to justify their agenda

Alright, you all call for evidence. And seeing as I have not posted the evidence I will take time out to go and find the evidenc I have spoken of. Many of what I have claimed waas based on the catholic education I have recieved and I did not make concious note of the actual sources at the time of my learning them, just the information. I will, for proof of my arguments, go back and find these sources from those who have taught me these things. Please allow me a few days to complete this. I assure you that there is proof for almost all of my claims (I cannot say 100% because I am human and may have made a mistake or two, but we will soon find out) So yeah, Im working on it.

Alright, you all call for evidence. And seeing as I have not posted the evidence I will take time out to go and find the evidenc I have spoken of. Many of what I have claimed waas based on the catholic education I have recieved and I did not make concious note of the actual sources at the time of my learning them, just the information. I will, for proof of my arguments, go back and find these sources from those who have taught me these things. Please allow me a few days to complete this. I assure you that there is proof for almost all of my claims (I cannot say 100% because I am human and may have made a mistake or two, but we will soon find out) So yeah, Im working on it.
Note from the experienced dont just google anything you find ... you can and WILL be chalanged on every item

Make sure they are reputable and do in fact back up your claim

It will save you time and embarasment later

You can ask one right now (well at least a bi-sexual) I come from a two parent happily married home

In fact I stoped back in tonight to have dinner with them

I was very close to my dad ... not only did we work togeather every day (being raised on a farm) but we did everything togeath from boyscouts to camping to all kinds of stuff

Well, what do you claim to be the cause of your sexual indifference?

Well, what do you claim to be the cause of your sexual indifference?
Not sure to an extent I have always been this way ... though I have a feeling the abuse at the hands of my priest may or may not have brought some of this out.

I am fairly sure the abuse did cause some sexual compulsion though weather it caused the bisexuality or not I honestly dont know. I can remember liking boys before that time but I dont know how much of that is "natural"


In the end I dont know ... like a lot of people it seems to be a combination of a few different factors

So, wait. You're honestly saying that survivors of ovarian and testicular cancer should never engage in any sort of full, loving relationship with anyone, ever again? What sort of God would say, "Because you had cancer, you no longer deserve to be loved! Too bad for you!" That doesn't sound like the God I read about in the New Testament...

You're honestly saying that the only way to "engage in any sort of full, loving relationship with anyone" is to have sex?

You can be loved without having sex. I think it is safe to say that most people love their mothers in a non-Oedipus sort of way.

There are all sorts of situations in which the best way to show your love of someone is through something other than sex. If you want me to go into detail I can, but I hope you can think of a few of the more obvious situations on your own.

-edit-

Oh, I see now. You were referring to marriage, not just sex. Well, if the couple is already married, they should stay married (because marriage is forever).

If they aren't yet married, then they should be able to express their love for one another as fully as a homosexual couple. I think civil unions are an excellent idea- those whom the Church chooses to deny marriage to on purely theological grounds should still be able to get the same benefits as married couples.

Of course, in most cases, they could probably get married anyways, because I don't think that the Church has a watchdog group for couples that absolutely cannot concieve. As I said before, that is much harded to detect than homosexual couples.

Also, it seems that in your world, far more children who would otherwise be adopted should also remain unloved, since most people prefer not to raise children alone. Do those children deserve God's wrath as well, for the horrific sin of being born unwanted or of having lost their parents young?

I never said that children should not be raised outside of a married family. Children should be raised in the best available setting, and a single, loving carer is certainly better than waiting in line to be adopted.

I don't mean to be at all rude or insulting, but I genuinely have a hard time understanding how these positions can fit into a belief in an all-loving God. Could you explain?

I hope I just did. But if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Many of what I have claimed waas based on the catholic education I have recieved

...except your claim that homosexuality is caused only by environmental factors. I'll post all that the Catechism has to say about homosexuality, for reference. Pay close attention to the middle paragraph.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the numbers are paragraph numbers):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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.