Are you still trying to get me to disprove your ridiculous claim because I can’t tell anymore with this
Winner. But hey anyone can make a theory right and then say prove me wrong!
Ok officially just trolling now. Asks for evidence go back a claim but has no problem asserting things without evidence.
Honestly, I am glad you can stop yourself from forming an opinion. There has never been even one person I have ever met who can do that. May I ask how you attained these Christian values?
More specifically though, I would hope to have authentic Catholic values over any Protestant Christian values any day of the week. Sure the Protestants faiths have portions of the Truth of Christ but the complete Truth can only be found in the Catholic Church.
I have never claimed to be perfect or right about everything. I said in the opening of this thread that I love being wrong. I shared my view on homosexuality and what I think its most common roots could be. Have you or even one other person shared their views on where homosexuality comes from? I was attacked for sharing all while no one shares their views. Too me, that is very ignorant and sardonic.
Do I hate anyone? No, especially people who are so engrossed in their sin they see no wrong in what they do. Look to pedophiles if you want to see what is wrong (can we at least agree there?) while they believe their actions are acceptable?
Homosexuality is not normal, yet no one knows why? Does anyone care or what? What are the benefits to the behavior if any?
A simple question. I could not care less if you answer. * shrug *
I don’t think we can properly come to a conclusion regarding the morality of someone’s attraction to someone else of the same sex. Besides that, who gives a fuck? If people love each other, let them be happy.
Also, homosexuality is in no way related to pedophilia.This is a pretty disgusting statement. Being attracted to another consenting adult that happens to be the same sex is very different from being attracted to and taking advantage of a toddler. How can you equate the two? You can’t. I’m sure you didn’t intend this to be offensive towards homosexuals, but this is ignorance at its finest. I don’t care what the Church says, all sin is not the same.
No I honestly have no clue what the hell youre talking about. Are you asking me if I think abuse is the “reaction” needed that makes people homosexual?
No I think that is as stupid as saying abused people turn into homosexuals now go prove me wrong. And yet we’re still at that spot.
Yet I’m not sure what I should expect from someone who thinks sky terrorist will eternally punish two girls for being in love with each other
It’s very simple: it’s called worrying about your own problems before having the hubris to think you can fix those of other people. In short: grow up.
Look to the mental health of homosexual people and tell me that I have nothing to worry about. I care for all people, that is where I am coming from.
Where did I equate homosexuality with pedophilia? I used pedophilia as an example of a mental state that is wrong. I asked if we could agree that the act of pedophilia was wrong.
Never have I said that all sin is the same! Even my faith teaches there is a chasm of difference between a person who kills another person because they have that desire in their heart and the sin of telling my wife a lie about what I did with my day. That statement made me chuckle out loud ; )
This began because I gave a theory as to why some men become homosexuals and you simply don’t do anything other than insult me and my faith. It’s all good, you don’t need to actually say anymore to me because I believe I know where you stand. Thanks for the conversation you tried to provide.
A Catholic website about just a few Eucharistic Miracles.
"My favorite eucharistic miracle took place in Avignon, France, in November 1433. A small church run by the Gray Penitents of the Franciscan order was exhibiting a consecrated host for perpetual adoration. After several days of heavy rain, the Sorgue and Rhône rivers had risen to a dangerous height. On November 30, Avignon was flooded. The head of the order and another friar rowed a boat to the church, certain that their little church had been destroyed. Instead, they saw a miracle.
Although water around the church was four feet high, a pathway from the doorway to the altar was perfectly dry, and the sacred host was untouched. The water had been held back in the same way the Red Sea had parted."
I wonder what size fish these people say they caught.
“Ok I know you weren’t there but it was 4 times the size of our ship! My line broke so I had to dive to the bottom of the ocean to get it. But I dragged it back up to my ship. And then it turned into a beautiful mermaid who wanted me so bad. And then…”
I’m telling you man it’s true.
Father John Hardon was a very holy man and I have his book about Eucharistic Adoration and it is one of my favorite books to read, especially in front of the Eucharist.
The Real Presence
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Eucharist as Reality
There have been before modern times two major crises of faith in the Real Presence in Catholic history.
The first crisis occurred in the early Middle Ages when theological speculators, mainly in France, raised doubts about the reality of the Blessed Sacrament. The first crisis reached a peak in the person of one Berengarius of Tours who died in 1088 A.D.
Berengarius denied the possibility of substantial change in the elements of bread and wine and refused to admit that the body of Christ exists corporeally on the altar. His argument was that Christ cannot be brought down from heaven before the Last Judgment. He held that Christ’s body, which exists only in heaven, is effective for humanity through its sacramental counterpart or type and that Christ therefore is not really in the Eucharist except, as he said, ideally.
Pope Gregory VII ordered Berengarius to subscribe to a profession of faith that has become the cornerstone of Catholic Eucharistic piety. It was the Church’s first definitive statement of what had always been believed but not always so clearly understood. It is a declaration of faith in the Eucharist as unquestionable and objective and unqualified Reality.
“I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration there is present the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is present the true blood of Christ which flowed from His side. They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.”
Words could not be clearer. If reality means actuality, and if actuality means objectivity, then the Catholic faith believes that the Christ who is in the Eucharist is the Christ of history, the one who was conceived at Nazareth, born at Bethlehem, died and rose from the dead at Jerusalem, and is now seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. It is the Christ who will call us when we pass out of time into eternity. It is the Christ who will appear at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead. It is the Christ who is the Omega of the universe and the goal of human destiny.
Five centuries after Berengarius arose the second crisis of faith in the Eucharist at the time of the Protestant Reformation. Again, much the same objections were raised and theories disseminated as in the Berengarian controversy. And once again the Church countered at the Council of Trent to revindicate the Reality of the Christ who is in the Blessed Sacrament.
The Trindentine proposition of faith is not unlike that required of Berengarius a half millennium before. “The holy council teaches,” declared Trent, “and openly and straightforwardly professes that in the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the perceptible species of bread and wine.” But then Trent added, with characteristic vigor, that this is the plain meaning of Christ’s words when at the Last Supper He said, “This is My body. This is the chalice of My blood.” Consequently the faithful were told “it is an infamy that contentious evil men should distort these words into fanciful, imaginary figures of speech that deny the truth about the body and blood of Christ, contrary to the universal understanding of the Church.”
The Reality of Christ in the Eucharist therefore is no figure of speech. It is no fanciful rhetoric. It is, in the clearest words that can be expressed, the Incarnation extended into space and time. It is literally the Emmanuel made flesh - the God-man who is here and now living in our midst.
The Crisis of Today
Four Centuries after the Council of Trent the Church is now in another crisis of Eucharistic faith and specifically of faith in the Real Presence.
Palpable evidence of such a crisis is seen in the practical disappearance in not a few dioceses of the Forty Hours Devotion; the corresponding disappearance of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; the complete revision of constitutions of once flourishing contemplative institutes that specialized in worship of the Blessed Sacrament exposed on the altar, the widespread neglect of showing any of the customary signs of reverence to Christ’s Real Presence in the tabernacle; the removal of the tabernacle in churches to some obscure and unobtrusive place where the Real Presence is isolated from even possible devotion by the faithful; the mounting literature in still nominally Catholic circles that seldom touches on the Real Presence or that explains it in a way congenial to Protestants who do not believe in Christ’s corporeal presence in the Eucharist, but totally incompatible with the historic faith of Catholicism; the dissemination of religious education textbooks, teacher’s manuals, and study guides that may make an apologetic mention of the physical presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament but leave a distinct impression that this presence is peripheral to Catholic faith and practice and is certainly not a cardinal mystery of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Although seldom adverted to, part of the same crisis about the Real Presence is the contemporary desacramentalization of the Catholic priesthood. Priests are said to be essentially preachers of the word or ministers of the Gospel or organizers of Christian communities, or spokesmen of the poor or defenders of the oppressed or social leaders or political catalysts or academic scholars or theological appraisers of the faith of believers.
So they are. But is that all? And is that the primary purpose of the Catholic priesthood? No. The primary meaning of the priesthood is its relationship to the Eucharist - as Reality, as Sacrament and Sacrifice. And among these three primarily as Reality, made possible by priestly consecration.
Once again as in previous ages the Church’s magisterium has reaffirmed the Real Presence but in accents and with nuances that were not called for in previous times.
Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei was concerned about those who in spoken and written word “spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith.”
Among these opinions was and is the theory that so redefines the meaning of the Eucharistic Presence as to obscure, if not deny, the fact of the Eucharistic Reality. It is as though someone said “I believe in the Eucharistic Presence but not as Reality, or as Reality which is only presence and not objective actuality.”
Eucharist as Presence
This brings us to the second dimension of our subject: the Eucharist as Presence.
The moment we hear the word “Presence” we think of a personal relationship between two or more people. We are present to someone or someone is present to us when we are aware of them and they of us; when we have them on our minds and hearts, as they think of us and sense a kinship and affection for us.
We are not exactly present to stones and trees nor they to us. So that presence implies rational beings.
Presence, as such, also transcends space and time. St. Paul or St. Augustine may be present to me although they are long since dead and although they are not physically where I am physically. They can be present to me mentally, volitionally, or as we say spiritually.
She can be in New York and he in San Francisco. Yet as soon (and as often) as he thinks of her with love, she is present to him. And whenever she does the same he is present to her, reaching over the distance of miles and irrespective of the fact that neither of them is where the other is in body. No matter - they are with each other in spirit.
Presence therefore does not deny physical reality, because two people can be both near to each other in body and intimately united in spirit. But neither does presence require nearness in body. It rather stresses intimacy of mind and heart.
Herein lies at once the dignity and danger of some current theories about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are those who laudably emphasize the subjective aspect of Christ’s presence but at the expense of the objective reality.
Let me not be misunderstood. There is great need, even crucial need, to talk about and act upon the awareness of Christ in the Eucharist and to raise our sentiments of love toward Him. But this cannot be at the expense of ignoring or transmitting the prior fact that Christ is actually in the Eucharist, that in the words of the Church’s solemn teaching He is “contained under the perceptible species of bread and wine.” What was bread and wine after the words of consecration is no longer bread and wine but a living, physical, bodily - in a word, the real - Jesus Christ.
We might then say that the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is at once a reality and a relationship. It is a reality because Christ really is in the Eucharist. So that the Real Presence of Christ postulates on faith the real absence of bread and wine. He is now where before the consecration were bread and wine. They are gone and He is there. What before was real bread and wine is now only the external properties of bread and wine. He is here in the Eucharist truly present. They are no longer present but only their species or, as we say, appearances.
Transubstantiation is a fact of faith and all the twisted criticism of the Church’s doctrine as being Hellenistic or Aristotelian is learned naiveté. For the soul that believes, this is no Hellenism or philosophical terminology. It is the expression of truth. In Greek equivalents the words of institution institute a meta-ousiosis . The ousia or being of bread and wine become the ousia or being of what constitutes Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity. In a word, in the Eucharist is present the totus Christus just as truly as He was present on earth in Palestine and as He is now in heaven. It is the total Christ in the fullness of what makes Christ Christ with no objective difference between who He was then (in the first century on earth) and who He is now (in the twentieth century on earth). Jesus Christ is [in New York] as He is also everywhere where a duly ordained priest has changed bread and wine into the body and blood of the Savior.
Taken for Granted
Having said all of this, however, and how it needs resaying in today’s confused Catholic world, we are not finished yet. As so often happens, error arises among men because they have been neglecting the truth. The hydra of Communism is partly God’s visitation for the neglect by Christians of their practice of communal love.
So, too, with the Eucharist. Too many Catholics including priests had taken the Real Presence for granted. They complacently assumed that Christ is in the Eucharist and they proceeded to leave Him there. Empty churches, empty chapels, seldom a worshiper before the tabernacle and seldom a Eucharistic thought among millions of believers who would be offended if told they were ignoring the greatest Reality in the universe right in their midst.
These are not the words of mysticism or of poetry. They are the language of faith.
What to do? What we need today, in the present crisis regarding the Eucharist, is another Francis of Assisi raised by God to remind the world of his day of what a priest is and what his words of consecration can produce in this valley of tears.
Francis, as we know, was never ordained to the priesthood. But he had an extraordinary reverence for priests because he saw them as the divinely enabled consecrators of the Holy Eucharist.
In his last will and testament, Francis wrote what we today in our sophisticated age of agnosticism need to hear and listen to.
“God inspires me,” he said, “with such great faith in priests who live according to the laws of the holy Church of Rome, because of their dignity, that if they persecuted me, I should still be ready to turn to them for aid. I do this because in this world I cannot see the most high Son of God with my own eyes, except for His most holy Body and Blood which they alone administer to others.”
Francis concluded on a superlative tone that was not customary with him.
“Above everything else” - that is, more important than anything else he could urge upon his followers - “above everything else, I want this most holy Sacrament to be honored and venerated and reserved in places that are richly ornamented.”
This is the simple Poverello whose name has become synonymous with total poverty, even to destitution in imitation of his poor Master. But it is also the mystic seer who saw more clearly than most of his contemporaries who it was who dwells among us in the Blessed Sacrament. It is, in Francis’s words, “the most high Son of God” in human form who is always here in Reality, but He is not always present to us in spirit. We do not always honor and venerate Him reserved in the Eucharist in places which are richly ornamented, not so-much in silver and gold as ornamented in the acts of faith, hope and love that reach out to Jesus who is constantly reaching out to us. That is why He is here; that we might also be where He is, united with Him in spirit as He has united Himself to us in body - as a prelude to that union where the Eucharist will be unveiled and where vision will replace what faith now tells us is true, because truth became incarnate to teach us how much God loves the sons and daughters of the human family.
Skip down to sheep…Around 8 to 10 % of Rams are exclusively homosexual with a further 20 % being bisexual.
Orangutans (one of our closed relatives) have exhibited homsexual behaviour both in the wild and captivity.
So there is a good few mamallian examples of homosexuality that you asked for. Have I proven you wrong yet or do you require further readings?
From your Wikipedia source - “Simon LeVay introduced caveat that ‘[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.’” And why ten percent of a given ram population exhibits the behavior because the reason unknown, that tells me something is not understood, obviously. Where is the theories? This is why more than a n average group o people who write the articles. These people aren’t at the fore front of any science. But we shall continue.
The part about the Amazon dolphin was hilarious!! They use the blowhole to have nasal sex, the only known species to do so. So are you comparing homosexual sex to nasal sex? Jajajaja!!
About American bison - “The behaviour is hormone driven and synchronizes with the emergence of estrus (heat), particularly in the presence of a bull.” Doesn’t sound like actual homosexual sex and this describes much of the homosexual behavior we see in all mammals. But on we go.
In regards to bats “35% of matings during this period are homosexual. These coercive copulations usually include ejaculation and the mounted bat often makes a typical copulation call consisting of a long squawk. Similarly, in hibernacula of the common noctule ( Nyctalus noctula ), active males were observed to wake up from lethargy on a warm day and engage in mating with lethargic males and (active or lethargic) females. The lethargic males, like females, called out loudly and presented their buccal glands with opened mouth during copulation.” Sounds like the bats are so sleep drunk that they don’t know who is who and where something is supposed to go. The bats I have seen in captivity are typically in huge colonies where nothing can easily be distinguished. The species where they hibernate for the entire winter (they typically feed exclusively on insects) is literally a massive mob of bodies. They don’t actively perform homosexual acts exclusively with just two individuals, but I don’t research the behavior in these species.
Then we go on to dolphins, “Janet Mann, Georgetown University professor of biology and psychology, argues that the strong personal behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation and benefits the species in an evolutionary context. She cites studies showing that these dolphins later in life as adults are in a sense bisexual, and the male bonds forged earlier in life work together for protection as well as locating females to reproduce with.” So here Janet argues for strong formation of bonds. Are you citing homosexuality as a bond forming activity in humans?
In elephants the article states that “[s]ame-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity.” Where it sounds like captivity is a serious problem. But that is just a guess.
About the homosexual behavior in giraffes, they cite zero theories as to why such a high frequency exists. In regards to my personal fondness to the mammals, did you know that humans have the same number of neck vertebrae as giraffes? Crazy, huh?
The marmot species is kind of funny, they sound like cats to me. But there is a theme between many mammalian species in that they “display a high frequency of these behaviors especially when they are in heat.” The heat cycles are a common theme.
Again, lions in captivity are a problem. Also remember that males often fight for a herd of females and I would have to read more about this species to form a theory because the article provides little information.
Polecats aren’t even understood other than they are solitary species. But heat has to play a role, in my opinion.
Bonobos are funny! “Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal on observing and filming bonobos noted that there were two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict. Anything that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time, not just food, tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to defuse tension.” So is the behavior in humans to avoid conflict? All I have to say is weird.
Among the Japanese macaques “strong and lasting friendships result from such pairings.” Males of the species “typically [have] multiple partners of the same age. Affectionate and playful activities are associated with such relations.” So at least among the males it is playful and affectionate, but what are the levels and again, what are the roots of the behavior?
“Homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior of orangutans.” But again, where is the proof or even a theory as to where it comes from?
In regards to birth control, this is very telling and yet people who use contraceptives or birth control never want to realize the implication birth control has on our behavior as humans, “Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox conducted a study on how Depo-Provera contraceptives lead to decreased male attraction to females.”
Sheep have a region of the brain called the “‘ovine Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus’ (oSDN) which is half the size of the corresponding region in heterosexual male sheep.” But this phenomenon doesn’t exist in humans. My guess would be because of the inbreeding over a long period of time, but that is a total guess.
The spotted hyenas have many theories but zero scientific evidence.
Have you convinced me that homosexuality exists in mammals? It does exist in some species but just because the behavior does exist doesn’t mean the reasons are known, see above. The root of the issue among researched animals is related to reproduction. My apologies for not being clear enough, exclusive homosexuality does not exist in the mammalian world and it sure does NOT exist like it does in the world of humans. What are your theories as to why?
Next you are going to try and prove gender fluidity exists in the mammalian world too. Of course homosexual behavior is related to reproduction but that does not mean it explains why it exists in humans at the levels we see. Cattle are a great example, they react to the pheromones of other cattle, not to the individuals.
My question has always been, why does it exist at the levels we see in humans?
I care about all people and this is related as to why I hold my position against abortion.
I thought you already knew? Past extreme trauma. Just like the rams
Pfury has one answer for you, but isn’t this just God’s will? His master plan? Are you questioning his design decisions?
Master plan and free will can’t coexist.