Daniel Avila #fundie

Daniel Avila #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.

* * *

In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture's account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God's handiwork.

67 comments

old comment by Mister Spak

@TacticalGrace:

"I wonder what they'd make of me -- I have a female body, I feel like a woman, but I'm a chimera, and one of the two blastocysts/embryos that fused together had XY chromosomes. "

I read an interview where a priest had to deal with that. It was about sex change operations.

Priest: God intended people to be how they were born, nobody should change it.

Reporter: What about people who aren't obviously one or the other?

P: Look at their DNA. That's what makes people male or female. DNA doesn't lie.

R: what about people with unusual DNA like XXY or chimera etc.

P: (Mr Spak paraphrase) Stop talking to me you're giving me a headache. And you all have to do what the pope says.

I also brought up chimeras to a priest in a real world conversation about abortion(if personhood begins at conception, does killing a chimera count as 2 murders?). He never heard of such a thing, it was funny to watch his head explode, although to be fair, this was in the late 80s before fundies realised new discoveries proceeding from new DNA technology had to be fit into their theology somehow.

old comment by WWWWolf

> Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture's account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace.

OK, so the fallen angels are the reason why there are gay people. And also the reason why there are earthquakes and volcanoes and hurricanes.

So why the hell are you whining about those angels causing really tiny and minor problems that harm nobody, like homosexuality, when the same supernatural entities are responsible for gigantic problems that cause incredible property damage and actual casualties, like earthquakes?

It's like if you walked in a city council meeting after noticing a big fucking crater in the busiest intersection in the city, but on your way in, you notice that the toilet paper is out in the bathroom. You then make sure your city's all efforts for that year are focused on fixing the pressing toilet paper problem.

old comment by JSS

{Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.}

Why? Because God is "good" (despite not intervening) and therefore nothing concieved as bad should ever be attributed to him? That's not logic. That's bullshit. I'd like to go back and find every mistake I ever made and claim I didn't do it, but it would be arrogant and illogical. Why should the same not apply to theology?

{In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture's account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God's handiwork.}

And... just more bullshit. In fact this is even worse. You have any credible source attributing naturally occurring homosexuality to bad spirituality or your 'devil'? If your god was truly benevolent, let alone omnibenevolent, the natural "disaster" of homosexuality would've never occured to "corrupt" these people's souls.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God's handiwork."

image

Yet, even with the firing pin removed and barrel welded up, this decommissioned but still roadworthy (taxed, MOT'd, insured & licenced) Abbot Self-Propelled Gun, in the
cause of Self-Promotion of the LGBT cause is not just destroying, but annihhilating your so-called 'omnipotent' God's 'handiwork'.

Judges 1:19 was right then. Not only Iron (as in Chariots) is to God what Kryptonite is to Superman, it's also stealth material to him, even though this Pink Abbot Self-Propelled Gun is about as unobtrusive as an AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship on Centre Court at Wimbledon.

In other words, attraction isn't about science (except psychology), nor even gender: but emotion. Ergo, LGBT people are more the 'Gods of Love' than even your 'God' is. Q.E. and D., darlings! If Romans 13:1-5 means that pro-LGBT legislation is 'destroying God's handiwork', then he shouldn't have put that law-obeying rule in his own Bible now, should he now, the silly?! [/camp]

Man's law is therefore superior to God's law. Thus we are superior to God.

old comment by checkmate

@N. De Plume

Holy fuck! I thought this was pretty standard drivel for a high-ranking bishop.

Avila wasn't a bishop. Far from it. He was a little office attorney peón who had no business mouthing off like he did. Sometimes the strict Catholic opinion monopoly in the hierarchy can actually be good and avoid crap like this.

("Avila had worked as 'Policy Advisor for Marriage and Family' to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage in Washington.")

Looks like he's getting stomped on pretty well - from inside the church. That's a good sign: 50 years ago his statement would have been mainstream.

Here he is in all his hetero-sexual glory:

image

I wonder if he's using his hands to describe a body part of one of his lovers. Who knows? ;-)

old comment by Steven Mading

I've said many times that trying to hang the gay right arguments on "it's not a choice" is a major mistake. Not because it's false that it's inborn and can't be helped. No, I believe that. It's because we have plenty of examples of cases where we don't allow people to get away with immoral behavior even when we know they can't help it (instead we institutionalize them), so if you convince homophobes that being gay is something you can't avoid, but at the same time have NOT successfully convinced them that being gay is acceptable because there's nothing morally wrong with it, then the raction you'll get from homophobes will NOT be "ok then go ahead and be gay". The reaction you'll get will be "Maybe we'll find a cure some day but until we do lets lock him up for his own good, quickly now before he goes out and gays again."

Hanging the argument "please allow us to do X" on "we can't help it" is a really bad idea. It's irrelevant whether it's a choice or not. What matters is that it's victimless and therefore should be okay.

This fundy post is an example of what happens when you start succeeding at convincing a homophobe that being gay really is biologically driven, but haven't made the slightest headway in attacking their belief that being gay is a bad thing.

old comment by Steven Madign

@TacticalGrace

I think you should try to go to court in Mississippi and argue that you should get to vote twice.

According to the stupid law they have up for a vote in Mississippi, personhood begins at conception. This should mean that, as a chimera that resulted from two fraternal twins that joined together *after* conception, you are two persons. As such, you should get the rights of two persons. If you get called for jury duty, they only need 11 jurors, not 12, since you count as two people and your vote counts twice. If you lose your job and have to go on welfare, you should count as two welfare recipients and get twice as much money, right?

Although, having to file taxes jointly with yourself would kind of suck.

old comment by

When earthquakes hit, the man of science design earthquake proof buildings to minimize future damage while the man of faith claims they are acts from God to punish and warn the wicked.

When floods arise, the man of science design levees and floodways to prevent flooding, the man of faith exalt them as acts of God cleansing the Earth of the wicked. (Genesis Chapter 6-9)

When diseases strike, the man of science looks for cures and methods to prevent their spread, the man of faith praise the disease as God striking down the wicked. (See history of the HIV)

The man of science does not deny the man of faith the fruits of his labor; yet the man of faith would wish eternal damnation upon the man of science for questioning his beliefs.

Who then is truly the wicked?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#1347959

"why would an omnipotent God have a problem ?"

Not so much omnipotent, more impotent.

He's done fuck all to try and rectify the problem himself. Why, it as if... there never was a 'God' in the first place?!

Welp, guess that answers that particular philosophical question, 'Did God create Man or did Man create God?'. And there's me thinking that such questions weren't supposed to have answers as they're purely philosophical.

(*Makes sound of one hand clapping by striking the fingers of that hand on the palm, whilst watching a cat in a locked box with a flask of poison & a radioacive source - through the box's transparent Perspex sides; having just returned from a forest, placing a digital audio recorder - with auto-record & a lithium battery - near a rotting tree that was creaking as the wind blew. Uses other hand to dial number on mobile phone*)

Hello? Is that Friedrich Nietzsche? Well, you were right.

[/smartarse]

@#1347858

"So...why doesn't god stop the demons?"

No. God is the demons.

And then God was a zombie. [/meme] X3

old comment by Burning Stake

Thanks for accepting this one! I must admit, I did feel a little bad for posting it without his permission; however Mr. Avila published it, making it available for all to read and comment on. I found it linked to on a board with a prevous FSTDT comment.

I think I understand where he is coming from "on a theological level": Obviously, God loves His people, and would never do anything to cause them to sin. Therefore, same-sex attraction must be of "the devil," as God would never design a system where people are "made" to sin.

However, as people who are not "of the faith," we don't look at it as Accepted Truth, we look at it (the Bible) as fossilized superstitions of people concerned about survival through the propagation of children. In other words, only heterosexual relations would allow you to survive in that time period.

For us to look at these ancient beliefs without modern understanding, and to declare them "always true because they are of God," is, in a word, insane. We would never say that the sun revolves around the earth, because we have modern evidence to back up the falsity of this claim, for example. When we have evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause, to say that "the devil did it" is an evidence of this same insanity.

Daniel Avila #fundie rightwingwatch.org

67 comments

Confused?