Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)
Options
-
10-12-2008 4:42pm#1This is off topic from another thread, where the emphasis was on why the Catholic Church preached that Homosexuality was wrong. A small off topic discussion shot up between JimiTime and I, on why homosexuality is a sin, so this thread has been made for it.
Here are the posts that led up to it:JimiTime wrote:Yes. I think using the naturalistic logic, penis entering vagina, is the way God intended, anything that deviates from this is a perversion of the design. I think this would be obvious 'if one believes they were created'.Mark Hamill wrote:If someone, lets say, gets gangrene and has to cut off their foot to survive, is that not a perversion of a design, ie the persons design, which I cant imagine naturalistically includes cutting off limbs. Is it not a perversion of the design of the disease causing gangrene, which was designed to do so (or so you would have to be believe if you believed that you were designed) and so stopping it would be a perversion.
Also if someone was homosexual, then isn't that part of their design? Would the perversion not be going against their designed homosexuality?JimiTime wrote:The gangerine itself is the problem. Death is not part of the design, but rather a product of the fall of man. Cutting ones foot off beacause you want to, I would consider to be sinful. If one has a sickness that requires such treatment, then so be it.
From a Christian perspective, Man was designed sexually as Man to Woman, homosexuality was not part of that design. Neither was Beastiality, cannabalism, paedophilia etc. Yet people desire such things. I suppose one could call such things disease if we are saying that people have actually been born with these desires(Disease being something against the norm). Disease being a product of the fall rather than a product of our original design. Just like your gangerine example though, you cut it off before it consumes you. Same thing for perverse desires, be it hetero or homo or whatever. It should be cut off, to save oneself from being consumed by it.0
Comments
-
Jimitime wrote:The gangerine itself is the problem. Death is not part of the design, but rather a product of the fall of man. Cutting ones foot off beacause you want to, I would consider to be sinful. If one has a sickness that requires such treatment, then so be it.
Well then if death is against the original design is it a sin to die? What about everything else that isnt part of the design? Medicine? Sports? Literature?Jimitime wrote:From a Christian perspective, Man was designed sexually as Man to Woman, homosexuality was not part of that design. Neither was Beastiality, cannabalism, paedophilia etc. Yet people desire such things. I suppose one could call such things disease if we are saying that people have actually been born with these desires(Disease being something against the norm). Disease being a product of the fall rather than a product of our original design. Just like your gangerine example though, you cut it off before it consumes you. Same thing for perverse desires, be it hetero or homo or whatever. It should be cut off, to save oneself from being consumed by it.
Yes but if someone believed they were created, and they turned out to be homosexual, then they have to believe that that homosexuality was created in them too, and its part of their design. Beastality and paedophilia are in the same boat, but these are condemned on the basis of effecting peoples free will (children and animals cannot "give consent" for sexual acts, so to pressure them with them is wrong), but someone can take part in homosexual acts with the same free will as those who take part in a heterosexual act.
What I'm getting at is: either homosexuality, like all sexual preferences are part of the "design", as evident by them existing, but the sexual preferences allowable in society are those that dont interfere with free will;
or homosexuality is not part of the design , because it only appears after the "fall", and therefore a sin, but death, pain, medicine, sports, literature, etc also only appear after the fall, so these should be sins also.0 -
I've never liked the concept of "natural vs unnatural". It only ever seems to get used when the actual intent is to label a thing a "bad" by labelling it as "unnatural". Or the converse. Organic foods are good but nobody is quite sure why beyond talking in terms of "natural". It becomes rather circular. Natural is good, good is natural.
Herbal medicines are natural. Chemo drugs are "unnatural" (ie synthetic). Which of them is "good" for the treatment of cancer?
I would suggest that there is no such thing as unnatural. There are only good or bad consequences.0 -
What's with this "original design"? I don't believe God ever had a plan, other than to allow free will and unconditional love.
If, however, I'm incorrect, I'd like some sort of evidence to the contrary. I'm no theologian, but all the evidence in front of me points to there being no design or plan.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Yes, the latter is the case. Homosexuality is a consequence of the Fall, as is death, suffering, theft, murder, etc. But a thing is not a sin just because it occurs after the Fall - childbirth, for example, was commanded before the Fall.What I'm getting at is: either homosexuality, like all sexual preferences are part of the "design", as evident by them existing, but the sexual preferences allowable in society are those that dont interfere with free will;
or homosexuality is not part of the design , because it only appears after the "fall", and therefore a sin, but death, pain, medicine, sports, literature, etc also only appear after the fall, so these should be sins also.
So sports, literature, etc. can be morally pure - or not, depending on the sportsman or author.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Organic foods are good but nobody is quite sure why beyond talking in terms of "natural".
Well, they're far tastier! Nonorganic veg tastes like wood shavings...0 -
Advertisement
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Well, they're far tastier! Nonorganic veg tastes like wood shavings...
This is the scientist talking now. Randomised blind taste tests or no dice.0 -
Tried that one time with an organo-fiend friend of mine -- no prizes for guessing the resultAtomicHorror wrote: »This is the scientist talking now. Randomised blind taste tests or no dice.
0 -
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »
Anyhoo we'd need 1000 randomly mixed organofiends, sceptics and folks who couldn't care less.
Yeah but that's already been done, and the prize for guessing the result is some GM food! But that's off topic.Yes. I think using the naturalistic logic, penis entering vagina, is the way God intended, anything that deviates from this is a perversion of the design
I better tell my girlfriend that right away!
If anyone wants proof that homosexuality is natural, look no further than nature. There have been thousands of documented cases of homosexuality (both gay and lesbian) in the animal kingdom, not only once-off encounters but also life-mating.From a Christian perspective, Man was designed sexually as Man to Woman, homosexuality was not part of that design.
But science has proven (for lack of a better term) that we are not designed, but evolved. This automatically negates that perspective if you tie design into religion. We don't know why homosexuality evolved, but it did and we have to accept that it is a natural and intrinsic part of our society and our species.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Well then if death is against the original design is it a sin to die? What about everything else that isnt part of the design? Medicine? Sports? Literature?
wolfsbane covered this, so I wont repeat.Yes but if someone believed they were created, and they turned out to be homosexual, then they have to believe that that homosexuality was created in them too, and its part of their design.
You earlier gave an example of Gangrine being something that one can have, and how you may have to loose a limb because of it. Man was not designed with Gangrine or cancer or Aids or malaria, or down Sydrome etc. All have entered the world through sin. If someone has homosexual desires, then from a christian perspective, they should surpress such desires. Just like any perversion should be surpressed. It cannot be compared to a disease really, as a disease is something we have no control over. If one has perverse sexual desires, one can have self control over it.Beastality and paedophilia are in the same boat,
i agree, if there is no normal sexual appetite, then there is no abnormal sexual appetite. i would argue that man to woman is the norm. Those who say otherwise must accept that all sexual appetite no matter how strange or vile must be normal. Its only what is acceptable in society that counts then.but these are condemned on the basis of effecting peoples free will (children and animals cannot "give consent" for sexual acts, so to pressure them with them is wrong), but someone can take part in homosexual acts with the same free will as those who take part in a heterosexual act.
Indeed. I'm talking about the desire though. If one believes that none are normal, then all desires are normal. Its subjective. On the consent issue, you mention the animal consent. Do animals consent to our eating of them? Sounds a bit like hypocricy. If someone wants to have sex with a cow for example, how can you say he can't, because the animal doesn't consent, then slaughter the cow and eat it? Why the double standard? My opinion, is that people know that such a thing 'is' perverse.What I'm getting at is: either homosexuality, like all sexual preferences are part of the "design", as evident by them existing, but the sexual preferences allowable in society are those that dont interfere with free will;
or homosexuality is not part of the design , because it only appears after the "fall", and therefore a sin, but death, pain, medicine, sports, literature, etc also only appear after the fall, so these should be sins also.
It is not a sin because it occurs after the fall. It is a sin because God says it is. My point, is that our sexuality serves a purpose. A healthy man and a woman procreate. It is obvious that our sex organs have a purpose. it is obvious that they cannot serve this purpose when we go against the original design.
I could never accept that the 'desire' to have sex with an animal, or a child is normal, same with homosexuality. Man and woman is the norm, beyond that is perverse. Granted, the consequence of the actions vary coniderably, but from a orientation perspective, there's either a normal, or everything is normal.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »I've never liked the concept of "natural vs unnatural". It only ever seems to get used when the actual intent is to label a thing a "bad" by labelling it as "unnatural". Or the converse. Organic foods are good but nobody is quite sure why beyond talking in terms of "natural". It becomes rather circular. Natural is good, good is natural.
Herbal medicines are natural. Chemo drugs are "unnatural" (ie synthetic). Which of them is "good" for the treatment of cancer?
I would suggest that there is no such thing as unnatural. There are only good or bad consequences.
there cant be such thing as unnatural
anything that happens under the laws of the universe, however they come about, must be natural
nothing unnatural can exist, because if there was scope for it to exist it would therefore become natural0 -
Man to woman is the norm, healthy male mating with healthy female for the purpose of procreation is teh only intercourse without sin?
So if I organise an orgy with 7 or 8 couples as long as we don't use contraception (or the rhythm method) then we aren't sinning?
Wow, I LIKE this new morality!
On teh animal consent issue you'll find that athiest vegetarians are morally consistent on this issue - treat the animal with respect (and that includes neither eating or shagging...)0 -
--amadeus-- wrote: »Man to woman is the norm, healthy male mating with healthy female for the purpose of procreation is teh only intercourse without sin? So if I organise an orgy with 7 or 8 couples as long as we don't use contraception (or the rhythm method) then we aren't sinning?
Do you really think that thats what I've implied? The fact that God has told us the ideal, 'One man to one woman' would also rule out your above scenario.On teh animal consent issue you'll find that athiest vegetarians are morally consistent on this issue - treat the animal with respect (and that includes neither eating or shagging...)
So you would agree that in order to be consistant, someone who says you can't shag a cow because of the consent issue, must also be vegetarian? Actually, probably Vegan?0 -
Do you really think that thats what I've implied? The fact that God has told us the ideal, 'One man to one woman' would also rule out your above scenario.
So you would agree that in order to be consistant, someone who says you can't shag a cow because of the consent issue, must also be vegetarian? Actually, probably Vegan?
On your 1st point I don't have my bible handy, could you link to the verse where God says that the ideal is "one man to one woman". Thanks.
Actually on that point it's interesting that you use the word ideal. Because that implies that it is the perfect state to be aspired to, in the same way that the ideal is to live a sin free life. However, due to our known failings (design faults?) we can never be ideal. So non "one man one woman" sexual relationships are not ideal but no more non-ideal than a child born with original sin?
On your second point the animals / christian thing has been debated before. Personally I am a strict vegetarian because I have followed my moral code through to a point that I feel is logical. But I'm not big on moral absolutism. The Netherlands has a legal age of consent of 12 and yet has the highest average age of loss of virginity and one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world so just because I find teh idea of a 12 year old in a sexual relationship wierd and (frankly) repugnant doesn't mean that a policy that encourages individual responsibility that is heeded rather than herd absolutes that are ignored is wrong.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
Yes, the latter is the case. Homosexuality is a consequence of the Fall, as is death, suffering, theft, murder, etc. But a thing is not a sin just because it occurs after the Fall - childbirth, for example, was commanded before the Fall.What I'm getting at is: either homosexuality, like all sexual preferences are part of the "design", as evident by them existing, but the sexual preferences allowable in society are those that dont interfere with free will;
or homosexuality is not part of the design , because it only appears after the "fall", and therefore a sin, but death, pain, medicine, sports, literature, etc also only appear after the fall, so these should be sins also.
So sports, literature, etc. can be morally pure - or not, depending on the sportsman or author.
Yes, but homosexual acts can be morally pure as well, depending on the consent of those involved, at least as morally pure as heterosexual acts.JimiTime wrote:You earlier gave an example of Gangrine being something that one can have, and how you may have to loose a limb because of it. Man was not designed with Gangrine or cancer or Aids or malaria, or down Sydrome etc. All have entered the world through sin. If someone has homosexual desires, then from a christian perspective, they should surpress such desires. Just like any perversion should be surpressed. It cannot be compared to a disease really, as a disease is something we have no control over. If one has perverse sexual desires, one can have self control over it.
One has as much control over diseases as they do their own desires. You cant choose if you get "infected" with either of them, you can combat them with medicines and treatments, and those medicines and treatments may still fail and you can still succomb to them.
Man was also not designed to live over 30/40 odd years. Yet we live now up to 80 years (and more) thanks to medicines and treatments designed to lengthen life. These are all a product of the "fall", so are they sinning? Well, by Wolfsbane answer they are not, because they are morally pure (or can be). Theres no reason homosexuality cant be morally pure (in the same way as heterosexuality can be).JimiTime wrote:i agree, if there is no normal sexual appetite, then there is no abnormal sexual appetite. i would argue that man to woman is the norm. Those who say otherwise must accept that all sexual appetite no matter how strange or vile must be normal. Its only what is acceptable in society that counts then.
Exactly, the issue then becomes the criteria society uses for deeming what is acceptable, eg consent etc.JimiTime wrote:Indeed. I'm talking about the desire though. If one believes that none are normal, then all desires are normal. Its subjective.
Normality is subjective though. What is the correct desire? To be attracted to redheads, blondes or brunettes? Well, it depends on your taste, there is no right and wrong answer. It comes odwn to what you do as a result of that desire and no-one is going to condemn someone for having a fully consenting heterosexual relationship with a fully consenting redhead, blonde or brunette.JimiTime wrote:On the consent issue, you mention the animal consent. Do animals consent to our eating of them? Sounds a bit like hypocricy. If someone wants to have sex with a cow for example, how can you say he can't, because the animal doesn't consent, then slaughter the cow and eat it? Why the double standard? My opinion, is that people know that such a thing 'is' perverse.
I'm vegetarian, so I don't believe in killing the animal either. I do believe in using produce from animals (milk, eggs, wool) that are collect in a humane way because the animals get a good deal by being taken care of humans (guaranteed food and safety) and I would see it as fair. You may not have full 100% consent, but you don't have full 100% consent when you send your kids to school, but you still do what you think is best for them.JimiTime wrote:It is not a sin because it occurs after the fall. It is a sin because God says it is. My point, is that our sexuality serves a purpose. A healthy man and a woman procreate. It is obvious that our sex organs have a purpose. it is obvious that they cannot serve this purpose when we go against the original design.
But the design was made before the fall. The design was meant for a humans without any of the issues we face now as a result of the fall. If things like sports, medicine and literature are exceptable now because they can be morally pure, even though they weren't a part of the original design, then why can't homosexuality.JimiTime wrote:I could never accept that the 'desire' to have sex with an animal, or a child is normal, same with homosexuality. Man and woman is the norm, beyond that is perverse. Granted, the consequence of the actions vary coniderably, but from a orientation perspective, there's either a normal, or everything is normal.
Depends on what you mean by normal. Is normal what statistically most common, is it the natural ideal, or is it just something naturally possible that occurs a sufficient number of times in nature. If someone was born tomorrow with illuminous blue hair, that would not be considered normal. However, if in 200 years, 1% of the population had this illuminous blue, hair then it would be considered normal (rare, but normal).0 -
--amadeus-- wrote: »On your 1st point I don't have my bible handy, could you link to the verse where God says that the ideal is "one man to one woman". Thanks.
Matthew 19:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Actually on that point it's interesting that you use the word ideal. Because that implies that it is the perfect state to be aspired to, in the same way that the ideal is to live a sin free life. However, due to our known failings (design faults?) we can never be ideal. So non "one man one woman" sexual relationships are not ideal but no more non-ideal than a child born with original sin?
You are still mixing up choice with non-choice. If it is true, that people are born with perverse sexual desires, they still must choose to act on them. I used the word 'ideal', because of the fact that polygamy occurred. Polygamy is not outrightly condemned in the bible, but polygamists were not allowed hold ministerial office etc. One man one Wife was the ideal. However, it expressley states that homosexuality is a detestable thing.On your second point the animals / christian thing has been debated before. Personally I am a strict vegetarian because I have followed my moral code through to a point that I feel is logical. But I'm not big on moral absolutism.
Its a simple question I asked. I'm not talking moral absolutism. I'm talking about consistant reasoning. I'll ask again below:
"So you would agree that in order to be consistant, someone who says you can't shag a cow because of the consent issue, must also be vegetarian? Actually, probably Vegan?"
As I said, I think people really 'do' know that beastiality, paedophillia etc 'are' perverse and not normal. I think deep down people know that there 'is' a normal sexuality. Homosexuality has become acceptable because of the reasoning of, two consenting adults. Fair enough. IMO, when it goes beyond toleration, to reasoning like 'Its normal', then sexuality becomes subjective, and every strange and weird sexual preference becomes 'normal' as we've established that there is no 'normal'. So because of this, rather than folk thinking 'True, while I don't have a problem with consenting adults, its still not a normal sexual desire.' They think, 'True, so all sexual desire is normal'.0 -
there cant be such thing as unnatural
anything that happens under the laws of the universe, however they come about, must be natural
nothing unnatural can exist, because if there was scope for it to exist it would therefore become natural
Yes, that would be my point. Unnatural is a negative adjective that is more an opposite of supernatural than it is of natural. God is supernatural, demons unnatural. That sort of thing. Neither actually exist, or if we could observe them would merely be natural.0 -
Do you really think that thats what I've implied? The fact that God has told us the ideal, 'One man to one woman' would also rule out your above scenario.
If The Word is all you have to point to, then you don't have much of an argument. Can I suggest we dismiss scripture for the purposes of this debate? I gather we're trying to to uncover the original moral basis, the justification, for your position that has since come to be based upon dogma.So you would agree that in order to be consistant, someone who says you can't shag a cow because of the consent issue, must also be vegetarian? Actually, probably Vegan?
No, because we place restrictions on the amount of suffering we inflict on animals. For example, we kill our food quickly to minimise suffering. That is the accepted position. We can say that you cannot sexually abuse an animal for the same reasons that we say you should not keep them in inhumane living conditions, cannot starve them and cannot inflict violence on them.0 -
Now that is a highly selective piece of biblical quoting!!
I think you missed the verse before that which says:Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
So the verse you are quoting was a direct and defined answer to a direct and defined question - if you are asking about a man divorcing his wife then obviously the answer is going to relate to a man and a woman! Are there any other, direct and unambiguous biblical verses that indicate that "one man one woman" is the ideal?
And - with the greatest respect - I think you may be the one confusing choice / non-choice. ALL sexual relationships entail a degree of choice (as pointed out before). Some men are attracted to blondes, some redheads and some to hairy older guys wearing leather studded underpants. Some choose to act on these attractions some don't. Are you trying to say that traditional heterosexual relationships don't involve choice?
As for your questions on animals - like I said I think that the only moral choice is vegetarianism. That's my choice based on my reasoning. Other people think it's wrong to cop off with sheep but will happily chew a lamb chop. That's up to them, I genuinely don't get where you are going with that?
I wouldn't agree that there is a "normal" sexuality - if teh Internet has taught us anything it's that. Name a body part and I am pretty sure you can find a website devoted to it's fetishisation. Japan has grown women who dress up as cartoon characters for goodness sake!
(I am tempted to Google "wierd fetish" but having already done a search on "legal age of consent" I'm worried about what Mrs A would say if she sees the PC!)
My own take is that sexuality is what it is and as long as both parties consent (and have teh capacity for consent) then let them at it.0 -
Jesus lived to about 33 and I don't remember any reference to a girlfriend in the Bible. Unless Mary Magdalene was his bird for a while?0
-
Advertisement
-
i agree, if there is no normal sexual appetite, then there is no abnormal sexual appetite. i would argue that man to woman is the norm. Those who say otherwise must accept that all sexual appetite no matter how strange or vile must be normal. Its only what is acceptable in society that counts then..
Hmmmm. 'Fallacy of accident' I think? Certainly sex between wildly different species or between the sexually immature and mature is seen as abnormal in nature and society, based on inequality between parties.If someone wants to have sex with a cow for example, how can you say he can't, because the animal doesn't consent, then slaughter the cow and eat it? Why the double standard? My opinion, is that people know that such a thing 'is' perverse...
Its again not comparing like with like.It is not a sin because it occurs after the fall. It is a sin because God says it is. My point, is that our sexuality serves a purpose. A healthy man and a woman procreate. It is obvious that our sex organs have a purpose. it is obvious that they cannot serve this purpose when we go against the original design....
Yet what about where theres an infertile man with an fertile woman, or the reverse, or where both are infertile....An all powerful god is responsible for them too. Having removed the possibility to procreate, why therefore leave the organs intact?but from a orientation perspective, there's either a normal, or everything is normal.
Rather a false dichotomy.0 -
This discussion is always a rather pointless because the Christian response is (typically) along the lines of "Well God says it is wrong, so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks"
There is no argument against that. Are people going to argue that God is in fact wrong, on the Christianity forum?
If people like they can try and argue that this isn't actually God's position. A while back I tried to argue that there is no Biblical reason why homosexuals cannot marry, and thus have sex inside a marriage.
The response, not that convincing in my opinion, is that God never mentions a man and a man marrying and only talks in terms of marriage in relation to a man and woman, so the assumption is that he doesn't approve. Which in my view doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially considering all the things that Christians infer from God that he doesn't explicatively say.
But then I suspect that a lot of Christians don't like the idea of homosexuality anyway, irrespective of God's position on it, and would not look to see if there is a way homosexual marriage can work within Christianity.
An interesting question here for the Christians is how many of you object to homosexual relationships independently on your position that God says it is wrong. If God had never said anything about homosexuality would you think it is immoral anyway?0 -
Sorry guys, I'm out of here. its a sensitive subject, and there are so many people who bring so many different points, I've neither the time or the inclination to deal with them all. I'll end with this:
In relation to AH's point about leaving scripture aside. No would be my answer. From the start, my position has come from a 'if we were created' POV. Never have I tried to enter into an atheistic type of arguement. My point is that It was obvious to me, bible aside, that man to woman, penis to vagina is the norm. All deviants from this are a perversion. One can tolerate it etc, but never call it the norm IMO. This shall we say, instinct, is compatible with what God says on the matter.
From a 'desire' perspective, all sexual appetites are normal, if one doesn't hold that there is a normal one. I hold that there is a normal one, which most of you disagree with. But most of you don't believe in normality being objective, because you don't believe we were created. So there is my stance, i wont be thrawling through the many objections its likely to recieve. Said in the nicest way of course:)0 -
In relation to AH's point about leaving scripture aside. No would be my answer. From the start, my position has come from a 'if we were created' POV. Never have I tried to enter into an atheistic type of arguement.
I'm not asking you to assume an atheistic argument. I'm asking you to disregard scripture for the sake of looking at other reasons why you hold your position. I believe in many things, but whilst I may have adopted these on the basis of authority, I do not hold them on that basis.My point is that It was obvious to me, bible aside, that man to woman, penis to vagina is the norm.
An average or normal trait is not automatically a desirable, moral or correct one. In some cases, the complete opposite is true. In essence, the connection, if any, is tenuous. "Normal" is no more an argument for a thing being morally correct than is authority.All deviants from this are a perversion. One can tolerate it etc, but never call it the norm IMO. This shall we say, instinct, is compatible with what God says on the matter.
What you have here is a feeling, that you call an instinct. To justify that feeling as equating to a moral judgement, you point to a book which agrees with you. I have feelings too. I dislike teenagers who wear hoodies. I dislike the devoutly religious. When I logically examine these feelings, I find that in fact these feelings do not have a rational basis. I feel threatened by these groups, and thus I generalise about them. My feelings are thus not useful in making decisions with regard to these groups. They would lead me to prejudice and so I must discard them if I can. Were I to point to anecdotes or books to support my feelings, then all I am doing is going in circles. Whilst feelings and emotions are that which allow us to attach values to things, we must also use reason. And above all, be wary of authority.
If I cannot define these things in terms of consequence, I have nothing. My fear of hoodies is as meaningful as my girlfriend's fear of spiders. Not at all.0 -
Have we won? Has the only Christian on the thread given up?
Wow, I thought victory would feel better than this...
0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »I'm not asking you to assume an atheistic argument. I'm asking you to disregard scripture for the sake of looking at other reasons why you hold your position. I believe in many things, but whilst I may have adopted these on the basis of authority, I do not hold them on that basis.
I did not say I thought it was morally wrong on the basis that it is not the norm though. The moality aspect comes from God. The naturalistic side I used tells me that its not normal, 'if you believe we are created'.An average or normal trait is not automatically a desirable, moral or correct one. In some cases, the complete opposite is true. In essence, the connection, if any, is tenuous. "Normal" is no more an argument for a thing being morally correct than is authority.
I think my answer above answers this also. I am not arguing that it is not moral on account of it being abnormal. The naturalistic arguement, just establishes to me that its abnormal. Nothing to do with it being moral or not.What you have here is a feeling, that you call an instinct. To justify that feeling as equating to a moral judgement, you point to a book which agrees with you.
I have an instinct that sexual perversion is 'abnormal'. Morality is a different issue.If I cannot define these things in terms of consequence, I have nothing. My fear of hoodies is as meaningful as my girlfriend's fear of spiders. Not at all.
I don't know many gay people, and I don't know if there are consequences to engaging in homosexuality. What i do believe, is that the behaviour is abnormal. Then I'm afraid, we enter the realm of objective rather than subjective morality.
As wicknight says, it always comes down to this.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
No, they can't. The Bible specifically condemns homosexual acts, but commends heterosexual acts carried out within marriage.Yes, but homosexual acts can be morally pure as well, depending on the consent of those involved, at least as morally pure as heterosexual acts.
On the issue of sex with animals, those who practise this offer the defense that their acts involve consent, pointing to the good relationship they maintain with their dog, cow, or sheep. Indeed, they also point to the fact that unwelcome sex would elicit a violent rejection from most animals. They are not as easily intimidated as children.
If you reject the Biblical ban on bestiality, then you need to have a better objection than consent if you wish to condemn sex with animals.0 -
Happy to disappoint you.--amadeus-- wrote: »Have we won? Has the only Christian on the thread given up?
Wow, I thought victory would feel better than this...
0 -
Wicknight said:
That was an inadequate response then. They should have pointed out that God specifically condemns homosexuality.If people like they can try and argue that this isn't actually God's position. A while back I tried to argue that there is no Biblical reason why homosexuals cannot marry, and thus have sex inside a marriage.
The response, not that convincing in my opinion, is that God never mentions a man and a man marrying and only talks in terms of marriage in relation to a man and woman, so the assumption is that he doesn't approve. Which in my view doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially considering all the things that Christians infer from God that he doesn't explicatively say.
Hmm. Interesting question. I haven't thought about it before. Off the top of my head I would say, No. But that would apply to unmarried sex, polygamy, incest, bestiality and paedophilia too, where consent was involved.But then I suspect that a lot of Christians don't like the idea of homosexuality anyway, irrespective of God's position on it, and would not look to see if there is a way homosexual marriage can work within Christianity.
An interesting question here for the Christians is how many of you object to homosexual relationships independently on your position that God says it is wrong. If God had never said anything about homosexuality would you think it is immoral anyway?0 -
Advertisement
-
Jesus did not come to earth to marry, but to minister and die. He kept to that task.The Chessplayer wrote: »Jesus lived to about 33 and I don't remember any reference to a girlfriend in the Bible. Unless Mary Magdalene was his bird for a while?0
Advertisement