Homosexuality, a sin?

Battlesnake

Sorry for being controversial and starting up this thread again.
I wanted to do so because I wish to express an opinion, not have a discussion about the dark ages!!!
If I was to look at the bible and take it word for word then yes would be my answer to the question. . . . .
However I don't believe it's wrong. If two people love and respect each other and want to live in the world together, is it not better that they do so?
Would it be better that these two people remain apart and spend the rest of their lives miserable?
I believe that God wants us to be happy and that he loves us. He wants us to have respect for his world and one another. right?
In knowing some homosexual men, I can see that their feelings to do with relationships are just as strong as with heterosexual relationships. They get hurt just as much when something goes wrong.
Thinking about what they do sexually may not be the thought that I'm most comfortable with, but in a world where sex before marriage has become commonplace. Who are we to judge?

ixoy

Well hoping this thread doesn't get locked but obviously I'm going to be in agreement on the issue. I mean there's a few issues at work here, isn't there?

Firstly, the Church often has a 'pick'n'mix' attitude to what's written in the Bible. On one hand passages in the Old Testament have memorable lines such as allowing children to be sold into slavery and the Church can never condone that. On the other hand, references to homosexuality being a sin are quite scarce - I think it's limited to about one line in the New Testament? Many elements are quite contradictory anyway, but this is one thing they seem to have stuck with.

Secondly, your theory is sound but probably somewhat simplistic. I think - and someone can correct me here - that the basic problem for the Church is that a sexual union is, ultimately, about reproduction. That is the point of such unions, to populate the world and do God's work, etc. A homosexual union cannot achieve this so therefore it cannot perpetuate the Church's concept of natural order and is therefore "wrong". I think technically they no longer condone homosexuality itself, but instead the practice of homosexual acts - have I got this correct?

Now, to me and you, the basic bare element of Jesus' message, and indeed many religions, is love thy neighbour. Many other lessons are just other facets of this central point - after all if we love and respect our neighbour, then out goes other sins such as adultery, murder, and thievery. So simply put denying a gay man or woman their right to love is almost a blatant denial of Christ's message. Denying what I know, at a very basic fundamental level of my being, who I enjoy being with is an abuse of not only what I want but surely, if we are indeed made in His image, also an abuse of what was intended for me by Him? After all if I were to err from His path, I'd lie with a woman. He has put me on this path, wired into my brain, the desire for same sex companionship so surely fufilling this is what He intended? The contradiction may lie more in a conflict between the Church as an instituation and the beliefs of the spirituality behind it... remember the Church is only but one reflection, one interpretation of the events and life of Jesus and for me, with its current thoughts, it is most decidely wrong and slanted in its teachings of the divine.

neuro-praxis

This topic is a difficult and sensitive one. And don't imagine that because I am a Christian that it is something remote from me. I am closely connected to a number of gay people and I have mild bisexual tendencies myself (which, by the way, I have decided never to act upon).

The bible definitely marks out homosexual acts as sinful. It's not something that only appears once or twice, either; it's present in both the old and new testaments in a number of contexts. I can get the references if anyone specifically requests it, but I'm not sure how useful it would be to this argument to highlight them.

There are a number of stumbling blocks in having a debate about this. The first is that it is impossible to argue whether or not something is a sin if we have different ideas about what a sin is.

From a secular perspective, a sin could loosely be defined as something that causes emotional, psychological or physical harm to an individual. From this angle, homosexuality would not seem to fit into that category.

From a Christian perspective, a sin is any behaviour or thought process that is not honouring to God...or something that is in direct disobedience to what God asks of us. From this angle, homosexual acts fit into that category.

The reason that God declares it a sin is not because it doesn't lead to reproduction: it is because when a man and a woman join together sexually inside of a loving marital relationship, they are made one, physically and spiritually. Sex, biblically speaking, outside of marriage in any form (be it straight or gay) is adulterous sex, and therefore not honouring to God.

So therein is our problem.

Science suggests that homosexuality has its roots not in nurture but in genetics, because there is often more than one gay person in nuclear and/or extended families.

Some sociological and psychological research suggests that full-blown homosexuality is as a result of dysfunctional experiences or relationships early in childhood.

Both angles make a certain amount of sense, but we can never be fully certain.

Theologically speaking, the reason that homosexuality may exist in nature is because when man sinned for the first time, the whole of creation "fell", leaving us with pain, destruction and evil in the world.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am not for a moment implying that gay people are evil, or anything like it. Which brings me to my next point.

All sin, in the eyes of God, is equal. This means that in God's eyes, I, as a straight Christian, am every single bit as sinful as everybody else, including any gay person you wish to point out on the street.

This puts us all on a par, which means that no matter which ways you choose to sin, your salvation is not affected, and God does not love you any less.

God says that we can be saved by confessing our sin to him and accepting his grace in our lives. This is not restricted to do-gooders; it is an offer made to every single person on the planet.

When God is a reality in your life, your desires change. Often the desire to serve God becomes much greater than the desire to have a partner for the rest of your life. In a similar vein, my desire to serve my God is greater than my desire to have sex with my boyfriend, so we're hanging on til we get hitched.

As a result of these changed desires, I know a couple of gay Christians who have decided to stay celibate for life. That is a kind of life I find very hard to comprehend and I respect deeply. In some ways, it makes me really sad.

So that's it. Any decent Christian doesn't want to argue this point with anybody. It is never our place to judge how somebody lives their lives: only God can be the judge. I accept homosexual acts as sinful because that is what the bible says, but I don't see myself as any less sinful than somebody who is practicing homosexuality. I hope that this post has successfully answered some of your questions and please take it as it is meant: truthfully, and without judgement.

JustHalf

First, I'll need to put on my moderator hat.

The last thread was locked for a couple of reasons (you can read them at bottom of the thread in question). I just want to make it clear that there's no real problem with discussing this topic here. In fact, I said as much in the other thread:

Thread locked. If someone wants to ask the question again, fair enough: I don't mind a new thread being started. If anyone wants to seriously discuss this issue, that's fine too.

So, let's keep this discussion on-topic. Moderator hat off.

Ixoy raised an interesting point, which seemed to be along the lines of "God made me this way, it's a part of who I am, so what I do is Gods will". Well, I'm going to apply this statement to my life, and examine the consequences.

I'm a straight guy. Sometimes when I am in the company of certain women, I get aroused. This feeling is spurned on by physical contact and closeness. If I get very aroused, this turns into a strong urge for sex. I start to feel compelled to feel her up, and would intend for it to escalate from there.

To be blunt, these urges compel me to have sex.

This is all perfectly natural. I was made this way, it's a part of who I am. But I don't think God wants me to act on these desires in this way (at least not outside of marriage). I accept that if I don't get married, that could mean I never have sex.

This doesn't mean I'm happy about it. There's times when I don't want to wait until I get married. There may be a time when I don't wait. But God wants me to wait.

If I were to apply that statement to my life, I would be spending my time on things other than this reply. But I know that just because I want to do something, even if it's something I feel such an overwhelming urge to do, doesn't mean I should.

I'm going to head home now (technically I haven't left work since 10am yesterday morning). I'll write more soon.

Excelsior

Originally posted by ixoy


Now, to me and you, the basic bare element of Jesus' message, and indeed many religions, is love thy neighbour.

I think you have misunderstood Chrisitanity's position on the issue ixoy and Neuro has probably cleared that up but I think this quote gets to the heart of your misunderstanding.

The basic element of Christ's teaching is not to love one another. I mean, he makes this comment right after saying the first and equally important commandment is to love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul.

The basis of Christianity is Grace. The free, undeserved, unmeasurable love that God has for each and everyone of us regardless of all the sins we all commit.

BEAT

Originally posted by JustHalf


To be blunt, these urges compel me to have sex.

This is all perfectly natural. I was made this way, it's a part of who I am. But I don't think God wants me to act on these desires in this way (at least not outside of marriage). I accept that if I don't get married, that could mean I never have sex.

This doesn't mean I'm happy about it. There's times when I don't want to wait until I get married. There may be a time when I don't wait. But God wants me to wait.

If I were to apply that statement to my life, I would be spending my time on things other than this reply. But I know that just because I want to do something, even if it's something I feel such an overwhelming urge to do, doesn't mean I should.

So let me get this straight, its ok to have sex if your married right?
well what about gay couples who are married, is it now not a sin to have sex?

I am a firm believer that being 'gay' doesnt condemn you to hell, and niether does having sex outside of marrriage.

Rape and murder and things of said nature are mortal sins but even as it says in the bible, people who have commited even these terrible sins will be forgiven if they repent.

Being gay, as much as people will argue it, is not abnormal and infact has been a way of life for people for centuries, just a hidden and less talked about one because people feared the church and its punishments.

I do not feel you are commiting a sin by being who you are, after all if you are born Gay it isnt something you can control, it is who you are and if God makes all the little green apples in and the red ones too then God accepts us all and it is 'MAN' who persecutes us, and the "church" who says such sinister things as you are going to hell for being a homosexual...shame on them I say, what kind of a christian goes around damning people to hell? :rolleyes:

Are'nt christians suppose to love thier nieghbor and treat others as they wish to be treated? I think most of them are full of it and use the term "christian" as a guise to exspell thier nasty prejudices upon others who are different than themselves.

But that is just my opinion ofcourse

neuro-praxis

Beat, no offence, but it looks as though you ignored all of the previous posts.

The church does not say that gay people are condemned to hell at all!

And what have we said here that is unloving?

JustHalf

Beat, I recommend reading over the posts by neuro_praxis and Excelsior.

I also recommend clearing up that quote, at least remove the "moderator hat" reference. That did not apply to the remainder of the text that you quoted.

BEAT

moderator hat bit gone...as for the rest it is simply my response to to original poster quoting what "christians' have been saying for hundreds of years not what you have said personally except for that small bit by just half...my statements, my opinions.

ixoy

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
The bible definitely marks out homosexual acts as sinful. It's not something that only appears once or twice, either; it's present in both the old and new testaments in a number of contexts.

OK but the Church has repealed its stance on a number of issues that were in the Old Testament, correct? It no longer advocates slavery correct?

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. " (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

.. being one easily found example. So the Bible is clearly not 100% a reflection of the Church's interpretation of God's will on a number of areas. Surely then this could also apply to homosexuality?

The reason that God declares it a sin is not because it doesn't lead to reproduction: it is because when a man and a woman join together sexually inside of a loving marital relationship, they are made one, physically and spiritually. Sex, biblically speaking, outside of marriage in any form (be it straight or gay) is adulterous sex, and therefore not honouring to God.

Okay, a little debate here. Firstly, love is only truly expressed within the confines of marriage, is that what you're saying? That people cannot truly be together without having expressed a lifelong commitment to one another, and refuting any chance of someone else interfering? Now this, I guess, can be used to explain why marriage outside of sex cannot be as meaningful but it cannot be applied to homosexaulity given that we have no choice in getting married to enact this union! Non-married straight couple can, we can't. It's a fundamental difference. If homosexual marriages existed then surely the comparison is more valid.
Both angles make a certain amount of sense, but we can never be fully certain.

Theologically speaking, the reason that homosexuality may exist in nature is because when man sinned for the first time, the whole of creation "fell", leaving us with pain, destruction and evil in the world.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am not for a moment implying that gay people are evil, or anything like it. Which brings me to my next point.

But the implication is there. Surely part of the problem is the old Biblical story of Sodom? It seems to define deviant behavior in terms of ancient moral practices and yet continues to be often used as a template for a more modern, enlightened, society.

This puts us all on a par, which means that no matter which ways you choose to sin, your salvation is not affected, and God does not love you any less.

God says that we can be saved by confessing our sin to him and accepting his grace in our lives. This is not restricted to do-gooders; it is an offer made to every single person on the planet.

I'll accept that. It makes sense with what I was taught.

In a similar vein, my desire to serve my God is greater than my desire to have sex with my boyfriend, so we're hanging on til we get hitched.

As a result of these changed desires, I know a couple of gay Christians who have decided to stay celibate for life. That is a kind of life I find very hard to comprehend and I respect deeply. In some ways, it makes me really sad.

But given that we don't have the same options, as yet, under Church authority it's a very basic denial that is not made to any other group whose actions fundamentally harm no others.

So that's it. Any decent Christian doesn't want to argue this point with anybody. It is never our place to judge how somebody lives their lives: only God can be the judge. I accept homosexual acts as sinful because that is what the bible says, but I don't see myself as any less sinful than somebody who is practicing homosexuality. I hope that this post has successfully answered some of your questions and please take it as it is meant: truthfully, and without judgement.

Fair enough. I'm glad you cede the point that, to a true Christian, God is the only real arbiter. Many others would not be so gracious. I'm not quite sure about the point of view of sin, in such a way, as that seems to be more leaning towards Original Sin, which is not, I thought, fundamentally a Catholic point of view but we can leave that aside for now.

Can you, however, find room to believe the point-of-view that the Bible, historically even, may not be the 100% accurate reflection of Jesus' teachings but subject to the various moral attitudes, and societal influences, around at the time of its composure? Assuredly most of it rebounds with good words, but it was written by mortal men after the event and subject to the vagaries of time and man's only fallitude.

neuro-praxis

ixoy, you engaged me in an argument on this subject, starting with a different premiss to me.

The problem with us arguing about it is that we do not agree on what a sin is.

I am not a Catholic and therefore any opinions I present to you are from a non-denominational Christian biblical perspective, and what the Catholic church says is or isn't a sin doesn't hold much water with me. I base my viewpoints on the bible, which is the same now as it was two thousand years ago. We know this because the original texts are historically reliable, and I can obtain work from the Rev. Dr. Keith McCrory (scholar of Union Theological, Fuller Theological and Doirm University) who lectures on the subject if you want evidence laid out for you.

Biblically homosexual acts are outlined as sinful. Again and again.

If the Catholic church turned around tomorrow and declared them not a sin, then they would be ignoring the bible. In which case they might as well pack it all in. A Christian church that is not based on the bible is pointless.

Regarding your point about slavery, you have completely misunderstood the cultural context of that verse. In its context it was right and proper for slaves to obey their masters and be faithful to them. Christians are often analogised with slaves because we are expected to submit to God with the same devotion as a faithful and reliable slave might have submitted to his master. If you want me to explain the cultural context of the one verse you have quoted, I can pm you if you like. The slave/master relationship was complex, as masters often provided utterly for their slaves and ultimately, left their fortunes to them.

Besides, I'm not sure the Catholic church ever had a viewpoint on slavery, particularly.

In terms of marriage, biblically it was intended only for men and women. Because marriage (biblically speaking) could be defined as a spiritual union of a man and a woman under God, technically a homosexual couple could never get married.

You must understand that I am simply offering the biblical perspective here. Do not imagine that I am judging you.

If there was a referendum to legalise gay unions, I would vote yes on it.

JustHalf

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
If there was a referendum to legalise gay unions, I would vote yes on it.

Ditto. I'd be dead set against gay marriage inside Christian churches, but civil marriages should be allowed.

To be frank, non-Christians think marriage is something completely different than what Christians believe it is, already. So any attempt to "preserve marriage" is really retarded because it's already failed.

And Christians are the last people on Earth that should be trying to get people to live under the Law.

ven0m

While the bible would state that "homosexuality" is a sin - I counter the question, on the scale that human homosexuality(gay) behaviour exists - name me another species on the planet that engages in the same behaviour on the same scale.......

Homosexuality in my mind is not "genetic" as some would have you believe & I believe is a choice & last time I checked, life was about choices & bottom line is if someone makes a choice for themselves that doesn't interfere with another person's choices for THEIR life - hey like it or lump it - their choice, they live with it & any consequences/benefits not you so get over it & deal with it. If it's a "sin" in your eyes, it's THEIR sin to live - you just worry about repenting for your own sins.....


:::: I SURF FOR PORN - HEY, AT LEAST I'M HONEST! ::::

qwertyphobia

I was just going to post my thoughts/feelings on the lanaguage that the Church has used over the last while in condeming homosexuality. The use of terms like "intrinsically evil" is so very sadding particularly coming from an organisation that could be such a positive force in this world.

Part of my problem with talking about this with christians is the hurt caused by such statements and the long list of other hurtfull statements and actions that churchs have done and many continue to do.

Another problem is the large gulf in understanding that exists between us and not even a shared reference point that we can work from. For example notions that we are all siners or evokations about what god wants. But here goes.

I don't fully except your explation of the bibles take on slavary, but leaving that to one side, there are a number of other statements in the bible that i don't see people rushing to implelament nowadays. I don't have a copy of the bible with me at work so I can't qoute scripture and verase but from memory there is stuff in there about not eating shellfish, avoiding contact with a women during her menstal circle and I am sure many others.

Now I see these as cultural artifacts that are a products of there time and don't think people put much weight in them ( I maybe wrong here maybe you do?) To me the churchs teaching on homosexuality is similar ie. that it is a product of history and needs to be seen as such along side other statements the bible contains that don't get used on a regular basis to justify instatuanionl homophobia.

ven0m

Funny thing is alot of the church like to preach on homosexuality, yet alot of them engage in it & engage paedophelia involving boys - which technical apart from it being a sickening act, is an act of homosexuality.....






::: OUR FATHER WHO ARTH AGAINST BOOGIE BOARDING - ANSWER ME DAMNIT!!!! :::

Excelsior

Some points that might help people in this debate:

Not all Christians are Roman Catholic.

Paedophilia is not homosexuality. Please do not destroy and degrade homosexuals like that. Paedophilia is an insidious sickness that ruins peoples lives and is justly against the law, homosexuality isn't.

This thread is about homosexuality's sinfulness, not Biblical authority. If people want to propose the meme that the Bible can't be trusted, start another thread. And ask yourself why all these Christians with doctorates in archeology, linguistics, hellenistic culture, philology etc, all still believe it. There might be something in it, folks.

The Bible doesn't ever say that there should be slaves, it just advises slaves (the letter you refer to was written to the Roman church in 70AD- there were a million slaves in the city but the position of slave was different to the more recent US slavery) how to live life to its fullest as Christians. The Bible does not endorse slavery. Christians were behind the abolition of slavery internationally.

The Old Testament law, (all that stuff people have been talking about in terms of menstrual cycles and shellfish and mixing fabrics etc) is superseeded by the death of Christ. They no longer apply and are so no longer applied. If you apply them, you are Jewish, not Christian.

Finally and most importantly, this thread is about homosexuality and sin. Keep on it.
Although fundamentalists disagree, the mainline Christian churches would all be firm on this position:
Homosexuality is not sinful. By being a homosexual, you are not condemned to hell, you are not any more inherently sinful than I am or than Hitler was or than the Pope is. But homosexual sex is condemned in the Bible in both Old and New Testament so Christians consider that wrong. But, that sin is no greater than any other and is equally subject to forgiveness through repentence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Originally posted by TheSilverSurfer
While the bible would state that "homosexuality" is a sin - I counter the question, on the scale that human homosexuality(gay) behaviour exists - name me another species on the planet that engages in the same behaviour on the same scale.......

Homosexuality in my mind is not "genetic" as some would have you believe & I believe is a choice & last time I checked, life was about choices & bottom line is if someone makes a choice for themselves that doesn't interfere with another person's choices for THEIR life - hey like it or lump it - their choice, they live with it & any consequences/benefits not you so get over it & deal with it. If it's a "sin" in your eyes, it's THEIR sin to live - you just worry about repenting for your own sins.....


:::: I SURF FOR PORN - HEY, AT LEAST I'M HONEST! ::::

its not your choice - its how you feel, there's no way i could choose to be homosexual since I've never been attracted to men. Can't believe people can actually think this.

By the way moorhens have gay relationships

Karl Hungus

I'll keep this one short(ish).

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
All sin, in the eyes of God, is equal. This means that in God's eyes, I, as a straight Christian, am every single bit as sinful as everybody else, including any gay person you wish to point out on the street.

This puts us all on a par, which means that no matter which ways you choose to sin, your salvation is not affected, and God does not love you any less.

God says that we can be saved by confessing our sin to him and accepting his grace in our lives. This is not restricted to do-gooders; it is an offer made to every single person on the planet.

Putting the arguement of what is/isn't a sin aside, lets just assume that for the sake of this that homosexuality is undenyably a sin. Now, as you admit yourself that we are all on par, and that even you yourself are as sinful as any gay person in gods eye, yet he does not love any of us less for it.

So I suppose, what does it matter if we commit sins as long as we all confess, pray and repent regularly? Would it make any difference for a gay man confessing to his sinfull homosexual acts, as opposed to you confessing, lets say, impure thoughts, or swearing? I'm not speculating on what sins you've commited, mind you, just giving an example.

Reguardless of whether homosexual acts or thoughts are a sin, I think it's clear that even if you're the dirtiest bummer alive that god WILL forgive you if you repent and pray. Or am I wrong?

Zillah

The concept of "sin" is humerous to me.

The Real B-man

so the church say but there wrong as usual!!! you are who you are and thats the way god created you **** the church!!!

neuro-praxis

You're dead right Karl, you got it exactly.

The only difference is that in practice, when you have a relationship with God, your desires change. Doing what honours God becomes more important than what pleases yourself. I would say constantly repenting for your regular lifestyle (for example, if a gay couple were repenting every night of the week for expressing their love to one another physically) it probably wouldn't be the most healthy situation for their relationship, as there would be a lingering sense of shame about how they were living. That's going to destroy any healthy relationship.

But in a nutshell Karl, you are absolutely right. God loves each of his children equally and anyone that turns to him will NOT be turned away, regardless of what they've done.

Phlematic, if the notion of "sin" i.e., wrongdoing, is humorous to you, then you're obviously a moral relativist. Any investigation of moral relativism reveals it to be an intellectually redundant standpoint.

If there is no sin in the world, then why does man continue to destroy his fellow man in the most disgusting of ways? Please.

</end off topic babbling>

The Real B-Man, when you say "fuc|< the church" you do realise that you're talking to anyone who is a believer? The church is made up of it's body, ie, those who believe. Thanks for your constructive entry into the discussion.

Zillah

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Phlematic, if the notion of "sin" i.e., wrongdoing, is humorous to you, then you're obviously a moral relativist. Any investigation of moral relativism reveals it to be an intellectually redundant standpoint.

How dare you misinterpret my post and then damn your own misinterpretation.

I do not agree that sin means wrong doing. To me, sin represents the dispicable illusion that God has dictated to us what wrong doing is. I find the idea that God would use such a preposterous and easily misinterpreted means as prophets (aka the bible) to be laughable. Surely if God truly did not want us to act in certain ways, and wanted to make this known to us, we would simply KNOW already. And this does not mean he controls us, we still have the ability to choose to sin or not, but at least all of his flock would be free of the ambiguity that comes with using a fallible human being to convey His most exalted mandates.



Unfortuneatly I must bring this to my main point. Sin is not wrong doing, but the attempt by some members of the human race to control others through lies guilt domination and fear. The bible is the greatest insult to human rights I can concieve of. And it's depressing that so many cannot see it for what it is.

I like the idea of a God. I truly do. An all powerful being that loves us all and is infinately compassionate. However, I find it all too convenient that God has happened to agree with whatever insecure male theocracy that ran nations, be it the bigoted male centric world that spawned the old testament or the church controlled europe that rewrote it to suit themselves over the entire last few centuries in europe.

"Sin" comes from the insecurities of man, not God. Religion has little to with God.(Can you taste the irony?)


And so I repeat; the concept of sin is humerous to me.

neuro-praxis

Sorry for classing you as a moral relativist.

However you've raised so many new points that I disagree with (and that are largely relevant only to the Catholic church which is not the only Christian church) that I suggest you start a whole bunch of new threads where we can fight to the death.

Zillah

I'd be quite happy to battle this out til the end of time but I'm not all that interested to actually start another thread. Feel free to do so and I'll throw in my cynical yet devastating two cents.

flogen

A quick question to neuro, and anyone who would agree with her stance thus far:

While I know you have neither supported nor rebuted scientific theory that homosexuality is genetic, surely from a biblical sense it could never be so. To assume it was genetic would be to say that someone was born with it. To say that would mean that God created a person with the urge and temptation to sin. Or would this simply be a manifistation of original sin (if I am percieving original sin correctly)?
I was always of the impression that the Devil is the one who tempted people away from God, and not that God put barriers in our way to test us (Although I think some strands of Christianity do believe this to some degree).

I don't know a hell of a lot in regards religious debate, and so I'm not sure if original sin could indeed be manifested as homosexuality. I'm not even sure if original sin is still a valid theory in Christianity!

(just as a side note, I don't see homosexuality as a sin as I personally do not believe that God would punish someone for their love and adoration of another human being).

flogen

Zillah

To say that homosexuality is genetic would be misleading. To be precise, everything to do with a human being is given potential by their genes, but not dictated by it. Ie, your genes have provided the potential to get cancer during your life, but you don't neccessarily get it.

Most (scientists that is)agree that homosexuality is decided pre birth however. One theory is that if a woman has several boy children in a row then there is too much of a build up of male hormones in the womb lining. The body counters with too much female hormones thereby causing the brain to develop in some areas as a womans would.


"To assume it was genetic would be to say that someone was born with it. To say that would mean that God created a person with the urge and temptation to sin. "

Speaking of which why has it been thousands of years since any seas parted or cities exploded (Sodom and Gemorrah, I'm looking at you.)?

Rozabeez

what i dont understand, is that homsexuality IS actually known as a sin by the church...but isnt that a form of predjudice against homosexuals? Doesnt the church tell us not to be predjudice? someone explain the amount of hypoccritical erros in the church these days because i find it all hard to understand.

GuanYin

flogen wrote:

A quick question to neuro, and anyone who would agree with her stance thus far:

While I know you have neither supported nor rebuted scientific theory that homosexuality is genetic, surely from a biblical sense it could never be so. To assume it was genetic would be to say that someone was born with it. To say that would mean that God created a person with the urge and temptation to sin. Or would this simply be a manifistation of original sin (if I am percieving original sin correctly)?
I was always of the impression that the Devil is the one who tempted people away from God, and not that God put barriers in our way to test us (Although I think some strands of Christianity do believe this to some degree).

I don't know a hell of a lot in regards religious debate, and so I'm not sure if original sin could indeed be manifested as homosexuality. I'm not even sure if original sin is still a valid theory in Christianity!

(just as a side note, I don't see homosexuality as a sin as I personally do not believe that God would punish someone for their love and adoration of another human being).

flogen

Good post flogen.

Surely as our creator would hardly condemn us for actions that were his own design.

I see Justhalfs argument relating homosexuality to abstinence but if there is a big difference between delaying our urges and going against our nature.

A heterosexual person may choose to wait until marriage to consummate the relatioship, or not, but eventually they get to enjoy sex and intimacy with another human being.

However, for a homosexual person the choice is limited. They may stave off their urges forever or they may go against their nature and try a heterosexual relationship.

If they take part in homosexual partnerships, they are continually sinning in Gods eyes and must continually ask forgiveness for what they are. Why would God want this? Why create a person who must be eternally repentful for who they are. Or why create someone who is put in the situation of defying God?

One really has to look at the source of our knowledge of "God's will" to understand the situation. Considering how much of the Bible we see has been diluted and edited and mis-translated over the ages, are the Bible references to God the original wishes or have they been twisted through the ages?

Lets even look at the time of the Bible. Homosexual acts were the norm in ancient Rome and Greece and had strong associations with the old Gods. Could it be that the homosexual sin was merely a way of purging the practices of the old religion from "new" christianity at the time.

I'm with Keu on this one. If you have a moral outlook that does not offend others and try to do what you feel is right, without causing hurt or harm to your fellow man, then what more can God ask? If you sincerely live and love another person of the same sex then no God worth worshipping could do anything but rejoice.

JustHalf

I think it's time to get back on topic. Rozabeez and syke are on topic. Thread split, so look elsewhere for the other stuff

Comment: offensive "crazy talk" remark deleted. By the way, Keu wiped most of the stuff from that other thread, so it's fairly useless.

keu

thats just insane. but typical.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

I think it's time to get back on topic. Rozabeez and syke are on topic. Thread split, so look elsewhere for the crazy talk

I think its mighty hypocritical and downright out of order for you as a mod of a religious forum to call someone elses beliefs crazy talk.

You have some nerve.

NinjaBart

JustHalf wrote:

I think it's time to get back on topic. Rozabeez and syke are on topic. Thread split, so look elsewhere for the crazy talk

Hmmm, dismiss and discredit others beliefs.

Now where have I seen that before?

JustHalf

I couldn't think of a title for the new thread. I made a joke. Instead of changing the title of the thread (which, bear in mind, the thread title TOLD HIM TO) he blanked his first post and deleted all of his others.

Now I feel like the star of a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.

This is obviously off-topic. Take it to feedback if you want, but don't discuss it in this thread.

keu

I'm female btw...and my response was on topic. there was nothing wrong with it other than it didnt conform to your beliefs of what christianity is, it wasnt degrading or offensive.

and you then went and deleted my response of [it make baby jebubs cry]

I concur with the previous two posts.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

I'm female btw

Sorry for getting your gender wrong.

keu wrote:

...and my response was on topic. there was nothing wrong with it other than it didnt conform to your beliefs of what christianity is, it wasnt degrading or offensive.

Your response was off-topic. It was proposing a radically different interpretation of Christianity, one that isn't actually Christian. It's vaguely unitarian.

Propose a different interpretation of Christianity is off-topic in a thread asking is homosexuality a sin. Plain and simple.

The name of the thread was a joke. Almost certainly, it was in bad taste; a mistake. I'm sorry for that. But the thread split was well needed.

keu wrote:

and you then went and deleted my response of [it make baby jebubs cry]

I didn't delete your response. I split the thread. YOU deleted your response. I can restore most of them if you wish, but the first post that you blanked I can't.

Take this argument to PMs or the Feedback forum please. You can even make another thread on this forum if you want, but I'm taking a zero tolerance approach to any more replies, criticising my decisions, in this thread. It's completely off-topic.

keu

It was proposing a radically different interpretation of Christianity,

cool..I'm radical. (Jesus was too)

Rozabeez

whats the point in turning this into a big argument? i would lecture you all with my personal views on religion but everyone would become disgusted with my views and turn against me like they have done to others, why cant we just discuss the unfairness in which homosexuals are portrayed as sinners by the church?

keu

slightly off topic, but in the christian spirit...
I hold no grudge with anyone here for their views. In fact I hate arguments about absolutley nothing. If Justhalf has been hurt in someway over the contentious issue..I apologise. (I didn't bring the subject up and I did try to walk away,) I don't think it was my issue to begin with..but I don't like seeing others offended by words or watching others being held in contempt either.

back on topic.

why cant we just discuss the unfairness in which homosexuals are portrayed as sinners by the church?

k.
...

keu

christian spirit isnt appreciated here. Why am I not suprised. I'll stick with buddism..

MadsL

Reguardless of whether homosexual acts or thoughts are a sin, I think it's clear that even if you're the dirtiest bummer alive that god WILL forgive you if you repent and pray. Or am I wrong?

Yes. And burning in PC hell. "dirtiest bummer"? That's helpful. And not a single mod here pulled you up on this repulsive and offensive expression of gay men. Shame on you. But what else would I expect in this forum but intolerance.

JustHalf

Keu, you're banned from this forum until you realise what you're banned for. For any reasonable person, it shouldn't be too hard to do. Until I get a PM to this effect, you will remain banned.

MadsL, you're banned for a week for both:

1: Being far too PC for your own good
2: Suggesting that merely allowing the phrase "dirtiest bummer" to be used in argument, in a way that makes sense in context (crikey, he was using it to make a stab at intolerance!) somehow means that I'm being an intolerant asshole.

I am being intolerant now, of course. Intolerant of this nonsense. Thread locked. Once again, another thread on homosexuality ruined, for reasons that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If this topic starts up again, I'll take a zero-tolerance view to any of this type of crap again.