Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

PDN

lugha wrote: »

Well this presents another problem. You are in a position to give such an informed answer because you have had inclination and opportunity to study the bible in depth.

Most people have the opportunity to study the Bible, or to ask questions of those who do. The issue is much more one of inclination. If you are serious about following Jesus then you will have the inclination to learn more so as to follow Him properly.

Also, this is why God provides teachers in order to help others to understand the Bible properly.

My point is that if some learning is required to properly interpret the bible then any lessons to be learnt from it are not completed contained between its covers. Which surely undermines any absolute claims made for it?

No, not at all.

All God asks of us is that we do our best to understand His Word and then live according to the light we have received. The most important stuff (like how to get saved) is clear enough. The fact that we don't understand absolutely everything in no way invalidates the claims we make for the inspiration and authority of the Scripture.

On a related not, what is the spiritual dividend to be gained from studying the bible in depth, given again that the opportunity to do so is largely in the providence of the more well to do? Surely there can be no advantage that would be denied to someone who did not have the same opportunity?

It's not a case of comparing yourself with someone else in order to gain an 'advantage' over them. Our responsibility is to make the most of the opportunities that each of us has received.

postcynical

lugha wrote: »

Well this presents another problem. You are in a position to give such an informed answer because you have had inclination and opportunity to study the bible in depth. No doubt you will acknowledge that there have been many people down the ages who have embraced Christianity and who would have been fortunate to have a bible or even access to one, much less the opportunity to acquire the knowledge of it that you have done. They would have to rely on their own reading and (mis)interpretation of it as I have done. My point is that if some learning is required to properly interpret the bible then any lessons to be learnt from it are not completed contained between its covers. Which surely undermines any absolute claims made for it?
On a related not, what is the spiritual dividend to be gained from studying the bible in depth, given again that the opportunity to do so is largely in the providence of the more well to do? Surely there can be no advantage that would be denied to someone who did not have the same opportunity?

Sorry for the OT but this is one of the miracles of Christianity that Christ's message is rich enough to preoccupy the greatest of intellects, yet simple enough to be grasped by the simplest-living of peasants throughout the ages. Most witnesses in my life have been relatively uneducated people, in whom I detected wisdom more profound than many intellectuals. Nowadays I find religion to be great food for thought.

Matthem 11:25-26 wrote:

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

(I'm sure there's an equivalent post-hoc memetic explanation for this phenomenon too, but I like the magic of a universal message for all people and all times)

eightyfish

Wicknight wrote: »

Does it matter?

Are you asking if it matters if homosexuality is innate?

Zombrex

eightyfish wrote: »

Are you asking if it matters if homosexuality is innate?

I'm asking would determining if homosexuality is caused by biological factors, or environmental factors, or a combination of both, change anyone's opinion on it being good or bad?

Does anyone think "Its bad because they choose to do it, but if they find out they don't choose to do it then I will think it is good".

That to me would be a weird position to take. Why does something become ok just because you can't choose it. Why does something become bad just because you do choose to do it.

I have always though that the argument that being gay is something you don't choose is some what of an admission that there is something wrong with it. It is like apologising, that if you could choose not to do it you would.

ozzirt

It seems odd that this whole debate is revolving around chrisianity. In my experience, I'd say the average christian is blinkered in almost all views, most of them don't really know what they like, as their views revolve around their particular interpretation of the bobble.

What about us "card carrying" atheists that detest homosexuals? Don't we qualify for a vote?

eightyfish

Wicknight wrote: »

That to me would be a weird position to take. Why does something become ok just because you can't choose it. Why does something become bad just because you do choose to do it.

I have always though that the argument that being gay is something you don't choose is some what of an admission that there is something wrong with it. It is like apologising, that if you could choose not to do it you would.

Interesting perspective. It's not that it being innate suddenly makes it okay. I would consider it okay even if it was a choice, as each to their own. However, it matters when the argument is made "to be gay is not a sin, but to have gay sex is a sin" because to be gay is the same thing as to have gay sex. Thus if it is true that you are born gay, you are also born a sinner by default and that seems cruel.

It is christians who teach that homosexuality is a sin and that that sin can somehow be overcome that cause distress and self-doubt among young gay people.

The reason I wrote the post before your original comment was because Jakkass said that there is no evidence that homosexuality is innate, which is not true.

PDN

ozzirt wrote: »

It seems odd that this whole debate is revolving around chrisianity. In my experience, I'd say the average christian is blinkered in almost all views, most of them don't really know what they like, as their views revolve around their particular interpretation of the bobble.

What about us "card carrying" atheists that detest homosexuals? Don't we qualify for a vote?

Maybe you missed the sign on the way in, the one that says 'Christianity'. You certainly do get a vote, and if you go through the curtain into the A&A forum you can cast that vote as many times as your godless little heart desires.

Card carrying atheists that detest homosexuals are not that uncommon. Ever hear what happens to gays in China?

Zombrex

ozzirt wrote: »

It seems odd that this whole debate is revolving around chrisianity. In my experience, I'd say the average christian is blinkered in almost all views, most of them don't really know what they like, as their views revolve around their particular interpretation of the bobble.

What about us "card carrying" atheists that detest homosexuals? Don't we qualify for a vote?

Not only do we get a vote we get our own forum ... over there ... :P

Zombrex

eightyfish wrote: »

Interesting perspective. It's not that it being innate suddenly makes it okay. I would consider it okay even if it was a choice, as each to their own. However, it matters when the argument is made "to be gay is not a sin, but to have gay sex is a sin" because to be gay is the same thing as to have gay sex. Thus if it is true that you are born gay, you are also born a sinner by default and that seems cruel.

I don't think simply being gay is considered a sin, but acting on it is considered a sin (by some Christians, see my post above for a perspective of Christians who reject this interpretation)

Whether this includes having homosexual thoughts (lustful thoughts) or not I'm not sure, if it does I guess you could consider that as teaching homosexuality itself is a sin, since a person is a homosexual because they have homosexual desires.

eightyfish

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether this includes having homosexual thoughts (lustful thoughts) or not I'm not sure, if it does I guess you could consider that as teaching homosexuality itself is a sin, since a person is a homosexual because they have homosexual desires.

Exactly. There is no difference between saying "the homosexual act is a sin" and "it is a sin to be homosexual" because one necessitates the other, unless one thinks that gays have just made a bad choice in life and can somehow be "cured" by religion. The later opinion is luaghable and insulting.

greendom

ozzirt wrote: »

What about us "card carrying" atheists that detest homosexuals? Don't we qualify for a vote?

The difference is you have no excuse for your hatred

PDN

eightyfish wrote: »

Exactly. There is no difference between saying "the homosexual act is a sin" and "it is a sin to be homosexual" because one necessitates the other, unless one thinks that gays have just made a bad choice in life and can somehow be "cured" by religion. The later opinion is luaghable and insulting.

The one necessitates the other? Really?

So, therefore;
a) Homosexual acts necessitate one being a homosexual, or
b) Being a homosexual necessitates homosexual acts.

Please clarify which of these nonsensical positions you are trying to advance.

eightyfish

PDN wrote: »

Please clarify which of these nonsensical positions you are trying to advance.

I'll go for B, PDN!

(Well, necessitates is probably not the correct word. But to say "it's okay to have those thoughts as long as you don't do anything about it" is insulting. It equates homosexuality with criminality. You can fantasise about hurting that woman as long as you don't actually do it. How ridiculous. But of course you believe the act to be a sin. We're getting nowhere. But then if we can control people's sexual desires, we can control their minds :rolleyes:)

Zombrex

eightyfish wrote: »

Exactly. There is no difference between saying "the homosexual act is a sin" and "it is a sin to be homosexual" because one necessitates the other, unless one thinks that gays have just made a bad choice in life and can somehow be "cured" by religion. The later opinion is luaghable and insulting.

Well yes, but we should probably ask the Christians does having homosexual thoughts count as a sin, I don't want to get given out to again for "misrepresenting" Christianity

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The one necessitates the other? Really?

So, therefore;
a) Homosexual acts necessitate one being a homosexual, or
b) Being a homosexual necessitates homosexual acts.

Please clarify which of these nonsensical positions you are trying to advance.

Being a homosexual necessitates homosexual acts if having sexual thoughts about members of the same sex counts as "homosexual acts"

Otherwise how would you even know you were a homosexual? If a gay man never has homosexual thoughts about other men what makes him a gay man.

The question with relation to this topic is whether having homosexual thoughts is considered a sin?

eightyfish

Wicknight wrote: »

we should probably ask the Christians does having homosexual thoughts count as a sin

PDN/Jakkass - would be interested to get your opinions on this. Is it only what you do that can be sinful, not how you feel or what you think?

ozzirt

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you missed the sign on the way in, the one that says 'Christianity'. You certainly do get a vote, and if you go through the curtain into the A&A forum you can cast that vote as many times as your godless little heart desires.

Card carrying atheists that detest homosexuals are not that uncommon. Ever hear what happens to gays in China?

Ahhh, sorry, closed club eh,... that's a good way to exclude the logical thinking vote.

Having joined the debate via "Today's Posts" I effectively joined a thread labelled "Why the,... etc.", there being no mention of christianity in the title.
[backs out the door with furious forelock tugging]

greendom

So why the horrible attitude towards non-christians ?

PDN

greendom wrote: »

So why the horrible attitude towards non-christians ?

Say what?

greendom

PDN wrote: »

Say what?

Just a joke referring to ozzirt's post

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, but we should probably ask the Christians does having homosexual thoughts count as a sin, I don't want to get given out to again for "misrepresenting" Christianity

No, being tempted to commit a sinful act (defining sinful as contrary to the will of God) is not in itself sin.

If I am tempted to shag my neighbour's wife (unlikely if you knew my neighbours), or if a Jew is tempted to eat the proverbial bacon sandwich, or if I am tempted to nip down to the nearest Hindu Temple and pray to Shiva, or if someone is tempted to go out and find a rent boy - none of these are in themselves sin.

The bible tells us that Jesus was Himself tempted in all kinds of ways, but without sin. So temptation does not equal sin.

Where all of them would become sin (thinking here of Jesus talking about committing adultery in your heart, or hatred being a form of murder) is if you choose to keep on dwelling on the thoughts and cherishing them in your heart. I think it was Martin Luther (it might have been someone else but I can't be bothered googling it to find out) who said, "You can't stop birds flying over your head, but you can stop them nesting in your hair."

Zombrex

ozzirt wrote: »

Ahhh, sorry, closed club eh,... that's a good way to exclude the logical thinking vote.

Calling Christians "blinkered in almost all views" is hardly logic is it

Attack the post, not the poster.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, I still have a perfect right to view any or all of these acts as immoral.

Yes, you do. You are free to believe whatever you like about whatever or whomever you like, and I have no interest whatsoever in infringing that right, nor in making you change your mind (which would assume, incorrectly, that I had any chance of doing so).

PDN wrote: »

You, Robin, equally have the right to disapprove of any of my actions.

As indeed of some of what you've reported yourself, I certainly do. However, I do not -- as most christians -- assume the right to witter or rant on in public that you are "immoral" or "intrinsically disordered" or whatever other demeaning term, for no other reason than I've acquired a religious or other belief system in which this happens to be the case.

If religious people restrained their comments to refer to themselves, or better still, just kept quiet about it altogether, then nobody would refer to christians as homophobic and christians would not have a reputation for a nasty intolerance for the private affairs of other people, which, to say the very least, do not concern them.

BTW, what's your position on Iris Robinson's comments last year in which she said that the having sex with kids was less of a problem for her than homosexuality?

Do you feel that (a) this constitutes homophobia and (b) that it's ok for her to air these views publicly?

eightyfish

robindch wrote: »

BTW, what's your position on Iris Robinson's comments last year in which she said that the having sex with kids was less of a problem for her than homosexuality?

Also, this is her husband's rsponse to previous criticism of her views:

"It wasn't Iris Robinson who determined that homosexuality was an abomination, it was The Almighty. This is the Scriptures and it is a strange world indeed where somebody on the one hand talks about equality, but won’t allow Christians to have the equality, the right to speak, the right to express their views." (wikipedia)

Do you agree with this?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

However, I do not -- as most christians -- assume the right to witter or rant on in public that you are "immoral" or "intrinsically disordered" or whatever other demeaning term, for no other reason than I've acquired a religious or other belief system in which this happens to be the case.

If religious people restrained their comments to refer to themselves, or better still, just kept quiet about it altogether, then nobody would refer to christians as homophobic and christians would not have a reputation for a nasty intolerance for the private affairs of other people, which, to say the very least, do not concern them.

Hmm, and yet you persist in coming into the Christianity forum to make a song and dance about this and tell us how wrong we are, but I don't go into the LGB forum to do likewise. Maybe you should take the telegraph pole out of your own eye before addressing the specks in the eyes of others?

BTW, what's your position on Iris Robinson's comments last year in which she said that the having sex with kids was less of a problem for her than homosexuality?

I think Iris Robinson is a nut and that her views on this, as with most subjects, are intrinsically disordered.

Do you feel that (a) this constitutes homophobia and (b) that it's ok for her to air these views publicly?

a) Yes, I think it constitutes homophobia.
b) I would rather she aired them publicly, so everyone can see what she is, than that she thought such stuff and kept quiet and pretended to be a reasonable human being.

Obni

I've followed this topic with great interest, and have enjoyed the sparring on both sides.

I must admit to feeling that the OP's question, that I might paraphrase as "Why do people, who take moral guidance from a particular moral code, have a negative attitude to acts that are considered immoral under that code?" is rather pointless as a question; although I would heartily echo it as an appeal for tolerance and compassion in society.

The main posters on the Christian side of the debate, namely PDN and Jakkass, have eloquently expressed their own tolerance and compassion in their posts, within the framework of their code. The general sense of 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is an admirable standpoint in many ways.

However, no amount of eloquence can cover up the fact that anybody classing homosexuality as a sin, is homophobic.

Consider someone who stabs a neighbour during a row that gets out of hand.
Both christians and secular people would class this as a terrible act against their moral codes.
Consider a kid who takes a biscuit from the cupboard, after a parent had just told them wait until after dinner.
Both christians and secular people would class this as a rather minor act against their moral code.
So, on both side we have a scale of severity against which we judge the morality of acts.

By the simple fact that homosexual acts appear anywhere on their sliding-scale of morality, Christians are expressing a prejudice against homosexuals. It is an implicit and necessary component of being a Christian, if you take your moral guidance from the bible.

Although in some more enlightened Christian arenas people may express the opinion that homosexual acts are sinful, but no more sinful than heterosexual acts outside marriage, in general the sin of homosexual fornication is placed higher on the scale of severity than the sin of heterosexual fornication. Although PDN or Jakkass may state that they find both acts equally sinful and regrettable, yet open to being forgiven, I would doubt they can honestly say that in general most Christians taking their moral framework from the bible, would not see a homosexual act as a more grievous sin.

Zombrex

Obni wrote: »

The main posters on the Christian side of the debate, namely PDN and Jakkass, have eloquently expressed their own tolerance and compassion in their posts, within the framework of their code. The general sense of 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is an admirable standpoint in many ways.

However, no amount of eloquence can cover up the fact that anybody classing homosexuality as a sin, is homophobic.

I would imagine they would say God can't be homophobic, since he wouldn't have an irrational fear of homosexuals.

You can come at it from the position of a non-believer and think, as I do, that those who wrote the Bible were homophobic, and used the Bible to express that viewpoint. But you can't come at it from the position of those who believe and say it is still homophobic. They are just following what they are told, and are being told by someone who can't fear homosexuals or homosexuality.

WesternNight

Jakkass wrote: »

All mankind are sinners

How do you know? Do you know all human beings on the planet? Are newborn babies included in that?

elekid

Obni wrote: »

However, no amount of eloquence can cover up the fact that anybody classing homosexuality as a sin, is homophobic.

Absolutely.

I've no doubt that most christians are trying to do good and have no intention of causing harm to others, but giving sexually confused and vulnerable young people the message that to act on their natural feelings would be sinful seems horrifically cruel and harmful to me, yet that's the message being given. Spreading the message that those who commit homosexual acts are sinners, results in homophobia, even if it is indirect.

eightyfish

WesternNight wrote: »

How do you know? Do you know all human beings on the planet? Are newborn babies included in that?

Original sin.