Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

studiorat · 18-12-2008 08:52PM

Just goes to show you that you don't need to feel God's blessings to know and do the right thing.

Luther King Jr was called a communist agitator at Bob Jones Uni on his death, when they refused to fly the college flag at half mast.

Three young women were arrested today, on the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., for walking onto the campus of Bob Jones University to engage students in dialogue. These individuals, part of the 2007 Soulforce Equality Ride Eastbound Bus, came to speak with students at the university about its discriminatory policy towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students and the doctrine that sustains it.

Upon arrival to Bob Jones, Equality Riders were met with groups protesting their visit and message of inclusion for God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. Operation Save America, Truth Ministry, and Americans for Truth were three of the anti-gay groups present. Through bullhorns and homophobic signs, they loudly and forcefully spoke against the acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

The same University only allowed interracial relationships in 2000.

--amadeus-- · 19-12-2008 11:01AM

PDN wrote: »

I've looked at it - and it's flat out wrong.

Wow, that is quite a shoal of red herrings you let loose there PDN...

We all know that language is fluid. If you were translating a work from English to another language you may have chapter one had our hero "walking through a rose garden" while chapter two says the hero "rose from his bed". Now in this case you wouldn't assume that the word had an identical meaning in both instances; you wouldn't question why the hero had turned into a flower overnight (unless it's a Kafka story of course). It's called Homonym. The word dabaq is used in several places as it has several meanings:

to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch

So now that we have tidied away all those other examples of the word dabaq perhaps we can return to the specific two I mentioned. I was lucky enough to study law for a year in University and one of the lessons that stuck was the idea of the "reasonable man interpretation". Basically how would a reasonable person read a contract or understand a situation (not how can someone twist words to put an alternative interpretation). I've always tried to use that approach in textual analysis and it's what I'm trying to do here.

So "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". Now the reference to one flesh seems to clearly refer to sex. So this seems to clearly talk of a man and a woman leaving thier families, setting up home in a romantic / sexual union (cleaving together).

"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her" Again I'm just looking at this as an outsider - the context of the word "clave" seems the same. It is referring to a couple who have been joined in a romantic / sexual union.

I appreciate that we have different interpretations of this. But I am very surprised to see a flat rejection of the homosexual reading. When you consider how stretched some of teh analogies made by Christians are (the EU as the beast in Revalations being a recent and fairly silly example) and when you think about how ambigious the Bible is in many places I find it hard to believe that this book should be seen in such a narrow "it means this and this alone" manner. Particularly from a poster who has admitted that there are biblical passages that can cause great difficulty for modern Christian readers.

In the rabbinic tradition, the main theme of Ruth is considered to be chesed, steadfast love). In fact an interesting exercise is to read the exchanges between Ruth and Naomi but replace the name Ruth with John. Ask if they couldn't be considered to be declarations of romantic love; for example "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me". If a woman saidf that to a man how could it be read as anything other than romantic? Why should changing the gender of a participant change so fundamentally the message and meaning?

Zombrex · 19-12-2008 11:49AM

oh you so shouldn't have done that ...

<everyone starts edging away slowly with slight panicked look on their faces>

PDN · 19-12-2008 12:05PM

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So now that we have tidied away all those other examples of the word dabaq perhaps we can return to the specific two I mentioned. I was lucky enough to study law for a year in University and one of the lessons that stuck was the idea of the "reasonable man interpretation". Basically how would a reasonable person read a contract or understand a situation (not how can someone twist words to put an alternative interpretation). I've always tried to use that approach in textual analysis and it's what I'm trying to do here.

Exactly, which is why for millennia no reasonable person interpreted Ruth and Naomi's relationship as being sexual. Now, because a tiny group of people want to pretend that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible they twist the text to propose an alternative interpretation.

So "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". Now the reference to one flesh seems to clearly refer to sex. So this seems to clearly talk of a man and a woman leaving thier families, setting up home in a romantic / sexual union (cleaving together).

The reference does not clearly refer to sex. It refers to a man 'leaving' one family unit and 'cleaving' to another. To invest 'cleaving' with a sexual meaning would, if you are consistent, do the same with 'leaving'. That would plainly be daft.

"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her" Again I'm just looking at this as an outsider - the context of the word "clave" seems the same. It is referring to a couple who have been joined in a romantic / sexual union.

Nonsense - that is a pathetic attempt to foist a meaning onto the text that would be repugnant to any ancient Hebrew. That you would prefer that interpretation over the plain sense of the passage makes a laughing stock of your claim to be practising textual analysis.

The context of Ruth Chapter 1 is that Naomi is standing at a crossroads in a public place with her 2 daughters in law. Orpah (whose name was farcically mispelt by Mrs Winfrey whhen registering the birth of her daughter - but that's another story) is portrayed as being present at the time of the 'cleaving'.

So we have two possible interpretations of this passage.
a) Ruth clings to Naomi's clothing and begs her not to send her away.
b) Ruth participates in a sex act with her mother-in-law while the other sister-in-law watches them.

Now, try to forget for a moment that you are an atheist with an ideological preference for picking any interpretation that makes a good weapon in debating against Christians. Instead try to apply your own reasonable person criteria.

Would a reasonable person believe that interpretation (a) or (b) would be more likely, particularly to be included in a holy text and publicly read out in worship services by ancient Hebrews?

Can you honestly put your hand on heart and say (without first eating magic mushrooms) that option (b) is the plain sense of the text?

I appreciate that we have different interpretations of this. But I am very surprised to see a flat rejection of the homosexual reading. When you consider how stretched some of teh analogies made by Christians are (the EU as the beast in Revalations being a recent and fairly silly example) and when you think about how ambigious the Bible is in many places I find it hard to believe that this book should be seen in such a narrow "it means this and this alone" manner. Particularly from a poster who has admitted that there are biblical passages that can cause great difficulty for modern Christian readers.

So let's get this straight. Your argument is as follows:
1. Some silly Christians arrive at far-fetched and laughable interpretations (which PDN rejects) by using analogies.
2. Therefore PDN should except an equally far-fetched and laughable interpretation when it is advanced by an atheist.

Been hitting the egg-nog a bit early this year, have we?

In the rabbinic tradition, the main theme of Ruth is considered to be chesed, steadfast love). In fact an interesting exercise is to read the exchanges between Ruth and Naomi but replace the name Ruth with John. Ask if they couldn't be considered to be declarations of romantic love; for example "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me". If a woman saidf that to a man how could it be read as anything other than romantic? Why should changing the gender of a participant change so fundamentally the message and meaning?

You get similar expressions of love and loyalty between men - as when the Israelites affirmed their steadfast love and loyalty for King David.

Your ability to see sexual references where none exists is a wonderful example of anachronistically reading modern obsessions backwards into history. It is as out of place as Shakespeare's famous chiming clock in Julius Caesar.

--amadeus-- · 19-12-2008 12:23PM

I've obviously explained myself very badly because the gist of it has been missed.

I'm not suggesting that Ruth and Naomi got down and dirty there and then. I am talking about the word being used to describe both Adam and Eve's relationship and Ruth and Naomi's. So starting again:

The Genesis story clearly talks of a man and a woman establishing a relationship
This relationship is a sexual one ("one flesh")
Naomi and Ruth clearly also have a relationship
The same word that was previously used to describe a relationship is reused

I am not suggesting that the word "clave" indicates that they participated in a sexual act on the spot! Rather that Ruth "cleaved" to Naomi, made it clear that she committed herself to her in such a way as to make it clear that they couldn't part. And indeed they didn't as they "both went until they came to Bethlehem. And when they had come to Bethlehem, all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"" (teh pair made quite an impact from teh sounds of it).

So to summarize - the quote from the book of Ruth placed in the context of the entire story implies that the two women were committed to a relationship and I don't see it as unreasonable - given the fluid nature of Biblical interpretations - to read it as a romantic relationship.

And you ignored my final paragraph - read the passages again but imagine they are being said by a woman to a man. The meaning is clearly romantic - why does teh gender of the recipient of teh speech change the meaning of teh speech?

PDN · 19-12-2008 12:50PM

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I've obviously explained myself very badly because the gist of it has been missed.

I'm not suggesting that Ruth and Naomi got down and dirty there and then. I am talking about the word being used to describe both Adam and Eve's relationship and Ruth and Naomi's. So starting again:
The Genesis story clearly talks of a man and a woman establishing a relationship

This relationship is a sexual one ("one flesh")

Naomi and Ruth clearly also have a relationship

The same word that was previously used to describe a relationship is reused

1. The word is used at least 50 times in contexts where there is no sexual connotation - including non-sexual relationships and also in the sense of clinging to something or pursuing something.
2. The same word is also used to apply to Ruth holding on to Naomi's clothing - not to their relationship.

And yes, Naomi and Ruth did have a relationship. They were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.

However, let's explore this a little bit further. The Genesis 2:24 quote clearly describes 'cleaving' as an exclusive relationship. A man did not 'cleave' to his parents house and to his wife. He had to 'leave' the one in order to 'cleave' to the other.

Now, are you seriously arguing that Ruth and Naomi had 'cleaved' into such an exclusive relationship? (Before you answer - remember that a couple of chapters later Ruth is going to marry Boaz)

I am not suggesting that the word "clave" indicates that they participated in a sexual act on the spot! Rather that Ruth "cleaved" to Naomi, made it clear that she committed herself to her in such a way as to make it clear that they couldn't part.

And a commitment that prevents people from parting has to be sexual?

And indeed they didn't as they "both went until they came to Bethlehem. And when they had come to Bethlehem, all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"" (teh pair made quite an impact from teh sounds of it).

Of course they made an impact. Naomi had been gone for years and now she returned bringing a Moabitess daughter-in-law with her (a bit like a Southern belle bringing a black daughter-in-law to Alabama 200 years ago).

And you ignored my final paragraph - read the passages again but imagine they are being said by a woman to a man. The meaning is clearly romantic - why does teh gender of the recipient of teh speech change the meaning of teh speech?

The gender doesn't change the meaning of the speech. The words Ruth spoke to Naomi would be similar to those we would expect to see spoken by a woman swearing loyalty to a king or a man swearing loyalty to his queen - no sexual connotation whatsoever.

However, since you want to argue that the meaning of speech shouldn't alter when we change the gender .....

If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:12)

Now, by your own reasoning, why should the meaning change when we change the gender? Why would the Hebrews publicly read Leviticus 20:12 in their Temple one day and yet the next day read out a text that celebrates a mother-in-law getting down and dirty with her daughter-in-law? Such an interpretation clearly fails your own reasonable person criteria.

wolfsbane · 19-12-2008 08:46PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.
Yes, but surely you cannot abandon your own assessment of these things entirely? What if God's word has been compromised by fallible people?

Then it is not God's word. But the Bible is known by Christians as not a mixture of truth and error - rather it is the infallible word of God. All it teachings are pure.

By your estimation of things, you must surely risk much by accepting morality on authority.

Not when it's God's authority. If it were mere human creeds, then I would indeed be in danger. The best of creeds are liable to error, even my beloved Baptist Confession of Faith (1644).

And also, has it not been said elsewhere here that the morality of God speaks to all of us? Does that not suggest that something subjective is valid here?

God's morality is absolute; our knowledge/understanding and practice of it is subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.
They most likely are. But there's a world of difference between desire and action. In action, the two are not comparable and it is insulting and bigoted to suggest otherwise. One cannot be expressed as action with consent, the other can. One is immoral in action, the other is not.

You see the difference, but you'd rather accept text than your own senses.

OK, let's eliminate the 'consent' element in the argument: let's use incest between fully compentent adults as the subject of our morality test. Are they born that way, disposed to sex with their family members? Then, regardless, is their choice to do so immoral?

The Christian says it is immoral, even if no harm is done, even if both parties feel fulfilled, happy or whatever describes the homosexual aspiration. The sinner's feel-good factor is not an indication of morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances.
I'd say you're just homophobic and like to use the Word as a convenient excuse not to have to face up to your irrationality, your fear and immorality.

My morality is a rational response to my knowledge of God. I do not fear homosexuals, but I do fear God. I am not homophobic, for I love homosexuals and want to see them saved from their sin and its eternal consequences.

Zombrex · 19-12-2008 08:59PM

Mentioned in New Scientist this month (round up of discoveries this year), gay men have "female" shaped emotional centres in the brain, as opposed to straight men.

A gay man is much more likely to have a centre that produces anxiety when afraid or under stress (a "female" response), than the "male" response of fight or flight (ie getting aggressive or simply leaving). And vice versa, gay women are more likely to have the "male" emotional circuitry than the female versions.

The issue for scientists now becomes the question of why.

Theories that this is due to different hormone levels in the womb have not proved that accurate as women with genetic deceases producing abnormal hormone levels do not seem to have the same flip in brain structure.

The answer probably lies in the genes of the person, we are still waiting on hard evidence.

Either way it looks pretty conclusive that homosexuality is a physical thing. The issue for homosexuality in a Christian context is why did God create it?

wolfsbane · 19-12-2008 09:07PM

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

I'd also like to criticise your comparison with paedophillia and homosexuality. I always assumed that most child abusers had a history of trauma inflicted on them in their youth, so their perversion might be some form of mental illness no?

Homosexuality however, is something that I've always understood to be something to be the result of something before birth.
I saw a programme on the BBC where some gay dude was looking at all the things that might have effected his present sexual orientation. I can't remember all of them, but one of the scientists interviewed said that a low exposure of tertosterone to a male foetus could be a reason. That could've been caused by the mother giving birth to a few male children prior, so the more male children she had, the higher the likelyhood the next one would be Homesexual. The guy presenting happened to be an only child so it didn't seem to be accurate for his situation.
I wish i could remember the name of the show now, twas quite good .

You will note that I compared homosexuality with several examples of sin: theft, drunkenness, etc. Homosexuality is not theft, nor is it paedophilia - but all are sins. Homosexuality has something else in common with paedophilia - sex - but so has fornication. I'm not trying to say homosexuality is as wicked as paedophilia - it is not, as it does not necessitate the corruption or violation of children. But it is sin.

And, no, I do not regard paedophilia as a mental illness. Anymore than an uncontrolled anger and selfishness, or drunkenness is - all are sinful responses to our circumstances. Some are more ingrained than others due to the severity of the early circumstances, but all are matters of choice.

The idea that one is born gay is strongly disputed, see:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2624

Zombrex · 19-12-2008 09:08PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then it is not God's word. But the Bible is known by Christians as not a mixture of truth and error - rather it is the infallible word of God. All it teachings are pure.

Yes but I think AH point was that you can't possibly know that (how could you, are you a god yourself?) so it is foolish to abandon your own ability to assess things.

At some point you have to rationalise that a concept of God who thinks homosexual behaviour is an abomination is a plausible and likely god to exist.

If you don't think homosexuality is immoral yourself, why do you think it is plausible that a concept of a god that does is?

wolfsbane wrote: »

God's morality is absolute; our knowledge/understanding and practice of it is subjective.

So again how they do you judge that what you have been taught is God's morality?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The sinner's feel-good factor is not an indication of morality.

Not in Christianity no, but then you don't have a morality beyond "God says so". If there are actual reasons why these things are immoral you don't know them, you are simply following what you are told.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am not homophobic, for I love homosexuals and want to see them saved from their sin and its eternal consequences.

Ok, but again at some level you rationalised that a homosexual despising god was a probable and likely version of God. So you can't really step back and say that it is not up to you. You choose the religion to follow, you decided that a God that commands homosexuals never have sex is a god you think likely to exist.

Zombrex · 19-12-2008 09:11PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

The idea that one is born gay is strongly disputed, see:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2624

Yes but it is "disputed" by people who say things like this

what matters is what the Bible says and what can be logically deduced from it.

Fanny Cradock · 19-12-2008 10:53PM

PDN wrote: »

I find his claim that Martin Luther King was not really a Christian to be a prime example of dishonest debating tactics. He can't bear to admit that someone admirable was a Christian. In Mother Theresa's case he tried to argue (pretty unsuccessfully) that she was not admirable. Unable to do the same with Rev King he instead tried to deny the man's Christianity. Definitely a dishonest windbag.

There was a powerful and wonderfuly moving documentary on BBC2 at the start of the year entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. I intended to put up a link the day after, but it was only accessible to those in GB and only for a week at that. In the programme, Oona King (no relation), went in search of the 'real King' - the man, his demons and what really drove him. Being black herself, she was taught to view MLK in reverential terms - a hero who wrought a response to a terrible social injustice. As we all know, this was in no small part due to his charisma and his prodigious and spine-tingling talent for oration.

However, Oona King, like many others, grew up with a subtle suggestion when it came to the importance that the Christian faith played in MLK's life. This suggestion was that his 'faith' was really just a handy tool used to help him galvanise the support of others. In other words, at it's very core, MLK's faith has, by some, received a secular fudge until it is no longer MLK's faith, it's his 'faith'.

At the end of the documentary, and after interviewing many of MLK's confidants and friends, Oona King, a woman with no faith, was surprised to find out how integral his belief in Jesus the Saviour was in powering the wonderful changes he helped bring to the US and the world. Ultimately, and in direct contradiction to what the likes of Hitchens may imply, it was faith that drove him forward and sustained through all those ghastly and terrifyingly violent moments.

While I quite enjoy Hitchen's acerbic humour, he can be a complete prat at times and it is clear that he is able to 'bend the truth' with the best of them.

PDN · 20-12-2008 12:01AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There was a powerful and wonderfuly moving documentary on BBC2 at the start of the year entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. I intended to put up a link the day after, but it was only accessible to those in GB and only for a week at that. In the programme, Oona King (no relation), went in search of the 'real King' - the man, his demons and what really drove him. Being black herself, she was taught to view MLK in reverential terms - a hero who wrought a response to a terrible social injustice. As we all know, this was in no small part due to his charisma and his prodigious and spine-tingling talent for oration.

However, Oona King, like many others, grew up with a subtle suggestion when it came to the importance that the Christian faith played in MLK's life. This suggestion was that his 'faith' was really just a handy tool used to help him galvanise the support of others. In other words, at it's very core, MLK's faith has, by some, received a secular fudge until it is no longer MLK's faith, it's his 'faith'.

At the end of the documentary, and after interviewing many of MLK's confidants and friends, Oona King, a woman with no faith, was surprised to find out how integral his belief in Jesus the Saviour was in powering the wonderful changes he helped bring to the US and the world. Ultimately, and in direct contradiction to what the likes of Hitchens may imply, it was faith that drove him forward and sustained through all those ghastly and terrifyingly violent moments.

While I quite enjoy Hitchen's acerbic humour, he can be a complete prat at times and it is clear that he is able to 'bend the truth' with the best of them.

Yeah, I saw that. It was inspiring.

studiorat · 20-12-2008 04:15PM

Some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include:

United Church of Canada,
congregations within the United Church of Christ,
the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
the Moravian Church,
the Anglican Church of Canada,
the Methodist Church of Great Britain
Friends General Conference

.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community.

Other denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a current controversy in the worldwide Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Unfortunately in Ireland we still have bigots and christian homophobe Iris Robinson. ("Christian"/DUP)

Mrs Robinson claimed that homosexuality was an "abomination" and it made her feel "sick" and "nauseous".

"just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God."

[URL="p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm"]p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm[/URL]

wolfsbane · 20-12-2008 08:48PM

studiorat wrote: »

Some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include:
United Church of Canada,

congregations within the United Church of Christ,

the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,

the Moravian Church,

the Anglican Church of Canada,

the Methodist Church of Great Britain

Friends General Conference

.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community.

Other denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a current controversy in the worldwide Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Unfortunately in Ireland we still have bigots and christian homophobe Iris Robinson. ("Christian"/DUP)

Mrs Robinson claimed that homosexuality was an "abomination" and it made her feel "sick" and "nauseous".

[URL="p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm"]p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm[/URL]

You will find that many of these so-called churches also no longer believe in the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, the necessity of faith in Him for salvation, etc. They are governed by unbelievers, so it is no surprise that they embrace sub-Christian morality.

I have my differences with the DUP, but Mrs. Robinson was merely stating the Biblical assessment of homosexuality.

She is a politician, not a theologian, so caused unnecessary distraction by using the OT to prove her case. The NT sets it out clearly and distinctly, without emeshing it in Mosaic legislation.

wolfsbane · 20-12-2008 08:57PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but I think AH point was that you can't possibly know that (how could you, are you a god yourself?) so it is foolish to abandon your own ability to assess things.

At some point you have to rationalise that a concept of God who thinks homosexual behaviour is an abomination is a plausible and likely god to exist.

If you don't think homosexuality is immoral yourself, why do you think it is plausible that a concept of a god that does is?

So again how they do you judge that what you have been taught is God's morality?

Not in Christianity no, but then you don't have a morality beyond "God says so". If there are actual reasons why these things are immoral you don't know them, you are simply following what you are told.

Ok, but again at some level you rationalised that a homosexual despising god was a probable and likely version of God. So you can't really step back and say that it is not up to you. You choose the religion to follow, you decided that a God that commands homosexuals never have sex is a god you think likely to exist.

God revealed Himself to me, persuaded me that He existed and the Bible was His word. From that starting point I embraced all I could understand of it. Before I became a Christian I did not know homosexuality was always sinful - I found that out later as I came to study the Bible.

So I did not choose to follow a God I knew to be against homosexuality - I choose to follow Him and then He showed me homosexuality was sinful.

Yes, I am following what I am told. But since it is God doing the telling, I'm happy and secure in that. I have always found His way turns out the best.

wolfsbane · 20-12-2008 09:32PM

UU said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.
Sorry I'm going to get really agitated here because you have started comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. They are two different things! I don't think paedolphilia is a choice but acting upon it is. The main difference between both is this:

PAEDOPHILIA IS ULTIMATELY HARMFUL BECAUSE IT HURTS CHILDREN. CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER-AGE AND THUS IT IS ALSO CONSIDERED RAPE.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. IF IT WERE NOT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PAEDOPHILIA AS WOULD HETEROSEXUALITY BE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

See my post to Ruskie4Rent on the comparison issue.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt people any more than heterosexuality would. You say you don't see it is a valid sexuality but that is nonsense. In fact, it is evident you really know very little about it and probably know very few gay people (if any).

I know several homosexuals. I've voted for some, employed one professionally, one is the daughter of a friend. Indeed, when I helped lead a Christian ethics group, I once engaged one to speak on the political situation in Ulster (in the Mennonite centre in Dublin, as far as memory serves).

You're understanding of choice is odd. Ok I cannot choose to be gay or not but I can choose to act upon it (i.e. have sexual relations with other men). Rape and murder natural? Em ok... you know you can CHOOSE to rape or murder people or not to do so so comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality to those is a very weak argument. The difference between humans and other species is that humans have a conscience whereas other animals it seems even our close relations the apes are rather different in those ways.

All supports my point that it feeling 'natural' is no defence of its morality.

Well you can think whatever you want about homosexuality but the fact is I'm a happy in myself and there's absolutely wrong with me.

Being happy with yourself is no indication you are right.

You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

I'm giving the Christian view, and it comes down to who has the correct assessment of his condition - the homosexual or God?

If it is the homosexual, then he need not worry about God, for a god who is mistaken about a sexual condition is not a real God at all.

But if it is God who has correctly assessed the condition, then the homosexual needs to re-evaluate all he has assumed and reject all that is contrary to God's word. He needs to confess and forsake his immoral desires and practices and let God replace them with those that God intended.

wolfsbane · 20-12-2008 09:48PM

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.

As to lesbianism, it too is covered in the Romans 1 text: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Funny how Ruth and Naomi seem to be commended for being lesbians in the book of Ruth.

I don't need to add anything to PDN's exposure of your bizarre interpretation.

Its also odd how god punishes these people with an act they enjoy, how can that be a punishment?

Because it is a degradation of their God-given status. One may enjoy being drunk and lying in one's piss and vomit, but the impartial observer sees it for what it is.

Also Romans 1:32 says "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them". So I'll ask again, why aren't you calling for their death?

Because the text is speaking of eternal death, not capital punishment. God is the Judge who will sentence them to death on the Last Day.

How do you console the fact that you are picking and choosing your interpretations of pieces of bible, some only a few lines apart? Do you not think your god will see through your deception, that all you have is your own homophobia and that the parts of the bible you hide behind are the just the bits you feel you can get away with?

As above, no picking and choosing involved, just careful reading leading to correct interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.
Heterosexuality is a sin?

Only fornication and adultery. Married sex is positively good.

wolfsbane · 20-12-2008 10:02PM

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier you stated "'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is." Why then do you keep making invalid comparsions with clearly harmful practices to justify yourself?

I wasn't using them as harmful practices, but as sins. However, to avoid being side-tracked, I've lately suggested we use adult incest as a comparison. Providing birth-control is applied, I can't think of any particular harm involved - but I assert it is a sin comparable to homosexuality.

What say you? On what basis could one condemn it while affirming the validity of homosexuality?

Nodin · 20-12-2008 10:22PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

God revealed Himself to me, persuaded me that He existed and the Bible was His word.

I don't suppose you have that on tape....?

wolfsbane wrote: »

What say you? On what basis could one condemn it while affirming the validity of homosexuality?

Between siblings raised in the same nuclear family its viewed as harmful. In the case where it arises between children seperated at birth, I see no problem as long as there are no offspring.

What has it got to do with relationships two non-related consenting adults?

AtomicHorror · 20-12-2008 10:59PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because it is a degradation of their God-given status. One may enjoy being drunk and lying in one's piss and vomit, but the impartial observer sees it for what it is.

Drunkenness harms our health, may make us mentally ill, may incite us to ill-advised actions, to violence. It causes clear harm, which is the basis of how the impartial observer labels it as immoral. That the Word of God agrees is convenient, but not the means by which a reasonable person would first call drunkenness immoral.

So, how is this vivid picture you've painted comparable with homosexual acts? You've got the Word, I'll grant you. But bugger all else, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I wasn't using them as harmful practices, but as sins. However, to avoid being side-tracked, I've lately suggested we use adult incest as a comparison. Providing birth-control is applied, I can't think of any particular harm involved - but I assert it is a sin comparable to homosexuality.

What say you? On what basis could one condemn it while affirming the validity of homosexuality?

Were we able to guarantee that the contraception were 100% effective, and that both parties are consenting, there should be no moral barrier to incest. Typically incest fails on point 1. The genetic harm caused to any potential children conceived is enormous in humans.

studiorat · 21-12-2008 01:12AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are governed by unbelievers, so it is no surprise that they embrace sub-Christian morality.

Sub-Christian morality? Surely you mean un-christian morality? It would seem to me it is this homophobic morality of yours is sub standard morality.
and Unbelievers? I've heard it all now. They are in fact probably saying the same thing about your church.

You read it here folks the Methodist Church of Great Britian are Unbelievers. And a quick quote from their web site...

“Neither height nor depth, nor anything else
in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 8:39

Where will you stand Wolfsbane when your church final comes around to civilized thinking on this matter? And it will, as sure as death and taxes. They all will, in time.

Zombrex · 21-12-2008 02:10AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

God revealed Himself to me, persuaded me that He existed and the Bible was His word.
...
Yes, I am following what I am told. But since it is God doing the telling,

Yes but you don't know it is God doing the telling (again how could you possibly, you yourself are not a god so you do not have access to the ability to judge this, no one does).

You choose to interpret your revelation in that way. Why I'm not sure, but once again you are choosing to accept a god that does these things as being plausibly real.

jaffa20 · 21-12-2008 02:30AM

Oh jesus, what a depressing thread :mad:
I hate it when people judge an act i've no control over based on a scripture which they don't fully live by themselves. There are a lot of other things that are said in the bible which people don't comply with. Maybe have a look in the mirror and Judge lest thou not be judged

AtomicHorror · 21-12-2008 02:55AM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Oh jesus, what a depressing thread :mad:
I hate it when people judge an act i've no control over based on a scripture which they don't fully live by themselves. There are a lot of other things that are said in the bible which people don't comply with. Maybe have a look in the mirror and Judge lest thou not be judged

Ah, but they're repentant. They go to church and they have faith in Jesus Christ. Their failings, whilst real and regrettable, will be forgiven if their repentance is genuie. Not so the rest of us. A man could cure AIDS for no financial gain, save 15 million lives and yet be damned to hell (or merely oblivion) for being an unrepentant practising homosexual. Those are the rules, and reason does not appear to matter.

PDN · 21-12-2008 09:14AM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Oh jesus, what a depressing thread :mad:
I hate it when people judge an act i've no control over based on a scripture which they don't fully live by themselves. There are a lot of other things that are said in the bible which people don't comply with. Maybe have a look in the mirror and Judge lest thou not be judged

If you have no control over your sexual acts then you are either being raped or you are a psychopath.

Either way please seek help.

PDN · 21-12-2008 09:57AM

I think some posters are (probably accidentally but possibly deliberately) misunderstanding Wolfsbane.

As I read his posts I do not see him saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are morally equivalent or comparable. What he has done is to effectively use paedophilia as a example of a practice that we all see as morally unacceptable and then to use it to spear the spurious argument that homosexual acts must be OK because "some people are made that way".

Wolfsbane's argument, as I understand it, is as follows.
1. Many researchers believe that paedophilia is incurable and that those who are sexually attracted to children cannot help having such feelings.
2. The fact that paedophiles cannot help their inclinations does not make it morally OK for them to act on those inclinations.
3. Therefore possessing an inclination (either by nature or nurture) does not make acting upon such an inclination morally acceptable.
4. Therefore, if people cannot help having inclinations to homosexuality, it is logical nonsense to argue that such an inclination automatically makes homosexuality OK.

I think the logical force of this reasoning effectively demolishes the "It must be OK because I'm made that way" argument. Therefore it is not suprising that those who use such a silly argument try to hide between a smokescreen of wounded outrage by pretending that Wolfsbane has somehow argued for moral equivalency between homosexuality and paedophilia.

The Christian position is that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian faith and practice. This causes us to categorise such acts as sin (defining sin as any transgression against the will of God).

Non-Christians can choose to disagree with us on this issue - just as they disagree with us that worshipping idols is a sin, or they may disagree with Jews that eating a bacon sandwich is a sin. And in a democratic fairly-liberal society such as Ireland nobody is forcing their views on anyone else which is all right and proper.

What is a bit silly is how much of this thread consists of non-Christians trying to tell Christians that they should accept homosexual acts as compatible with Christian morality (in other words, to force their opinions upon us).

Jews should be free to practice Jewish morality - and if that includes abstaining from pork (and even banning pork-eaters from being part of their religion) then that is their right. As a Gentile I certainly don't presume to tell the Jews that they must change their beliefs. After all, they aren't doing anyone any harm.

Similarly, if the Church teaches that homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts between unmarried people) are contrary to Christian morality (and even exclude those who commit such acts from membership of their churches) then that is nobody else's business.

Of course if the Church (or indeed the pork-abhorring Jews) attempts to enforce their morality on the rest of you - then you have a legitimate reason to squeal and protest as loudly as you can. Otherwise you need to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of drama queens (no pun intended).

PDN · 21-12-2008 10:04AM

studiorat wrote: »

Some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include:
United Church of Canada,

congregations within the United Church of Christ,

the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,

the Moravian Church,

the Anglican Church of Canada,

the Methodist Church of Great Britain

Friends General Conference

.

And what do all those denominations have in common?

a) They have all departed from a high view of Scripture where the Bible is viewed as fully inspired by God and authoritative.

b) They are all experiencing long-term catastrophic decline in membership. Whether this is a cause or result of their low view of Scripture is a bit like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Fact: Tens of millions of people convert to Christianity every year.

Fact: Virtually nobody is going to make such a radical change as Christian conversion in order to join a wishy-washy denomination that doesn't even know whether to believe the Bible or not.

studiorat · 21-12-2008 11:22AM

PDN wrote: »

What is a bit silly is how much of this thread consists of non-Christians trying to tell Christians that they should accept homosexual acts as compatible with Christian morality (in other words, to force their opinions upon us).

Not telling you to accept anything. Just telling you that you are wrong.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, you are simply in error.

studiorat · 21-12-2008 12:01PM

PDN wrote: »

And what do all those denominations have in common?

a) They have all departed from a high view of Scripture where the Bible is viewed as fully inspired by God and authoritative.

b) They are all experiencing long-term catastrophic decline in membership. Whether this is a cause or result of their low view of Scripture is a bit like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Fact: Tens of millions of people convert to Christianity every year.

Fact: Virtually nobody is going to make such a radical change as Christian conversion in order to join a wishy-washy denomination that doesn't even know whether to believe the Bible or not.

I see that PDN and Wolfsbane would rather be-little those congregations than enter discussion. "Oh! they aren't real god fearing christians, like what we are blah blah blah!"

Well lads, they don't seem to have a problem with it. Why do you. You are being very judgmental of them I hope you realise. And as much bible reading as you may do I don't believe either of you are in a position to make informed judgements on the validity of differing christian sects. You are being blinded by your own self importance, a very peculiar Christian fault IMO.

Personally, I've always had a great respect for John Wesley's teachings. The Methodists Celebrated their 300th anniversary recently, not bad for a wishy-washy bunch. We'll see if "second chance sunday" or any of the other maky-uppy Evangelical sects does so well.

I am really suprised at PDN's reactions here. His posts are usually well balanced and moderate. But this time I'm forced to disagree completely. In fact the Victorian Dad thing is coming over really strongly...

So let me illustrate what's going here and why despite both your wisdom you are absolutely out of the ball park wrong about this..

PDN and Wolfsbane I think you are misinformed at a very basic level about what it actually means to be Gay. You need to realize that a person can be gay without engaging in sexual behavior with a person of the same gender - and that a person who does engage in such behavior isn't necessarily gay. You seem to pay lip service to it but I don’t think you really understand that basic point.

Evangelical Christians (that's you guys) don't treat homosexuality as an orientation, you treat it, wrongly, I might add, as a behavior. In essence, you are speaking a different language when talking about gays.
For you, being gay is like being addicted to cocaine: you can stop if you really want to and try hard enough.

You won't admit to it being an orentation purely for the reason that if homosexuality were defined as an orientation, it would be very difficult to maintain the idea that it is a sin. And once again the idea christian morality would be seen for the sham that it is. You are in fact promoting discrimination on a huge scale.

(the Roman Catholic Church, which accepts the conception of homosexuality as an orientation, gets around this problem by describing homosexuality as a "disorder").
Wrong again but I digress.

This means that to Evangelical Christians, laws against discrimination of gays aren't a matter of being told "you can't refuse to hire a person simply because he finds other men sexually attractive." That would be no more objectionable than being told "you can't refuse to hire a person simply because he finds women other that his wife sexually attractive.

Evangelical and conservative Christians can be counted upon to exhibit outrage and dismay over just about any attempts to treat gays like equal citizens: whether or not gays should be protected from discrimination when it comes to things like hiring, firing, housing, and financial transactions.

It should be clear that the opposition of evangelicals and fundamentalists to anti-discrimination laws that address sexual orientation is based largely upon their misunderstandings of homosexuality - the same misunderstandings that form the basis of so much of their reaction to homosexuality in general.

It seems to follow that if these misunderstandings could be cleared up, quite a lot of the rancor which currently exists might also be cleared up.

To conclude I'll add that sexuality was around long before religion existed and will be around long after it's gone.

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments