Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

philologos · 22-12-2008 12:40PM

--amadeus-- wrote: »

The conversation has moved on since I was last online and I'm not going to be on again now till after Xmas so just a quick final word on this...

Seems to me that things are now going to start going around in circles. We have already been over the meaning of the Genesis quote and the relationship context that it is set in. We have already discussed the context of the relationship in the Book of Ruth (and yes I know she ends up getting married). And we have also discussed and refuted the multiple homonyms.

And I really can't see the relevance of Leviticus - after all that's the cartoon bogeyman of the bible that bans you from eating shellfish! However I see no internal contradiction with your quote that prohibits adultery being read out before teh reading of a non-adulterous relationship?

So we're going round in circles - you make the same arguments, I make the same refutations. An ambiguous text will lead to multiple meanings an I am surprised that moderates don't accept that. And modern literary criticism suggests that no written work holds an absolute meaning as every reader brings thier own life experiences, attitudes and (yes) morals and prejudices to teh text so there can be as many meanings as there are readers.

To deny a homosexual reading of Ruth as even a possibility seems to me to be wilfully discriminatory - why does one possible alternative reading of one book in the Old Testament matter so much? Why is it so important to deny it is a possibly valid interpretation? One thing is for sure it is a reading that is gaining traction - Google "book of ruth lesbian" and you'll get 90,700 hits.

Anyway, hope you all have a great holiday and I'll see you in the new year!

Yes, but PDN was discussing it from a Jewish perspective. How could the Orthodox Jews for example, read out that verse from Leviticus, and then tell the story of a so called lesbian relationship. And yes, they don't eat shellfish either.

To deny a reading of Ruth which suggests that she had a romantic relationship with her mother-in-law, is merely sticking to how the book was intended to be read by the author.

Zombrex · 22-12-2008 01:30PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We are moderates, our version of Christianity - based on our understanding of the teachings of Jesus - is not compatible with killing abortion doctors (given the tiny % of Christians who have done such a thing it's a sensationalist comparison in itself), blowing up buses or whatever.

But why do you choose to accept the existence of a god that feels homosexuality is an abomination? Do you yourself think homosexuality is an abomination? You must know at some level that such teaching is wrong, in the same way that you know a religion that tells you to kill people is inherently wrong. Why do you believe that god exists?

Your post above makes it sound like you would blow up abortion clinics if that was actually compatible with Jesus' teaching.

I would like to believe that this isn't true, that you would never follow such a religion in the first place, that you would go "no, that can't be true" That the reason you don't do things like this isn't simply that you haven't been asked to

But when ever we have a discussion like this I have my doubts. Again believers often ask on the A&A forum what is the big objection to religion. This is the objection to religion, following something you know is wrong because you have convinced yourself that it is you that are in fact wrong and the authority at the head of the religion is right.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So even outside the context of Christianity, it's not a simple question of 'right' or 'wrong'.

I never said it was simple, but it is something that anyone who has given it a bit of thought should be able to come to a moral conclusion on. I am some what baffled by someone refusing to consider giving an proper answer (PDN says it would be "arrogant" of him ... a response to which the best reply I can muster is to bite my tongue :pac:)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So your question really has two answers as outlined above. Firstly, from a secular perspective. Secondly, from a Christian perspective.

Yes but neither actually answer the question before you. I'm not asking you do you tolerate homosexual behaviour. I'm asking do you find it morally wrong. The answer that sneaks through your response appears to be that no you don't, which is some what of a relief.

But again the question is why do you believe in a religion that does?

It is supposed to be the great safety net of moderation, that when push comes to shove you wouldn't subscribe to a belief system that presents an moral system incompatible with one that is right, correct?

That it isn't simply a case that you don't blow up buses because you have not yet be asked to do so, but you don't blow up buses because you know that is immoral, and if you were asked to do that you wouldn't. You would reject the religion rather than follow it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just like there is noting inherently wrong with concern over the environment would lead me to take a give stance on certain issues, there is nothing inherently wrong with my Christian beliefs influencing how I decide to vote.

Depends on what you mean by inherently wrong. You have a right to vote as you so wish. But that doesn't mean what ever you vote is upstanding moral and righteous. It the compromise of democracy that people are allowed vote for some pretty horrible things.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This, of course, gives atheists the platform to pronounce that we Christians are merely gullible sheep unable to critically analyse life.

Well yes, it does. My beliefs are my own. You follow beliefs of others, beliefs you yourself do not share and beliefs that you may not actually understand (in fact following something you don't understand is seen some what as a good thing in your religion, and is wrapped up in such nice words as "devotion" and "trust")

Again the excuse given by moderates when this is questioned is that we don't need to worry about you guys. You are not blindly following what ever you are told. You can rationally decided to agree or disagree with the teachings before you. If you disagree you are prepared to abandon your faith because it must have been in error. If God is telling you to do or follow something that you know is wrong then that can't be God so why would you follow it?

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 06:02PM

robindch wrote: »

studiorat is, of course, quite right.

It is your opinions and preferences which tell you that you are "informed by god". Consequently, you are informed not by god, but by your opinions.

<game over>

And you and studiorat know that I am not informed by God? How? Did God tell you, or are you making it up based on your own opinions and preferences?

Obviously the latter - which means you cannot know, only guess and hope.

<it's never over till the fat lady sings>

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 06:07PM

UU wrote: »

Well at least you're being honest with your opinion. Well if you choose to believe it's a sin well that's really your view. But in giving my own homosexual, atheist view that really boils down to being honest with myself and recognising sexual freedom. The fact is I wouldn't infringe a judgment on somebody's sexuality (orientation, acts, etc.) unless I felt it actually was harming somebody such as rape, incest, paedophilia so for me to pass judgement on the happening on two consenting adults in private would be horrible thing to do. Although I'm not saying that you'd do that either don't worry. As I don't believe in God, there is no lawmaker to hand down morals from the heavens in a book. But I see you're not really anti-gay as in the types who'd be homophobic and really abusive which is probably seen as not very Christian anyway I'm not sure. I do understand your belief even though I don't necessarily agree with it. Well thanks for responding anyway! Have a nice Christmas or for me, Midwinter

Thank you, my friend. Midwinter does it for me too. Have a nice one.

AtomicHorror · 22-12-2008 06:18PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

And you and studiorat know that I am not informed by God? How? Did God tell you, or are you making it up based on your own opinions and preferences?

What they know is that you can't verify who, if anyone, has informed you. They know you cannot verify that God is your source, to yourself or to anyone else.

PDN · 22-12-2008 06:55PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone care to comment on my question? Wolfsbane has already given his take on the matter. Authority of the bible is unquestionable. Presumably, Wolfie would commit murder if the bible demanded it.

Aside from the Word of God, no I see no good arguments for or against the morality of homosexual activity.

To start arguing about if the Bible demanded that Wolfsbane commit murder is hypothetical nonsense.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 07:32PM

Wicknight said:

This is the problem of the argument that Christians have nothing against homosexuality (some such as Wolfsbane clearly do, but others here claim they don't) beyond God proclaiming that it is a sin.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I did indeed point out harmful aspects to homosexual practices - but that is their problem. As I've said repeatedly, harm is not the basis of my objection to homosexuality. God's condemnation of it is.

Asked if I would find homosexuality immoral if I did not rely on the Bible, I said I thought it unlikey. But in such a case I could not see the problem with adult incest either.

If one has to accept the promptings of conscience informed by the societal mores one is raised in, several sins would certainly appear sinful: murder, rape, etc.

But if one took one's atheism seriously, one would discard all that as mere forms arising from either superstitution or evolutionary traits geared to shape the conduct of the masses. Being smarter than the average pleb, the intellectual atheist will know he is free to do what he finds best for himself. History has shown that generally the elite of society do not let morality get in their way. Morality is for the little people. In which case I would have no problem with theft, rape and murder either - providing it was to my advantage.

Maybe you can explain why they would be wrong things for anyone to do?

Maybe you will also give me your take on the morality of adult incest? Brother/sister; aunt/nephew; uncle/neice; mother/son; father/daughter. Assume for simplicity that they were separated at birth and are unable to conceive.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 07:38PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What they know is that you can't verify who, if anyone, has informed you. They know you cannot verify that God is your source, to yourself or to anyone else.

I can know (and do) what God has done in regard to me. I cannot prove to you or anyone else that God has informed me - but that is quite different from you being able to know He did not. He may have or He may not - you can't tell. The only thing you know is that you do not know.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 07:46PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone care to comment on my question? Wolfsbane has already given his take on the matter. Authority of the bible is unquestionable. Presumably, Wolfie would commit murder if the bible demanded it.

Only in the sense that I would believe Jesus was a woman if the Bible told me so. But then it wouldn't be the Bible, God wouldn't be God, I wouldn't be me.

As PDN points out, that sort of reasoning is nonsense.

But if you are asking if I would find murder OK if I was not bound by the Bible, then my previous post to Wicknight covered that.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 07:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

My time machine worked, I've made it back to the 1950s ... :pac:

You do know that none of that is actually true, don't you? Do you actually care?

What ever about your theological beliefs about God's "proper function", you really go down hill when you start trying to make your particular religious conviction some how tie in with biological and social reality.

So the latest thinking in a PC society is the unquestionable truth, the biological and social reality?

No, I observe as well as hear what the medics then and now thought. I see the difficult family circumstances and other factors common in the lives of homosexuals I know. I listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals and former paedophiles.

Nodin · 22-12-2008 08:07PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals and former paedophiles.

Amazing the way those two words find themselves near each other so often in these discussions.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 08:45PM

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Which of Dobson's accusations do you deny?
1. goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle
2. discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality
3. muzzling of the clergy and Christian media
4. granting of special privileges and rights in the law
5. overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia
6. indoctrinating children and future generations through public education
7. securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.
1.
Dobsons accusations like Lyles sermons are designed to put the "fear of God" into normal everyday people.

Nothing wrong with the fear of God. But that is not what I asked.

Now, I have no idea what the Universal Acceptance of Gay Lifestyle is.

It means everyone being made to accept that homosexual practices and relationships are equally valid with heterosexual ones. Our schoolkids being read stories about bringing their two daddies breakfast in bed, Daddy Peter and Daddy Paul kissing each other goodbye in the morning.

2.
The scriptures are being abused by Sheldon et al. already. Instead of learning from the Bible through proper exegesis and interpretation, Baptists such as Sheldon develop their beliefs and then find scripture to support those beliefs.

No they don't. Proper/honest exegesis and interpretation can only give one conclusion regards homosexuality. People are free to disagree with the Bible, but they cannot honestly claim it says otherwise.

4.
Homosexuals are only looking for the same privilages and rights as are afforded to everybody else.

If part of society wants to teach homosexuality is fine, let them do so to those who agree. If they object to any teaching it is not, let them take their tax dollars and set up their own schools. Same applies to the rest of us. But since homosexuals are a small minority, it is up to them to make the adjustment, not for society to adopt their morality.

If you are speaking about marriage rights, my objection concerns changing the historic meaning of the word. But if society wants to call it gay marriage or civil marriage and accord these couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages, it's fine by me. They pay their taxes, they get to say their part.

...
The reference to pedophillia is just more plainly false, show me otherwise. I'd go on but this is tiring. Dobsons accusations are nothing more than scaremongering and a major distracion from the real issues And you Wolfsbane should have more sense and see it for what it is.

You seem unaware of the man/boy sexual liberation lobby:
http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We see it as both. It used to be a private affair, and I'm all in favour of consenting adults being free to do as they like, but the militant gays have made it a war to impose their ideology. To have our children indoctrinated that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality; to have our pastors imprisoned for preaching that homosexuality is immoral - that is a real threat to my community.

Imposing Gay Ideology to the Masses. LOL!!!

That's the problem Wolfsbane, you have been told that there are militant gays out there wanting to impose an ideology on you and your poor family. This quite simply isn't true. This idea has been foisted on you by people such as your pastor in an effort to round the wagons and create relavant issues for his ministry. Nothing like a threat to round up the troops as it were. Have a think and see if you can remember the last time the Gays took over the streets in your home town and tried to convert your children...

Not in my home town, but in many places, eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/495521.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403815/Christian-faces-court-offensive-gay-festival-leaflets.html

http://americansfortruth.com/youth-and-schools/homosexual-agenda-in-massachusetts-high-school.html

A homosexual relationship is as valid as a hetrosexual one and in a civilized society should be treated as such. If you and your pastor want to live in some community closed off from the rest and await judgment off you go. But this is a free country and the time where the priests and the other eunuchs make the rules for the rest of us to live by are long gone.

My objection is about the imposition of your ideology on me and my fellow Christians. I'm sure many others, religious and non-religious, feel the same about the gay agenda.

So go live by your own misinformed ideology. But if you are prepared to pass judgment on others be very prepared to have your own lifestyle put under the microscope.

I welcome scrutiny. Keeps one awake in a crafty and dangerous world.

Now I'm off to study the good pastors take on the other christian denominations. He likes the pope doesn't he!!

Denis shares my opinion of all false religions. And my love for all lost people.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 08:50PM

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals and former paedophiles.

Amazing the way those two words find themselves near each other so often in these discussions.

They are two groups that claim their sexuality is not a choice, but natural. I have dealt with both catagories in my pastoral ministry.

I'm not making them equivalent in wickedness, just in their claim to be born that way.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 08:56PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The word is spreading that it's okay to be like you. That it's okay to talk about it and be vocal about it. This is in spite of the continued efforts of certain groups to condemn or even destroy your way of life. To me it seems very likely that the word will continue to spread- the whole world is connected in communication and people are finding their own reason to be at odds with scripture. The fear will give way and in time, these groups will change or they will fade away.

I don't believe in any kind of God, but if the God of the Bible is real, then it seems to me to be most likely that the anti-homosexual themes in the Bible are a corruption, the expression of prevalent bigotry in times centuries ago. They are simply not consistent with the rest of the New Testament, which by and large features moral codes that are quite reasonable.

Of course this turns the Bible into a questionable source, makes an already difficult interpretation harder still. I think the desire for simplicity is a part of the infallibility issue. But I also think that there are those who are only too happy to accept certain parts of the Bible on unquestionable authority.

All you display here is your ignorance of what the NT teaches.

If you doubt the Christian position on homosexuality, fornication, incest, adultery, idolatry, theft, greed, pride, lying, murder, etc., I'll be glad to post up the NT references.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 09:09PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

A man could cure AIDS for no financial gain, save 15 million lives and yet be damned to hell for being an unrepentant practising fornicator, or thief, or -any other sin.

Justification before God is not a matter of scales, goods works weighed against bad ones. Any unforgiven sin makes us guilty and certain of hell.

Only those are saved who are forgiven their sins - by Christ's atonement being applied to them. The fornicator, the homosexual, the greedy, the idolater, if they turn from their sin to follow God and trust in Christ as their Saviour, will be forgiven and made new people. The prostitute who falls on her knees in repentance and faith, stands up a lady. She has a new nature dominating her thinking.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 09:29PM

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

So you have no problem with any sin, provided one has 'no control over' it? To have a problem with such would be judgmental, right?

Christians hold that failure to do anything the Bible commands and doing anything it prohibits are both sins.

kiffer · 22-12-2008 09:33PM

wow... just wow.

One day you're all New Testament fulfills the Old, so there is no need to stone people to death for saying Jehovah ( :P ) , we can eat shellfish with out being unclean and so on, but then Leviticus is trotted out to say basically the PC version of God hates fags.

Because basically it comes down to that.
Homosexuality is wrong because God says so, it doesn't matter why God thinks this because well God is God, to whom we must slavishly kowtow.
They won't directly call homosexuals immoral because that would look bad, it is enough to say that God doesn't like them, for some unknown, unknowable reason.

Also... wolfsbane saying God told you anything does not in anyway help your argument... makes you look just a bit Branch Davidian. That is to say pretty much anyone I've ever heard of claiming (in modern times) to have had God talk directly to them has been, well to put it bluntly, crazy.

The idea that "The Gays" want to remove laws protecting children and want to make everyone gay is pretty interesting... maybe you could cite something to back it up... perhaps a set of "How to make someone gay" manuals.

It's interesting that you think that you can change what another person finds attractive ... do you think that it could ever happen to you? What possible combination of situations could make you find a member of your own gender physically and sexually attractive?
Obviously as a good Christian you would not act on such feelings ... but do you honestly believe people can be turned... either way.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 09:36PM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

What He confirms in my heart is what is written in the Bible. As it sets forth the God I find confirmed in my heart, it is fair to say this is my God.

You might question His true identity, characteristics, etc. But all I have found of Him is good and true - and works in real life. I have experienced His grace and power on my behalf many times.

Can I prove that to you? No, but He can, so I bring you His word and leave the rest between Him and you.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 10:10PM

kiffer said:

wow... just wow.

Glad we're not boring.

One day you're all New Testament fulfills the Old, so there is no need to stone people to death for saying Jehovah ( ) , we can eat shellfish with out being unclean and so on,

Amen.

but then Leviticus is trotted out to say basically the PC version of God hates fags.

Please point to the post that used Leviticus to establish the Christian condemnation of homosexuality.

Because basically it comes down to that.
Homosexuality is wrong because God says so, it doesn't matter why God thinks this because well God is God, to whom we must slavishly kowtow.

We call it reverential worship.

And God's condemnation is indeed enough for us to regard homosexuality as sin.

They won't directly call homosexuals immoral

I do.

because that would look bad, it is enough to say that God doesn't like them, for some unknown, unknowable reason.

God is angry with them for their rebellion against Him and for all their specific sins. Homosexuality is sinful because it misuses God's gift of sexuality, just as does fornication and adultery.

Also... wolfsbane saying God told you anything does not in anyway help your argument... makes you look just a bit Branch Davidian. That is to say pretty much anyone I've ever heard of claiming (in modern times) to have had God talk directly to them has been, well to put it bluntly, crazy.

I've never had God speak to me in an audible voice, just in my heart/mind. Not to say He couldn't/wouldn't - just that He hasn't.

I'm not really concerned if people think I'm mad or not - that is their problem. As long as I'm faithful to God in my presentation of His word, and in my conduct, I can respond as the apostle Paul did:
Acts 26:24 Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”
25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. 26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

The idea that "The Gays" want to remove laws protecting children and want to make everyone gay is pretty interesting... maybe you could cite something to back it up... perhaps a set of "How to make someone gay" manuals.

Where did I say gays wanted everyone to be gay? They want everyone to be forced to accept homosexuality as equally valid with heterosexaulity, for kids to think having same-sex parents is just as valid as normal marriage.

Of course, whether by design or incidentally, with such indoctrination kids will be more open to gay advances as they reach the age of sexual maturity.

It's interesting that you think that you can change what another person finds attractive ... do you think that it could ever happen to you? What possible combination of situations could make you find a member of your own gender physically and sexually attractive?

Without a doubt. If I became proud or given to some such particulary pernicious sin, God could give me over to a degrading sin as a chastisement.

I don't think I would just slide or trip into it, if the rest of my life were OK.

Obviously as a good Christian you would not act on such feelings ... but do you honestly believe people can be turned... either way.

Yes, I believe people can be seduced, especially with the right circumstances, into homosexuality. And I believe homosexuals can be brought back to heterosexuality given the right influences. I believe the same about alcoholics and drug-addicts.

I know one homosexual personally who switched after many years. And it was not a religious experience that caused it, but emotional.

But with any ingrained sin, the best and most powerful deliverance comes from God. He can free the sinner from his bondage - sometimes without ever struggling again, other times it is a temptation he needs to be ever wary of.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 10:14PM

studiorat wrote: »

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...

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.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees also quoted Scripture, as did Satan. It's not quoting it that counts, but obeying it.

Have a look at what the leaders of those churches you cited teach. It is not the same as their founders, like Wesley, taught, and especially not what the Bible teaches.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 10:22PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

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.

I appreciate your honesty on incest. You see no immorality in a now-infertile mother having sex with her adult son, or an infertile adult daughter having sex with her father. I can see why you would logically have no problem with homosexuality.

Christian view such harmless activity as vile. Because God says so. No matter how sexually attractive or caring the relationship.

wolfsbane · 22-12-2008 10:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

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

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?

Just want to see where you get your morality from. On what basis you would condemn consenting sex between related adults. You seem to be saying it is viewed as harmful? Why? Who says and what is their proof?

jaffa20 · 22-12-2008 10:46PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you have no problem with any sin, provided one has 'no control over' it? To have a problem with such would be judgmental, right?

Christians hold that failure to do anything the Bible commands and doing anything it prohibits are both sins.

I never said that.

i don't believe something natural such as sexual orientation is a sin. Of course, you believe acting on that natural sexual orientation is the sin but i would say it is a sin to deny yourself your inner truth and abstaining from sex because of this.

So, if i was not to act on this sexual orientation that is natural to me, what do you suggest i should do?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this seeing as God is not available to talk to me at the moment.

Zombrex · 22-12-2008 11:02PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

What He confirms in my heart is what is written in the Bible.

While sounding nice that doesn't actually mean anything (your heart is a muscle for pumping blood around your body).

What I assume you actually mean is that the Bible feels right. It feels like it should work.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As it sets forth the God I find confirmed in my heart, it is fair to say this is my God.

Only if it wasn't your God the Bible wouldn't feel right.

You are ignoring the option that it might not be your God but the Bible would still feel right, for what ever reason. Everyone religion feels right to those who follow it. Given that not every religion is real that demonstrates that it can be "confirmed" to people in their hearts without it being real.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But all I have found of Him is good and true - and works in real life.

Yes but that is a self fulfilling prophecy, because if you find something of Him that isn't good and true you rationalise this away as being your issue, not His.

So God calls homosexuality an abomination. That doesn't sound good nor does it sound true (there is no rational reason why homosexuality is immoral).

Do you then declare that actually you haven't found that all of Him is good and true? Do you hold this up as an example? No, you continue on claiming that all of him is good and true and declare homosexuality as the problem even if you don't know why. It is a sin. God isn't wrong, it is wrong.

You effectively write God a blank cheque. Everything, by definition, will be good and true.

So it is utter nonsense to claim that you found Him good and true. You could find Him nothing but good and true because you decided that He, as represented in the Bible, would always be good and true and then took it from there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have experienced His grace and power on my behalf many times.
That doesn't mean he is good nor does it mean he is true (it doesn't even mean he exists, because when you say "power" I sincerely doubt you mean bridges lifting into the air or people coming back from being dead for 5 months, rather coincidence and conjecture)

Zombrex · 22-12-2008 11:09PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the latest thinking in a PC society is the unquestionable truth, the biological and social reality?

Ok .... :rolleyes:

You realise that when something has been disproved it no longer holds. The Earth isn't flat, this has been disproved. The Sun does not go around the Earth, this has been disproved.

You can claim that this is all "PC society run amok!!" but that just makes it look like you don't have an argument in reply.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I observe as well as hear what the medics then and now thought. I see the difficult family circumstances and other factors common in the lives of homosexuals I know. I listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals and former paedophiles.

You can listen to the Flat Earth society if you like Wolfsbane, testimony has little to do with it.

I didn't believe the "I'm born this way" crowd any more than I believed the "It's a choice" crowd. While both have an agenda for a position to be true neither actually know if it is or not.

We had to wait for the science. The science happens to confirm the former at the expense of the latter. It could have just as easily been the other way around, and since I don't think homosexuality is wrong I wouldn't have really cared if it was in fact a choice since I believe it is a choice that everyone should be free to make.

Your side lost the argument, like so many times people over step the bounds of religion and start making claims about nature. Get over it. What ever about the theological argument, homosexuality is not an orientation someone freely chooses to be. It is a physical state. And there is no evidence, nor known method, to undo this. Perhaps in the future as scientists learn more about why people are gay they might actually figure out a way to swap sexual orientation, and physically allow gay people to choose to be heterosexual through some kind of operation (I wonder then will you dismiss science so quickly :rolleyes:). And personally I wouldn't care if some wished to avail of this procedure.

Nodin · 22-12-2008 11:17PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are two groups that claim their sexuality is not a choice, but natural. I have dealt with both catagories in my pastoral ministry.

I'm not making them equivalent in wickedness, just in their claim to be born that way.

Yeah, you just chucked them in there with no intent at all...

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem unaware of the man/boy sexual liberation lobby:
http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm
.

....I mean I'd have to be paranoid and a bit 'weird' to think you'd an underlying agenda there....

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course, whether by design or incidentally, with such indoctrination kids will be more open to gay advances as they reach the age of sexual maturity..

...out of me wee gourd.

Zombrex · 22-12-2008 11:27PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if one took one's atheism seriously, one would discard all that as mere forms arising from either superstitution or evolutionary traits geared to shape the conduct of the masses. Being smarter than the average pleb, the intellectual atheist will know he is free to do what he finds best for himself. History has shown that generally the elite of society do not let morality get in their way. Morality is for the little people. In which case I would have no problem with theft, rape and murder either - providing it was to my advantage.

Maybe you can explain why they would be wrong things for anyone to do?

You need me to explain why it is wrong for someone to be immoral?

Would the hint not be in the world ... immoral

A person is certainly free to be immoral if they choose, right up to the point where the rest of society tries to stop them. I doubt other peoples morality, atheist, Christian or otherwise, has ever stopped immoral people choosing to be immoral beyond the threat of punishment or imprisonment.

A serial killer who has no sense of right or wrong and who doesn't feel guilt has never stopped and go "Well Wolfsbane seems to think this is wrong, so maybe I shouldn't do it" Nor do I think they have ever gone "God seems to think this is wrong, maybe I shouldn't do it"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe you will also give me your take on the morality of adult incest?

All issues of morality stem from a weighing up of the freedom and liberty all humans have to live their life as they see fit based on the harm done to others by your actions.

Is it ok to sleep with this woman? Yes if you both want to.

Is it ok to sleep with this woman even though she is married? No, because this will harm the husband (it is debated about how much responsibility the 3rd party should take in this, but personally I feel you are still casing harm to the husband and therefore it is morally wrong)

Is it ok that you drive a car? Yes.
Is it ok that you drive a car into a bus? No, because that will harm those in the bus.

Is it ok to sleep with a person of the same sex? Yes, again if you both want to.
Is it ok to sleep with a child? No because that can harm the child.

So when it comes to incest one must look at the freedom of both parties (I assume both parties are 100% freely welcoming of each other, which I imagine is rare) vs the potential harm. The harm in the case of incest is related to any children that such a pairing may create.

Just as it is immoral to drink or take drugs while pregnent because of the harm this can do to your baby, and this harm over rides your right to drink and take drugs (for the sake of argument lets say legal drugs for this example), the right of two consenting adults to do as they please and sleep with each other must be weighed against potential damage done to a child they might produce. Is their sex worth damaging a potential child? No, not in my opinion.

I appreciate that this sort of moral arrangement can appear alien to someone used only to the do as an authority says form of morality, but trust me when I say it does exist.

And it is this sort of morality that makes something like the justification for the genocide in the Bible ring so hollow, because the harm done to the victims is what shapes whether it is moral or not, not the claim of an authority. The butchered children are no less harmed because God wants them dead. The sex slave women are no less harmed because God wants them to be sex slaves. To say that it normally wouldn't be ok, but it is because God says so is nonsense when put into a framework like the one above because God saying it is ok doesn't in anyway diminish the harm done to these people. You have to look at the issue of freedom (the Hebrews want to get extra land) verse the harm caused by their action (thousands butchered to death) and conclude based on that if the gain is worth the harm. And I don't think there is anyone here who would say it was, even the Christians. What you say is that even though it wasn't ok, it was actually ok because God declared it as such.

kiffer · 22-12-2008 11:56PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

kiffer said:

Glad we're not boring.

No not boring.

Amen.

Please point to the post that used Leviticus to establish the Christian condemnation of homosexuality.

I may have been mistaken, perhaps confusing this discussion with another, (I've been dipping in and out of this one for a while), I presumed that PND and AtomicHorror were talking about Ruth and Leviticus...

We call it reverential worship. And God's condemnation is indeed enough for us to regard homosexuality as sin.

Yes, slavishly was a bit of a strong word... sorry, kowtow on the other hand is about right.
The Bible condemns a number of things that are now generally considered fine.
Does he change his opinion on these things or do we just change our interpretation of his opinions.

I do.

Yes, it's pretty clear that you do, all though I've not actually noticed you directly state it, but you've made it clear. PDN seems to have dodged the question slightly though... Claiming tolerance and avoiding saying "I think they are immoral".

God is angry with them for their rebellion against Him and for all their specific sins. Homosexuality is sinful because it misuses God's gift of sexuality, just as does fornication and adultery.

God is angry? and yet God loves everyone...
angry love.
I'm not going to say that one can't both love someone and be angry at them...
A parent could be angry at a child for misbehaving and still love the child.
But such an angry parent would still be wrong to kill the bold child.

I've never had God speak to me in an audible voice, just in my heart/mind. Not to say He couldn't/wouldn't - just that He hasn't.

God doesn't speak to you an audible voice... that's good.
The way you were saying that we can't know if God talks to you or not seemed to imply that you were talking about the possibility of receiving words from God, either audibly or inaudibly(just in your head).
You're so lucky God always feels the same way you do...

I'm not really concerned if people think I'm mad or not - that is their problem. As long as I'm faithful to God in my presentation of His word, and in my conduct, I can respond as the apostle Paul did:
Acts 26:24 Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”
25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. 26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

It's only their problem so long as it's not true! For the record I don't think you're mad, claiming you're mad for standing your ground would be a bit silly.
Although I don't see any reason for you to be right.

Where did I say gays wanted everyone to be gay? They want everyone to be forced to accept homosexuality as equally valid with heterosexaulity, for kids to think having same-sex parents is just as valid as normal marriage.

Ahhh, I get you now... sorry about the misunderstanding ... I presumed that by accept and indoctrinate you meant that they wanted people to be gay...
Where as in fact by accept you meant allow them to live in peace with out being condemned, treated as freaks and generally spat upon.
I failed to realise that you would consider tolerance a negative thing and so went straight to a stronger interpretation of accept.

Of course, whether by design or incidentally, with such indoctrination kids will be more open to gay advances as they reach the age of sexual maturity.

I don't see why you bothered to put the 'incidentally' in there after all you stand point is that this is part of 'their' agenda...

Without a doubt. If I became proud or given to some such particulary pernicious sin, God could give me over to a degrading sin as a chastisement.

Could you please clear up this bit for me... I think I might be taking it the wrong way.

I don't think I would just slide or trip into it, if the rest of my life were OK.

Yes, I believe people can be seduced, especially with the right circumstances, into homosexuality. And I believe homosexuals can be brought back to heterosexuality given the right influences. I believe the same about alcoholics and drug-addicts.

Perhaps an otherwise heterosexual person could be seduced into homosexual acts... but not into being attracted to a person of the same gender... I don't think it's an acquired taste.

I don't think it works in the other direction either.

I know one homosexual personally who switched after many years. And it was not a religious experience that caused it, but emotional.

Bisexual, I suppose.

They're just greedy. I imagine all that fornicating takes it out of you in the long run...

but seriously, could you elaborate a little on emotional reasons, obviously without potentially identifying details.

But with any ingrained sin, the best and most powerful deliverance comes from God. He can free the sinner from his bondage - sometimes without ever struggling again, other times it is a temptation he needs to be ever wary of.

If it's still tempting then they haven't really changed and so are surely not saved?
Is the act the sin? or the feelings?
Is a non-active homosexual just being tested by God to see if he caves and gives in...?

AtomicHorror · 23-12-2008 12:18AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can know (and do) what God has done in regard to me. I cannot prove to you or anyone else that God has informed me - but that is quite different from you being able to know He did not. He may have or He may not - you can't tell. The only thing you know is that you do not know.

Do you ever dream lucidly Wolfsbane? I suspect if you do, it is a rarity. The human mind may be absolutely certain of many things that are simply not real, both in dreams and waking. The best we can do is assume that the outside world is objective, and look to it for confirmation that we are correct. And to look at ourselves honestly in that light. I think we can be fairly sure that without some means to test it, you cannot conclusively know that your faith is true.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All you display here is your ignorance of what the NT teaches.

Are you saying the rest of the NT is just as irrational as the parts on homosexuality? I'm surprised. Ah no, I see what you mean really. I'm just playing J C here.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you doubt the Christian position on homosexuality, fornication, incest, adultery, idolatry, theft, greed, pride, lying, murder, etc., I'll be glad to post up the NT references.

I think you're missing my point. Most of these sins are quite reasonable even to the non-believer. Homosexuality is not a reasonable target however. And it just happens to also be something that many men have historically been very irrational about, and men have historically called pretty much all the shots. That's one massive coincidence, right?

wolfsbane wrote: »

A man could cure AIDS for no financial gain, save 15 million lives and yet be damned to hell for being an unrepentant practising fornicator, or thief, or -any other sin.

Justification before God is not a matter of scales, goods works weighed against bad ones. Any unforgiven sin makes us guilty and certain of hell.

Yes, I get that. I'm just stating it as plain as possible to highlight something. It's possible to do no harm at all in this life, to accept Christ as the saviour and to do great and far-reaching good, and yet still burn in hell. Homosexuality is unique amongst the sins in that respect, as far as I can tell.

robindch · 23-12-2008 12:45AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

And you and studiorat know that I am not informed by God? How? Did God tell you, or are you making it up based on your own opinions and preferences?

No, I'm making it up based upon probabilities.

You've said that you're informed by god. I know plenty of other people -- catholics, protestants, muslims, jews -- who also believe that their opinions are accurately informed by their deity. While each of them sincerely believes this to be true, unfortunately, their opinions are as varied and as contradictory as the people themselves are.

I conclude that either there's either one deity (or lots of deities) out there, giving completely contradictory messages to lots of people (skewering the idea of a rational or honest god), or else there are just a lot of people who incorrectly believe that they're speaking with a deity. The second explanation is much simpler.

So, the chances that you are the one person -- if there even is one -- who's receiving god's one real opinion amongst so many different ones, is vanishingly small. So I think I'm on fairly safe ground by saying that while you may sincerely believe you're speaking with god, in fact, the chances that you are are negligible.

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments