Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Zombrex · 24-12-2008 11:13AM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Brian, but we live in an age where sex is the most important thing in the world. And to suggest otherwise is deemed heresy.

Er, pot kettle and all that. :rolleyes:

This is a thread about how two people having sex with other is an abomination that so displeases God that at one point in time he commanded death as a suitable punishment. Your religion has singled out incorrect sexual relations as such a sinful immoral act, and you are saying that the rest of us have made sex the most important thing in the world?

Christianity has how to manage sexual relations as a central part of its inner most moral frame work of how to live a moral righteous life. Correct sexual relations is one of the few things a Gentile has to carry over from the old laws, correct? Most of the old laws no longer apply (as you remind anyone who brings up shellfish on this forum), but by golly correct sexual behaviour certainly does. All sexual relations outside of a strict narrow definition of what is the correct and "normal" way to have a physical sexual encounter are considered totally off limits. Words like "sexual immorality" are thrown around in your Bible to describe these incorrect forms of sexual relations and are used in the same sentences as murders and thieves.

:rolleyes:

The objection in the liberal western world to this strict narrow religious morality on sex is not a move to make sex more important in soceity, it is a realisation that sex is not that blooming important It is simply not that big a deal.

Correct sexual behaviour is not tied to some higher greater morality. Sex simply isn't that important. The physical act of sticking one's woo-hoo into another man/womans cha-cha isn't the the be-end-all of human moral and ethical standards.

PDN wrote: »

I have a Christian friend whose wife was severely injured in a car crash. This makes it physically impossible for them to have sexual relations. He didn't use this as an excuse for him to have affairs. He didn't divorce her so he could exercise his 'inalienable' right to a sex life. He cares for his wife and tells me that he thanks God every day for giving him such a wonderful life partner.

Yes but that really has nothing to do with sex. He didn't leave her to go on an around the world trip either to exercise his "inalienable" right to see the world before he died. He didn't exercise is "inalienable" right to not have to look after a crippled person.

To try and tie infidelity as the consequence of not following your religions strict code on correct sexual behaviour is nonsense.

Imagine if it was his girlfriend rather than his wife who was injured in the car crash. He couldn't have slept with her anyway since they weren't married. So if he leaves his girlfriend for another woman, marries her and has sex with her, is that wrong?

robindch · 24-12-2008 12:14PM

Wicknight wrote: »

sex is not that blooming important

Not any more, but in the tribal societies which produced the bible, and preceded it, sex was a very big thing indeed.

Much of the superficial concern seems to have derived from notions of symbolic purity (and impurity), and the notion that such impurities lead to bad spirits, bad luck, disease and so on. To a lesser extent, I believe, sex needed to be controlled more tightly in the absence of any effective contraception, and in the presence of incurable and rampant STD's.

More deeply, memeticists also point out that if religion could control access to sex, even partially, then religion itself can control cultural evolution by defining rituals which favor its own propagation (eg, no sex before a ritual blessing, enforce marriage within the religion or forced conversion before a marriage, permit infidel women to marry in but not infidel men who do not convert, force parents to bring up kids in the religion etc).

It's also known that band and tribe-level societies tend to have problems with infidelity and sex-related crimes (rape + murder) whose rates are much higher than they are in city and state-level societies.

It's quite possible, even rather likely I reckon, that the continuous obsession with sexual habits (particular those of other people) that most religious people display, is simply a cultural remnant of the adaptions necessary to evolve beyond tribal societies.

robindch · 24-12-2008 12:40PM

...all of which suggests, btw, that when religious people -- including creationists -- who believe that god is revealing to them the instructions for living a moral life, they're actually hearing nothing more than the disapproving voice that cultural and genetic evolution placed there

Nodin · 24-12-2008 01:37PM

PDN wrote: »

The Pope is a smart guy, and I believe he knows exactly what he is doing with statements like this.

The vast majority of growth in the Catholic Church is occurring in the Global South, not in the western world. The Pope knows that behaving all conciliatory and liberal will not stem the decline in numbers in places like Ireland, so why bother? The most popular Pope in centuries was the ultraconservative John Paul II. By playing the conservative card Pope Benedict keeps on board his core constituency in Asia, Africa & Latin America.

Even in the US the driving force in Catholicism is no longer the John Kerryish liberals on the East Coast but the millions of Hispanics who are extremely conservative in their Catholicism.

Pope Benedict has also, I imagine, learned a lesson from what is happening in Anglicanism. There the liberal approach of the hierarchy towards homosexuality is splitting the denomination in two - with the growing (conservative) constituencies increasingly alienated from Canterbury.

I have gone on record on a number of occasions as saying that I abhor homophobia in all forms. I think it is perfectly possible for a Church to take the biblical stance that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian faith and practice, and yet show love and tolerance to homosexuals. Therefore I regret the Pope's apparent obsession with homosexuality and his needless conflating of the issues of homosexuality and environmentalism.

Nevertheless, the fact is that denominations which try to ignore or change the biblical teaching on homosexuality inevitably suffer numerical decline. Church growth depends upon the vitality of the Bible - and if the Church starts saying that it doesn't really believe the Bible then people vote with their feet and go somewhere else. The Catholic Church is much more worried about the millions of Hispanics (both in South America and the US) who are defecting to biblically conservative evangelical churches than about further alienating a few disgruntled westerners who don't go to church anymore anyway.

Therefore I expect the Pope to continue to bang the conservative drum.

So essentially the voice of God in the Popes ear starts off "Buenos Dias, Senor Ratzinger......."........

PDN · 24-12-2008 04:31PM

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a thread about how two people having sex with other is an abomination that so displeases God that at one point in time he commanded death as a suitable punishment.

No, actually it isn't. Maybe you should read the OP again. This is a thread about why Christians, in 2008, consider homosexuality to be a sin. Stop trying to redefine the thread to suit your own purposes.

Your religion has singled out incorrect sexual relations as such a sinful immoral act,

Ah, you've obviously misunderstood. I am a Christian living in 2008 not a Jew living in 1300 BC. Put your death penalty straw man back in your pocket.

and you are saying that the rest of us have made sex the most important thing in the world?

Well, you are the ones who keep raising the issue - not us. I can't help the fact that you are obsessed with homosexuality.

Christianity has how to manage sexual relations as a central part of its inner most moral frame work of how to live a moral righteous life. Correct sexual relations is one of the few things a Gentile has to carry over from the old laws, correct?

No, that is incorrect. Old Testament laws forbade a Jew to have sexual relationships with a Canaanite. The distinction between Jews and Gentiles, according to the New Testament, is now removed.

There are many moral issues that were in the Old Testament and are reinforced in the New. These include showing justice to the poor, not lying, not committing murder, not worshipping idols, not taking bribes, as well as avoiding adultery or homosexual acts. So, some aspects of Old Testament sexual morality are among the many things a Gentile or Jew has to carry over from the old laws.

The objection in the liberal western world to this strict narrow religious morality on sex is not a move to make sex more important in soceity, it is a realisation that sex is not that blooming important It is simply not that big a deal.

Rubbish. Sex drives the advertising world and porn constitutes the bulk of internet commerce.

If sex is not that important then why do you keep coming on this forum to post about it?

Correct sexual behaviour is not tied to some higher greater morality.

And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. However, you will, I hope, understand that I find it less than overwhelming that an atheist holds such an opinion. Quite why he feels the need to trumpet it in the Christianity forum is less clear.

To try and tie infidelity as the consequence of not following your religions strict code on correct sexual behaviour is nonsense.

I didn't try to tie those two things together at all. But I'm getting used to you trying to pull this trick by now.

Zombrex · 24-12-2008 05:18PM

PDN wrote: »

No, actually it isn't. Maybe you should read the OP again. This is a thread about why Christians, in 2008, consider homosexuality to be a sin. Stop trying to redefine the thread to suit your own purposes.

Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin

Christians consider two people having sex with other is an abomination that so displeases God that at one point in time he commanded death as a suitable punishment.

Pretty much the same thing there PDN ...

PDN wrote: »

Ah, you've obviously misunderstood. I am a Christian living in 2008 not a Jew living in 1300 BC. Put your death penalty straw man back in your pocket.

Ok? You realise that the bit you quoted there didn't mention death penalty, right?

Do you not, as a Christian living in 2008, consider incorrect sexual relations as sinful immoral act? (I already know you do, so if you like you don't have to bother answering)

PDN wrote: »

There are many moral issues that were in the Old Testament and are reinforced in the New. These include showing justice to the poor, not lying, not committing murder, not worshipping idols, not taking bribes, as well as avoiding adultery or homosexual acts. So, some aspects of Old Testament sexual morality are among the many things a Gentile or Jew has to carry over from the old laws.

Well leaving aside that that is six (and some of those double up, such as lying and taking brides), and sexual immorality is included in shorter lists than that (as you are well aware), why is sex included at all? Why is sex considered important at all? What is the obsession with sex? I can understand why making lying and murder a sin, but the wrong type of sex?

For a religion unconcerned about sex it appears on quite a few lists of things that are immoral, doesn't it? As you yourself say (isn't Google wonderful)

"Sexual immorality is condemned in dozens of other New Testament passages, but the eating of blood is not."

PDN wrote: »

Rubbish. Sex drives the advertising world and porn constitutes the bulk of internet commerce.

And? That some how makes it "important"?

People spend far far more money on orange juice than porn. Orange juice isn't important. That is the whole point. Sex is so unimportant that it can be used to sell bathroom equipment and shaving foam. Sex has become throw away. If I don't wake up to see a half naked woman on my cereal box I would think there is something wrong with the world.

You only think sex in the modern world is important because your religion says we shouldn't be doing it outside of strict narrow definitions of what is allowed.

When you see sex outside of this context you conclude those people must be "obsessed" with sex, otherwise why wouldn't they just not do it, like good Christians.

The reality is that they aren't obsessed with it at all, it has become normal, unimportant. It has become like orange juice. Everyone has it, everyone does it. It is not a big deal that your religion makes it out to be.

PDN wrote: »

If sex is not that important then why do you keep coming on this forum to post about it?

Because religious guilt towards sex is important.

There is a wealth of evidence that repressing one's sexuality is damaging and harmful. So is viewing sex as something to feel guilty about. For every Christian Jew or Muslim that convinces someone that they are immoral and sinful for having harmless sexual desire, that is a travesty.

PDN wrote: »

Quite why he feels the need to trumpet it in the Christianity forum is less clear.

If it isn't clear by now why people feel moved to post in objection to Christianity obsession with controlling sexuality you simply haven't been paying attention.

PDN wrote: »

I didn't try to tie those two things together at all.

Seriously. I mean, really? You're being serious?

"He didn't use this as an excuse for him to have affairs."

Clearly you weren't connecting anything there with infidelity. By having affairs you clearly meant a transactions and other matters of professional or public business

PDN · 24-12-2008 08:10PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin

Christians consider two people having sex with other is an abomination that so displeases God that at one point in time he commanded death as a suitable punishment.

Pretty much the same thing there PDN ...

It isn't pretty much the same thing. The death penalty was applied for all kinds of offences when the Israelites first entered the Promised Land. This was because they needed to maintain their unity and discipline if they were not to be wiped out by the surrounding hostile tribes.

Trying to wave that around in a discussion about Christian attitudes to homosexuality is a typical attempt to create more heat than light.

Well leaving aside that that is six (and some of those double up, such as lying and taking brides), and sexual immorality is included in shorter lists than that (as you are well aware), why is sex included at all? Why is sex considered important at all? What is the obsession with sex? I can understand why making lying and murder a sin, but the wrong type of sex?

Sexual morality affects ourselves and other people. It is a part, but certainly not the major part, of our morality. The obsession lies with you, not me.

Seriously. I mean, really? You're being serious?

"He didn't use this as an excuse for him to have affairs."

Clearly you weren't connecting anything there with infidelity. By having affairs you clearly meant a transactions and other matters of professional or public business

I was not tying infidelity to a failure to follow Christian morality. I was using an example to demonstrate that it is possible to have meaningful relationships that are not sexual, and that learning to control your sexual urges is not the greatest disaster in the world.

UU · 24-12-2008 09:38PM

Well the Pope ought to be ashamed of himself for making such ugly, unnecessary and disgraceful comments at a Christmas speech. If there is something "wrong" with the "human condition" well he might just need to take a good look in the mirror! It's this sort of crap which turned me away from the Church. Christmas should be a time of forgiveness, peace, harmony, empathy, yet he decides to insult and outrage people with nasty comments like that. Are gay people making similar comments? No we are not. We know that to gain acceptance, to fight discrimination, the way to respond is non-discrimination, respect, assertive position, non-violence and being true to yourself and others. Even as an atheist (who was not long ago a practising Catholic), this does not reflect the true spirit of Christmas nor of Christ's teachings. If the Pope wants to doing something constructive it is this: Bring forth what people want to hear, be nice, emphasise the true message of Christmas and what Jesus taught.

That's all I need to say on that matter. I'm going to enjoy a nice holiday with my family in the knowledge that love and compassion is really all we need sometimes and the rest is often unless baggage just like Mr. Pope's comments. Happy Christmas/Widwinter.

wolfsbane · 25-12-2008 06:32PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

What about my question?

Refer to post 264. I'd love to hear your opinion and the opinions of other Christians on this thread.

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

PDN and Brian have said it well. Let me add:
1. Acknowledge that this orientation, however natural it seems to you, is perverted from God's intention for our sexuality.

2. Turn from it, asking God to give you strength (grace) against it and to replace it with proper affections.

3. Turn from all your sins likewise.

4. Turn to God, trusting in Him to forgive for His Son's sake.

5. Trust Christ as your Lord and Saviour, and seek to follow Him wherever He leads.

What I have described about is Repentance & Faith, the way every Christian had to come to God. Homosexuals are no different than fornicators, liars, greedy, idolators, etc. that described the rest of us.

All our pet sins had to be abandoned - we had to acknowledge them as sins, not excuse them.

So your future scenario would involve a crucifixion of any homosexual desires that might come to you, a replacement of those with normal sexual desires - and then see if any heterosexual relationship comes your way. Just like the rest of us. While single, live a celibate life; when married, live a faithful life.

DeVore · 25-12-2008 07:15PM

Its sickening that one side of the church (the pope) will happily denounce adults who consent to gay sex. But when one of them DOESNT consent and is underage... well our bishops are determinedly silent. An aside I know but the hypocrisy is smoothering...

DeV.

wolfsbane · 25-12-2008 08:44PM

DeVore wrote: »

Its sickening that one side of the church (the pope) will happily denounce adults who consent to gay sex. But when one of them DOESNT consent and is underage... well our bishops are determinedly silent. An aside I know but the hypocrisy is smoothering...

DeV.

I've no problem with what you say here. Regardless of how valid or not his latest comments are, the papacy is indicted for its toleration of paedophilia and the cover-up of the same:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-details/Pope+'led+cover-up+of+child+abuse+by+priests'/article.do

PDN · 26-12-2008 12:15PM

DeVore wrote: »

Its sickening that one side of the church (the pope) will happily denounce adults who consent to gay sex. But when one of them DOESNT consent and is underage... well our bishops are determinedly silent. An aside I know but the hypocrisy is smoothering...

DeV.

As I understand it the Pope has condemned child abuse by priests just as forcibly, in fact more so, than he did against homosexuality in general.

wolfsbane · 26-12-2008 07:03PM

Nodin wrote: »

Only a certain number of persons have homosexual tendencies. It seems to be a constant. To imply that this could lead to destruction is rather "stupid"

Seeing as nobody can agree precisely what the manual says, or on which manual is the right one, I'd say we were better off winging it anyway.

The usual nonsense. When "basic christian morality" was far more intrinsic to society, the world was a far harsher place. I don't excusively blame christianity for that, however its fact that "basic christian morality" didn't provide a better or healthier socety.

I think the vision of destruction sees the downgrade of family life as a fatal consequence of gender confusion. If the family is the glue of stable society, then you see where he is going.

Saying we don't know which manual to use, and if we did we don't understand it, is an excuse for ignorance. We ought to know, and the facts are there. It is only man's wicked heart that blinds him to it.

When I was a kid, 50 years ago, society was by no means Christian - but it was running on an inherited Christian morality to a much bigger degree than it is now. Women could walk home in relative safety at nights. We left our doors unlocked when we went shopping. Murder was a rarity and a scandal that was talked about for years.

Having thrown off the shackles of religion, society is enjoying its freedom. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane · 26-12-2008 07:24PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Yes, I dream lucidly, and not that rarely. Usually involves believable scenarios and ends when a dilemna forces me to ask if it is real or a dream: where did I park the car? - for example. I run through the possibilities and can't remember. Then I ask myself is this a dream - and that wakes me.

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.

True.

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.

I do test it, and see it confirmed by answered prayer and the sense it makes of what I see around me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I am saying you are quite wrong to claim the NT has any different approach to the sin of homosexuality than it does to other sins. It condemns them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

When the NT was written, homosexuality was quite common. As was fornication, temple-prostitution, idolatry and other sins not thought sinful by heathen society.

The NT continued the OT approach to homosexuality; it was not something invented by 1st or 2nd C. writers.

wolfsbane · 26-12-2008 08:31PM

kiffer said:

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.

No, He made certain rules for a national people in a theocratic national state. Rules that were meant to teach moral lessons. When Christ came He fulfilled all these types and shadows and set up a New Covenant that replaced the Old and its forms.

Quote:
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...

Not all in the same sense. As His creatures, yes. But as individuals, no.

angry love.

Yes, God is angry with even those He loves when they sin - as you accept:

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.

God saves those whom He personally loves. That means they are not allowed to live so as to end up in hell. Sometimes that means He kills them physically, to separate them from their sin.

Quote:
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...

He doesn't. When He tells me something I have previously thought the opposite about, that is a humbling experience.

Quote:
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!

Quite so.

For the record I don't think you're mad, claiming you're mad for standing your ground would be a bit silly.

Glad we agree on that!

Although I don't see any reason for you to be right.

Keep searching.

Quote:
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

Glad we cleared that up.

... 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.

Generally spat upon - like Creationists are? No, I don't believe homosexuals should be spat upon. But I do believe their sin should be named as sin - like fornication and other sins. I don't believe they should get an exemption because they are gay, any more than the fornicator or adulterer.

Quote:
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...

I would not want to say that is part of every homosexual's agenda. Some are conscious of the harm it does to the practitioner and would not want other's involved if it can be avoided.

Quote:
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.

As in Romans 1, for example.

Quote:
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.

It is all in the mind - and what one would find attractive today may change with time. Sexual perversion is a sinful response to stimuli, not merely regards the physical actions but the mental preferences also.

Quote:
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.

He was gay entirely, then after many years he was straight entirely (as far as I can establish, and taking him at his word).

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.

He met the 'right' woman, and that showed him being gay was not how he was born. It was something he had learned, been conditioned into by circumstances as an adolescent.

Quote:
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?

Heterosexual Christians are still tempted by the opposite sex. Some former alcoholics and drug-addicts find a particular temptation toward those illicit pleasures. Others of them never do.

Is the act the sin? or the feelings?

We are not responsible for the birds that fly over our heads, but we are for those that nest in our hair. So with sinful thoughts.

Is a non-active homosexual just being tested by God to see if he caves and gives in...?

No. It is our old natures that assault our new natures. That brings the pressure on us. God's grace helps us overcome.

The Mad Hatter · 26-12-2008 08:31PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

When I was a kid, 50 years ago, society was by no means Christian - but it was running on an inherited Christian morality to a much bigger degree than it is now. Women could walk home in relative safety at nights. We left our doors unlocked when we went shopping. Murder was a rarity and a scandal that was talked about for years.

Having thrown off the shackles of religion, society is enjoying its freedom. :rolleyes:

Did you grow up in Disneyland?

Boston · 26-12-2008 08:40PM

Moderator edited out my entire argument. Can't take the truth I see.

<snip>Two lines deleted because they had no relevance to the topic or Christianity. Take it to Sex and Sexuality in future, please. FC<snip>

wolfsbane wrote: »

When I was a kid, 50 years ago, society was by no means Christian - but it was running on an inherited Christian morality to a much bigger degree than it is now. Women could walk home in relative safety at nights. We left our doors unlocked when we went shopping. Murder was a rarity and a scandal that was talked about for years.

Having thrown off the shackles of religion, society is enjoying its freedom. :rolleyes:

Why would you lock your door? 50 years ago no one had anything worth stealing. Murder was a scandal talked about for years because you couldn't talk about the child abuse, the rapes, the domestic abuse nor the rampant corruption. Keep people poor and stupid and on the surface you'll have less social unrest.

Nodin · 26-12-2008 11:15PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

When I was a kid, 50 years ago, society was by no means Christian - but it was running on an inherited Christian morality to a much bigger degree than it is now. Women could walk home in relative safety at nights. We left our doors unlocked when we went shopping. Murder was a rarity and a scandal that was talked about for years.

Having thrown off the shackles of religion, society is enjoying its freedom. :rolleyes:

Yet the orphanges were full, the industrial schools saw some of the worst evidences of child abuse in the history of the state, wide spread acceptance of spousal abuse, there was massive emmigration (which is where the majority of the criminals went).........

PDN wrote:

As I understand it the Pope has condemned child abuse by priests just as forcibly, in fact more so, than he did against homosexuality in general.

I don't think its just me, so I'll say that the addition of "in general" at the end there seems to imply some link between child abuse and homosexuality. Am I wrong to think thats your intent?

Fanny Cradock · 26-12-2008 11:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think its just me, so I'll say that the addition of "in general" at the end there seems to imply some link between child abuse and homosexuality. Am I wrong to think thats your intent?

It's just you :pac: I really have no idea how you are able to draw such conclusions.

The charge was made by DeVore that the Pope (or the CC in general) has not been forceful enough in his condemnation of child abuse, but prattles on about the 'evils of homosexuality' at the drop of a hat. (That's a little bit of paraphrasing and hyperbole on my part, but I think it stays true to the thrust of the post in question.)

PDN · 27-12-2008 12:39AM

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think its just me, so I'll say that the addition of "in general" at the end there seems to imply some link between child abuse and homosexuality. Am I wrong to think thats your intent?

Yes, you are wrong. My post was responding to DeVore's.

Zombrex · 27-12-2008 01:06AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Women could walk home in relative safety at nights.

Assuming they didn't get pregnant and shipped off to asylums for "fallen" women that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum

Ah, aren't rose tinted glasses lovely :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock · 27-12-2008 03:55AM

Boston wrote: »

Moderator edited out my entire argument. Can't take the truth I see.

Oh please! Stop being so dramatic. What you typed had no business in this debate or this forum.

kiffer · 27-12-2008 05:33AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

kiffer said:

No, He made certain rules for a national people in a theocratic national state. Rules that were meant to teach moral lessons. When Christ came He fulfilled all these types and shadows and set up a New Covenant that replaced the Old and its forms.

So you're happy to say any rule from the OT that Jesus does not reinforce in the NT is off the statute books...
What about deals and promises?

Not all in the same sense. As His creatures, yes. But as individuals, no.

So, unlike other Christians that have posted on boards recently you are saying that while God loves Animals and Humans in general he does not love specific sinners?

Yes, God is angry with even those He loves when they sin - as you accept:

God saves those whom He personally loves. That means they are not allowed to live so as to end up in hell. Sometimes that means He kills them physically, to separate them from their sin.

So again ... God doesn't love some people... what does he feel for those that he does not personally love?

He doesn't. When He tells me something I have previously thought the opposite about, that is a humbling experience.

I can imagine it would be quite humbling indeed.

Again I wonder about this telling

What sort of thing is God telling you you are wrong about? Are we still talking wordless communications here?

Quite so.

Glad we agree on that!

Keep searching.

An agreement! It's a miracle!

I'll keep an open mind... with regards to this ... if you keep an open mind with regards to the age of the Earth? Deal or no Deal? Nah who am I kidding, we both know that's not going to work as a deal...

...
Generally spat upon - like Creationists are? No, I don't believe homosexuals should be spat upon. But I do believe their sin should be named as sin - like fornication and other sins. I don't believe they should get an exemption because they are gay, any more than the fornicator or adulterer.

Ah you've found my massively obvious magic button...

I don't think creationists should be spat on, but I do think that the should be kept out of the science class room, and I also think that the general awareness of the facts of that debate could be better presented to the public (blah blah blah see you in BC&P if you'd like) but that is a issue of facts and testable theories, whereas this homosexuality is an emotive and moral issue.
You think homosexuality is a sin, and if you're right then they'll find oblivion when they die... but the state should not be making religious laws (again in my opinion can be liberally sprinkled through out my posts)...

I would not want to say that is part of every homosexual's agenda. Some are conscious of the harm it does to the practitioner and would not want other's involved if it can be avoided.

So it's just most gays that are out to make more people (& children) gay... subtle.

As in Romans 1, for example.

I shall read this when I head up to bed later... what you said before sounded like you were saying should you fall in to the sin of pride, God would cause(or just allow?) you to sin again in addition to this...

It is all in the mind - and what one would find attractive today may change with time. Sexual perversion is a sinful response to stimuli, not merely regards the physical actions but the mental preferences also.

Do you have any independent psychology studies to back up this claim of radical re-orientation? Anecdotes are a good place to start but in the long run some hard facts would be handy...

He was gay entirely, then after many years he was straight entirely (as far as I can establish, and taking him at his word).
He met the 'right' woman, and that showed him being gay was not how he was born. It was something he had learned, been conditioned into by circumstances as an adolescent.

An interesting anecdote, I'm sorry to hear that your friend was unhappy, and am of course glad to hear that he is now happy...
I find it hard to believe that someone would actively take on and carry on a life stile that was making them miserable, but then again people do it with jobs so why not...
This does not mean it is the case for all (or even most) gay people. Again people's feelings are their own... blah blah blah (lets all do the you can't know that I can't know you don't know about their feelings dance!).

Heterosexual Christians are still tempted by the opposite sex. Some former alcoholics and drug-addicts find a particular temptation toward those illicit pleasures. Others of them never do.

Interesting... heterosexuals are tempted by people of the opposite sex... shocking :eek:
doesn't really answer my question... you seem to say that the sin is the feeling/thoughts not just the action... but you don't actually answer the question that was asked ... or the fact it's now past 4am could be clouding my thinking (which I'm willing to admit it might be)

If it's still tempting then they haven't really changed and so are surely not saved?

We are not responsible for the birds that fly over our heads, but we are for those that nest in our hair. So with sinful thoughts.

What? ok late at night for talking about birds... I take this to be saying that we are responsible for the thoughts that we think... (maybe only if we actually hold on to them?, where as if they enter our mind and then move on again they are as birds flying over our heads)

No. It is our old natures that assault our new natures. That brings the pressure on us. God's grace helps us overcome.

... I'll think about this in the morning. There is something here that signs a sour note, but I'm to sleepy to spot.
All I'll say now is that any attempt at forcing a change (either in yourself or others) will cause stress and pressure...

PDN · 27-12-2008 12:13PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Assuming they didn't get pregnant and shipped off to asylums for "fallen" women that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum

Ah, aren't rose tinted glasses lovely :rolleyes:

In fairness Wolfsbane is from Northern Ireland.

Nodin · 27-12-2008 01:24PM

Fanny Craddock wrote:

It's just you :pac: I really have no idea how you are able to draw such conclusions..

I'm relatively new here so have only a loose idea of where people are coming from. Having spent a few years on boards dominated by the Americans, I've learnt that theres few things too far fetched to be a genuine view.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you are wrong. My post was responding to DeVore's.

Excellent. TY.

PDN wrote: »

In fairness Wolfsbane is from Northern Ireland. .

Institutional sectarianism, Kincora boys home....and presumably similar problems with emmigration. There never was a 'golden age' where there were no ills.

Boston · 27-12-2008 01:24PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh please! Stop being so dramatic. What you typed had no business in this debate or this forum.

It shook the foundation of your hatred.

Nodin · 27-12-2008 02:15PM

Boston wrote: »

It shook the foundation of your hatred.

I'm curious now.

bus77 · 27-12-2008 02:25PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'm curious now.

Me too!
It must have been some sort of 'Christmas Message'

Fanny Cradock · 27-12-2008 02:25PM

Boston wrote: »

It shook the foundation of your hatred.

Huh? Oh, wait... very amusing.

Now it's time to ditch that burdensome sense of injustice you are carrying around as well as the inflated belief in your extraordinary powers of debate.

Listen, if you want to give Boston's breakdown on bedroom toys and what's not good to suck, then I suggest you take it to the Sex and Sexuality forum. It had absolutely no place in this thread or this forum. You knew this, of course, and were here only to create a bit of discord.

If there is another peep of complaint out of you about this topic you are going on holiday. OK? If, however, you still believe that I have somehow brutalised you, then start a feedback thread and give your clucking here a rest.

studiorat · 27-12-2008 02:37PM

PDN wrote: »

In fairness Wolfsbane is from Northern Ireland.

Ah Yes! "Save Ulster from Sodomy"

The age of homosexual consent was first introduced in England and Wales in 1967. But, because of political opposition to gay rights in Northern Ireland, it was not implemented in the province until October 1982. This time, the people of Northern Ireland are to have the anti-discrimination laws first in what is being seen as an attempt by Labour to crush the fiercest opposition before bringing in the laws across the country.

In 1982, Mr Paisley and his Free Presbyterian Church tried to stop the introduction of a gay age of consent. This time the church and its political allies are trying to block laws that will protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination by hoteliers and guesthouse owners.

BTW.
For and interesting parralell to the Magadelines. You should look up the thousands of children who were shipped from Britain and Northern Ireland to orphanages in Australia during the 1950's.

Finally, Christians should be open to the Holy Spirit teaching the need for change. This has happened in the past over matters like slavery and the role of women. It is happening now over equal rights for those with a homosexual orientation.

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments