Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)
Comments
-
-
kiffer said:
All deals ands promises were fulfilled by/in Christ. Maybe you have an example in mind?
Well... at the time as planning on making an honestly light hearted comment about the rainbow after the flood...He loves all sinners specifically as His creatures, made in His image. But He loves some specific sinners enough to die for them.
Except for the ones you previously stated that he doesn't love?
I thought the general understanding was that he died for everyone's sins not just "some specific sinners (that he loves more (enough) than others)"He is kind to even to the unthankful and evil, but He regards them with wrath.
Check this for the wrath of God in the NT:http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=wrath%20of%20god&version1=50&searchtype=all&bookset=2
Mostly me reading the Bible and suddenly seeing the meaning of a passage that I never grasped before. And God pressing that upon my conscience.
Gotcha. A moment of clarity/understanding which you feel is divinely inspired.Well, I can see how the age of the earth might be vast without contradicting the Bible - the prior creation theory, for example. Just seems very unlikely, and doesn't solve most of the evolution problems anyway.
So I'll hold you to that deal!
It might seem very unlikely to you, but I imagine that we both understand the idea that sometimes the human mind balks at things it does not immediately understand... and I will grant that deep time can seem very counter-intuitive, we are not built to cope with huge numbers... it is also very difficult to cope with the vastness of space, even within the solar system.I appreciate your moderation. Though I point out that I only want the science of creationism in the classrooom, not its religious component.
I'm not so sure that you can separate creationism from the religious component... anyway... we're miles off topic here. I think I'll copy the relevant parts to a post in the BC&P thread and we can continue this there if you'd like. (but here is not the place for it)No, they won't - they'll find eternal wrath. That's why we preach to them the need of repentance and faith.
ok
I'm having trouble following which of our Christian Boardies think that hell is oblivion/state of non-existence, separation from God or punishment beyond imagining (lake of fire and so on).
It's a fairly important issue here as clearly your stand point is unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell...That's why I said the State should not meddle with what happens between consenting adults in private. Which is not the same as saying the State should indoctrinate my kids with its view of homosexuality, or imprison pastors for teaching what the Bible says on it.
Again, I'm not sure most covers it, but some certainly does - if hitting on straights is not unheard of.
Indoctrination into what? Not bullying gay people? Allowing them to live in peace? Not withholding their human rights? No discriminating against them?
I have never in, my recollection, been hit on by a gay man... maybe I extrude heterosexuality
or perhaps I am just not particularly attractive 
, because it's certainly not because I don't know any gay people.
If a straight man is hit on he should treat the situation in pretty much the same manner as he would any unwanted advance, or as a woman would react to unwanted attention from a man... if the person is coming on to strong and won't take no for an answer this is wrong regardless of the genders and orientations of the people involved.
After a polite "no" and/or other signs of disinterest, an impolite F*** off should do the trick as it would for any unwanted persistent impolite advance.
Of course ... that's not really what we were talking about... pulling back on topic, I have to admit I have heard certain nights in certain clubs referred to as "Convert a Straight man night", generally by the sort of people that also make comments about straight men being X drinks from gay,
I always assume that these people are either joking or they are being jerks and not representative of homosexuals as group... the other side of this is also if you don't want to be hit on by gay people stay out of gay bars, I've never noticed gay men hitting on straight guys in non-bars or really even gay friendly bars, as for in gay bars... then it could be called an honest mistake. Enough of my anecdotal waffle...
An attempt to force a change of sexuality on another is wrong, I don't expect there is anyone posting here that would say otherwise.
The question is there some sort of over arching gay agenda to increase the number of gay people? rather than a general push for acceptance, which would also hopefully reduce the number of people struggling to cope with feelings that they are afraid to express for fear of ridicule and other intolerance (including being told that they are going to be damned for feeling what they feel)... I'm sure you'd rather that they were not so scared to come forward, as even their hidden feelings can damn and damage them...
Excellent idea.
Psalm 119:9 How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word...
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.
He could allow me to sink into a degrading sin, like homosexuality, to humble my pride.
I think perhaps degradation like beauty may be in the eye of the beholder...No, I had read some Christian psychology and observed some abnormal sexual changes - but the Bible is the basis of my conclusions. As to independent psychology studies, psychology has so many competing understandings of human nature.
Hum... when you begin with preconceived ideas then it can be hard to deal with things that don't fit your world view... Christian psychology, I presume starts with an idea formed by reading the bible and then goes looking for stories and data to support it? What happens if your data doesn't support the idea formed while reading the bible?
I'd like see a run of tests designed to test attraction felt by a reasonably sized test group, to male and female images, then retest them again after some time to see if their responses have changed...
Expose one third to a presentation on gay rights and general tolerance/acceptance, one third to the sort of scripture based stuff they'd get in the camps to "fix" them... and the remaining third would be a control group that would be exposed to a neutral presentation about a completely unrelated topic... of course this is just an example, and there are bound to be problems with it... what if the person giving the one of talks is very attractive/repulsive?I'm not aware I said he was particulary unhappy as a homosexual.
I agree, some homosexuals will be very unhappy with their conscience/fear of rejection by their family, etc. Others will revel in the trendiness of their lifestyle.
And others will find a happy life with a partner of the same gender which will carry on past the "trendiness" of their lifestyle...
Even you have pointed out that the unhappyness can come from fear of rejection/reaction of family... it's not necessarily due to the life style itself.
Again people that have stood up to abuse and ridicule and continued to fight for their rights are not just doing it because it's trendy...Indeed.
No, the new person still is not perfect. That doesn't mean he/she is not saved.
It means this lack of perfection may be expressed in his temptation toward fornication, coveting, etc. - or it may mean for those formerly involved with abuse of their body and mind by drugs or sex, that they remember the illicit pleasures and have to wilfully destroy those temptations when they arise. That includes homosexuality.
But for some the particular temptation is gone forever and they only have the normal temptations to struggle with.
Hope that's a bit clearer.
Ok I clearer but I don't agree with what you consider self abuse.Yes, we can't help the thoughts that spring into our minds, but we can the thoughts we savour.
ok.Indeed it will. In fact, the only true change comes with a dying to the old self. Not something it likes. Conversion to Christ means abandoning all our sinful ways and walking in His holy ways.
...
...
So we're agreed?, change is hard on the individual, and forcing change on someone would be even harder on them... and forcing change is wrong.
And if they don't intend to convert to your brand of Christianity then you can't expect them to attempt a radical change in their natures, especially as there are christian churches that are willing to accept them with out such... drastic measures.0 -
-
-
kiffer said:
You think the Earth has been covered by another flood?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All deals ands promises were fulfilled by/in Christ. Maybe you have an example in mind?
Well... at the time as planning on making an honestly light hearted comment about the rainbow after the flood...
No, I hoped I was clearly saying that the only sense in which God loves every man/woman is in the Creator sense.Quote:
He loves all sinners specifically as His creatures, made in His image. But He loves some specific sinners enough to die for them.
Except for the ones you previously stated that he doesn't love?
The idea that He died for all without exception - for Judas as well as John, for example - is not held by all Christians. Some of us believe He died for all without distinction - for some of every tribe, nation and language.I thought the general understanding was that he died for everyone's sins not just "some specific sinners (that he loves more (enough) than others)"
So we say Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it; that He loved His sheep and gave Himself for them.
Correct.ok
I'm having trouble following which of our Christian Boardies think that hell is oblivion/state of non-existence, separation from God or punishment beyond imagining (lake of fire and so on).
It's a fairly important issue here as clearly your stand point is unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell...
No. We would all be opposed to that.Quote:
That's why I said the State should not meddle with what happens between consenting adults in private. Which is not the same as saying the State should indoctrinate my kids with its view of homosexuality, or imprison pastors for teaching what the Bible says on it.
Again, I'm not sure most covers it, but some certainly does - if hitting on straights is not unheard of.
Indoctrination into what? Not bullying gay people?
Ditto.Allowing them to live in peace?
Ditto.Not withholding their human rights?
Ditto.No discriminating against them?
I mean indoctrination into believing homosexuality is a moral equivalent to heterosexuality.
It is fine by me to tell kids that some folk live as mums and dads even though they are the same sex; and that both gay and straight couples often live as mums and dads only for short times before becoming mums and dads with someone else. That describes real life.
But I don't want my kids being told either gay or promiscious straight sex is morally OK. This is the difficulty in discussing the issue in schools where morality of a sort is taught. We are all happy about our kids being taught that thieving and bullying are morally wrong - but the sexual issue is something else.
I'm 59 and have only been propositioned by homosexuals a few times. Once it was what would now be classified as a sexual assault - a groping. Another time it was a hand on my leg. Another it was verbal.I have never in, my recollection, been hit on by a gay man... maybe I extrude heterosexuality or perhaps I am just not particularly attractive , because it's certainly not because I don't know any gay people.
If a straight man is hit on he should treat the situation in pretty much the same manner as he would any unwanted advance, or as a woman would react to unwanted attention from a man... if the person is coming on to strong and won't take no for an answer this is wrong regardless of the genders and orientations of the people involved.
After a polite "no" and/or other signs of disinterest, an impolite F*** off should do the trick as it would for any unwanted persistent impolite advance.
I would be interested to hear from any homosexual here whether such 'conversions' are sought.Of course ... that's not really what we were talking about... pulling back on topic, I have to admit I have heard certain nights in certain clubs referred to as "Convert a Straight man night", generally by the sort of people that also make comments about straight men being X drinks from gay,
I always assume that these people are either joking or they are being jerks and not representative of homosexuals as group...
Quite so.the other side of this is also if you don't want to be hit on by gay people stay out of gay bars,
I don't regard any of the incidents above as an attempt to 'force' either sex or a change of sexuality. Just seduction.I've never noticed gay men hitting on straight guys in non-bars or really even gay friendly bars, as for in gay bars... then it could be called an honest mistake. Enough of my anecdotal waffle...
An attempt to force a change of sexuality on another is wrong, I don't expect there is anyone posting here that would say otherwise.
Yes, honesty is best for all who are caught in sin. If they accept their condition they can think of doing something about it.The question is there some sort of over arching gay agenda to increase the number of gay people? rather than a general push for acceptance, which would also hopefully reduce the number of people struggling to cope with feelings that they are afraid to express for fear of ridicule and other intolerance (including being told that they are going to be damned for feeling what they feel)... I'm sure you'd rather that they were not so scared to come forward, as even their hidden feelings can damn and damage them...
I don't of course mean the homosexual should 'come out' in a violently hostile society - like Iran, for example. In those circumstances they need to deal with it purely spiritually, or leave the country and seek help.
True. But that is a comment on the taste of the beholder, not the reality of the object.Quote:
He could allow me to sink into a degrading sin, like homosexuality, to humble my pride.
I think perhaps degradation like beauty may be in the eye of the beholder...
You get more data, like in any good scientific practise.Quote:
No, I had read some Christian psychology and observed some abnormal sexual changes - but the Bible is the basis of my conclusions. As to independent psychology studies, psychology has so many competing understandings of human nature.
Hum... when you begin with preconceived ideas then it can be hard to deal with things that don't fit your world view... Christian psychology, I presume starts with an idea formed by reading the bible and then goes looking for stories and data to support it? What happens if your data doesn't support the idea formed while reading the bible?
What has attraction to do with gay rights and general tolerance/acceptance? For an interesting study, try a presentation on the thoughts and practises of gays. I would guess that revulsion would be felt by many who are not of the scripture-based camp. But others never exposed to homosexual imagery might find some attraction.I'd like see a run of tests designed to test attraction felt by a reasonably sized test group, to male and female images, then retest them again after some time to see if their responses have changed...
Expose one third to a presentation on gay rights and general tolerance/acceptance, one third to the sort of scripture based stuff they'd get in the camps to "fix" them... and the remaining third would be a control group that would be exposed to a neutral presentation about a completely unrelated topic...
Indeed. Some controls would be needed (in the scientific senseof course this is just an example, and there are bound to be problems with it... what if the person giving the one of talks is very attractive/repulsive?).
Sure. But I wonder how representative of the gay lifestyle this is. Any stats on the success of gay relationships as compared with hetero ones?Quote:
I'm not aware I said he was particulary unhappy as a homosexual.
I agree, some homosexuals will be very unhappy with their conscience/fear of rejection by their family, etc. Others will revel in the trendiness of their lifestyle.
And others will find a happy life with a partner of the same gender which will carry on past the "trendiness" of their lifestyle...
I agree - trendiness is not the main spur to being gay. And courage is displayed by all sorts of people, in all sorts of causes, good and bad.Even you have pointed out that the unhappyness can come from fear of rejection/reaction of family... it's not necessarily due to the life style itself.
Again people that have stood up to abuse and ridicule and continued to fight for their rights are not just doing it because it's trendy...
Agreed.Quote:
Indeed it will. In fact, the only true change comes with a dying to the old self. Not something it likes. Conversion to Christ means abandoning all our sinful ways and walking in His holy ways.
...
...
So we're agreed?, change is hard on the individual, and forcing change on someone would be even harder on them... and forcing change is wrong.
Agreed here too. One needs a really strong reason to give up what one loves.And if they don't intend to convert to your brand of Christianity then you can't expect them to attempt a radical change in their natures, especially as there are christian churches that are willing to accept them with out such... drastic measures.
So I don't expect any homosexual to be ready to change if he is not seeking to be right with God. Some do, like the man quoted, who found something better in heterosexuality. I assume he is uncommon.0 -
Advertisement
-
We had canings in our Protestant/State schools, but there was more restraint than I gather existed in Catholic schools. If a caning went too far in the eyes of a parent, the master/headmaster could expect a visit from a wrathful parent.Ah, the church-controlled schools in the 1970's! I remember them well. One of my teachers had what I think was an original one -- lay your hands out on the desk in front of you, then slam a ruler thin-side down, on the joints of your knuckles (if you were bad) or about an inch behind the knuckles, on the veins on the back of the hand (if you were really bad). Quite painful, especially in the winter. Another priest was so violent that kids would burst into tears even before they got to him.
There was The Strap too: around a foot long, perhaps a centimeter thick and three centimeters wide. We used to have "religion class" on a Friday and people would get five lashes for, say, forgetting whether or not forgetting what constituted a mortal sin was a mortal sin or not. I think it was, though it mightn't have been.
Fun times
Even in days when strict discipline was very common - the early 1900's for example - Protestant parents did not have a cowed fear of their clergy or teachers. My grandfather told of how he had been caned so bad that his hand swelled beyond use for a time - so his dad went down to the school next day and pulled the teacher out of his buggy and trailed him by his beard up and down the nearby stream.
As a kid I remember our clergyman coming to our house on his bike. We treated him with respect, but did our own thing and would never have tolerated his interference beyond hearing his advice. My Catholic mates, on the other hand, lived in fear of their priest, as did their parents. His word was law, the final word in any neighbourhood dispute.
That started to change in the '60s, as far as I remember. One married woman told us the priest had ordered her to have more kids, and that if her husband wasn't willing he would do it for her. She was fuming.
Glad those days are gone. 0 -
While I was typing my reply to this I managed to close the window while trying to close a different tab... knocking me back to the start and taking the wind out of my waffle...
new posting will probably not be very comprehensive or interesting.kiffer said:
You think the Earth has been covered by another flood?
No, that wasn't it at all... but it had to do with floods, rainbows and promises... but it's long gone now... only the ghost of a joke...No, I hoped I was clearly saying that the only sense in which God loves every man/woman is in the Creator sense.
No, that wasn't clear. It's clearer now but still I think there is a fair amount of doublethink going on in your head to allow for the statements that you've made...The idea that He died for all without exception - for Judas as well as John, for example - is not held by all Christians. Some of us believe He died for all without distinction - for some of every tribe, nation and language.
... I don't know how to respond to this...
Obviously the lack of tribal/ethnic distinction is great... meh. tired now. I'm sure I had more here before the stupid window closing mistakeSo we say Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it; that He loved His sheep and gave Himself for them.
Correct.
No. We would all be opposed to that.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
I mean indoctrination into believing homosexuality is a moral equivalent to heterosexuality.
It is fine by me to tell kids that some folk live as mums and dads even though they are the same sex; and that both gay and straight couples often live as mums and dads only for short times before becoming mums and dads with someone else. That describes real life.
Yes, it's describing real life.
Describing reality is they way to go.
We also need to teach children to nice to one another, because to be blunt... they can be little jerks at times.But I don't want my kids being told either gay or promiscious straight sex is morally OK. This is the difficulty in discussing the issue in schools where morality of a sort is taught. We are all happy about our kids being taught that thieving and bullying are morally wrong - but the sexual issue is something else.
We need to teach them that bullying is wrong,
Can you teach them that making fun of the kid with two mommies is wrong... while at the same time teaching those two women don't have a right to be together? sure you can try, but it wont work. Poor Timmy Twomoms will get it in the ear on the play ground.
I'm really out of waffle at the moment... need food badly.
I'm 59 and have only been propositioned by homosexuals a few times. Once it was what would now be classified as a sexual assault - a groping. Another time it was a hand on my leg. Another it was verbal.
An assault would be equally wrong regardless of the combination of genders and orientations involved... and isn't really what we're talking about when we talk of homosexual relationships...
The hand on the leg is a little heavy handed come on, I guess they didn't sound you out very well first otherwise you turn them down they stop... so no problem there.I would be interested to hear from any homosexual here whether such 'conversions' are sought.
I'm sure it's meant tongue-in-cheek, but in light of the fact no-one else has commented on it in the day's since I mentioned it I'll do some asking around...Quite so.
I don't regard any of the incidents above as an attempt to 'force' either sex or a change of sexuality. Just seduction.
the Assault was an assault, not seduction...
seduction requires a little bit more than 1:"Hey fancy a dance?"
2:"No thanks"
1:"ok bye"
I'd expect a fair amount of flirting to be going on both ways.Yes, honesty is best for all who are caught in sin. If they accept their condition they can think of doing something about it.
Like finding a nice partner to spend there lives with, getting away from people that would tell them that they are sinnersI don't of course mean the homosexual should 'come out' in a violently hostile society - like Iran, for example. In those circumstances they need to deal with it purely spiritually, or leave the country and seek help.
I think they should probably try to make their countries better if they can... but I doubt that they could do so safely.True. But that is a comment on the taste of the beholder, not the reality of the object.
Yes... I was making a comment on your taste. In your mind the very action of homosexual sex would be degrading, and perhaps for you it would be... but the reality is that it's not degrading in the minds of pretty much all gay people.You get more data, like in any good scientific practise.
tee he he ... you're almost right... you've missed a very important step there...
Checking your original idea is more important at this point...
Your original sample size should be large enough to give you a fair representation of the population...
Your Hypothesis has failed, you need to make a new one or at least refine your original one.What has attraction to do with gay rights and general tolerance/acceptance? For an interesting study, try a presentation on the thoughts and practises of gays. I would guess that revulsion would be felt by many who are not of the scripture-based camp. But others never exposed to homosexual imagery might find some attraction.
ahh but the experiment must match the original question... does teaching people about tolerance, acceptance and gay rights change the way they feel/react to images of attractive people (as you have suggested it might...)
By presentation on gay practices I assume you mean sexual practices? (if I'm getting you wrong here let me know)... not things like generally dressing better than straight men (or at least being more fashion conscious) and having a greater propensity for interest in the preforming arts...
I'm sure we could have several different groups ... a group shown hardcore gay porn, a group shown softcore, a group shown the teletubies with that gay tellytubby that people were worried about a few years ago... but it would be a much larger experiment and might get unwieldy after a while.
No, I think our experiment would have to be restricted to the topic at hand.
... deal with with my suggestion before you step it up to the next level.
You've suggested that telling Kids that we should tolerate and accept gay peoples choice to be gay might increase the number of people that are attracted to members of the same sex, I've described an experiment to test this, hopefully using the sort of information that would be presented to the children... then you've suggested ramping it up to a slightly higher level, seemingly right to a presentation of gay practices, which you say would many disgust people...
Are people suggesting that we should show this sort of thing to the children?
Sex Ed. doesn't require giving kids a copy of the Karma Sutra or the Joy of Sex.
Nor should teaching children that gay people have a right to be gay require that they are taught the ins and outs of various gay activity.
Indeed. Some controls would be needed (in the scientific sense).
Sure. But I wonder how representative of the gay lifestyle this is. Any stats on the success of gay relationships as compared with hetero ones?
Only anecdotal stuff... I've no hard data on it at all... science crime! :eek:
To google!I agree - trendiness is not the main spur to being gay. And courage is displayed by all sorts of people, in all sorts of causes, good and bad.
and fighting for civil rights is a good cause.Agreed.
Agreed here too. One needs a really strong reason to give up what one loves.
So I don't expect any homosexual to be ready to change if he is not seeking to be right with God. Some do, like the man quoted, who found something better in heterosexuality. I assume he is uncommon.
I would assume he is uncommon too.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I could go along with schools not commenting on the issues, for that would stop the indoctrination in to sin. I of course believe Christians are obliged to bring their children up to know God's will for every aspect of their lives - that includes sex.Em fortification and homosexuality are two different things! Homosexuality doesn't just refer to sex but to relationships too. Maybe the best thing to tell your kids is nothing and let them make up their own minds over what they consider to be morally right or wrong. After all morals are generally subjective for the most part. Why would you be even talking to children about homosexuality and fortification? They are too young to know about things like that! They will learn about those things in adolescence and by that stage they are old enough to make up their own minds about those sort of things. I would consider it "indoctrination" for you to tell your kids that homosexuality and fortification is immoral. Issues like that aren't generally talked about much in school anyway.
Although I think it might make more sense to tell them of more important issues which are actually immoral like pædophilia which children should be aware of so that they are aware of it, no?
I'm all for fortification.
But fornication is a heterosexual sin, and to condemned just as is the sin of homosexual desire and practice.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
That makes you a bigot then, for being intolerant of our belief about homosexuality. Welcome to the club.MatthewVII wrote: »The definition of a bigot (someone who is intolerant of differing belief) and Cantab's assertion that homosexuality is sinful (displaying intolerance) pretty much mean that I am justified in my statement that it can be described as bigotry.
My statement is based on observations and fact. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement