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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

1246

Comments

  • #152
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    lugha wrote: »
    Well this presents another problem. You are in a position to give such an informed answer because you have had inclination and opportunity to study the bible in depth.
    Most people have the opportunity to study the Bible, or to ask questions of those who do. The issue is much more one of inclination. If you are serious about following Jesus then you will have the inclination to learn more so as to follow Him properly.

    Also, this is why God provides teachers in order to help others to understand the Bible properly.
    My point is that if some learning is required to properly interpret the bible then any lessons to be learnt from it are not completed contained between its covers. Which surely undermines any absolute claims made for it?
    No, not at all.

    All God asks of us is that we do our best to understand His Word and then live according to the light we have received. The most important stuff (like how to get saved) is clear enough. The fact that we don't understand absolutely everything in no way invalidates the claims we make for the inspiration and authority of the Scripture.
    On a related not, what is the spiritual dividend to be gained from studying the bible in depth, given again that the opportunity to do so is largely in the providence of the more well to do? Surely there can be no advantage that would be denied to someone who did not have the same opportunity?
    It's not a case of comparing yourself with someone else in order to gain an 'advantage' over them. Our responsibility is to make the most of the opportunities that each of us has received.


  • #153
    postcynical
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭postcynical


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

    Sorry for the OT but this is one of the miracles of Christianity that Christ's message is rich enough to preoccupy the greatest of intellects, yet simple enough to be grasped by the simplest-living of peasants throughout the ages. Most witnesses in my life have been relatively uneducated people, in whom I detected wisdom more profound than many intellectuals. Nowadays I find religion to be great food for thought.
    Matthem 11:25-26 wrote:
    At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

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


  • #154
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Does it matter?

    Are you asking if it matters if homosexuality is innate?


  • #155
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Are you asking if it matters if homosexuality is innate?

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

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

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

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


  • #156
    ozzirt
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭ozzirt


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


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

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

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

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

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


  • #158
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


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

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

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

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


  • #159
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

    What about us "card carrying" atheists that detest homosexuals? Don't we qualify for a vote?
    Not only do we get a vote we get our own forum ... over there ... :P


  • #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Interesting perspective. It's not that it being innate suddenly makes it okay. I would consider it okay even if it was a choice, as each to their own. However, it matters when the argument is made "to be gay is not a sin, but to have gay sex is a sin" because to be gay is the same thing as to have gay sex. Thus if it is true that you are born gay, you are also born a sinner by default and that seems cruel.
    I don't think simply being gay is considered a sin, but acting on it is considered a sin (by some Christians, see my post above for a perspective of Christians who reject this interpretation)

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


  • #161
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    ozzirt wrote: »

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

    The difference is you have no excuse for your hatred


  • #163
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


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

    The one necessitates the other? Really?

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

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


  • #164
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    PDN wrote: »
    Please clarify which of these nonsensical positions you are trying to advance.

    I'll go for B, PDN!

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


  • #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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


  • #166
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    The one necessitates the other? Really?

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

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

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

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

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


  • #167
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Wicknight wrote: »
    we should probably ask the Christians does having homosexual thoughts count as a sin

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


  • #168
    ozzirt
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭ozzirt


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

    Card carrying atheists that detest homosexuals are not that uncommon. Ever hear what happens to gays in China?
    Ahhh, sorry, closed club eh,... that's a good way to exclude the logical thinking vote.

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


  • #169
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    So why the horrible attitude towards non-christians ?


  • #170
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    greendom wrote: »
    So why the horrible attitude towards non-christians ?
    Say what?


  • #171
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    PDN wrote: »
    Say what?

    Just a joke referring to ozzirt's post


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


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

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

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

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

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


  • #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

    Attack the post, not the poster.


  • #174
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    However, I still have a perfect right to view any or all of these acts as immoral.
    Yes, you do. You are free to believe whatever you like about whatever or whomever you like, and I have no interest whatsoever in infringing that right, nor in making you change your mind (which would assume, incorrectly, that I had any chance of doing so).
    PDN wrote: »
    You, Robin, equally have the right to disapprove of any of my actions.
    As indeed of some of what you've reported yourself, I certainly do. However, I do not -- as most christians -- assume the right to witter or rant on in public that you are "immoral" or "intrinsically disordered" or whatever other demeaning term, for no other reason than I've acquired a religious or other belief system in which this happens to be the case.

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

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

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


  • #175
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


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

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

    Do you agree with this?


  • #176
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


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

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

    Hmm, and yet you persist in coming into the Christianity forum to make a song and dance about this and tell us how wrong we are, but I don't go into the LGB forum to do likewise. Maybe you should take the telegraph pole out of your own eye before addressing the specks in the eyes of others?
    BTW, what's your position on Iris Robinson's comments last year in which she said that the having sex with kids was less of a problem for her than homosexuality?
    I think Iris Robinson is a nut and that her views on this, as with most subjects, are intrinsically disordered.
    Do you feel that (a) this constitutes homophobia and (b) that it's ok for her to air these views publicly?
    a) Yes, I think it constitutes homophobia.
    b) I would rather she aired them publicly, so everyone can see what she is, than that she thought such stuff and kept quiet and pretended to be a reasonable human being.


  • #177
    Obni
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

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

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

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


  • #179
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All mankind are sinners

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


  • #180
    elekid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭elekid


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

    Absolutely.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


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

    Original sin.


  • #182
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Original sin.

    Well yes, I know...but I was kind of hoping (in vain, probably) that he could justify how such a sweeping statement could be so easily accepted as fact.


  • #183
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    WesternNight wrote: »
    Well yes, I know...but I was kind of hoping (in vain, probably) that he could justify how such a sweeping statement could be so easily accepted as fact.

    It is quite off topic for this thread, if every Christian thread turned into "How do you know Christianity is true" debate we would never get anything done around here (we get things done around here!?!?!)

    Read the links in his signature, Jakkass has explained many times why he is a believer.


  • #184
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is quite off topic for this thread, if every Christian thread turned into "How do you know Christianity is true" debate we would never get anything done around here (we get things done around here!?!?!)

    Read the links in his signature, Jakkass has explained many times why he is a believer.

    Yeah, I know...apologies.


  • #185
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Hmm, and yet you persist in coming into the Christianity forum to make a song and dance about this and tell us how wrong we are,
    As I mentioned above, if religious people refrained from making a public song and dance about what gay men (and women) do in private, then I can't imagine anybody bothering to make a song and dance in response to what christians think about homosexuals in the privacy of their own minds.

    The musical starts with your side, and when your side stops singing, dancing and indulging itself, we'll stop too -- it's quite easy really :)
    PDN wrote: »
    I think Iris Robinson is a nut and that her views on this, as with most subjects, are intrinsically disordered.
    That's the second time we agree in two days. We excel ourselves!
    PDN wrote: »
    a) Yes, I think it constitutes homophobia.
    Three!
    PDN wrote: »
    b) I would rather she aired them publicly, so everyone can see what she is, than that she thought such stuff and kept quiet and pretended to be a reasonable human being.
    And upon the same grounds, you'd be happy for -- say -- a senior public figure who hated Romanian people to air their views in Belfast too? Or do you believe that they should keep quiet and pretend to be a reasonable person?


  • #186
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    As I mentioned above, if religious people refrained from making a public song and dance about what gay men (and women) do in private, then I can't imagine anybody bothering to make a song and dance in response to what christians think about homosexuals in the privacy of their own minds.
    I don't think you're being fair there Robin. In my experience Christians rarely initiate discussion about homosexuality (although when they do it tends to get well-publicised). I have found that it is much more frequent for non-Christians (well, more anti-Christians actually) to initiate the debate in order to air their stereotypes about what Christians actually believe.

    However, such debates give us the opportunity to clarify what we actually do believe. So now Obni, who previously thought we were homophobes, has now come to realise that Jakkass and me are actually eloquent, compassionate, tolerant and admirable homophobes. Such is life. :)
    And upon the same grounds, you'd be happy for -- say -- a senior public figure who hated Romanian people to air their views in Belfast too? Or do you believe that they should keep quiet and pretend to be a reasonable person?

    That's a good point. I wouldn't be happy about it, because I know that it would likely result in violence against the Romanians living in Belfast. Neither would I be happy about such a person passing muster for beiung respectable. I would like their views to be exposed in a way that would make them a figure of mockery and end their political career, and in a way that would not endanger anyone.

    And that is how I would see Iris Robinson's nonsense. Having lived in (and been beaten up in) Belfast myself I don't think the kind of people who take Iris Robinson seriously are the kind of people who commit violence. Neither do I think her comments were seriously likely to endanger anyone. If I'm wrong about this, and believe it or not it has been known for me to be wrong, then I would certainly take a different view of the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Splendour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    elekid wrote: »
    Absolutely.

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

    Nonsense. This would mean that Christians have a phobia with alot of people (including ourselves...) i.e. gossipers, adulterers, liars, cheats etc...

    Having said that, I think alot of atheists (and some Christians) homophobic thinking possibly stems from generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins.


  • #188
    elekid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭elekid


    Splendour wrote: »
    Nonsense. This would mean that Christians have a phobia with alot of people (including ourselves...) i.e. gossipers, adulterers, liars, cheats etc...

    I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting gay adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. They're not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even have any outstanding parking tickets! Their only "sin" in the context of my point is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

    Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.


  • #189
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    elekid wrote: »
    I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league.

    So consenting adults having sex with each other in private is not in the same league as adultery? That's strange, I always thought adultery was consenting adults (albeit ones that are married to someone else) having sex with each other in private.

    Do you see the nonsense we get when people start using weasel words and parrotting the same old tired phrases?


  • #190
    elekid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭elekid


    PDN wrote: »
    So consenting adults having sex with each other in private is not in the same league as adultery? That's strange, I always thought adultery was consenting adults (albeit ones that are married to someone else) having sex with each other in private.

    Do you see the nonsense we get when people start using weasel words and parrotting the same old tired phrases?

    Consenting adults having sex and adultery are two similar but different things. What's your point in relation to mine? :confused:

    I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you didn't understand something in my previous post so I've edited it in the hope you'll get my point this time. Otherwise your post comes across as being the very same nonsense as what you were accusing me of.


  • #191
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    elekid wrote: »
    I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. Not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even parking tickets! Their only "sin" is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

    That is the difference between your morality, and ours. We believe that sex outside of marriage to be a sin on moral grounds. You do not.

    Irrespective of whether or not most people agree, Christians hold to a Biblical rather than a worldly standard concerning ethics generally.
    elekid wrote: »
    Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.

    Do we say that a certain group are sinners?:
    Romans 3:23 wrote:
    since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
    Psalm 14:3 wrote:
    They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
    there is no one who does good, no, not one.
    Psalm 53:1 wrote:
    Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
    They are corrupt, they commit abominable acts;
    there is no one who does good.

    Where does this give credence to just one group being sinners?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Splendour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    elekid wrote: »
    I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting gay adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. They're not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even have any outstanding parking tickets! Their only "sin" in the context of my point is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

    Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.

    Now you are doing what our 'Christian' friends did when they put homosexuality above other sins. They took it on themselves to decide what sins are worse than others. You are making a judgement on what is and isn't moral. There are plenty of non Christians who would disagree with you on your moral ethics.

    Can I point out here again that we are all sinners, be we homosexual, hetrosexual bisexual or 'whatever takes your fancy' sexual!


  • #193
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    elekid wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    I've no doubt that most christians are trying to do good and have no intention of causing harm to others, but giving sexually confused and vulnerable young people the message that to act on their natural feelings would be sinful seems horrifically cruel and harmful to me, yet that's the message being given. Spreading the message that those who commit homosexual acts are sinners, results in homophobia, even if it is indirect.
    Yes, it all comes down to what is a sin and what's not. I'm sure you would approve of young people being told their desire to beat-up a different racial group is sinful. They might naturally feel antagonistic to these foreigners with their strange ways, but their attitude and conduct need condemned - even if it seems horrifically cruel and harmful of me to do so. Why, I might give them a guilt-complex!

    So the issue is whether homosexuality is sinful or not - nothing to do with how natural it seems or how harsh our condemnation seems.

    The Bible makes it plain that homosexuality is a sin, so the Christian must treat it as such in his words and action.


  • #194
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The other side of that argument -

    http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian



    Also see

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
    The argument is just a smokescreen - for Romans 1 spells out in no uncertain terms the sinfulness of homosexuality:
    Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.


  • #195
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    PDN wrote: »
    Being a homosexual in China or North Korea can earn you a spot in jail or worse. (That's not a slam against atheists - just trying to point out that homophobia is not a religious invention).

    Homosexuality has been legal in China since 1997 and was removed as an illness in 2001. According to DPR Korea's site oddly enough
    DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect.

    So it's good to see Chinas views on homosexuality changing slowly but surely. Just as christianity's is to. Leviticus the book in the bible which has more direct quotes from God than any other, instructs the Christian not to lie with a man as with a woman, but it also prohibits men from shaving their beards, eating prawns and Bats (because they are birds!) and offers advice on how best to keep their slaves among other nonsence. Leviticus is also the source of the Jehova’s Witnesses’ belief that you should not accept blood transfusions because it is an abomination to eat blood. (black pudding out the window too!)
    So just as these laws have been conviently dropped along the way except for a minority of orthodox practitioners so too will it's view on homosexual acts.

    I think it will go the same way as the rest of the bibles dafter laws...‘If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.

    (what happens if you happen to touch said woman in the evening?)

    The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behavior. There are perhaps half a dozen brief references to it in all. In terms of emphasis, it is a minor concern-in contrast, for example, to economic injustice. So why does the issue seem so important to the modern Christian? My guess is because it's another idea that is on the way out.


  • #196
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    studiorat wrote: »
    So it's good to see Chinas views on homosexuality changing slowly but surely. Just as christianity's is to. Leviticus the book in the bible which has more direct quotes from God than any other, instructs the Christian not to lie with a man as with a woman, but it also prohibits men from shaving their beards, eating prawns and Bats (because they are birds!) and offers advice on how best to keep their slaves among other nonsence. Leviticus is also the source of the Jehova’s Witnesses’ belief that you should not accept blood transfusions because it is an abomination to eat blood. (black pudding out the window too!)

    Leviticus is valid where it deals with moral laws. Legal and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
    Matthew 23:23 wrote:
    ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.

    As for kosher eating, Jesus Christ also fulfilled this in the Scriptures.
    Mark 7:18-23 wrote:
    He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’

    Interestingly you ignore that homosexuality is forbidden in both testaments. When Jesus refers to "fornication" in Mark chapter 7, he is affirming the previous scriptures on sexual morality of the Torah. (Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 22, Exodus 22:16-17)

    Part of being a Christian is living as Jesus aimed to live, this also includes interpreting the Jewish scriptures as Jesus would have interpreted them.

    The question is those people who are attempting to change the Christian standpoint on sexuality, are they doing so on the merit of God or on the merit of their own will?


  • #197
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »

    Interestingly you ignore that homosexuality is forbidden in both testaments. When Jesus refers to "fornication" in Mark chapter 7, he is affirming the previous scriptures on sexual morality of the Torah. (Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 22, Exodus 22:16-17)

    Part of being a Christian is living as Jesus aimed to live, this also includes interpreting the Jewish scriptures as Jesus would have interpreted them.

    The question is those people who are attempting to change the Christian standpoint on sexuality, are they doing so on the merit of God or on the merit of their own will?

    As far as I understand it, Jesus Himself never made any comments about homosexuality, infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.


  • #198
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    As far as I understand it, Jesus Himself never made any comments about homosexuality, infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.

    That's true, it's precisely because Jesus didn't elaborate upon it that I can't determine that He had no issue with sexual immorality. Infact his inference to fornication in that Scripture is Jesus commanding people to live their lives according to God's standard for sexuality as defined in the Scriptures.

    Where Jesus elaborated on divorce, He did so by speech. Where Jesus elaborated on anger, He did so by speech. The same is the case for lustfulness and adultery. In all these things where He found that people had been lacking He spoke out about it.

    If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.


  • #199
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

    So by that would it be unfair to assume that if he didn't speak about it; he saw no issue with it?

    Also, you may have missed it but I also asked the question
    His Maltiness wrote:
    infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.


  • #200
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.
    If Jesus didn't talk about sex, then frankly, he must have been the only preacher in history not to.

    It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.


  • #201
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    robindch wrote: »
    If Jesus didn't talk about sex, then frankly, he must have been the only preacher in history not to...

    Jesus did talk about sex. What he did not do is elaborate on what he thought about every orientation


  • Advertisement
Advertisement