|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:15 pm
I think that "Heathen" comment was very rude. And I agree with Pettos' comment on this.
But I do have something that puzzles me. Why is homosexuality a sin, if people are born like that. They do not choose to be homosexuals, and this is a bit devastating if they are Christian and they know that being a homosexual displeases their god that they love so much. A straight person just can't wake up one day and say "I'm gay/lesbian" because they know that society looks down upon it and they will receive harsh criticism, and they know that they really aren't homosexual. This same thing applies to homosexuals. They can't wake up one day and claim they are straight because they are not and they can't help it, even if it's against societal rules, they will be homosexual no matter what.
Oh, and please don't try to convince me that people are not born homosexual. You have no way of proving that... especially if you're heterosexual.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:17 pm
AgentAbhorrence But I do have something that puzzles me. Why is homosexuality a sin, if people are born like that. They do not choose to be homosexuals, and this is a bit devastating if they are Christian and they know that being a homosexual displeases their god that they love so much. A straight person just can't wake up one day and say "I'm gay/lesbian" because they know that society looks down upon it and they will receive harsh criticism, and they know that they really aren't homosexual. This same thing applies to homosexuals. They can't wake up one day and claim they are straight because they are not and they can't help it, even if it's against societal rules, they will be homosexual no matter what. Oh, and please don't try to convince me that people are not born homosexual. You have no way of proving that... especially if you're heterosexual. That's a good question, and you worded it very well. Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. -James 1:14-15 People can choose their actions, and the Bible warns that homosexual acts are sinful. Homosexual desire may not be a choice, but it is also not a sin. Desire can lead to sin, but just because you may have a desire to do something wrong, does not automatically make it a sin. It is only the committing of the deed which is sinful, and that is a choice people are able to make. Sin does go deeper than actions too, but even in thoughts it makes no difference on gender. It is sinful to look on another person lustfully, regardless of their gender. If I'm checking someone out, and objectifying them in a sexual way, that's sinful of me whether its a homo- or heterosexual situation. But again, even though the initial attraction may not be a choice, it is a choice whether I'm going to pursue a lustful way of thinking. It's kind of unfair though, to say no one can argue that people aren't born homosexual because there's no way to prove it. It goes both ways - it also hasn't been proven that people are born homosexual. There is some evidence that people are predisposed to it - but that goes for every sin and every virtue. I'm inclined to have a bad temper because I'm Irish. xp I know it's a racial stereotype, but it does happen to run in my family on the Irish side. But just because I never made the choice to have a bad temper, that doesn't make it ok for me to lose it on people. Our predispositions make no difference; its the choices and actions of our hearts that God looks at. Or take alcoholism - there's very strong evidence that it's genetic; much, much stronger evidence than anything about homosexuality. But that makes no difference in our recognition that alcoholism is an unacceptable behavior. A person never made the "choice" to be an alcoholic. Just like a person never wakes up and says, "Hey, I'm gonna be gay now," likewise people don't wake up and say, "Hey, oh boy, I'm gonna be an alcoholic." But how do we deal with someone who is an alcoholic, or genetically inclined to be one? We don't say that just because it wasn't their choice means that they should pursue that lifestyle. We say that someone who cannot control their drinking habits needs to stay away from drinking. It's a struggle they may have to deal with their whole lives. But they should never give into it. And it makes them into a much stronger person. If you've ever talked to a recovered alcoholic, often they can tell you how getting through that struggle made them into a much happier, appreciative, loving, understanding, stronger person. That's how it is with sin: giving into it gives you the illusion of pleasure or benefit, but it is only temporary; while resisting it gives you a lasting benefit. It's true that most homosexuals never consciously made the decision to be tempted with that sin. But that doesn't make homosexuality any less of a sin, because people don't choose any of their temptations. And it can be overcome just like any other sin. There are many people who have had homosexual relationships, and successfully left that lifestyle when they chose to follow Christ. I personally know some. It doesn't mean they're never desirous or tempted, but they have given up the pursuit of sin for the sake of pursuing Christ. Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. -James 1:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:57 pm
I understand what you mean. But I also noticed that alcoholism and having a bad temper affect people in a negative way. Both the person with that issue, and the people close to that person. Homosexuality on the other hand, doesn't hurt anyone (when I say this, I mean if it was acceptable in society, therefore heterosexuals wouldn't be hurting homosexuals in any way). Two people fall in love and they have sexual desires between themselves. They are not hurting each other because it is consentual, and it is not their intention to hurt anyone around them with their homosexuality. I know that it is not the intention of alcoholics and people with bad temper to hurt anyone, but this can't really be compared to someone being a homosexual because there is really nothing bad they can do to people around them, except for the bad things that anyone is capable of doing to others (for example: rape, murder, sexual harassment... anyone is capable of doing that, no matter what their sexual preference is or if they're an alcoholic or a bad-tempered person).
So, what I'm trying to get at here is why would acting on homosexuality be a sin? Let's say that there is a homosexual couple, they love each other, they're very nice people, and they just want to live normal lives. If they get married or have sex, why does it have to be a sin?
Also, if your god said that homosexuality is acceptable, then homosexual people would still be doing whatever they are doing, and the only difference would be that society will accept it and not look down upon it. Either way they are not doing anything bad to themselves or to other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:45 pm
AgentAbhorrence I understand what you mean. But I also noticed that alcoholism and having a bad temper affect people in a negative way. Both the person with that issue, and the people close to that person. Homosexuality on the other hand, doesn't hurt anyone (when I say this, I mean if it was acceptable in society, therefore heterosexuals wouldn't be hurting homosexuals in any way). Two people fall in love and they have sexual desires between themselves. They are not hurting each other because it is consentual, and it is not their intention to hurt anyone around them with their homosexuality. I know that it is not the intention of alcoholics and people with bad temper to hurt anyone, but this can't really be compared to someone being a homosexual because there is really nothing bad they can do to people around them, except for the bad things that anyone is capable of doing to others (for example: rape, murder, sexual harassment... anyone is capable of doing that, no matter what their sexual preference is or if they're an alcoholic or a bad-tempered person). So, what I'm trying to get at here is why would acting on homosexuality be a sin? Let's say that there is a homosexual couple, they love each other, they're very nice people, and they just want to live normal lives. If they get married or have sex, why does it have to be a sin? Also, if your god said that homosexuality is acceptable, then homosexual people would still be doing whatever they are doing, and the only difference would be that society will accept it and not look down upon it. Either way they are not doing anything bad to themselves or to other people. Right. A comparison between homosexuality with alcoholism ends with the fact that neither are necessarily a choice. They're very different things, I was only using it as an example to show that just because it may not be a choice doesn't mean it's not a sin. You're right in what you say about their difference. Sexual sins are actually very unique from any other sin, for the reasons you mentioned. But homosexuality is still sinful even though it doesn't "hurt" anyone in the same sense that other sins do. If we accept that homosexuality is ok because no one gets hurt, it follows that it would also be fine to have multiple consensual sex partners one after another, because again no one gets hurt. It would also be alright to have casual sex with someone you hardly know, or even orgies. Saying that prostitution is a victimless crime is also often used as an argument to legalize it. All consensual sexual sins share this aspect in common: that there is not a victim in the same sense that there is with other sins. So if we are to accept that homosexuality must be ok because of that, it will follow that all of these behaviors should be accepted. There are, of course, a lot of people who do believe all of these should be accepted; but it's just important to be aware that it's where this line of thinking leads. The Bible says all of these things; homosexuality, multiple partners, orgies, prostitution; are sinful. And our western society agreed about it for hundreds of years; it's only recently that any of them have begun to be accepted. But you raise an excellent question. Why are these sexual acts sinful if no one gets hurt by them? Just because God says so, and that's it? No. God told us it is sinful because it is a sin, not the other way around. It's easy for us to understand this for things like murder and jealously, but it is truly less clear for sexual sins because they are very unique. The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." So the Bible actually recognizes, and emphasizes, the unique nature of sexual sins. Sex is not just a physical act, it's emotional. Deeply emotional. But even more significant than that, it is spiritual in an equally deep way. Because homosexuality and other sexual sins may not seem to hurt anyone outwardly, people are beginning to accept them, because people today are no longer spiritually minded. In western society, we no longer really think about our souls anymore; but that's where the damage of sexual immorality is done. That's the reason why God said it's sinful and not to do it. Homosexuality does hurt the people engaging in it and affects them in a negative way, it just works differently from all other sins because, as the Bible says, we are sinning against our own body in a unique way. I have to thank you for taking a discussion about homosexuality in a direction I've never gone with anyone before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:40 pm
Crimson Raccoon If we accept that homosexuality is ok because no one gets hurt, it follows that it would also be fine to have multiple consensual sex partners one after another, because again no one gets hurt. It would also be alright to have casual sex with someone you hardly know, or even orgies. Saying that prostitution is a victimless crime is also often used as an argument to legalize it. All consensual sexual sins share this aspect in common: that there is not a victim in the same sense that there is with other sins. So if we are to accept that homosexuality must be ok because of that, it will follow that all of these behaviors should be accepted. This reminds me of the "slippery slope fallacy". A lot of people assume that if homosexuality is accepted, then this will lead to other things being accepted, things such as what you have listed here. But they don't take this into consideration: If a man and a woman fall in love, it is assumed that they will be faithful to each other and that it it is wrong to cheat on each other, right? Somehow, a lot of people think that this doesn't apply to homosexual couples. They think that all homosexuals are promiscuous, and it is this thinking that leads to the assumption that the next thing that people are going to want is to make it alright to have multiple consensual partners... and so on. I think that if two people decide to become an item, doesn't matter if they're hetero or homo, then they should be allowed to do so and that they will be able to do anything that an item does, sex included. I don't think it's alright to have multiple partners, and having multiple sex partners does hurt people, I agree with that. I know that heterosexual people would also like to have multiple consensual partners (and some do have them), it's not only homosexuals, so there is no need to say that making homosexuality alright will lead to the acceptance of multiple sex partners since this applies to both hetero and homo people. Wow, you're the first person to ever thank me for this kind of thing. Usually people get mad at me and give up because they don't really like it when I challenge their thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:48 am
AgentAbhorrence Crimson Raccoon If we accept that homosexuality is ok because no one gets hurt, it follows that it would also be fine to have multiple consensual sex partners one after another, because again no one gets hurt. It would also be alright to have casual sex with someone you hardly know, or even orgies. Saying that prostitution is a victimless crime is also often used as an argument to legalize it. All consensual sexual sins share this aspect in common: that there is not a victim in the same sense that there is with other sins. So if we are to accept that homosexuality must be ok because of that, it will follow that all of these behaviors should be accepted. This reminds me of the "slippery slope fallacy". A lot of people assume that if homosexuality is accepted, then this will lead to other things being accepted, things such as what you have listed here. But they don't take this into consideration: If a man and a woman fall in love, it is assumed that they will be faithful to each other and that it it is wrong to cheat on each other, right? Somehow, a lot of people think that this doesn't apply to homosexual couples. They think that all homosexuals are promiscuous, and it is this thinking that leads to the assumption that the next thing that people are going to want is to make it alright to have multiple consensual partners... and so on. I think that if two people decide to become an item, doesn't matter if they're hetero or homo, then they should be allowed to do so and that they will be able to do anything that an item does, sex included. I don't think it's alright to have multiple partners, and having multiple sex partners does hurt people, I agree with that. I know that heterosexual people would also like to have multiple consensual partners (and some do have them), it's not only homosexuals, so there is no need to say that making homosexuality alright will lead to the acceptance of multiple sex partners since this applies to both hetero and homo people. Wow, you're the first person to ever thank me for this kind of thing. Usually people get mad at me and give up because they don't really like it when I challenge their thinking. It may sound similar to the "slippery slope fallacy," but it isn't. A slippery slope argument argues that if we allow A, then that will lead to allowing B, which will lead to allowing C, etc. all the way to Z; and if Z is "bad," then that must mean that A is bad. Such an argument is not even necessarily a fallacy; it is only a fallacy if the person arguing fails to prove that B, C, and so on are truly contingent upon allowing A. (Like, if A through Z are a line of dominoes, then it is certainly not a logical fallacy to say that knocking down A will lead to knocking down Z). But either way, I wasn't using a slippery slope argument. The type of argument I was using (I don't know the technical logical term for it) was this: That if we allow A based on premise "1," then we must also allow B, C, and D, because they are also contingent upon premise "1." Sorry if it's not clear what I mean, lol. But here it is: Premise 1: If an action is not harmful to anyone, there isn't anything wrong with it. Action A: Homosexuality Action B: Casual Sex (either hetero- or homosexual) Action C: Frequent changing of sexual partners (either hetero- or homosexual) Action D: Orgies etc. Since all of these actions are things that don't hurt anyone in the same way that other things labeled as "sins" do (assuming that sexual participants are using protection), then if we accept any one of these based on Premise 1, then it follows that we must accept all of them. So it's not the same as a slippery slope argument, which says that accepting A will lead to B, and B will lead to C, and so on. What I'm saying is that accepting Premise 1 simultaneously leads to accepting all actions A through D. But I'm not a logician and I apologize if I'm not using the correct terminology. I do know that my argument is logically valid though, even if it can be disagreed with. I'm not at all claiming that someone who engages in homosexuality will necessarily go on to switch partners frequently, or do any of the other things I mentioned. That would be a foolish assertion. You're right that people are wrong who assume that all homosexuals are promiscuous; those are two separate sins, and there is no reason that a person engaging in one will necessarily go on to engage in another. I only mean to say that if we accept that homosexuality can't be wrong because it doesn't harm anyone, then there are several other things that can't be wrong for that same reason. And we should just be aware of that consequence. There are other reasons why we may believe that homosexuality can't be wrong, and those have different contingent consequences. For example, if we accept that homosexuality can't be wrong because it is based on love, then it will not follow that casual sex or prostitution or any of those other things I mentioned will need to be accepted as well, because obviously those aren't based on love. But, there is a different set of things that would need to be accepted. Polygamy, for one. A man can have love for more than one woman, and a woman can consent to loving a man who has other partners. So if we accept that homosexuality can't be wrong because it is a loving and consensual relationship, then we must also accept polygamy, and possibly other types of relationships as well. Some people may be fine with that. But we just need to be aware that the premise by which we accept one action can be applied to other actions we may not want to accept. But I do believe, and the Bible teaches, that homosexuality is actually harmful to those who engage in it, but uniquely in a spiritual way rather than an obvious physical way. Of course, if a society moves away from thinking about anything spiritual, then it will not have any reason to recognize why such sexual immoralities could possibly be wrong. As for thanking you, you deserve it! Your posts show good thinking and the way you discuss has been very respectful. People shouldn't get mad at you just because of the arguments you use. Unfortunately, the reality is that Christians are usually just as ignorant about what they believe as everyone else is in America is today. Most people, on either side of the big current debates, just believe what their environment has influenced them to, rather than working to really build their beliefs based on any foundation. With a weak foundation, it can be upsetting when anyone comes to shake things up a bit; that's why they get mad or give up. Christ had a lot of admonishment for Christians who are like that though... xp But anyone who is thoughtful and respectful deserves appreciation! And I also appreciate being challenged in my thinking because it's always good exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:53 pm
Alright, I see what you're trying to say (I'm not familiar with the term for it either), but why are those actions (A through D) always clumped together? I could say the same thing, but in action A, instead of having homosexuality, I could just as easily have heterosexuality there, and it'd still be the same. It just seems pointless to do that, and say that if we accept homosexuality on that premise, then we have to accept all of that other stuff.
No need to apologize, I don't use the correct terminology either. I know your argument is valid, and of course, I disagree with it.
I know that the premise you mentioned can be applied to the actions you listed, but homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by just that one premise because there are other premises involved that could cancel out the other actions in that list because they are not part of the other premises involved, such as love being one of those premises, like you said. But then again, I don't see why the rest of the actions listed just have to be there if we're talking about homosexuality, since they apply to both hetero and homo people, as I've said earlier.
Also, I don't see how it is spiritually harmful to engage in homosexuality. What about the homosexuals who feel spiritually better once they know they are free to explore their sexuality? They aren't being harmed, and they don't feel like they're being harmed. The only people who think it is spiritually wrong and harmful are the ones who aren't homosexual, so how can people say that homosexuals are being harmed spiritually when they don't know what it's like to be a homosexual and how they feel spiritually?
Thanks^_^. Also, thanks for being a person who doesn't cower away. I like how you stay strong with your beliefs. I hate the fact that people are ignorant about what they believe in.. what you said is right. They just take in whatever is fed to them without making an effort to understand it or even question its validity. It's good to know that I was respectful, I try really hard not to be a b***h.. I seem to have inherited that from my mom xD. I agree, this is very good exercise. I was getting worried that I might have got a bit rusty at this since I hardly find people who are willing to put their beliefs to the test for fear that I might change the way they think... or maybe for fear that I might make them think at all. I've had encounters with some Christians whose arguments just consist of "because the bible says so".. and that's it. That's their argument right there. It's like they don't appreciate their religion enough to defend it or even learn about it. I like having people answer my questions the way you did, I actually learn something, and that's what I want since I'm trying to study different kinds of religions. So, I should be thanking you for all the info you've given me.
Edit: Can I copy what you've said in your posts onto my comp? I'd really like to have this info for future reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:37 am
People aren't born alchoholics. Alchoholism is a learned behavior not a genetic disease. People pick it up from their parents or friends. It's a psychological condition not a genetic one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:42 am
Because I study people. I look at how people act in real life. I notice different quirks. Take my friend...let's call him Lupis. Lupis drinks whenever he's stressed out in order to relax. It's unknown that his dad is an alcoholic since his dad died of a smoking related cancer. But Lupis has been drinking since he was younger due to hanging around people that do it too. I have a friend that has an alcoholic biological mum and she doesn't drink. You can observe the pattern of behavior through something called Classical Conditioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:06 pm
Dark Angel Rai People aren't born alchoholics. Alchoholism is a learned behavior not a genetic disease. People pick it up from their parents or friends. It's a psychological condition not a genetic one. The environment we grow up in does influence our behavior, but people are also born with personality traits, which include strengths and weaknesses. Nobody believes that anyone is born to be addicted to alcohol and that there's nothing they can do about it... but for some reason, some people today are beginning to believe that people are born homosexual and there's nothing they can do about it. Which I find very strange, because as I said, there is far more evidence that alcoholism is genetic than there is any evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It seems to me that the most rational explanation for the cause of homosexuality, is that it is influenced by our natural personalities that we are born with, but also that it develops based on our environment. So basically, I believe it works the same way as all other behaviors, good or bad, like being good at math or having a talent for painting. You are born with a potential for these things, but if you are never exposed to these behaviors, you will never develop in them. Why should homosexuality work any differently? Alcoholism doesn't. Some people believe that the reason homosexuality is more prominent today is because the society of past generations was not accepting of it, so homosexuals had to hide themselves or repress their sexuality. But I think it makes more sense that there were truly much fewer homosexuals in previous generations, because it wasn't promoted in so many different medias like it is today, and because today the society is so much more accepting of it. Just like, if alcoholism was promoted as an acceptable thing, then there would be a lot more alcoholics. And if art was portrayed by society as a bad thing, there would be a lot less artists. There would be some artists, or alcoholics, who continue doing their thing and just try to keep it hidden, but there would also be a lot less of them overall. That's the reason, in my opinion, why homosexuality was less prominent in previous generations: because, though there were some who kept secret about, there were also genuinely a lot less of them, because people were not exposed to it and society did not promote it as a possibly acceptable thing. AgentAbhorrence Alright, I see what you're trying to say (I'm not familiar with the term for it either), but why are those actions (A through D) always clumped together? I could say the same thing, but in action A, instead of having homosexuality, I could just as easily have heterosexuality there, and it'd still be the same. It just seems pointless to do that, and say that if we accept homosexuality on that premise, then we have to accept all of that other stuff. I'm really enjoying our discussion and you're making me do a lot of thinking; that's why I took a couple days to answer. I wanted to give you my best. :XP: Pretty much everyone agrees that there are some sexual behaviors that are good, and some sexual behaviors that are bad. So, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. There's really no way that heterosexual intercourse in itself could possibly be bad, because it's necessary for reproduction. Some heterosexual actions can be bad, like with rape or casual sex, but there must be at least one form of heterosexual intercourse that isn't bad, or else the human race shouldn't exist. Since we all agree that a consensual, monogamous, heterosexual relationship (i.e., marriage) isn't wrong, and since we all agree that there are some sexual behaviors that are wrong, there must be a line that exists somewhere; and it has to be somewhere after sex within a marriage context. Of course, that's not to mention the fact that the Bible specifically says sex between a man and woman is a good thing. The first command to ever be given by God to humans was to "be fruitful and multiply," and you know that that means. wink There's plenty of other verses, and entire chapters, and an entire book (Song of Solomon), that support it as well. AgentAbhorrence I know that the premise you mentioned can be applied to the actions you listed, but homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by just that one premise because there are other premises involved that could cancel out the other actions in that list because they are not part of the other premises involved, such as love being one of those premises, like you said. But then again, I don't see why the rest of the actions listed just have to be there if we're talking about homosexuality, since they apply to both hetero and homo people, as I've said earlier. If we put together all the reasons people have said for why homosexuality should be accepted, then it's true that it would cancel out any other type of behavior needing to be accepted with it, once enough reasons are put together. But, that still doesn't mean those are good reasons. If the reasons have been shown to not be good enough individually, why would any of them become good reasons when we put them together? A negative number plus a negative number is still a negative number. Or, zero plus zero is still zero. So if "it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't a good reason, and "it's a form of love" isn't a good reason, then if you put them both together into one big reason, it's still not a good one. We need to find a good reason that will stand on its own. Like, why should slavery have been put to an end in America? We could come up with several reasons, and they each could stand on their own, not needing to be put together with the others in order to work. Because kidnapping is wrong; because people are not property; because treating people differently based on their skin color is wrong; and so on. Any one of these reasons stands on its own to argue that the slavery system in America was wrong. But for homosexuality, any reason I've heard for justifying it will lead to a variety of other sexual behaviors being justified as well, and we need to combine a bunch of specific conditions together to stop that from happening. So to me, they all just aren't logically good reasons. AgentAbhorrence Also, I don't see how it is spiritually harmful to engage in homosexuality. What about the homosexuals who feel spiritually better once they know they are free to explore their sexuality? They aren't being harmed, and they don't feel like they're being harmed. The only people who think it is spiritually wrong and harmful are the ones who aren't homosexual, so how can people say that homosexuals are being harmed spiritually when they don't know what it's like to be a homosexual and how they feel spiritually? The thing is, we can't judge our spiritual condition based on how we "feel." How we feel is about emotions. A person can feel good once they are free to explore their sexuality, but that doesn't mean it really is good for them spiritually. A person can feel great when they're doing anything, whether it's a good or bad thing; we can't just judge what is good based on how we feel. A person feeling happy or sad or free, that's about emotions. Feeling physical pain or relief is about our bodies. But for spirituality, we don't have such a clear indicator to tell ourselves how we're doing; it's very subtle. We really need a guide when it comes to spirituality, and God has provided it in the Bible. A person who smokes doesn't "feel" that they are being hurt by what they're doing. They feel relaxed, and they may feel freer or genuinely happier. We need the knowledge that it does hurt us; someone needs to tell us, or else we'll never know until it's too late. For our spiritual health, in the same way we need someone to tell us what hurts us, to give us that knowledge. But we can't do experiments or medical studies on our souls; we need God himself to tell us, and that's what he does in the Bible. We learn to become more aware of our spiritual condition when we develop a relationship with God, because anything that brings us away from God is spiritually harmful, and anything that brings us closer to him is spiritually healthy. Without that relationship, there's really no way to judge what our spiritual condition is, or what is hurting it. Also, it isn't true that the only people who think it's spiritually harmful are the ones who aren't homosexual. There are plenty of Christians who strive against homosexual temptations. And when a person struggles with any sin, they can tell that when they give into it, it hurts their relationship with God, and is therefore spiritually harmful. Christians who fight against homosexual temptations are the same way, and they do believe that it is spiritually harmful; it's not just heterosexual people. And sure, you can save any of my posts if you actually want to. =P I actually save them too because it takes a long time to type these things, and these questions tend to come up again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:49 am
If God despised homosexuality, then why would he fill the hearts of homosexuals in love with members of their same gender with the contentment that a heterosexual feels when in love with members of the opposite gender?
Or do we just assume that they don't feel love?
Since when is any form of love spiritually damaging?
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ***** THAT "loves" LITTLE GIRLS? OR THE MAN WHO "loves" HIS SISTER?
I'm totally calling these arguments here and now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:37 pm
Homosexuality is one of the few bits of the Bible that I question. I have a fair amount of friends who are homosexuals or bisexuals (I'd say about 20% or greater), and honestly, they are some of the kindest people I've ever met; their actions harm no one. From what I understand, the anti-homosexuality parts of the Bible are also smack-dab in the middle of many other laws/rules that we have assumed obselete.
I actually believe that, perhaps, the 'blanket of food' that God revealed to his follower and told to eat (telling him that they were no longer dirty) is a repeal on the laws of the Old Testament. We do not eat kosher, nor do we need to pretend to be heterosexual when the love is with someone of the same gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:59 pm
Zahwomen If God despised homosexuality, then why would he fill the hearts of homosexuals in love with members of their same gender with the contentment that a heterosexual feels when in love with members of the opposite gender? Or do we just assume that they don't feel love? Since when is any form of love spiritually damaging? Why assume that it's God who fills their hearts with this love? God is never the cause of sin, because we have free will. But anyway, there's no reason to assume that homosexuals don't feel love for members of the same gender. But that's not where the issue is. There's nothing sinful and nothing spiritually harmful about love. Two men can love each other, that's great. A father can love his son, a brother can love his brother, a friend can love a same-sexed friend. They can be willing to do anything to support each other, they can enjoy each others' company, etc. There's several examples of two men, or two women, showing great love and affection for each other in the Bible. The Book of Ruth shows a very close relationship between Ruth and Naomi. David and Jonathan show great love for each other in the books of Samuel. This love is even expressed physically. In fact, the New Testament actually advises us to shake hands with, hug, and even kiss fellow Christians regardless of their gender, as genuine signs of fellowship and affection. John, described as the disciple whom Jesus loved, rested his head on Jesus' chest at the last supper, looking up affectionately at his face. But love does not = sexual relationship. As I'm sure we can all agree that love is never wrong, we can also agree that sex is not always right. Two men or two women who initiate a loving relationship just because they're sexually attracted to each other, that's something different. Sexual attraction is a selfish reason. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals should initiate a relationship with someone based just on appearance. Of course, that's often how it goes, and it can lead to a loving relationship. There's nothing wrong with the loving relationship; but the sex, there can be something wrong with. Foxby Homosexuality is one of the few bits of the Bible that I question. I have a fair amount of friends who are homosexuals or bisexuals (I'd say about 20% or greater), and honestly, they are some of the kindest people I've ever met; their actions harm no one. From what I understand, the anti-homosexuality parts of the Bible are also smack-dab in the middle of many other laws/rules that we have assumed obselete. I actually believe that, perhaps, the 'blanket of food' that God revealed to his follower and told to eat (telling him that they were no longer dirty) is a repeal on the laws of the Old Testament. We do not eat kosher, nor do we need to pretend to be heterosexual when the love is with someone of the same gender. Good points. It's true that some Old Testament laws don't apply to us; there are different kinds of laws in it. The civil laws of the Kingdom of Israel do not apply to us, because we are not living in that kingdom, and in fact it hasn't existed for two thousand years. Also, the religious ceremonies and rituals are not required of us because Christ fulfilled them all permanently in his life and sacrifice. These things are made clear in the New Testament. Peter's vision in Acts chapter 11 with the blanket of un-kosher food is, as you said, one of the ways God showed us that those requirements are repealed. But the Moral requirements that appear in the Old Testament, summarized in the 10 Commandments, will never be repealed. Morality, what is good and what is evil, will never change. This is also made clear in the New Testament. It is true that some of the anti-homosexual parts of the Old Testament appear alongside other laws that the Bible says don't apply anymore. But consider the passages where homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament; in Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, or here: Quote: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 The other sins on this list are not things we think were only wrong back then. We still believe they're all wrong and always will be. Only homosexuality is in question by anyone today; that's a new development in our culture. But it's not because this passage's portrayal of sins is seen as obsolete. That passage was written by the apostle Paul to a Christian audience. The point he's making is that those who have such lifestyles are guilty of sinning; but that even someone who has done such things can regardless be forgiven and reconciled to God through Christ. The group of people Paul was writing to included many who used to be things such as thieves or homosexuals, but who had abandoned those lifestyles to follow Christ. It's good that you point out that, of your friends who are homosexual, they are all nice people. A person who is homosexual is no different than anyone else; everyone is a sinner. There's no reason why a homosexual would need to act like a "worse" person than anyone else. There's no reason why they should be treated worse than anyone else, or as less than a regular person. A lot of Christians today think that somehow homosexuals are committing the worst sin ever, and are therefore the worst people in the world, and are going to hell no matter what. That's totally against what the Bible teaches about it. 1st Timothy 1:8-11 lists several sins, and along with homosexuality, he also lists things like lying or swearing. So the way we treat homosexuals should be the same way we treat anyone who's ever said a swear or told a lie (all of us!). Christ teaches it's right to respect, and even love, other people; regardless of their actions or lifestyle. It's never our place to tell someone they are going to hell, no matter what sin they have committed. After all, we're all sinners, and it would be hypocritical for a Christian who confesses he or she is a sinner to turn around and then think they are better than any other sinner, just because of the particular sin (homosexuality) the other person is committing. It is only God's place to judge, and to tell people what will get them into hell. And he does tell us; he makes it clear that simply sin is what makes us undeserving to be with him in heaven. He tells us that homosexuality is a sin, along with numerous other things, and he does not in any way emphasize homosexuals as the worst people in the world who should be hated by us. He tells us that all have sinned, and we all need Christ to pay our debt and redeem us, whether we are a homosexual, or an abstinent monk. We need to turn from our sins, whatever they are, and follow Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:10 pm
I thought you weren't gonna continue xP
Ok, first off. You said that the reasons why we should accept homosexuality are not good reasons. I believe that they are good reasons, they are better when they are put together, and that they shouldn't be compared to different kinds of reasons like the ones you mentioned for slavery because those are two very different things, two very different circumstances, so obviously the reasons are going to vary. You're saying that a single reason for accepting homosexuality doesn't work.. why not? If people didn't cluster so many other negative things with homosexuality, then the reason will stand on its own.
I wasn't talking about emotions when I said that homosexuals feel spiritually better. I meant that they feel like they have had a burden lifted, something along those lines.. I can't really explain it in words, sorry.
When you said that we need the knowledge that something does hurt us, I automatically think "brainwash" or "manipulation". It's kinda like a god sending out a chain letter, and if you don't do what it says, you'll get killed by the "chupacabra" while you're on the toilet.
We know if something hurts us when we experience the pain of it, be it physical pain or emotional pain, even if we don't feel it at first and later on we find out that it's been hurting us. If we need someone or something to tell us that we are hurting ourselves, when this kind of "hurt" is something that we can never feel or experience in our lifetime, then this is just ridiculous to me.
So basically, once you tell someone that being a homosexual is spiritually harmful, they're gonna think that it is harming them, and they will get harmed because of the belief that they are getting harmed. It's kinda like watching a TV show where they show some sick person who had some symptoms that lead to the development of some killer virus or whatever, and then the person watching the show will remember that they have had some of those symptoms, so therefore they must have developed this killer virus as well, and now they're scared and they feel very sick, so they go to the doctor and find out that it was just a scare and that they are fine.
What I'm inferring from all of this, though, is that you believe your religion is the only right one, and is the only one to have a say in what others with different religions have to do or live by. Other people with different religions than yours aren't forced to believe that homosexuality is wrong, so they aren't sinning or harming themselves spiritually... therefore no harm to their spiritual selves is being done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
