posted on October 23, 2001 03:14:11 PM new
I think you folks are missing a few points. So what if homosexuality is a sin, or so what if it isn't? What's the difference? The Bible is clear in its teaching that no one is without sin of one sort or another. So even if (a) man were not condemned on account of his sexual nature, he would still be condemned many times over for his other faults.
Therefore, the argument that we seem to be seeking, that a homosexual is blameless, is unbiblical entirely. Each one of us, according to biblical standards, is equal to the worst kind of sinner. That is a primary theme of the Bible. And we can not be saved by following the letter of the law, which is impossible anyway. Even the most pious Jew who prays 500 times a day has no guarantee of salvation, unless God chooses him, preordains him, or however you interpret salvation. Focusing on sin is useless, except to show that we are all in the same boat.
If you are suggesting that certain people (including religious people) descriminate against others (for one reason or another), I think that's a given. The Bible may condemn homosexuality, but it condemns many behaviors, including hate and prejudice. Or is this a case of reverse descrimination, in that you expect so-called Christians to behave "better" than the rest of us?
Lastly, anyone who believes the Bible is an "open book" that yields its secrets easily is reading it in the most superficial manner.
(edited for grammar)
[ edited by twinsoft on Oct 23, 2001 06:15 PM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 03:28:34 PM new
twinsoft
First of all its not beging homosexual that is sinful, It's the act of homosexuality that is the sin.
Second the bible says all man kind has sinned yes but throoug jesus can be forgiven.
How ever the bible teaches as well that haveing been saved from your sin is not a license to sin or to continue in sin..
Your right the bible is a book that does not give up some of it secerts easy but salavation clearly spelled out.
after 4 years of bible college and over 20 year of study and teaching there is lots I still can and will learn now and even more in the end ....
On the other hand none of what I said makes any difference as this thread has nothing to do with God since god is not the Author of confusion or miss understanding..
posted on October 23, 2001 03:34:45 PM newHow ever the bible teaches as well that haveing been saved from your sin is not a license to sin or to continue in sin.
posted on October 23, 2001 03:43:57 PM new
No offense intended, Barry, but after you posted this:
The fact remains, though, that gender preference is not on the same level as gender or race, at least not yet. I think that it's still perfectly valid for people to believe that choice and upbringing have as much, if not more, to do with homosexuality than pure genetics. And as long as homosexuality can be perceived as a matter of choice, then it's perfectly permissible, in my opinion, for some people to feel that it is an improper choice.
it seemed to me futile to continue this conversation with you. I doubt any amount of counter-debate will change your mind. So what's the point?
posted on October 23, 2001 03:47:38 PM new
I agree twinsoft, and if a person wants to believe that being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts is wrong...fine. What I fail to understand is, if God says we're all created equal and to love each other as you would yourself, then how can someone judge any human beings lifestyle as being right or wrong/good or bad. How does it affect you personally? I can see why gay people stayed in the closet for so long. I'd be scared to death to admit the truth for fear of being judged, let alone all the other crap these people have to endure. If you're gay, I'm really starting to see what you have to go through....and this is only minor. Yuck.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Oct 23, 2001 03:49 PM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 03:51:18 PM new
What I fail to understand is why some of the usual suspects *coughFalwellcough* devote far more energy to opposing anal sex than they do to opposing, say, exploitation of the weak or other Biblical sins.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 23, 2001 03:52 PM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 04:02:30 PM new
By that, spazmodeus, you say that you are of the opinion that homosexuality is not something chosen, or rather culturally inspired?
posted on October 23, 2001 04:13:28 PM new
From everything I've ever read, krs, I'm of the opinion that its basis is genetic/biological. The only people I've ever heard advocating the "choice" philosophy are those who think gays can be "cured" with electro-shock treatments and positive reinforcement conditioning.
edited to add: After further thought, I'm not sure "positive reinforcement" is the right term. The "conversion" process, as I understand it, involves hooking up electrodes to the private parts and delivering an electric shock in accompaniment with homosexual images shown on a viewing screen until the subject supposedly develops an aversion to such thoughts or desires. It's a form of conditioning, but probably not one to be described as "positive reinforcement."
posted on October 23, 2001 04:39:22 PM new
kraftdinner
(Was created equil) is the key, man has not been as created since the first orginal sin !!..
in the begining adam and eve were equil, then were deceived, Before then they lived in innocents with out shame all there needs met in paraidise.
There were other changes in man through out the bible as well Read the story of the tower of babble The begining of different languages and division in man.
There are many other changes in people through out the bible includeing different races of people.
The bible Seems to leave unanswered question but the one it did answer was the knowlege that adam and eve gain from there first sin was not a good thing knowlege without wisdom can only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and sin.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:05:03 PM newjt: Your assumption that only Christians have any moral standards is yet another reason many people have a growing dislike for your religion.
edited to change an "n" to an "s"
[ edited by bunnicula on Oct 23, 2001 05:05 PM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 05:10:15 PM new
I've seen scientific data which would support either premise. My younger brother was gay and it's been of interest to me. Many of the studies out there essentially end without a defined conclusion stating that in some cases homosexuality may be genetically ordained, but in as many or more cases there is nothing to support that.
I do think that many homosexuals would prefer a finding in science of genetic, biological, or another factor having 'made' them the way they are, but I think that the wish is really only an attempt to gain acceptance.
There is sufficient ground to show that in many instances homosexuality results from societal influence, and there is not a way to measure those influences so that they can be quantitatively removed in aa search for cause.
The creature is impressionable from birth. A child of a musical environemt is more likely to develop musical preferences than is one who is not, except perhaps in a child with inborn raw talent.
Whether a sway to environmental influence at a tender age is a matter of choice could be discounted if it is established at what point a child begins making viable choices.
So I don't think that it's so easy to classify each homosexual as included in a genetically based model nor do I think that that child can be excluded from that model because of the appearance of having made choices.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:35:27 PM new
Bunnicula you beat me to it. Teri so you would be doing all those things in your post above if you didn't have your bible to live by?
posted on October 23, 2001 05:44:12 PM newThere is sufficient ground to show that in many instances homosexuality results from societal influence, and there is not a way to measure those influences so that they can be quantitatively removed in aa search for cause.
And I've read that this is one of the arguements used by those who are against gays adopting and raising children.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:53:26 PM new
It does not really matter scientifically whether one is a homosexual because of genetics.
Whatever way you look at it from Gods point of view through the Bible the practice of homosexuality is not acceptable to him.
It was not acceptable when Moses was given the Mosiac law and nor was it acceptable thousands of years later during the time of the Apostles.God's standards do not change over time.
We all are sinners and there are areas we all need to work on daily.
The questions is,is our worship acceptable to him on his terms and not our own.
If he finds homosexuality to be wrong then we have an obligation to abide by that if we want to be acceptable to him.
If I was a homosexual and had that tendency then I understand that for my worship to be acceptable to him then I have to not practice it.That maybe very hard to do and something I may have to fight with everyday.
There are many other things that are not acceptable to God,such as adultery,fornication,drunkness and many other things.So to be acceptable to him we do not practice those things either.
Paul said though that was what some of the members of the congregation had been but corrected their life style to meet his requirements.
So in answer to the question Church or conscience,who decides for you.
The answer is both as if I have a Bible trained conscience that is learned through reading and attending church.Then mu belief and my conscience decide for me.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:55:25 PM new
Then one of the questions posed should be easy to find out...
How many children of gay couples "turn" gay because of their upbringing?
LindaK, I've asked this before but haven't gotten an answer really. You seem sensible, so.....what is it about a child being adopted by gay parents that you don't approve of exactly?
posted on October 23, 2001 06:15:54 PM new
Imabrit - I watched a program once about a group of Christian gays in San Franciso who were struggling with this issue (abstaining) in their lives. They made this daily struggle by choice.
kraftdinner - LindaK, I've asked this before but haven't gotten an answer really. You seem sensible, so.....what is it about a child being adopted by gay parents that you don't approve of exactly?
If you asked me this question personally, I've never seen it. And I'd like you to point out to me where I ever said I didn't approve of this.
posted on October 23, 2001 06:30:36 PM new
Linda_k
I applaud them for doing that.As I can understand it would not be easy.But again this is not my viewpoint that matters but whats the Bible has to say on it.
posted on October 23, 2001 06:50:36 PM new
KraftDinner, your question/comment presupposes that if something happens which does not directly affect me, then the event can be neither bad nor good. Also, you presuppose that I should not care about an event if it does not directly affect me. I don't agree with that.
If this matter were as simple as you suggest, I doubt there would be such negative feelings towards homosexuality and homosexuals. Gays are often the first to point out that the rest of us are repressing our desires. That is probably correct, in that repression is part of normal development.
People do feel threatened, as I would if I found out my son's boy scout troop leader was gay. Whether those feelings are based on experience, taboo, science or religion, I personally feel they are justified. My reason is simple: I don't believe that sexual perversion should be normalized, especially around young children.
I have already stated elsewhere that I have great respect for the work of many gay artists; however, I still do not approve of their lifestyle.
posted on October 23, 2001 07:27:45 PM new
I understand your post twinsoft, and I'm just trying to understand what I'm missing....I seem to have a mental block.
For instance, if a person would feel afraid to have their child taught by a homosexual, then they must have pre-conceived notions that homosexuals are devient. To me, that's like saying black people are devient because of their skin color. It's just a fact of life and shouldn't even be considered as something to think about. But that's me.
And LindaK, you're right. You didn't say you felt that way. I read it wrong and apologize.
posted on October 23, 2001 07:34:20 PM new
Some people are sexually attracted to farm animals, and I suppose one could argue whether this is as a result of a genetic disposition toward sheep, environmental factors, or choice. I wonder, though, whether any homosexuals would find the idea "wrong" and/or "perverted", or whether they would all be willing to extend the same non-judgmental tolerance they seem to expect from heterosexuals toward their lifestyle.
Now, I'm sure that some [perhaps even most, I don't know] homosexuals would find bestiality to be a perfectly fine and normal lifestyle choice, and wouldn't mind a bit if a sheep lover was teaching their kids or wanted to raise kids of his own. After all, what a man does in the privacy of his own bedroom [or pasture, as the case may be] shouldn't bother anybody else, especially if nobody is being harmed in the process, right? I suspect, however, that some homosexuals would find it to be repugnant, perverse, and just plain wrong, and would be horrified at the thought of somebody with this lifestyle raising or teaching children.
Now, I can hear the objections: "That's not a fair analogy! Sheep loving is obviously a matter of choice, whereas everybody knows that homosexuals are born that way!" Well, all I can say is that what's "obvious" to one person isn't so obvious to the next, and the jury is still well and truly out as to whether homosexuals are born that way or not, regarless of what some people may have read or simply want to believe.
Regards,
Baaaaaaaaarry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 23, 2001 07:44:06 PM new
kraftdinner - First, on a postive note, I'd like to say that I enjoy and appreciate many of the threads that you start. Because we don't agree on issues, doesn't mean I can't see your side of things. I accept that we are all products of our upbringing, difference in ages, etc. Because I hold a different view than someone else, doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong. We just think differently. We've come to different conclusions. And that makes for interesting conversations, IMO.
I accept your apology. But I still believe that sometimes you read things into a post that aren't there. Maybe it's this medium of conversation. Maybe it's the way I sometimes struggle to make a point, or the way I word something.
I say this because you are now making an assumption in the reverse. You seem to be saying that you now believe that I do think that it is okay (for gays to adopt). Neither have I said I believe it is okay, nor have I said I don't. That's what I'm trying to say here (in a friend tone). Hopefully this is taken in the manner I intend.
posted on October 23, 2001 07:46:46 PM newTo me, that's like saying black people are devient because of their skin color.
You're missing the point, kraftdinner. You're assuming that homosexuality is an inborn trait, no different from somebody's race or gender. However, that's precisely the part that those who feel that homosexuality is a "sin" disagree about.
You're absolutely right -- if homosexuality were an inborn trait just like skin color, then it would be horrible and evil to judge somebody based on that trait. The thing is, though, many people don't agree that homosexuality is an inborn trait. They believe that it is instead the result of upbringing, environment, and choice.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
edited to change "religion" to "gender"
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 23, 2001 08:17 PM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 07:48:53 PM new
Why the heck isn't the testimony of the vast majority of gay people who have been asked considered? To whit, "Yes, I was always gay, never had a heterosexual day in my life".
That is what most gay people say when asked. Why don't they know what they are and from when and why?
posted on October 23, 2001 08:12:06 PM newYes. "Aton, Akhenaton and Akhetaton". Right?
Yes James. And in relation to Psalm 102. Love to hear your thoughts. Akhenaton is pretty new to me.
Have you seen the needle in person?
In reply to your "Why not?"
Because one is to "pick up their cross and follow Christ", to follow His teachings, to make Him Lord of their lives, to strive for His character. If one loves Christ then it is assumed that one will have the desire to obey Him. He also did not come to destroy the old law, but to fullfill it. In our imperfection, we will always fail to a great degree, but that is to be the lofty goal to stive for.
Outward evidence is to be the product of the inner spirit. Intent is not to "earn" by it but it should be a "result" of new birth.
posted on October 23, 2001 08:20:57 PM new
LindaK, thanks for that And yes, you're right....I do miss the meaning behind some things, but I'm really trying to understand everyone's viewpoint. What I said to begin with to you, was that seeing you're a Christian, and knowing that I tend to get what you're saying when you explain things, I was asking you why homosexuality was "looked down upon" (so to speak) by Christians when God says that we are not to judge but we're suppose to leave that to Him plus the other things I've stated. Some people seem to be so wrapped up in their firm stance on gays, and like what's been said here, base their beliefs on what the Bible says or what science says instead of having their own unbiased view. I just wanted to find out what they based their opinion on, but I'm not the best at explaining myself sometimes...
Barry, sex with sheep? Not in the same league imo, but to each his own.
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
And yes, you're right....I do miss the meaning behind some things, but I'm really trying to understand everyone's viewpoint. What I said to begin with to you, was that seeing you're a Christian, and knowing that I tend to get what you're saying when you explain things, I was asking you why homosexuality was "looked down upon" (so to speak) by Christians when God says that we are not to judge but we're suppose to leave that to Him plus the other things I've stated. Some people seem to be so wrapped up in their firm stance on gays, and like what's been said here, base their beliefs on what the Bible says or what science says instead of having their own unbiased view. I just wanted to find out what they based their opinion on, but I'm not the best at explaining myself sometimes...