it's His followers I could live without

[Diemen]

My issue is clearly this.....

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.

I believe that SIN is something we choose to do.

Amen.

 

[phillyfan26]

My issue is clearly this.....

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.

I believe that SIN is something we choose to do.

I commented on that in my journal. I 100% agree.

 

[80sU2isBest]

My issue is clearly this.....

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.

I believe that SIN is something we choose to do.

Not all people choose to sin. Some don't even know what sin is, yet that doesn't mean they don't sin.

 

[phillyfan26]

To sin, you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong.

You have to choose to sin.

 

[Irvine511]

Anything that is used in the opposite way than what God intended is sin. If you agree that God created humans, either through direct creation or even evolution, doesn't it seem that he intended man and women to be the ones who have sexual relations, since they are built that way? Isn't homsexual sex unnatural, biologically speaking?

i think this is a great point to talk about. i understand where this is coming from.

i ask you this: was a mouth designed for kissing? we kiss with our mouths, and talk and eat, but were they *designed* for kissing?

homosexuals have happy and active sex lives, and most of them would tell you that yes, indeed, they do fit together, that they are built that way. and to get a little bit anamotonical, men actually do have a G-spot (like women), only this spot can only be accessed through the anus. seriously. it's the prostate. so it seems to me that if we are to take into account notions of design and "fitting together," something like that must be taken into account.

 

[80sU2isBest]

To sin, you have to consciously or subconsciously understand that what you are doing is wrong.

You have to choose to sin.

What is sin?

At its very basic meaning, sin is anything that goes against God's holy standards.

So whether you know you've sinned or not makes no impact on whether it was sin.

Now, ask me if I think God holds people accountable for sin if they don't know the difference between right and wrong, and you might be surprised at the answer.

 

[phillyfan26]

What is sin?

At its very basic meaning, sin is anything that goes against God's holy standards.

So whether you know you've sinned or not makes no impact on whether it was sin.

Now, ask me if I think God holds people accountable for sin if they don't know the difference between right and wrong, and you might be surprised at the answer.

Sin, in religions that believe in God, is that. If you believe in God, and are considered an adult (having received Baptism and Confirmation), then you are to know what is right and wrong under the eyes of God. If that is how you define it.

If someone makes an interpretation from the Bible that says, like Melon has pointed out, that there is no actual sin for the type of homosexuality that goes on today, then they do not believe they are commiting an act against God or God's word.

Thus it is not a sin.

 

[AEON]

To sin, you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong.

You have to choose to sin.

According to my theology, we are ALL born with a self-centered nature. It isn't a matter of choice, it is our nature.

Only supernatural intervention can transform us into people that live for God and others.

 

[phillyfan26]

According to my theology, we are ALL born with a self-centered nature. It isn't a matter of choice, it is our nature.

Only supernatural intervention can transform us into people that live for God and others.

Meaning you have to make an adjustment in your original way to live for God and others.

If you don't believe something is a sin that you are naturally inclined to do, such as being homosexual from birth, you will not make an adjustment.

 

[AEON]

Sin, in religions that believe in God, is that. If you believe in God, and are considered an adult (having received Baptism and Confirmation), then you are to know what is right and wrong under the eyes of God. If that is how you define it.

If someone makes an interpretation from the Bible that says, like Melon has pointed out, that there is no actual sin for the type of homosexuality that goes on today, then they do not believe they are commiting an act against God or God's word.

Thus it is not a sin.

It seems some are claiming that Paul is not calling out their “specific, twenty first century brand homosexual experience” as evidence that that Bible somehow supports this behavior. In my opinion, this is a great leap of logic.

By this same rational, I can justify ANYTHING I want to do sexually because Paul did not specifically call out the fact that adultery is much different today than it was back then, that I am bombarded by images that evoke lust, that I live in a post sexual revolution society, that I am always a few browser clicks away from pornography…etc.

Just because Paul did not call out Melon’s specific circumstance (which is still being debated), does not mean it is condoned.

 

[phillyfan26]

It seems some are claiming that Paul is not calling out their “specific, twenty first century brand homosexual experience” as evidence that that Bible somehow supports this behavior. In my opinion, this is a great leap of logic.

By this same rational, I can justify ANYTHING I want to do sexually because Paul did not specifically call out the fact that adultery is much different today than it is today, that I am bombarded by images that evoke lust, that I live in a post sexual revolution society, that I am always a few browser clicks away from pornography…etc.

Just because Paul did not call out Melon’s specific circumstance (which is still being debated), does not mean it is condoned.

Melon very clearly (and correctly) pointed out the differences there and how different they really are. It's not technicalities, it's a legitimate point.

 

[martha]

homosexuals have happy and active sex lives, and most of them would tell you that yes, indeed, they do fit together, that they are built that way. and to get a little bit anamotonical, men actually do have a G-spot (like women), only this spot can only be accessed through the anus. seriously. it's the prostate. so it seems to me that if we are to take into account notions of design and "fitting together," something like that must be taken into account.

I was going to address the whole "fit" issue, but you've done it much better.

 

[BVS]

It isn't a matter of choice, it is our nature.

Then free will loses all meaning.

 

[BVS]

It seems some are claiming that Paul is not calling out their “specific, twenty first century brand homosexual experience” as evidence that that Bible somehow supports this behavior. In my opinion, this is a great leap of logic.

That's what you got from all of that? Then you missed the point.

 

[AEON]

Meaning you have to make an adjustment in your original way to live for God and others.

If you don't believe something is a sin that you are naturally inclined to do, such as being homosexual from birth, you will not make an adjustment.

That "adjustment" is faith - and through faith we are transformed into the character of Christ. (slowly sometimes).

It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe something is a sin or not. God sets the bar (the Law) - I don't.
We are simply born in a way that makes it impossible for us to meet that "bar."
Through faith in Christ, His righteousness becomes our righteousness. Over time, our behavior changes from wanting to please the SELF, into wanting to please God.

 

[ZeroDude]

Do I need to cite sources?

In regards to ‘sin’, I do believe that one has to take into account the fact that morality is often a subjective and culturally manipulated concept. So, to be honest, in my opinion, a lot of the more inter or intra-personal issues such as one’s sexuality should never be subjected to the same strict western, pseudo Judaeo-Christian morality system as murder, which in most historical cases, outside of sacramental sacrifices or other religious contexts, is, and has been, universally frowned upon.

Nevertheless, the above due to its admittedly flaccid nature, doesn’t hold water once people question said moral subjectivity beyond human reason. A response concerning the ethical or moral beliefs of a mass murderer would be expected in an attempt to undermine such comparatively rational thoughts.

Then again, if one equated the actions of a homosexual to those of a murderer, I wouldn’t hesitate in suggesting that such a person requires professional help.

 

[phillyfan26]

But you act like your interpretation of God's Law is everyone's. That's not true.

The differences lie there.

 

[BVS]

What is sin?

At its very basic meaning, sin is anything that goes against God's holy standards.

So whether you know you've sinned or not makes no impact on whether it was sin.

Sin is separation from God.

So if someone did something purely out of love, but it didn't honor their parents is it a sin?

If someone married someone and didn't know the other was still married, they are sinning?

Come on...

 

[AEON]

But you act like your interpretation of God's Law is everyone's. That's not true.

The differences lie there.

I am simply discussing my views and the evidence I use to support my conclusions. No different than anyone else I suppose. You just happen to disagree.

 

[AEON]

i think this is a great point to talk about. i understand where this is coming from.

i ask you this: was a mouth designed for kissing? we kiss with our mouths, and talk and eat, but were they *designed* for kissing?

homosexuals have happy and active sex lives, and most of them would tell you that yes, indeed, they do fit together, that they are built that way. and to get a little bit anamotonical, men actually do have a G-spot (like women), only this spot can only be accessed through the anus. seriously. it's the prostate. so it seems to me that if we are to take into account notions of design and "fitting together," something like that must be taken into account.

If you can’t see – from a “big picture” perspective, taking everything into consideration (pleasure, “fitting”, child birth, child raising, gender roles…all of it) – that Men are and Women are a better natural fit - then I have to say that you are simply deceiving yourself (or allowing yourself to be deceived).

 

[phillyfan26]

AEON, you say things like ...

It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe something is a sin or not. God sets the bar (the Law) - I don't.

But it actually IS about what you believe: what you believe God has set the bar at.

 

[BorderGirl]

In fact, opposition to homosexuality within Christianity is mostly a medieval construction, and we have medieval theologians to thank for homophobia, not the Bible. Considering the nature of medieval Christianity, it is most certainly that the Bible was used as a later justification for their homophobia; and it's from their heritage that we inherited anti-gay sentiments.
.......the Bible has nothing to say regarding same-sex relationships. But, conversely, that means that they cannot condemn what they did not believe existed.

If this were 1500 years ago, groups arbitrarily excluded from religious ideology would merely have created their own religion. And, indeed, this is why we have Islam.

Trust me, you don't want to go Islam.
And you think Christians are intolerant....

"All major Islamic sects disapprove of homosexuality, and same-sex intercourse is an offence punishable by execution in six Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.
Islamic teachings presume same-sex attraction, extol abstention and condemn consummation.
In concordance with those creeds, in Islamic countries, male desire for attractive male youths is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic.
However, it is thought that restraint from either acting on, or revealing, this desire is rewarded with an afterlife in paradise, where one is attended by perpetually young virgin lovers, women and men...
Homosexual intercourse itself has been interpreted to be a form of lust and a violation of the Qur'an.
Thus, while homosexuality as an attraction is not against the Sharia (Islamic law, which governs the physical actions, rather than the inner thoughts and feelings), the physical action of same-sex intercourse is punishable under the Sharia.
Same-sex relations between adult males are segregated in a manner analogous to the segregation between the sexes.
Thus, the passive role is generally taken on by an underclass of males, often transvestite or transgender who routinely would be entertainers by profession and who would be both despised for their submissive sexual role and admired for their skills.
The result is a religion that allows love between those of the same gender as long as they do not have sexual intercourse."

 

[BVS]

If you can’t see – from a “big picture” perspective, taking everything into consideration (pleasure, “fitting”, child birth, child raising, gender roles…all of it) – that Men are and Women are a better natural fit - then I have to say that you are simply deceiving yourself (or allowing yourself to be deceived).

You have a tendancy to twist things or miss the point all together. No one said anything about a better "fit", Irvine was just showing there isn't a natural and against nature way.

 

[Ormus]

Anything that is used in the opposite way than what God intended is sin. If you agree that God created humans, either through direct creation or even evolution, doesn't it seem that he intended man and women to be the ones who have sexual relations, since they are built that way? Isn't homsexual sex unnatural, biologically speaking?

Here's where I openly discuss the difference between "man's definition of perfection" and "God's definition of perfection."

Sex roles are not always so cut and dry. In fact, in a species of horseshoe, it's the men who get pregnant.

Animals aside, however, there's more than just XX women and XY men in human creation. What about the intersexed? If a person has both a rudimentary penis and testicles, along with a rudimentary uterus and ovaries, is this person a man or a woman? Or are you going to say that God made a mistake when He created this human being?

What about XY females? Yes, there are people out there who never had a uterus or ovaries, always had testicles, but develop completely physically into a woman. They are, however, infertile, because they don't have a female reproductive system, and they often have a shallow vagina. Is this person a man or woman? Or are you going to say that God made a mistake when He created this human being?

Even then, besides having heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals, there's an oft forgotten category of asexuals. Yes, there are people out there who have never had any sexual desire and never will until the day they die. Did God make a mistake when He created a human being who has no interest in either the opposite or same sex?

God's creation has more than demonstrated that rigid sexuality and gender roles are examples of "man-made perfection." Evolution and creation certainly demonstrates that there may be a biologically desirable behavior for the continuation of a species, and, certainly, that's why about 90% of the world is either heterosexual or bisexual. However, evolution and creation has never once stated that the majority must always exist at the exclusion of the minority.

In fact, it has been stated that homosexuality may, in fact, have served an important evolutionary purpose, as they were able to help raise their nieces and nephews in large tribal families. And when we say "large," who knows how large they could have been back then. Osama bin Laden has over 50 siblings, for instance, due to his father's polygamous marriages.

In many ways, this evolutionary purpose still holds true today. We may not have 50+ children households anymore, but we certainly have numerous children up for adoption, and even many conservative "Red States" have had to quietly admit that they depend on gay individuals and couples to lessen the burden on the foster care system.

In short, homosexuality, along with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, are all an integral part of God's creation, and, as such, are completely natural.

 

[Ormus]

Trust me, you don't want to go Islam.
And you think Christians are intolerant....

Oh I know perfectly well Islam's horrendously intolerant attitude towards sexuality. The whole point of that story was that if Medina's Jewish population had embraced Muhammad, rather than rejecting him, we'd probably be talking about the "Jewish world," rather than the "Islamic world." And, likewise, if the "Christian world" refuses to embrace the modern reality of same-sex love and relationships, then I foresee, someday, yet another religion being created out of rejection.

Oddly enough, though, there's an interesting story of how a Muslim desperately pleaded with Ayatollah Khomeini to allow him (or her...I forget the gender) to have a sex change. He was apparently so moved that he made a religious decree permitting sex change operations in Iran, whereupon they're permitted to then live and marry in their new gender. In fact, even to this day, Iran performs many sex reassignment surgeries because of Khomeini.

Well, that's just an odd quirk of Islamic culture I thought I'd share. There's then plenty of examples of groups like Hamas that are so virulently homophobic that many gay Palestinians try to claim asylum in Israel. After I learned about this, I must admit that I lost any and all sympathy for the Palestinian Territories and fully support Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism from these religious nuts.

 

[Ormus]

I'm sorry - I do find it somewhat ironic that you started this thread with the notion that you could "do without" Christians. That doesn’t quite seem like a very loving attitude to me.

If this is the foundational rule (which it is) - and you don't seem to give it little more than “conveniently placed quoting” status when a theological argument doesn’t seem to be going your way – then how can we take everything else you have asserted on this issue that was built upon your vaporous foundation seriously?

The fact that you quoted Romans 13:8-10, in THIS thread that you started of all places, only demonstrates to me that I think you are playing a game of smoke and mirrors in order to convince a sympathetic public that the Bible in fact justifies your behavior when in actuality - it does nothing of the sort.

I had a particular laugh at this post this morning at work. Fortunately, for you, I draw the line against posting on web forums on work time.

Foremost, allow me to introduce to you to an important literary concept we call "hyperbole."

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

Largely synonymous with exaggeration and overstatement, hyperbole is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated or extravagant. It may be used due to strong feelings or is used to create a strong impression and is not meant to be taken literally. It gives greater emphasis. It is often used in poetry and is a literary device.

* "I nearly died."
* "He is as big as a house!"
* "I've heard that a million and one times."
* "I will die if no one asks me to dance."
* "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse."
* "She has a brain the size of a pinhead."
* "I told you a million times not to exaggerate."

I believe that nathan1977 told the story of how his pastor wore a shirt to a similar degree of my statement. Looking at a Christian pastor wearing a shirt like that, do you really take from that the idea that he truly hates all Christians? He wouldn't be a pastor anymore, if that was true, and, as such, it falls under the realm of hyperbole.

But let's assume, hypothetically, that I really truly wasn't emitting a hyperbole (and one out of frustration, mind you). What does this have anything to do with the point about love that I demonstrated? Nothing. All you'll have demonstrated is that I am not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and His perfection. You and all conservative Christians tout how you're all sinners, so does that mean if you lie that it means that you're not a Christian? After all, there's a commandment against lying.

I am not a perfect individual, and I never once claimed to be. However, I stand by the wisdom of Romans 13, which I believe I more than clearly demonstrated its importance.

 

[AEON]

In short, homosexuality, along with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, are all an integral part of God's creation, and, as such, are completely natural.

Doesn't the Fall account for mutations, deformities, illness...etc. It is one of the foundations of Christian Theology.

Quite simply - there is the way things ought to be (Kingdom of God), and the way things are (the World).

 

[Ormus]

You have a tendancy to twist things or miss the point all together. No one said anything about a better "fit", Irvine was just showing there isn't a natural and against nature way.

I think it's called, as AEON put it, "smoke and mirrors."

 

[AEON]

I had a particular laugh at this post this morning at work. Fortunately, for you, I draw the line against posting on web forums on work time.

Foremost, allow me to introduce to you to an important literary concept we call "hyperbole."

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



I believe that nathan1977 told the story of how his pastor wore a shirt to a similar degree of my statement. Looking at a Christian pastor wearing a shirt like that, do you really take from that the idea that he truly hates all Christians? He wouldn't be a pastor anymore, if that was true, and, as such, it falls under the realm of hyperbole.

But let's assume, hypothetically, that I really truly wasn't emitting a hyperbole (and one out of frustration, mind you). What does this have anything to do with the point about love that I demonstrated? Nothing. All you'll have demonstrated is that I am not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and His perfection. You and all conservative Christians tout how you're all sinners, so does that mean if you lie that it means that you're not a Christian? After all, there's a commandment against lying.

I am not a perfect individual, and I never once claimed to be. However, I stand by the wisdom of Romans 13, which I believe I more than clearly demonstrated its importance.

I was only using the argument that you constructed.

 

[BVS]

I was only using the argument that you constructed.

Is everything literal with you? Do you believe Bono actually climbed the highest mountain?