TripThruUreWires said:
by this same logic, God also "created" newborns with heart defects and other devastating abnoralities in health...that's not to say we embrace and celebrate those "inherent" things...
By this same logic, God also "created" left-handedness...we just don't sit back and that's not to say we embrace and celebrate those "inherent' things...
BTW, in the 1950s, my left-handed uncle was berated and forced to write with his right-hand, because it went contrary to society's concept of "normal." Not every variance in human nature must be so drastic. Homosexuality is nothing like potentially fatal heart defects.
Regardless, the issue of fatal/non-fatal/curable/non-curable is a non-issue. In fact, there are a *lot* of heart defects that are *still* incurable. Now are these individuals with these heart defects now sinful, because they cannot cure themselves and become "normal"? Are they now less worthy of life, liberty, and happiness? Humans are amazingly adaptable in the face of variance, and homosexuals are no different. But who is there to stand in the way? Those proverbial "right-handed" people, who compulsively insist on uniformity.
we don't just sit back and allow these things to run their course. in my opinion, individuals wanting or engaging in fornification with the same sex (because of a supposedly "natural" inclination or by choice) have a defect/abnorality.
If God insisted on perfection, he wouldn't have created the process of conception and development of a zygote into a human as He did. Are you familiar with how we are developed? Here's a crash course:
As a zygote, a ball of cells after conception, we can get ripped apart, leading to identical twins. However, that ball of cells can also be ripped apart incompletely, leading to "Siamese Twins." There goes that first semblence of perfection...
As an embryo, we are visually identical to most mammals, complete with a tail, eight or more nipples, and even gills I believe (don't quote me on this last one). But, most surprisingly, as embryos/early fetuses, we are true hermaphrodites, complete with a male and female reproductive system. Later on, this is where the XX/XY thing comes into play: the mother and you release several hormones, and, theoretically, the presence of a Y gene triggers the destruction of the female reproductive system and the lack of a Y gene triggers the destruction of the male reproductive system.
However, this is not a simple process. The mother may not release all the right hormones, as she might have a genetic mutation that prevents this hormone release. The fetus, itself, might have a mutation that prevents it from receiving a hormone or hormones. Hence, you have everything from pseudohermaphrodism to the XY female, and, yes, these are more common than you'd like to think. And, no, the XY female is incurable. Essentially, this process is dependent on all factors coordinating at once with the proper genetic receptors, because once this moment is passed, there is no return.
if you choose to believe that homosexuals are "born" that way, and if you know anything about the God of Christianity, it would be false to claim that He "purposely" instills or creates an inclination in men for something in which He clearly condemns. If you are familiar with the Bible, you also know about the Fall of man, in which descendants of Adam and Eve would be plagued with all sorts of disease (inclusive of the mind and hearts of men). so you cannot claim that He brings about or "creates" these abominations.
Right here, you are a product of medieval Catholic stoic and Calvinist fundamentalist tradition, whether you are conscious of it or not. If you study the Bible closely in its translations over the centuries, you will actually find that it makes no mention of modern homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, is interpreted over and over in the Old Testament as a sin against the hospitality towards strangers, which was an inviolable custom in ancient Judaism. Homosexuality is merely the device for violating Lot's guests; the actual sin was the violation, which could have been done in any fashion. A mirror of Sodom and Gomorrah takes place in Judges, with the city of Gibeah, but the difference is that it involves the protagonist giving a female concubine that is given to the mob, whom they rape and destroy. As a result of this violation, God commands the destruction of Gibeah. If this means anything sexual, God commands against rape of any sexuality.
Where did Sodom and Gomorrah's homosexual interpretation come from? The c. 200 B.C. apocryphal book, the Book of Jubilees, which, while not in our Bible, was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that ancient Judaism read this book. Jesus, Himself, mentions "the sin of Sodom" once in the gospels, and it is over inhospitality towards strangers. This "homosexual interpretation" is a fallacy.
The "fall of Adam and Eve" is mostly an invention of the medieval Catholic stoics, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This was to
reinvent the idea of original sin, which they created prior to condemn women. "Original sin," in its first incarnation, taught that all fetuses were inherently male, but that Satan came in and changed fetuses to make them female. As all fetuses must pass through an "evil" female, we were all in "original sin," which is washed away through baptism. The later Catholic Church changed "original sin" to mean "the sin of Adam and Eve," but, most importantly to them, "the sin of Eve," as an excuse to claim that women were everything from genetically evil to morally weak. Hmm...doesn't this remind you of some attitudes towards homosexuality?
Overall, to me, this is tradition taken too far and is completely unsubstantiated in the Bible.
But does God hate loving same-sex relationships in the Bible? Not really. Take a close look at David and Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel. There is certainly no evidence of it ever being more than platonic, albeit some of the language in these very poetic books can imply a very erotic relationship at least. "Your love surpasses all women," as David says to Jonathan. I would certainly love some of these passages read at the pulpit sometime.
if God is in fact perfectly okay with homosexuality--wow, it's pretty damn unfair that He never blessed these individuals with the ability to pro-create, isn't it? Now that would be pretty unjust for God to have such favor with only those who engage in heterosexual fornification...wouldn't it? The God i know and believe in is far from unjust.
First off, you are reflecting ancient Jewish tradition, which put such a burden on procreation that you weren't even a member of the religion unless you were married and with children. Jesus rejects this legalism clearly in the gospels, but this legalism was revived nonetheless with Christian tradition. Secondly, ancient church fathers (read: St. Paul) believed so wholeheartedly that Jesus had liberated them from the Jewish burden of marriage that they were even going to abolish the institution altogether. However, acknowledging that humans were imperfect, they kept it. Even at that, marriage in the first millennium of the Church was more of a private commitment between two people. The "cult of marriage" did not happen until c. 1100-1200, when the Catholic Church made it a full-fledged sacrament. So now are you saying that the first millennium of the Church are all fornicators? Interestingly enough, the evolution of marriage arose from God making a covenant....between David and Jonathan.
But speaking as "one of the defective"
wink
, I don't need biological children. Seeing all the children out there abandoned by their parents, I wish to adopt someday. I do not need my specific genes propagated to feel whole. I was once angry at God...but mostly because of the hate levelled at me by my "fellow Christians." In fact, I feel blessed to be who I am. It has given me a perspective on life that I know I would not have taken the time to have had I been straight. Who knows...I may have turned into an apathetic Christian (because I am "so" comfortable in my early beliefs) in an unhappy marriage, like so many out there.
I believe it is due time to at least reevaluate your beliefs, because, as it stands, I believe many of them are based in flawed tradition, which isn't your fault. We speak of many "false prophets" in the Bible, and what a better way to propagate them by listening to our ministers and preachers as if they were infallible.
Melon