can christians support a homosexual inclination?

[Father Heathen]

If God is all-merciful and all-loving why would God abhor anything?

It's just a case of mortals projecting their own thoughts and feelings through their personal concept of god, and speaking their own words through it.

The bible merely embodies the fables, social norms and attitudes of the ancient goat herders who wrote it and bears no reflection on any actual god.

 

[Road Warrior]

Agreed about projection of personal concepts, to a degree. Disagreed that it bears no reflection. One thing to note is how those personal concepts evolved and become more sophisticated as mankind became more sophisticated. The difference in tone between the God of the OT and the God of the NT is like day and night. Is it God who changed or us? Did God change or did our perception of God change?

What is most bothersome to me are those who call themselves Christians but who ignore the words of Christ to cherry-pick the most unloving and unmerciful of concepts from the OT.

 

[idav]

Apparently, homosexuality is not caused by genetic propensities.

Well nature vs. nurture is very debatable in most any inclination not just sexual orientation. However there are huge physical differences than a man and woman and it isn't just genitals (even those with both). The makeup of the brain and levels of testosterone and estrogen make huge differences in a humans inclinations. Men and women both have each others brain parts and chemistry just at different levels.

 

[kellykep]

It can be said that god abhors pepperoni pizza and barn owls.

Really?

 

[waitasec]

Apparently, homosexuality is not caused by genetic propensities. It is a product of psychological inclination. Such inclinations usually arise from prolong exposure and repeated conditioning to circumstances with homosexual propensities. Many factors are involved in the development of this inclination - social, family, tradition, environment, etc.
Because it is not genetic, it can be reconditioned.

From this, it can be said that God abhors gay and homosexuality. In fact, it is for this very reason that He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha.

When it is in our capacity to change that which God abhors, how can we expect God to understand our lack of enthusiasm to do so?

i don't know how this has anything to do with the question i asked

 

[waitasec]

Why not call rape "natural" while you're at it? Was probably responsible for a great deal of people's lineages. There's lots of things you can call "natural".

As for a person condoning this mentality, it is impossible under scriptural conditions, even lusting after a woman is forbidden by Jesus, and by NT standards, even Paul in Romans 1:26 condemns a particular act of intercourse that is not "natural" (against nature in fact) and says specifically that the "men burned in lust for each other", though the verse is not likely condemning lesbianism but certain non-reproductive acts men and women do that ahem....you can get the idea. Let's just say "Natural" probably means the act which leads to babies and in ancient Israelite society, it was probably more repugnant than it seemed in the 50's.

So the answer is, "Christians" must in fact, indeed in fact, sell out and compromise the scripture, to condone an inclination of lust in such a way. What is an "inclination" any way? Is it anything other than lust?

There is no question that Lev 18 says "lies with a man as with a woman" as for the death penalty being applied, that's only for ancient Israelite society under a politically autonomous Sanhedrin of appointed Judges, but the idea remains that one will endure a providential fate instead. Some Rabbis have said it's about a "particular act" as well, but it can mean anything that a man does with a woman.

Yashua says its better to castrate oneself than to cause his wife to commit adultery (by remarrying). By this idea, one would imagine that Yashua wouldn't want one causing another to sin of equal forbiddence.

Thus, any "Christian" that anything more than "Tolerates" male behavior in such a way or even the particular inclination and regards it as acceptable, is against the "Spirit" of the scripture which flat out condemns male-male behavior in the harshest of terms.

Female-female behavior however, now that's another story. I'm all for it. If women would stick to each other instead of men, there''d be practically no STD's and unwanted pregnancies, and lots more virgins to court.

isn't that a double standard?

 

[HonestJoe]

Why not call rape "natural" while you're at it? Was probably responsible for a great deal of people's lineages. There's lots of things you can call "natural".

Points made about homosexuality being natural are not necessarily saying it is right and good because it is natural, they're just arguments against claims that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore automatically bad.

Some natural things are bad and some unnatural things are good (most things are more complicated). If you wish to demonstrate that homosexuality is bad, saying it is unnatural would achieve very little even if it were actually true.

 

[Shermana]

isn't that a double standard?

I don't see why it would be scripturally speaking, as well as realistially and scientifically, the only "Double standard" is with some human invention of PC equality. It's the way things are, for males it's horrible and condemnable, for females its praiseworthy and perhaps even very socially beneficial when exclusive. Life is full of double standards and inequalities.

 

[waitasec]

Points made about homosexuality being natural are not necessarily saying it is right and good because it is natural, they're just arguments against claims that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore automatically bad.

Some natural things are bad and some unnatural things are good (most things are more complicated). If you wish to demonstrate that homosexuality is bad, saying it is unnatural would achieve very little even if it were actually true.

it's natural to want to cover up if one is cold
it's natural to want to eat if one is hungry
it is natural to get mad if you are wronged
the problem with comparing rape and a homosexual tendency is one hurts another person the other doesn't

 

[waitasec]

I don't see why it would be scripturally speaking, as well as realistially and scientifically, the only "Double standard" is with some human invention of PC equality. It's the way things are, for males it's horrible and condemnable, for females its praiseworthy and perhaps even very socially beneficial when exclusive. Life is full of double standards and inequalities.

so if you had a son and a daughter who were both gay you'd support your daughter but not your son?

 

[Shermana]

so if you had a son and a daughter who were both gay you'd support your daughter but not your son?

That is correct.

 

[Shermana]

it's natural to want to cover up if one is cold
it's natural to want to eat if one is hungry
it is natural to get mad if you are wronged
the problem with comparing rape and a homosexual tendency is one hurts another person the other doesn't

The OP says that it's "natural", the comparison was to demonstrate that the term "natural" is not necessarily some defensible term. Anyways, my original post before that was the real heart of the issue, demonstrating that Christians cannot in fact tolerate or condone even the idea of inclination since its the idea of feelings of lust, they can societally tolerate it among strangers perhaps, but anything less than personal condemnation would be against what it truly means to "love" since the idea is that G-d hates it, and if you accept something G-d hates and punishes people severely for, that's not loving G-d or your neighbor. Paul says that those who unrepentantly fornicate miss out on the Kingdom, along with the controversial term "Man-bedders" and "dogs" (common term for hired male "b-tch"). Loving someone cannot in any way or form involve accepting something that causes someone you claim to love to miss out on the Kingdom, would it?

 

[waitasec]

That is correct.

i'm sorry to hear that.

 

[waitasec]

The OP says that it's "natural", the comparison was to demonstrate that the term "natural" is not necessarily some defensible term.

do i have to mention the obvious....really?

Anyways, my original post before that was the real heart of the issue, demonstrating that Christians cannot in fact tolerate or condone even the idea of inclination since its the idea of feelings of lust, they can societally tolerate it among strangers perhaps, but anything less than personal condemnation would be against what it truly means to "love" since the idea is that G-d hates it, and if you accept something G-d hates and punishes people severely for, that's not loving G-d or your neighbor. Paul says that those who unrepentantly fornicate miss out on the Kingdom, along with the controversial term "Man-bedders" and "dogs" (common term for hired male "b-tch"). Loving someone cannot in any way or form involve accepting something that causes someone you claim to love to miss out on the Kingdom, would it?

i hate religion

 

[Shermana]

i'm sorry to hear that.

I'm sorry to hear that you're sorry to hear that. You don't need to make a judgment call on my beliefs. I'm sorry anyone would accept and tolerate their offspring growing up to be a promiscuous skank male or female.

(*Yes I know there are a few, perhaps a slight slight few who are not promiscuous).

 

[Shermana]

do i have to mention the obvious....really?

You already did mention the obvious when you made a post about what I said when you said that the comparison wasn't valid when in fact it was totally valid.

i hate religion

It often, quite often boils down to the "gay" thing I do notice for most people who have a problem. It's quite the single issue....

 

[waitasec]

I'm sorry to hear that you're sorry to hear that. You don't need to make a judgment call on my beliefs. I'm sorry anyone would accept and tolerate their offspring growing up to be a promiscuous skank male or female.

(*Yes I know there are a few, perhaps a slight slight few who are not promiscuous).

we are all making judgment calls on beliefs...
it's the rationality behind the judgement that i am concerned about.

what you are saying is that, it would be perfectly fine if your son, knowing your position on homosexuality, would stay in the closet and be miserable.

 

[waitasec]

You already did mention the obvious when you made a post about what I said when you said that the comparison wasn't valid when in fact it was totally valid.

i didn't in the OP...therefore you forced my hand.
loving someone isn't raping someone
both are natural raping someone is just as natural as loving someone of the opposite sex
whatever...
one of these things doesn't go with the other and to take it there only shows an attempt to justify the bias.

It often, quite often boils down to the "gay" thing I do notice for most people who have a problem. It's quite the single issue....

it makes sense doesn't it...

 

[Shermana]

we are all making judgment calls on beliefs...
it's the rationality behind the judgement that i am concerned about.

what you are saying is that, it would be perfectly fine if your son, knowing your position on homosexuality, would stay in the closet and be miserable.

I have male family members who are gay and miserable not just because I don't accept them and their "lifestyle" choice, I really don't care, I have a different view on family relations, you may not believe in hell and the soul, I do. I think I can present a fine case for the "rationality" behind my case. We can look at the STD rate for starters. Examine the rampant fecal ingestion among male gays
http://www.tulane.edu/~wiser/protozoology/notes/intes.html

A high prevalence among male homosexuals has also been noted. Humans are the only host of E. histolytica and there are no animal reservoirs.

. Do you have a rationale for why it's not "bad' even if its between consenting adults?

Even the Secular Chinese government doesn't allow it to be propogated, it's not just a religious thing.

If you're interested in the non-religious rationale or where the "Christian" context isn't the central focus, you can start another thread to discuss the "Rationale". But this thread is for the religious rationale.

 

[waitasec]

I have family members who are gay and miserable not just because I don't accept them and their "lifestyle" choice, I really don't care, I have a different view on family relations, you may not believe in hell and the soul, I do. I think I can present a fine case for the "rationality" behind my case. We can look at the STD rate for starters. We can look at rampant fecal ingestion among male gays. Do you have a rationale for why it's not "bad' even if its between consenting adults?

anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuality
std rates are not exclusive to homosexuality either...
don't forget the obvious here...one group can get married, the other cannot

If you're interested in the non-religious rationale or where the "Christian" context isn't the central focus, you can start another thread to discuss the "Rationale". But this thread is for the religious rationale.

i started this thread asking a question...
your 1st response didn't answer the question it was a disclaimer...